3 Biggest Atheist Mistakes Why hello my fellow apes, I hope you’re
well. A while back you greatest of all possible Patrons voted on which topic you’d like
me to tackle next, and I was hoping, almost praying even, that you didn’t choose to
hear my views on “Abortion” – because, quite frankly, that’s a very, very difficult
subject both in terms of science and philosophy. And I only just dodged that bullet, with you
instead opting for the 3 Biggest Mistakes Made By Atheists. However, I’ve never been
one to take the easy road, and so let it be said that I’ll tackle silver and bronze
within time. So, what are the three biggest mistakes made by atheists? Does the fact that
we don’t eat enough babies make my list? Or that we just want to sin? Or, as Cameron
Bertuzzie claims, is the fact that we believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence among the three? “Okay, so the next one is extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence... is that what it is? Yeah. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So,
it's important to actually, like, instead of just relying on a slogan and saying that,
like, okay, claim you know… claim victory, and, like, all my work is done, because I
said this one thing. No, you--” … no, this unsurprisingly doesn’t make my list,
but, hey, I now have another video idea, and so there’s that. Alright, so, before I give
you what “I” consider to be the top three mistakes, let’s first lay some groundwork.
As has been said many times before, “atheism” is a weird word, since we don’t typically
define people by what they’re not; in terms of inferring one’s positions on aesthetics,
ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, the label “atheist” is pretty damn useless.
There’s atheists who are religious, atheists who are not, atheists that are moral realists,
atheist who are not, atheists who believe the universe is eternal, atheist who don’t,
atheists who are determinists, atheists who are not, and so and so on. Unlike the isms
of Christianity, communism, veganism, etc., atheism isn’t actually an “ism” at all,
since it has no practices, philosophy, or ideology. Thus, to say that atheists make
any other mistake than believing in god is pretty clumsy. Given this, let me clarify
that from here on when I refer to atheists I am referring to specificity to non-religious
people who have the goal of (1) achieving and maintain separation of church and state,
and (2) are attempting to encourage religious people to reconsider their faith. And the
last thing I want to say before getting to it, is that all three of what I consider to
be the biggest mistakes compete for first place, and so the order that follows is arbitrary.
So far as I am convinced, one the biggest mistakes made by atheists (including my former
self), is dismissing]] religion as complete and utter nonsense – and of course, we are
not alone in doing this... the religious do it too. If fact, because they reject the sociological
view of religion, they are in general more dismissive of other religions than we are.
[[The Christian dismisses the Muslim practice of Ramadan, just as the Muslim dismisses the
Hindu’s worship of cows, just as the Hindu dismisses the Norse notion of Valhalla, and
the Norse dismisses the Christian ritual of Sacramental Bread. Indeed, when we consider
religion through the lens of what’s actually true (which, to be fair, is what the vast
majority of proponents claim it to be), mockery and dismissal are among the most reasonable
responses. But if we consider religion through the lens of sociology (which again, the religious
almost never do), there tends to be significantly more than meets the eye. But before I expand
upon this, let me steelman the dismissing attitude that I once held, because, believe
me, I totally get it. From a very young age I was forced to confront the ugly side of
religion, and consequently I’ve had to reach deep down to find the baby in the bathwater.
As a child I had, to put it mildly, a turbulent upbringing. I was born into a broken family
with an alcoholic mother, and an emotionally shattered father who worked away on oil rigs
for half the year. Because of the unfortunate circumstance, I frequently stayed at neighbours
and friends, having little to no structure, and I suffered from extremely distressing
and vivid hallucinations. Now, this isn’t the time nor place to go into details, but
I share this as to convey the reason for how I, from a very young age, became interment
with the so-called problem of evil. Hiding under the stairs, I was forced to wonder,
why does god allow mum’s friend to hit me when I haven’t done anything wrong? Why
have my toys been sold for vodka, and yet my friends still have theirs? Why, precisely,
have I been abandoned to this ghastly situation? Have I done something wrong? Should I be praying
in a different way? Was I bad in previous life or something? Put simply, I needed to
understand the way in which the world works so I could survive it. Thus, from the moment
I could coherently reason, I deeply cared about why we are here, and for what, if any,
purpose. In England, we don’t have separation of Church and State, and so the person of
authority at my school was a priest. After heeding his lecture on God’s omni- attributes,
of him being all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, I approached him with a few questions,
with one being: Why did one of my little sisters die before her first birthday? His answer
was a non-answer; he told me that she is now in heaven, as happy as can be, and so all
the pain she suffered has been eclipsed. Now, even from the age of nine, I found this answer
as unfalsifiable as it is unsatisfactory. Then, as I got older I observed, as have we
all, religion cause good people do bad things. I watched family members who wouldn’t say
boo to a goose, express, explicitly because of their religion, disgust at homosexual relations;
others in the neighbourhood campaigned against stem-cell research courtesy of the doctrine
of life starting at conception; and others still sought to corrupt education by pedal
stalling creationism over evolution. And so, I get it. When you see members of the Westborough
Baptist Church ignorant, arrogant and close-minded as seemingly possible, outright dismissal
of religion feels appropriate… but, in my opinion, this is a big mistake. Sure, Jesus
didn’t resurrect, but Easter is worth keeping if only to celebrate and appreciate our pagan
and Christian history. In my video titled An Atheist’s Perspective of Religion, I
spoke of the sociology of religion at length, covering the omnipresence of snakes in religious
myths, the seemingly inhuman practice of Sky Burial, and the surprising utility of Valhalla,
but here I will give just one more example… Ramadan, the fourth pillar of Islam. The ninth
month of the Islamic calender, Ramadan, is a yearly commemoration of Muhammad's alleged
first revelation, lasting between twenty-nine and thirty days, from one sighting of the
crescent moon to the next. It’s observed by Muslims as a period of fasting, prayer,
reflection, charity and community, and throughout the commemoration the spiritual rewards are
believed to doubled. This, for rather obvious reason, encourages Muslims to generously help
those less fortunate during a month so hot as to literally mean “scorching heat”.
