Why hello my fellow apes, I hope you’re well. In a recent video I expressed what I
consider to be the three biggest mistakes made by atheists, and towards the end I revealed
a potenital mistake that I had to drop upon considering counter arguments… and especially
a specific reductio. The alleged mistake was “Moralising and politicising secular activism”
– that is, more that less, gatekeeping atheism; or put yet another way, ostracising secularists
and atheists who don’t also endorse certain moral and political positions. Now, what I
want to do here is analyse this phenomena from the roots up, as while it’s not necessarily
a mistake, it CAN be, let’s say, problematic… let’s get to it. Given that the moralising
and politicising of a disposition can be quite difficult to recognise, let alone analyse,
once it’s set in, I’m going to construct a potential future example of secular gatekeeping,
and then draw correspondence with contemporary examples. Now you might not agree with the
specific hypothesis I’m about to give, fair enough, but the point I’m conveying – the
phenomena I’m trying to illustrate – is that two completely separate positions can
often interweave so comfortably as to exhibit the illusion of being synonymous. Consider
veganism, a predominately ethical position that in recent years has seen in a boost in
prominence among secular circles, due to such things as Sam Harris endorsing it (though
not practising it), Alex O’Connor and Drew McCoy both endorsing and practising it, and,
I’d argue most crucially, many countries significantly improving their vegan cuisine.
The Starbucks Beyond Meat Burger, for instance, is damn delicious! Now at first glance, veganism
appears completely irrelevant to atheism, and certainly secularism, but on closer inspection
it’s highly compatible with both. Theism, and especially Abrahamic theism, asserts that
there is god (a creator) who has a special relationship with one of its creations…
and that creation just so happens to be... us. We humans, so they maintain, are created
in god’s image, no less, and as is ordained in Genesis, and supported elsewhere, we are
given dominion over all other animals. Indeed, the holy books clearly permit the commodification
of other creatures, with Kosher and Halal legislation going so far as to provide gruesome
instructions of execution – in, I must say, a way that suggests an evil god. Now yes,
there are ways to interpret the holy books as to endorse veganism, just as there are
ways to interpret the holy books as to endorse, well, pretty much anything. However, outside
of bending over backwards, the books declare us as god’s chosen. It is us that received
the commandments, and us alone. We can’t kill other humans for taste, yet we can kill
other animals for taste… But what occurs when the illusion of divine favouritism subsides?
When we no longer consider ourselves universe’s crown jewel, how, then, can we maintain the
subordination our sentient kin? As Marc Bekoff puts is, “Although other animals may be
different from us, this does not make them LESS than us”. In short, we need a new symmetry
breaker – a reason, a justification, as to why we are alone are worthy of rights,
respect and love. Throughout history there have been many proposals, and some provide
such a symmetry breaker, such as various forms of a social contract, but the most prominent
proposals have upheld, more than less, the normative framework of utilitarianism, which
can be summed up in the follow sentence from Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, can
they reason?, nor can they talk? but, can they suffer?” And the answer to whether
or not dogs, pigs, chickens and tuna can suffer (to name but a few) is most certainly, yes!
