Start the bus

I'm delighted with the Atheist Bus Campaign.

It's bringing our lazy 'evidence' for believing in God to light. This is faith, not a science. We do not have to make it one for it to be a worthwhile part of our lives. I refer to the evidence of First Cause, of Intelligent Design, of Paley's watch, and of Near Death Experiences. I learnt to write these with capital letters in Religious Education class, and each time my insides squirmed with the inaccuracy and danger of calling these the foundations of our spiritual knowledge.
Intelligent design and William Paley's watch argument, which attempt to prove God by focusing on the improbability of our existence, are relics of the 1800s. Theology and reasoning have both moved on. To say that because something unlikely has happened, someone must have forced the odds in its favour is illogical. A die will land on a number below 2, 1/6 times compared to 5/6 times. It can still happen.

When we set too much store by our word games - if everything has a cause, there must be a first cause - we deny God the opportunity to be himself. Choosing to believe in God because you have persuaded yourself it makes sense is a contradiction. The essence of faith is doubt. That may sound like a contradiction too, but to recognise the unbelief that accompanies every increment with which you do trust, is healthy. I have found God to be someone I hope for, more often than something I know. Faith is not a science.

The most famous slogan of the recent campaign says 'God probably does not exist'. Well, it's true. If you base probability on what sometimes seems the most likely given the evidence that we have gathered through our senses; what we see, what we hear. Based upon extrapolation of these findings... we haven't observed any God particles left from when he walked in the Garden of Eden, his interaction with humans has never been recorded. He probably doesn't exist. We don't have any proof. Faith is not a science.

Science is more theoretical and flimsy than we like to let on. I'm willing to work within the boundaries of a hypothesis, as operating like that is a sensible way to gather and make sense of data. And the theory I use is the best we have at the moment. But I've read about radical theory change, and that what we 'know' now may one day be history, giggled at in classrooms, like Rutherford's plum pudding model. So I don't feel that science is sound enough to base my life upon. Something written in a textbook does not make it an immovable fact, for me. If the equation for divine existence was written into the front of my Physics textbook, including the Christ constant 3.77x10E5000, would you believe in it?

If one bases a religious life on arguments, formulae and most-likely-statements, one risks having it all swept away by radical theory change. Theories of evolution develop constantly and creationist creeds seem increasingly endangered. I feel so sad for people for whom this will cause a crisis of faith. But if their faith included the humbling realisation that they knew an incomplete amount about God and his operation, would it be such a stumbling block?

Finally, I would have used exactly the same phrase to get people thinking about Christianity.
'God probably does not exist. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.' I hate being told to stop worrying, it makes me think people are hiding something.