I really want to write about the New York Times article I just read on the atheist bus movement in London and now around the world. I’ve been trying to think of something clever to say about it, like using the evidence of their organization around one man, Richard Dawkins (pastor? prophet?), as proof that there is an Atheist religion. But the first hit off my Google search for “atheist religion” led me to some British atheist’s blog and his very persuasive argument against the possibility of an atheist religion. Apparently that would be akin to saying that if I don’t believe in unicorns, I must belong to the “No unicorns” religion. Touche, Mr. Barnett. I will forgo all attempts to accuse you of being religious.
I could talk instead about how the advertisements that these atheist groups are running in London self-defeatingly proclaim “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” rather than saying “There is no god” (emphases mine). Dawkins, of course, would rather have it say the latter, but – and I’m not sure if I buy this – apparently advertisement regulations prohibit the ads from saying that there absolutely is no god, hence the “probably”. Here’s something I can pick on. Why bother selling a product that you can’t promise will work? Pascal once made an argument for people like that – commonly called agnostics (or, according to my philosophy professor, cautious atheists) – and its called Pascal’s Wager. Wikipedia link here. Pascal makes a reasonable argument for belief in God based on probability, essentially saying that no matter how improbable it is that God exists, it is still more rational to wager that God exists. I’m sure the theologically-inclined could take issue with some of the suggestions implicit in the Wager, but the point is still made. Nevertheless, I admire Richard Dawkins and company for standing up for their beliefs and attempting to stick it to the Man. Or His shadow, anyway, since in their book the Man probably doesn’t exist. Nor unicorns, for that matter.
