Christian think tank donates to atheist bus campaign
Christian think tank Theos has donated £50 to the atheist advertising campaign to be carried on London bendy busses.
Why would Theos do that? For one thing, the adverts will encourage people to think about God. For another, the campaign slogan ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ is so anaemic that it amounts to an advert for Christianity.
Paul Woolley, Director of Theos, said:
“We’ve donated the money because we think the campaign is a brilliant way to get people thinking about God.
“The poster is very weak – where does ‘probably’ come from? Richard Dawkins doesn’t ‘probably’ believe there is no God! – and telling people to ‘Stop worrying’ is hardly going to comfort for those who are concerned about losing jobs or homes in the recession, but the posters will still prompt people to think about life’s big questions.
“Campaigns like this demonstrate how active atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.”
Well, I don’t know if it’s a covert Christian message but, as I said here a few days, it is a very feeble statement of atheism.
Theos also recommends a blog post by Telegraph reporter Nick Spencer, who brilliantly demolishes the slogan. Here’s a snippet:
Last, and worst, “enjoy your life”. Atheists regularly lay into St Paul for telling the Corinthian church that “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” How patronizing, they say, to claim that if you don’t believe in the resurrection, you will just eat, drink and be merry. So what do they advise us to do when we have thrown off the shackles of this tyrannous religious doctrine? Not “stop worrying and volunteer somewhere”; not “stop worrying and give money to charity”; but “stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Atheists agree with St Paul? Maybe it really is a pro-Christian campaign.
Oh yes! I say keep this campaign going as long as possible. Christians from all over should be donating to this pitiful attempt to sway people to the atheist side.
The campaign has two things going for it.
First – It’s profoundly funny to see Dawkins stumble like this and
Second – It will cause all the more people to think about, talk about, and deal with the issue of the reality of Creator God.
Go Richard!!!
[...] groups that support this banner (quite astute!): here and [...]
That’s quite astute of them!
There’s a note on the campaign website saying that they were required to ‘soften the blow’ somewhat by the Advertising Standards Association which insisted that the posters not ‘insult relgion’. Under most rules of order this sort of amendment would be hostile to the intent of the original motion. I’m surprised that they went ahead with it.
It’s quite amusing that Theos pick up on the word “probably” and view this as a weakness. Personally, I hear alarm bells when someone is so absolute in their convictions that they will not hear of the alternatives. For that is faith. And faith is often dangerous.
It’s virtually impossible to completely disprove the existence of anything. Dawkin’s always makes the point that the odds of there being a creator are so much greater than there not being one, but an infinitesimal probability is not the same as a zero probability.
And I suggest that the second sentence in the advert is meant to mean “There’s enough for you to be getting on with in life without fretting over if your actions please God.” But that doesn’t scan as well.
By the way – can anyone help me out here?
I’ve said “odds…are much greater”, by which I mean 100-1 is greater than 2-1 (in bookies terms). should I have said “odds…are much smaller”?
Of course, “probably” is a weakness; it’s undeniable. The campaign would have been much better to use Dawkins’s “almost certainly”, which is far stronger than the mealy-mouthed “probably”.
You can “suggest” whatever you want, but that’s not what Londoners will read on the busses.
For the benefit of other readers, this fellow many call himself “(The Real)”, but he’s not the columnist cited in the post.
Sorry, I responded before your second comment arrived. To say the odds of something are greater is to say that it is more likely to be the case. So, you have Dawkins saying that the existence of a creator is much more likely than the non-existence.
So, yes, you should have have said “much smaller”.
Thanks, Scott.
I thought it’d be fun to call myself “the real” Nick Spencer as it is my name. But you’re right that I’m not the columnist. “Another” Nick Spencer just sounded a bit lame.
My point about probability still stands, though. How should we react to people who say with absolute conviction that God definitely exists?
Real Nick,
“My point about probability still stands, though. How should we react to people who say with absolute conviction that God definitely exists?”
Here’s an example I use, although it may not mean anything to anyone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about. Suppose I am holding a nickel in a clenched fist. You cant’ see it, but it is there, and I know it, but you don’t. You might say, well, prove it, show it to me. But my proving it to you doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is there or not. I might choose not to show it to you, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Christians believe that God reveals Himself to His people by His Holy Spirit, and therefore we can know He exists. I apologize if all that sounds like foolishness, but I believe this knowledge is really available to anyone who really wants it. I always encourage anyone who in interested to just keep checking it out. One of the best ways is to take an Alpha course.