Hence, if well-being is the measure of morality, then dogs really are our best friend. In the
absence of divine favouritism, the mistreatment of other animals is very difficult to maintain,
and so the philosophy of veganism lends itself very comfortably to secularism. Now, as it
stands, atheist events are not excluding non-vegans, but given the trajectory and enough time,
I for one can easily foresee of a future in which atheist events not only exclude, but
even disparage non-vegans. And if you’re not convinced of this, then consider for a
moment that just twenty years ago Richard Dawkins was the face of atheism, secularism
and humanism, with him winning the Humanist of the Year, no less. Today, however, he has
fallen in the estimates of some segments as to warrant the retroactive rescinding of his
reward. He is still the face of atheism, yes, but as things have changed, so too has his
standing. Now, what I’ve just predicted with veganism, is, at least as far as I’m
convinced, precisely what’s already happened with such things as multiculturalism and equal
rights. The typical 17th century Enlightenment, humanist views of Jews, for instance, is today
considered utterly deplorable. But in any case, whether you see my vegan-atheism hypothesis
as a possibility or not, the point is that two completely separate positions can often
complement each other so significantly as to be colloquially fused. And just in case
I’ve failed to express the point, here’s a real life example: due to Abrahamic influence,
in the West we tend to think of of religious people as people who believe in god, but this
isn’t technically the case. One can be religious, endorsing a supernatural world and an afterlife,
etc., without necessarily believing in gods. Alright, so with the vegan-secularism hypothesis
on the table, let’s talk secularism. Secularism is “the principle of separation of the state
from religious institutions”, and so, strictly speaking, so long as one aims to prevent religions
from enforcing dogma through governmental control, theists and atheists are equally
welcome as activists. But in [[reality, of course, the rate of secular endorsement among
theists and atheists is weighted towards the latter, and it’s chiefly for this reason
that secularism is often conflated with atheism. But atheism isn’t, of course, the only thing
secularism is conflated with. No, not by a long shot. For instance, and as already touched
up, it’s also largely fused with humanism – a stance that considers humans the starting
point of philosophical and moral inquiry – and since humanism doesn’t presuppose divine
or religious axioms, it’s easy to see why it so often goes hand in hand with secularism.
Further still, and again, as already touched upon, humanism isn’t stationary – it changes
according objective and indeed subjective analysis. Empirical evidence of, say, complete
androgen insensitivity syndrome causes us to reconsider gender. And to confuse things
even further, each countries’ humanism isn’t necessarily the same. Different countries
inherit different environments and face different challenges. For instance, in the U.S. humanism,
and indeed secularism, are deeply in bed with politics, since (1) the U.S. has a relatively
high population of evangelicals, and (2) the U.S. only has two competitive parties, with
one being significantly religious. Thus, if you want secularism or humanism in the U.S.,
you’ve got one choice. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once remarked that "Those people who treat
politics and morality separately will never understand either of them”, and this is
especially relevant to the U.S. today. The U.S. might be secular on paper, but god damn
those evangelicals are trying their best to overturn this. In the U.K., however, the conflation
of secularism and humanism with a specific political party doesn’t really exist – in
fact, secularism isn’t really championed by any of our parties – and it’s for this
reason that many of us Brits raise an eyebrow when we see secular communities and societies
endorsing all sorts of non-secular politics. Indeed, if I learnt one thing from my travels,
it’s not to assume that just because we speak the same language we also share the
same culture. We don’t. The Anglosphere shares a cultural foundation, no doubt, but
each specific country’s house is build with different material. From the very language
we use to the hierarchy of our challenges, these often subtle differences go a very long
way. Anyhow, let’s talk about gatekeeping. Before making my prior video, I was very sympathetic
to removing the gates imposed on secularism, since, I reasoned, if secularism is the goal,
then baring allies out because they are not allies in regards to other moral positions
is an act of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It’s counterproductive, and
when practised by a community that opposes religion, it comes across as extremely hypocritical.
