³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

If atheists insert the word 'probably', to their opponents it indicates wishy-washy uncertainty, a lack of confidence about the product, as Nick Spencer of Theos suggests in Wednesday's Guardian. Leave the word out and it indicates dogmatism, pushiness and aggression. Personally, I don't see it necessary to qualify every opinion I express with the word 'probably' because I assume that it is understood. All opinions are at best probable.

The fact of the matter – irrespective of obvious resentment by believers Ìý– is that the campaign has exceeded its original target by more than 2,400%. 800 buses are now rolling out with the slogan in England, Scotland and Wales Ìý– and hopefully soon in dear old Norn Iron as well.

"He plans to complain to the ASA...

He should be planning to complain about the ASA's very existence.

Of course in the Republic you can't even advertise the sale of a crib, a First Communion gift or a Catholic newspaper

The slogan "There is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" is inoffensive, and it reflects a perfectly rational philosophical position. Presumably we cannot form definite conclusions and state them publically.
As a Theist I think it was incredibly unfair to insist that "probably" be inserted. As a Christian I find it worrying. I think Grayling is correct - parity would demand that I preface all my evangelism with terms like "allegedly".
As for fictional characters, Grayling overstates his case (something of a flaw in just about everything ACG writes nowdays). He's a philosopher who knows he wouldn't get away with such lazy arguments in the academic journals.
ACG is a recurring character in Private Eye's "Books and Bookmen", and he's probably one of our most entertaining columnists. I could be tempted into signing his petition. It depends on how it's stated.

GV

I hadn't thought they'd been made to add in the 'probably', I thought they chose to do it because they suspected that the ASA wouldn't let it through otherwise?

I may well be wrong though, it's just that I think I remember reading it somewhere.

sharrieg

That was my understanding too; I certainly don't remember any reports at the time relating to an ASA ruling on the matter. Maybe though we're both wrong and someone can correct us.

Apart form that it's all a bit daft really. Are we going to have to start qualifying every ad we make or even every reference for or against religion or God?

If that's the case, and I were Carlsberg, I'd be off to copyright the use of the word ASAP.

It's a pretty good beer, allegedly.

And the other thing is this, the positional statements, "There is probably no God", and "There probably is a God" place us all somewhere on the spectrum of belief!

sharrieg - your post # 6

The ASA allow the many adverts about religion to make more or less whatever claims they like - just as they, in fact, would have permitted the advertisement to have stated "There is no God" - because the Code of Advertising Practice () states that marketers only have to prove claims that are capable of objective substantiation.

This point, as I have already argued on another thread, requires us to ask what is the real intent of the advertisers in their use of word probably.

AC Grayling gets his facts wrong. Who would have thought is was possible.

How about 'allegedly' being placed in front of all the dogmatic statements about the 'millions of years' of evolution? Anyone on for that? It would certainly bring a degree of honesty to the subject not often evident!

Will this suggestion be ignored?.........'Probably'!

pastorphilip said

How about 'allegedly' being placed in front of all the dogmatic statements about the 'millions of years' of evolution?

We don't use allegedly in front of these statements in the same way that we don't say human beings allegedly have one heart. Humans have one brain too. Some people use it to examine the evidence and if it warrants it they change their opinion. Science works like this. Other people have an opinion in their brain based upon early childhood indoctrination from a book written by ignorant men at the behest of power hungry monarchs. When the evidence contradicts the indoctrination they change or reject the evidence. This is called religion.

pastorphilip suggests that evolutionary statements need the word "allegedly" too. Not so. Biological evolution is an area of agreed science. There is evidence that has been clearly adduced in support of it. It can be substantiated, and it has been (to the best of our current knowledge). If evolutionists wanted to print a press ad, they would have no worries about a clear statement such as, "Human beings evolved over millions of years."