Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist and professor was a driving force and contributor toward the campaign. Here's his interesting quote about the matter.
"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion"Anathema, for you thought-free religious rubes, means "Something or someone that a person vehemently dislikes." (For you very-religious folks, vehement means "showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, intense.')
So, according to Dawkins' quote, the campaign will cause thinking to happen, particularly among the religious - who completely avoid it if possible. Religious people are those that don't think their position through, apparently. Religion and thought are incompatible.
Such statements can only be (honestly) made if you don't really care to think about it. Consider this: According to the wikipedia article on him, Dawkins' perspective is that
"faith - belief that is not based on evidence − is one of the world's great evils."Faith, per Dawkins, is belief NOT based on evidence.
That is a strange assertion because no one - in the history of the world - has ever believed something without any evidence at all. NO ONE. Why?
Belief in something requires at least some knowledge, information, context or data (which are evidence) in the object of belief, otherwise you wouldn't even be aware of it. It would be like saying that I have faith that lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ is true. Apart from the familiarity I have with the alphabet, lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ bears no reference to an object or idea for me. No one has told me to what it refers or does, or in what context lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ might exist. I have no evidence for belief that it's real because I have no information. (I just hit my fist on the keyboard a couple of times.)
He's saying faith is belief in something you have no knowledge of.
To say I have faith in something but have no evidence for it is a strange claim. It's impossible.
Oops - Dawkins is trying to break down the door of the wrong house. What he really means, I think, is this: religious faith is based on evidence that Richard Dawkins rejects as reliable, accurate and true.
Is all evidence equal? No way. The real debate is not whether Religious Folks have no evidence for their position. (or the Atheist) No - the debate, fundamentally, is about what constitutes good, true and accurate evidence for your beliefs. And that is absolutely a different question, with different rules. It's the question of Epistemology, which deals with how we know what we know, and why we think we can know it.
Dawkins, as a staunch advocate of Naturalism and a scientist, probably works on the epistomological premise that acceptable evidence is limited to that which can be scientifically tested, observed and measured. In short - the physical world. (though I'd argue he's pretty handcuffed even in that realm)Therefore any evidence for a religious position that cannot be subject to scientific testing is non-evidence to him. "Sorry chap, that doesn't count."
But that's where the debate should lie. Why does Richard Dawkins reject as true anything that cannot be repeatable in a laboratory? For that matter - why should we accept as true anything that happens in a laboratory? That's the bedrock debate, and different answers to what is legitimate evidence will lead us to different assumptions and beliefs. Should all evidence have equal weight? By no means. But should only one type of evidence be considered legitimate? I don't think so.
So, for my reaction to the buses and Hawkins' quotes above. Let me make 3 points.
1. Statements like "thinking is anathema to religion" are unhelpful generalizations and mindless. That's a sophmoric statement - the epochs of human history are littered with great scientists, philosophers and thinkers who were and are "religious." (Perhaps Dawkins might not believe they were actually real - from a strict scientific method perspective - you can't prove any of them existed. You have to jump outside repeatable, measureable, physical evidence in a controlled environment.) Dawkins career alone proves this to be false - he has to spend a lot of time diffusing the arguments of his opponents.
2. I Appreciate their honesty. "God PROBABLY Doesn't Exist" Thank you. Neither Richard Dawkins nor anyone else can say with certainty that He doesn't. (we're back to epistemology again - sorry.) 'Probably' is as strong as an honest atheist can get. Theists too, for that matter. From the physical, scientifically observable evidence, you can't make a conclusive statement about anything, really. Chemicals, atoms, gravity, light, mass, heat - all our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the physical "laws" all function every place and in every time as they do in our tiny slice of what we can observe. And that slice is tiny. No human knowledge is comprehensive and so all people (including atheistic scientists) operate on the basis of faith. The question is how good your knowledge is. (see my previous entry on "The Fact of Faith")
3. If the bus ads do spark more thinking and conversation and debate - huzzah! Bring it! God does exist, or he doesn't. You cease to exist when you die, or you don't. You actions matter or they don't. Regardless of which side you land on, let's agree that not choosing to engage in these questions is the worst possible choice. It is the most important quesiton. If this is your only life, don't go through it without some serious contemplation. If there is a life ever-after and your choices matter for eternity - even more so.
Oh, and my dear Atheists... Regarding the ad: I'm enjoying my life immensely, thank you. I do worry though - not that you might be right, because in the end if you are - it won't matter to me. I cease to be and I've lost nothing. (actually, the reality will be that we all lose everything) What I worry about, for your sake, is that Christian Theism is probably right and in the end, being wrong will matter completely and eternally. It seems too heavy a gamble. And I care about you, truly.
But, regarding all this, why stop with skepticism about God? There's a lot more to be unsure about!
Let's quote another Brit:
Here are my suggestions, if we're going to be completely honest...
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." - G K Chesterton