Now, it’s no secret that in its infancy Islam was a conquering movement. The American
historian and philosopher, Will Durant, said of the hasty expanse that “The explosion
of the Arabian Peninsula into the conquest and conversion of half the Mediterranean world
is the most extraordinary phenomenon in medieval history.” Indeed, within a generation Muhammad
had countless people under his authority, and he and his comrades were smart enough
to know that if their empire was to endure then solidarity is to be sewed. They needed
to unite those they conquered not only under one authority, but one culture – a shared
vision, a mutually experienced struggle and a mutually glorious reward. If they couldn’t
instal trust and community, if they couldn’t get the various settlements to treat each
other as brother and sisters, they knew it will all be for naught. And Ramadan so effectively
achieves this that you’ll be hard-pressed to contrive a more obvious social cohesive
ritual. It’s no coincidence that “Iftar”, the meal that breaks the fast, typically consists
of large social gatherings in a buffet style, where neighbours break their fast together
enjoying the same food and insulin spike. The Skeikh Zayed Grand Mosque alone feeds
up to thirty thousand people every night. Needless to say, countless studies have found
that communal eating provides social and individual benefits, from increased happiness, increased
satisfaction with life, greater trust of others, more frequent engagement with local communities,
largely number of friends, and so on. The British [[anthropologist and evolutionary
psychologist, Robin Dunbar, has went so far as to say that "social eating may have evolved
as a mechanism for facilitating social bonding.” Now there is significantly more that can be
said on the sociology of Ramadan (I would in fact happily dedicate an entire video,
or even a chapter of a book to it), but for now, I’m sure you get my point. In a scientific,
factual sense, religion is utter nonsense. Muhammad wasn’t visited by an angel, and
he didn’t fly a winged horse, but he was, and will always be, one of the most important
figures in human history. Thus, abolishing the laws that enforce Ramadan is justified,
but dismissing Ramadan completely because it’s predicated on a falsehood isn’t necessarily
the smartest move. Likewise Christmas, it has historical, cultural and sociological
value, and that, in and of itself, is more than enough reason to celebrate it. Another
one of the biggest mistakes that makes my list is “Assuming that theists maintain
the doctrines of their denominations.” I know… I know, you'd expect a Hindu Shaivite
to maintain the doctrines of Shaivism, but this just isn't how it works. The cafeteria
picking and choosing of beliefs is, ironically, the most prominent religious practice, and
so whilst one might call themselves a Shaivite, it’s a mistake to assume that they maintain
even the central doctrines. Now, to give credit where credit is due, I was [[originally going
to run with an alternative mistake in place of this one, but the moment I read Topottsel’s
comment, I binned my script. Atheists, myself included, very often assume the beliefs of
theists based on their denomination, but not only can these assumptions turn out to be
wrong, they can as a consequence discourage theists from question their faith, since,
they will reason, we’re not really interested in having a sincere conversation. Or to put
this all another way, religious people tend to be members of a specific denomination,
such as, say, Protestant Christianity, or Sunni Islam, and what this means on paper,
at least, is that they endorse a set of specific doctrines and beliefs. So, if someone claims
to be a Sunni Muslim, then you’d think it’s reasonable to assume that they believe that
the redemption of human beings is entirely dependent on faith in Allah. Now one such
objection to this doctrine is that it’s grossly immoral. If true, then many of the
most wonderful, charitable, and decent people are bound for hell simply because they’re
not convinced by an intellectually bankrupt proposition. However, bringing up this objection
without first clarifying whether the Sunni holds this belief is a mistake, as if they
don’t (and, in my experience, many of them don’t), then you’ve wasted both of your
time. I get it though, having to make no assumptions about an individual Calvinists somewhat renders
the word “Calvinist” redundant, but unfortunately, this is necessary until one has clarification
of what doctrines they endorse. But to be clear, if one is discussing Calvinism as an
entity in and of itself, then assuming the relevant doctrines is more than justified,
but when one is having a discussion with a Calvinist, it’s a mistake to assume that
they maintain the relevant doctrines. A third mistake made by atheists is ascribing malice
when ignorance is suffice. Again, this isn’t unique to atheists (it turns out that so far
as I’m concerned most of the biggest mistakes made by atheists are made by humans in general),
but, for reasons we’ll get into, it’s my opinion that atheists are highly prone