Excommunication is, after all, one of religion’s favourite responses, and I couldn’t, and
still can’t, knock the fact that when atheist and secularist communities essentially excommunicate
people for not maintaining, or worse, questioning the current set of humanist values, the ironic
tribalism renders me quite frankly embarrassed. This hypocrisy is also, of course, one of
the most prominent weapons swung by those in favour of theocracy, and so knowing that
we’re planting this weapon in their hand is really quite disheartening. The solution,
on surface level, is, of course, to cease purity testing. It’s not realistic for me
to expect for others to share my views on, say, the economy, and then apply rhetoric
as to paint those who don’t share my views as monsters. However… if one is to hold
a principle, one ought to ponder the most extreme consequences entailed by that principle,
and it was by pondering the consequences that I changed my mind. Consider this reductio:
If we cease gatekeeping secularism, then, when promoting secularism, I ought to be willing
to positively share the stage with the likes of Stefan Molyneux. That is, I ought to be
willing to sit next to him in a non-combative way (in fact, an endorsing way) as we both
promote the virtues of secularism – because, strictly speaking, when it comes to secularism,
we are allies. But here’s the thing: I wouldn’t do this. I wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing
a stage with him unless I was in obvious opposition, and the reason is because I find many of his
non-secular views deplorable. And this lead me to a slight side note, that my spidey senses
are telling me to caveat: There’s a somewhat common sentiment that debating someone equates
to endorsing them, and people have said this of me when I debated Molyneux, and to a lesser
extent Sargon, but this sentiment ignores the very obvious context. Engaging in publicised
debate in order to criticise someone's views is the opposite of endorsement – it’s
explicit opposition. Yes, there are right and wrong ways to engage with people like
Molyneux – but the notion that any association is endorsement is fanatic. Absent adequate
rebuttal, the narrative that “the left just can’t handle the truth” gets validated,
and thus the rotten views are left to perpetuate. Alright, side note aside, and to reiterate,
the reductio of not gatekeeping secularism would mean associating with people who hold
all sorts of views that I find unpalatable, to put it mildly, and thus I’m not in favour
of removing the gates entirely. But likewise, I’m also not in favour of raising the gates
in accordance to strictly irrelevant views – since the reductio of this position is
complete isolation, wherein nobody can associate with anyone else, since no two people share
the same views on everything. To be clear, both of these solutions offer a consistent
framework (which is ideally what we’d like), but both entail conseque nces that I (and
I suspect most people) are not comfortable with. So what’s the solution? Is there a
consistent framework that doesn’t entail unacceptable consequences? As for as I can
tell, at least as of this moment, the answer is no… not really. The closest in my estimation
is basing it on subjective, personal preference – as this way one can conduct a utilitarian
analysis of a potential collaboration and estimate whether it will overall serve their
collective goals (which includes those that are strictly irrelevant to the specific event).
But this analysis is compounded by so many factors as to make a truly objective analysis
near-impossible. Such factors that will have heavy impact are, to scratch the surface,
the specific views that the other party holds, the demographics of the audience, and the
zeitgeist of both the local and cosmopolitan landscape. Further still, suppose that someone
holds the goal of veganism with such priority as to not want to associate with anyone who
promotes a meat-only diet. Well, if the organisers want the vegan, then just like that *click*,
they’ll erect the gates as to bar out those who don’t hold this strictly irrelevant
view. So, what I’m saying is that while I don’t know of a solution, I am fairly
certain that we’re dealing with a double-edged sword, and that no matter how we swing it,
we’re gonna get cut. Now as to whether or not this issue is as “problematic” as
I consider it, I’m not so sure. But I can tell you this. I know of a lot of people outside
of the atheist niche who despite holding secular and humanist values, can’t stand internet
atheism – and especially U.S. internet atheism. All in all, then, while I really don’t like
seeing secular communities turn their back on allies because those allies don’t also
hold strictly irrelevant views, I also not only understand why secular communities do
this, but, through my actions, somewhat endorse it. Again, I’m well aware that my position
isn’t consistent... but that’s the point I’m raising here. I don’t see a consistent
solution that doesn’t entail unwanted consequences. As of this moment, I really don’t know of
a solution, and honestly, I appreciate that many people might simply not consider this
an issue at all, but since I said I’d expand upon this in the future, I’m glad to have
done so. Needless to say, if you have a proposal, do let us know in the comments. These kinds
of conversations can be really quite rewarding. Anyhow, before liking the video and subscribing,
remember to mock me in the comments as an enlighten centrist that’s “dog whistling
for the right” or “attacking free speech”! Oh, and as always, 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.