So there's talk of erecting an atheist temple in London. Why? Well, it's supposed to be seen as a more positive way to get the message out about atheism, as opposed to the favored methods of the prominent atheists (methods such as shaming, mocking, and belittling). So just what does the famous atheist Richard Dawkins think about the temple idea?
“Atheists don’t need temples,” the author of The God Delusion said. “I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking.”
Sure, something like a bus ad is probably the more brilliant way to go.
I don't really care what they do (as long as there is such a thing as real freedom of religion), but I would like to point out what Dawkins considers rational. From his article "Why There is Almost Certainly No God.":
Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe – everything we can see – is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants. Our familiar laws of physics are parochial bylaws. Of all the universes in the foam, only a minority has what it takes to generate life. And, with anthropic hindsight, we obviously have to be sitting in a member of that minority, because, well, here we are, aren't we?
Here is the basic thought process: We are here >>> There is no god >>> Odds of life are infinitesimal >>> Multiverse.
Now, I enjoy a good debate about these issues, but I also believe that one can employ critical thinking and rationality to statements like the above and end up being skeptical.
HT: Strange Herring (recommended reading for those who enjoy Dawkins getting poo-pooed).