to make this mistake – and it’s unfortunately one that constitutes one of the largest obstacles
preventing religious people from questioning their faith. A few days ago I shared a quote
from Megan Phelps-Roper expressing the same sentiment, and your responses to that post
have helped me realised that it’s important to stress two caveats. The first is that this
isn’t true of public debates. In public debates interlocutors are representing a pro
or con position, and are pretty much have the obligation not to give any ground. There
are some exceptions, of course, but more often than not public debates revolve more around
presentation and rhetoric rather than truth. And the second caveat is that I’m not suggesting
that it’s worthwhile maintaining the assumption of good intent when you have decent reason
not to. Rather, I’m expressing that, unless you have adequate reason to think otherwise,
assuming good intent is a highly effective opening gambit. In Questions on Miracles,
Voltaire wrote that: “Once your faith, sir, persuades you to believe what your intelligence
declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your
life. In days gone by, there were people who said to us: "You believe in incomprehensible,
contradictory and impossible things because we have commanded you to; now then, commit
unjust acts because we likewise order you to do so." Nothing could be more convincing.
Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make
you commit injustices.” This is often paraphrased as “Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities”, and it’s damn true. If you want someone to rob females
of their autonomy, convince them that life starts at conception; and if you want people
to burn alive those that make scientific advancements, convince them that Bruno is heretic; and if
you want Ben Shapiro to refuse an anniversary invitation from his friend Dave Rubin, convince
the former that the creator of universe considers the latter an abomination. “If we were having
an anniversary party, would you come? If I was inviting all the crew that we all know,
and it was just an anniversary party. We were just having a party, and I'll even throw in
some kosher food for ya, to make sure you you don't have to bring your own.” “You
know, honestly, I’d have to think about it. I’d have to think about it.” “Now
that’s interesting to me, because that’s a different thing.” Indeed, when once an
absurdity is accepted, atrocity inevitably follows – and yes, of course, absurdities
are found in all sorts of ideologies (not just religion), but to paraphrase George Carlin,
when it comes to absurd, insane, ridiculous beliefs, you have to stand in awe… in awe
of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims... religion (“Religion!”).
But here’s a difficult question: does this make the perpetrators bad people? I mean,
the result is nasty, and the perpetrator tends to deliberately, intentionally, achieve said
result, but is this because they are fundamentally nasty people, or might they simply be ignorant?
Might they be eager to commit atrocities simply because they’re convince of absurdities?
Consider for a moment Megan Phelps-Roper, who was once a member of the Westborough Baptist
Church. Phelps-Roper has one of the most incredible character arks in history, and in her inspiring
TED talk she shared with us the approach that got her to question her faith, with the first
of the four components being not to assuming bad intent. “The first don't assume bad
intent. My friends on Twitter knew that even when my words were aggressive and offensive,
I sincerely believed I was doing the right thing. Assuming ill motives almost instantly
cuts of off from understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that
they are a human being with a lifetime of experience that's shaped their mind, and we
get stuck on that first wave of anger, and the conversation has a very hard time ever
moving beyond it, but when we assume good or neutral intent, we give our minds a much
stronger framework for dialogue.” Or to put this all another way, in religious language
on less, hate the sin, not the sinner. Many ideas deserve condemnation, but this isn’t
necessarily true of those who hold these ideas. By treating the other people with respect,
no matter how gross and infuriating their views, I for one have had, in private settings
at least, considerable success in not only getting other to question their views, but
also reconsidering my own responses, and in some cases being send back to the drawing
board all together… And that, my fellow apes, wraps up what I consider to be the three
biggest mistakes made by atheists. I originally intend to include among my list the mistake
of “morally and politically gatekeeping secular activism”, but after seriously considering
counter arguments, and especially a certain reductio, I changed my mind. I’ll probably
speak about this in its own video next month, and I’ll title it something along the lines
of “Moralising Atheism”, but for now, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra
special thank you to my wonderful Patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel
via other means. I sincerely appreciate it.