Atheist buses: the effect of religion

The ‘atheist bus’ campaign has launched, with an astonishingly gushing and self-congratulatory piece on the Guardian website by the instigator, Ariane Sherine. (For non-UK readers, this is a campaign that has been running for a year or so to raise money to put atheist [sic; in the event, agnostic] slogans in the advertising space on London buses as an ‘antidote’ to the religious advertising that is around.) Ms Sherine’s piece notes that £135 000 has been raised, an amount she describes as ‘truly overwhelming,’ and demonstrating ‘the strength of atheism in the UK’.

The amount of money raised is remarkable – remarkably small. Let me try some context: the campaign to gather funds ran nationally for six months, with considerable free publicity in national media; I can think of two local churches, one with considerably fewer than 100 members, within ten miles of my home here in rural Scotland, who in the last year or so have raised (much) more money in less time from essentially their own communities (both for needed building projects, as it happens). That is, 60-80 Christians in a little market town in Fife with no media exposure at all seem to have much better fund-raising ability than a heavily-publicised national ‘atheist’ campaign.

(Actually, I think this does demonstrate ‘the strength of atheism in the UK’ fairly accurately – the National Secular Society refuses to reveal its membership figures, no doubt out of embarrassment, but I have been told by a credible source that it has fewer members nationally than many parish churches welcome each Sunday morning…)

Part of this was no doubt the astonishing flacidity of the slogan (apparrently some people have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the slogan, ‘There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’, is ‘offensive’. Seriously? It is unquestionably banal and wimpish; it is also demonstrably illogical (connect the two sentences?) and ignorant (the first sentence is indefensible to anyone up on current philosophy of religion – see this article, written by a leading light of the Society of Humanist Philosophers, for starters – further, the notion that the possibility of the existence of the divine is the occasion of worry, or that the demonstration of atheism might lead to joy, is merely asinine), but it is about as offensive as a chintz tea service – you would rather that such smug suburban attitudes did not exist, but they are hardly matters to be offended by).

Back, however, to the fundraising. It seems to me that the comparison with a local church demonstrates something interesting about the effect of religion in people’s lives. The current atheist literature suggests rather strongly that religion has been a force for evil in the world: people who believe in religion, any religion, do appalling things; people who are not religious are less likely to do appalling things. With a careful definition of ‘religion’ I happen to think this claim is true.

The defences of religion tend to claim the opposite point: religion has been a force for good in the world: people who believe in religion, any religion, do ethical, charitable and altrusitic things; people who are not religious are less likely to do such things. With a careful definition of ‘religion’ I happen to think that this claim, also, is true.

Tempted as I am to end the post there, perhaps some elucidation is appropriate… ‘A careful definition of religion’ first: I am not here interested in any belief in the ‘supernatural’ (whatever that, properly defined, may be…) so much as a belief system that claims to explain the nature of the world and the place of humans within it, and to offer guidance for human behaviour on the basis of this explanation. This is a definition of ‘religion’ that is carefully crafted to include many atheist positions, such as marxism, or the ‘scientific humanism’ of the Tamil Tigers.

So to the two claims. It seems to me that belief systems like this make people less apathetic. a ‘religious’ person, in these terms, is more likely to care, more likely to donate, more likely to act, more likely to get involved, for better, or indeed, for worse. The precise balance of horrendous acts compared to altruistic acts probably depends on the particular nature of the belief, and on the psychology of the individual involved, but if people are exerting themselves to change the world, it is usually because they believe something.

5 Comments

  1. Jason Goroncy
    Jan 12, 2009

    Steve. Thanks for this post. As a related – albeit somewhat unique – comparison, one recalls the remarkable events around the time of the 1843 Disruption. The generosity of Free Church folk was unprecedented: in the weeks and months leading up to the Day of Disruption, 687 local associations were formed, and £232,347 had been given or promised (apart from the ongoing needs of local parishes); and within 12 months £366,719 had been raised – £66,719 above budget! What’s more, this rate of support was maintained for years, even while giving for overseas mission work increased as well.

  2. Steve H
    Jan 12, 2009

    Hi Jason, how’s NZ?

    1843 was, as you say, unique. Chalmers’s ability to organise support was astonishing, and made the Free Church. But I suspect that prodigious giving is at the root of (almost?) every new denominational venture…

  3. Jason Goroncy
    Jan 12, 2009

    Steve, you are probably right about new denominational ventures. Still, the Disruption was the one that came first to my mind. And anyway, isn’t the Athiest Bus idea a new venture?

    It might be interesting to compare the Atheist Bus work with say that of Christian mission organisations with varying lengths of history.

    NZ is great. Thanks for asking.

  4. David E
    Jan 15, 2009

    I am an atheist, I am not at all worried about religion, and perfectly happy with my life. I did not contribute to the bus posters, neither did any of my various atheist friends.There must be thousands like us.

    I found the fuss over the poster amusing humbug on the part of proselytizing religious folk who pour out torrents of propaganda for their beliefs. The posters made people talk and ask questions which is enough!

    As to raising money: the total money spent on cosmetics in the Western World probably exceeds the amount raised by many churches. What does that tell us?

  5. Steve H
    Jan 15, 2009

    Hi David, welcome.

    What do you think of my theory that the basic effect of religion is to make people more activist?

    My friends at Theos (http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/ ) agree with you about the ‘making people talk and asking questions’ line, incidentally.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. NEWS: Atheist Bus Drives into Controversy « Religion Compass Exchanges - [...] Atheist Buses: the effect of religion January 12, 2009 [...]
  2. David Cameron ‘doing God’ « Shored Fragments - [...] tolerance’! (And Christians are equally capable of such brutality, as we all know.) I have argued before on this…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

get facebook like button