Last year, popular and vocal atheist Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) sponsored the appearance of this advert on buses across Britain.
The insertion of the word “probably” raised quite a bit of debate when the campaign was first launched.
The BHA gave one explanation to their concerned constituents (who presumably asked with some consternation, “what do you mean just ‘probably?!’”):
[The] Committee of Advertising Practice advised the campaign that “the inclusion of the word ‘probably’ makes it less likely to cause offense, and therefore be in breach of the Advertising Code.”
It is difficult to see how the word “probably” limits offense. Saying “John, you are probably a big idiot!” seems hardly less offensive for its hint of uncertainty. (It may actually make it worse: you don’t have direct evidence that John is an idiot, but giving everything you know about him, he probably is)
My main interest, however, is with the BHA’s next reason:
[I]t means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there’s no scientific evidence at all for God’s existence, it’s also impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist (or that anything doesn’t). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying “there’s no God” is taking a “faith” position. He writes: “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”.
Despite this seeming intellectual humility, Dawkins goes on to suggest that God “almost certainly” doesn’t exist. Elsewhere, he suggests that on the scale of 1 to 7, seven being absolute certainty, he is a 6.9. It is hard to see how 0.1 uncertainty is the difference between faith and not-faith. But this point aside, the reluctant “probably” reveals the common assumption of many of the most vocal modern atheists that whereas atheism is based on reason, religion (boo! hiss!) is based on (by definition irrational) faith. As Dawkins says above, “Atheists do not have faith.”
Quite simply, this is not true.
All knowledge is based on faith. Take for example Dawkins’s belief that “there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world”. This is an assumption of the scientific method, not a conclusion of it. Given that the scientific method only acknowledges as evidence natural processes, how could the observation of these give evidence of something existing outside the natural world?
One of my favourite responses to the atheist ad campaign was the line, “There’s probably no Richard Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Of course, our knowledge about Richard Dawkins is different to our knowledge about God. We can perceive Richard Dawkins through our senses. But even for those who have stood next to him, heard his voice, shaken his hand, to say they know Dawkins exists is to assume that our senses can give us certain knowledge. But the fact is, we are given reason to doubt our senses everyday. The side mirrors on a bus (even a bus sporting an atheisit advert!) should clue us to the problem: objects in this mirror are closer than they appear. Even putting optical illusions aside, you and I (probably) have never experienced Richard Dawkins directly, nor have the vast majority of people on this planet. The existence of Richard Dawkins, if not improbable, is at the very least problematic, we must have faith in our senses and the technology that beams Dawkins to us.
All knowledge requires faith, it is always based on certain assumptions. The carte blance distinction between rational atheism and irrational religion is false. This point is well made in two interesting articles I’ve recently come across in the New York Times by Stanley Fish, “Atheism and Evidence” and “God Talk”. Not everyone will be convinced by Fish’s arguments, but his conclusions regarding the interdependence of faith and reason are well accepted by the philosophic community. It is atheistsin the mold of Dawkins who are out of step on this issue.
Of course, none of this is an argument for religious belief. I’m just saying, believers aren’t the only believers. All human knowledge, scientific and religious alike, involves faith.
Richard Dawkins may not exist. But even if he does, he doesn’t worry me too much.
As a non-religious philosophy student who routinely refutes Atheist claims, I’ve felt somewhat paradoxically guilty about not reading Dawkins and still disputing his positions. The problem is that buying his books means supporting him, and sensationalist literary demagoguery in general (but such is 99% of the “product” of booksellers these days…)
I felt relieved at a Barnes and Noble when I gave in and briefly cracked a copy of his “God Delusion.” Nearly every page involved the presentation of errors common to positivist assumptions; the thing was a lesson book on logical fallacies, reification, and hypostatisation, which is a shame because millions are actually buying into such garbage. I’m a democrat, but throw in a heavy attitude of liberal self-exception and smug aggrandizement, and I’m contemplating loading my lifeboat for the impending collapse of social ethics.
What all this has to do with your post is that the moment I really felt relieved was when I flipped to the chapter “Why God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist” (or the like), in which Dawkins goes into that long-winded 747 analogy—directly plagiarizing Bertrand Russell, no less. It was really funny because Dawkins employs a logic for critiquing the existence of God that is indeed more suited to composing an argument related to Dawkins’ existence. In other words, you can just as easily use the strongest formulation of his arguments to safely arrive at the conclusion that Dawkins, in terms of the same universal probability, either doesn’t or shouldn’t exist either.
Firggin hilarious. Your post is a bull’s eye.
I wouldn’t mind if the same advertising code were applied to churches. Many church billboards would be greatly improved (in my opinion) by the inclusion of some doubt.
“there is probably a God who loves you, so stop worrying and enjoy life”
Personally I think this would be a much more powerful thought to confront than the typical billboard. A parable from somewhere I can’t remember comes to mind, where a rabbi answers the challenge of a visiting atheist with the word “maybe”, where upon both parties recognise a common humanity in each other.
Debating the point that all knowledge is based on faith seems asinine to me. Are you jealous, threatened or annoyed by atheism’s assumed high-ground and blatant hypocrisy with respect to rationalism, most people would feel the same about the churches claim to truth and morality. Ignoring this debate entirely allows more meaningful statements about belief, faith, science and rationality to be made.
I believe that there is a useful distinction to make, not between science and religion, rational/irrational but between those who acknowledge their fundamental humanity and those who sacrifice it for certainty, and I will judge the value of what anyone says by that distinction.
The wording of the BHA billboard is a good thing, more a reproach to christian apologetics than some petty victory.
Sam, thanks for your comment. I actually quite liked the billboard and was seeking to use the debate among (some) atheists over the word “probably” as a entry point to a wider issue rather than criticize the billboard itself. My debate isn’t with the inclusion of the word “probably” but the reluctance with which it was done and the assumption that in doing so atheists can claim the high-ground in the (apparent) debate between rationality and faith. I need to recognise at this point that not all atheists think the same on this issue (of course); for example there is a real difference between someone like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
But yes the hypocrisy of some vocal atheists in denying the common ground between materialism and religion as regards the problem of human knowing does annoy me, precisely because it denies that common humanity that you implore us to recognise. All humans share the common risk of knowledge. It is not asinine to debate the point because there is still a general assumption that atheism and Christianity represent different types of knowledge, one rational and one irrational. The truth is, rationality is best understood as a intrasystematic concept.
Any genuine dialogue about how to best make sense of this world in which we live is, as you imply, made difficult by claims of absolute certainty, whoever makes them. I wasn’t in my post criticising atheistic certainly because I myself hold noetic certainty.The issue is, can we hold a proper confidence? I am convinced the Christian story offers the best explanation of the world in which we live. I am taking a stand on this story, but that is what we humans do, take stands on certain stories of this world which we, explicitly or not, assume to be the true story of the world; the atheist as much as the christian as much as the agnostic. Neutrality isn’t really an option, it too is a stand and faces the same problems of human knowing as any other belief.
Perhaps my criticism is that you did not really enter into any wider (or maybe deeper) issue.
If a particular atheist can recognise nothing meaningful in your faith then you probably have nothing to talk about with them right now. Debating the nature of knowledge itself is just word games.
In this case I think the BHA can rightfully claim some high ground with the inclusion of that word. To point out that it may be logically inconsistent with some of their other statements (ie. how certain you have to be before you can make a distinction between knowing something or having faith in something) seems like nit-picking. Their basic message seems to have been clear enough throughout. In fact the statement, “now stop worrying and enjoy life” is probably the more meaningful one in terms of expressing their point of view, and is that billboards real contribution to the deeper issue.
If the issue is “can we hold a proper confidence” then of course no one can stop you from holding a “proper confidence” on whatever basis suits you. It is of no importance to me whether that proper confidence is called faith, knowledge, experience, or 6.9 out of 7.
I’m not sure I agree that neutrality isn’t an option. This again seems more like playing with definitions, neutrality can have a useful meaning in this context. It is certainly up to you exactly what things you respond to, what things you publicly criticise and which beliefs you proactively share with others.
Perhaps some members of the BHA have a proper confidence that makes them feel the word probably was not necessary. However that word has made a bridge to their more important statement, the second sentence.
To understand the billboard, I think one must consider it from a semiotic perspective.
One could easily argue that the second sentence of the billboard is the most threatening, i.e., “stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The logic of the first statement doesn’t even mean anything apart from its divisive intent, to which its authors append the second statement, its “conclusion.” In itself, the billboard is simply an example of postmodern propaganda: don’t think, just absorb, perceive, submit; let the tentacles of ideological apparati sort out our imperatives and their inherent “meanings” for us. There isn’t even a logical argument, simply the appearance of one, and thus, an excellent example of semiotic-based un-truth. The billboard doesn’t dispel the contemporary, suburban, bourgeois sense of passive meaninglessness and super-capitalism—it gives it a warm, fuzzy bear hug.
Atheist or not, such prevalent sentiments of nihilism aren’t a good thing in any society. They corrode abstract/human/sociological institutions and their ability to dispense the objective responsibilities into which material-idealist/new-Atheist positions claim to possess some special insight or expression; the social phenomena into which they claim sovereign reductive insight are the very things which they undermine so efficiently and mindlessly, all while fortifying the mediums of un-truth that shape and define the whole Atheist-theist discourse. Such irony is telling.
Well yes, it is a billboard. Logical arguments presenting coherent and comprehensive world views are surely not the only form of worthwhile communication. I think many of your complaints may come from identifying the billboard with those who claim an absolute or superior truth, when in this case the writers have specifically taken the trouble to avoid this.
I would prefer to take this more generously as an attempt to move beyond a fixed statement of position/justifications to share more of their values. This is something I think the writer of this site generally attempts to do for christianity, though I have criticised this particular post for not doing so.
You may take it as a message of simple nihilism but I think it that is unfair. I think the message they have chosen indicates a sense of value in our individual experience and gently celebrates the independence of humanity from fear and superstition.
Sam,
Point taken. My concern is that the context through which these “Atheists” intend to forward their message—its pervasive hyper-real medium—encloses and defines that message. Advertising is divorced from reason; that’s its essential function within the context of consumerism. Yes, that’s the simple nature of advertising, but rendering philosophical or theological positions into mere advertising and marketing is outwardly antithetical to actual intellectual grounds. A great deal of the “Atheist” or “secularist” movement correlates with other cultural conditions, and by which their points are often abducted. Whatever one’s own feelings of intellectual positions, they ought to be completely independent of those sorts of cultural mediums; and on such a grounds, I think it’s easy to dismiss the legal or cultural arguments of “Atheists” because their means become far more explicit than their elusive ends.
“I think the message they have chosen indicates a sense of value in our individual experience and gently celebrates the independence of humanity from fear and superstition.”
Many religious folks, not the dogmatic ones least of all, have been saying the same thing for centuries.
Well I can understand your concern with the medium and its limitations, particularly if you feel that atheist arguments are predominately rendered in similar ways.
Also I certainly accept your last comment and did not mean to suggest it was a distinctly atheist set of values.
I’m interested in the part where you get past absolute (and fairly abstract) positions of God/no God and start to express in a fullness of means (logic, art, poetry, vague mumbling, meaningful looks) what these beliefs might really mean. At this point commonalities may arise and slogans lose their power.
As far as billboards go (which is not very far), I think this billboard was heading in that direction.
“The medium is the message.”
-Marshall McLuhan