So I’ve squandered way too much time debating whether or not I should talk about David Mitchell’s
views on atheism, or respond directly to his views (like an open letter), but finally,
after the better part of a morning and several cups of tea, I’ve decide that it should
be both…
That I should start by talking about his views, and then directly respond to his views (so
yeah, I’m talking to you David – that is, should enough people tweet this at you
to get your attention… but I’m also talking all those who currently share your views on
atheism, and so even if this video fails to find you, it will still serve its purpose).
This, is David Mitchell Doesn’t Understand Atheism.
In 2012, Mitchell published his autobiography by the title Back Story, and like pretty much
all of his work, I thoroughly enjoyed it and found many segments delightfully insightful
and extremely funny.
In fact, before I move on, I want to make it abundantly clear that despite the criticisms
that follow, I’m truly a massive fan of his work – to the point that he’s genuinely
my all time favourite comedian.
His use of ‘angry logic’ and sharp wit is brutally hilarious – in fact, so much
so, that I’ve simply got to share a relevant example with you.
“This is Mathew.
When we were nine years old we cofounded an atheists club.
David's team, who would you like to start with?
Richard!
Yes.
Atheist's club.
Yes.
Well there's an obvious question isn't there?
At what point did you decide to lie about your atheism just to earn money from the Church
of England?”
Now after seeing just this clip, let alone any of ones in which he obliterates other
pseudoscientific nonsense, such as horoscopes and homeopathy “For 6 months I wrote horoscopes
for a women’s magazine--doesn't know anything about star signs, nothing that would make
them go David is the man-- no I shouldn't be doing it – they should've got a qualified
charlatan, but no…”
“Two more homeopathic lagers please.
Woo... that's strong stuff!”, one could easily make the assumption that he describes
himself as an atheist… but he doesn’t, and unfortunately, it’s because he doesn’t
understand what atheism is.
“You know, I’m not personally annoyed by atheists, but a lot of people assume I’m
an atheist, and sort of draw no distinction between being an atheist and an agnostic – and
there’s a sort of, particularly among, you know, basically rational comedians like me,
there’s a lot of atheism going on – and… and I don’t accept the argument that atheism
is the most rational response to the world as we see it.
I think agnosticism is.”
This criticism of atheism (which, as I’m going to show, is a criticism of a strawman
of atheism), is the crux of Mitchell’s confusion, but before I address it, here’s how he expressed
the same sentiment but in greater detail in chapter 19 of his book: “What I don’t
understand is why so many people, the religious and the irreligious alike, have swallowed
the idea that atheism is the most rational conclusion to draw about humanity’s position
and state of grace.
Even those who oppose atheism do so in terms of its being too rational: lacking imagination
or faith.
‘Just because there’s no actual reason to believe in something doesn’t mean it
can’t be there,’ they say.
But atheism isn’t the most rational approach - agnosticism is.
You can’t know, so it’s irrational to say that you do.
An atheist or religious observant might counter that agnosticism - saying you don’t know
if there’s a god or gods - isn’t a conclusion at all.
They’d have a point - but in that case, I say it’s irrational to draw a conclusion.
We don’t know and we can’t know.”
So to respond David, you are of course correct when you say that those who assert that they
know for a fact that no god or gods exist are being irrational, but here’s the thing
– that’s not what atheism asserts.
Atheism is merely the observation that the claims of theism have not met their burden
of proof, just as a-fairyism is merely the observation that the claims of fairyism have
not met their burden of proof.
To put it clearly, theism and atheism address what you believe while gnosticism and agnosticism
address what you assert to know, and so if I ask you “Do you believe in a god” and
your answer is “no” then you’re an atheist; and if your answer is (as is the case with
yourself) “I don’t know” then you haven’t answered my question.
You either believe or do not believe (that is, you’re either a theist or an atheist),
and how certain you are of your belief (that is, how gnostic or agnostic you are) is a
completely different question – and so since you don’t believe in a god or gods, you
are, just like myself and Dawkins, an atheist.
Granted, you’re far most agnostic than us, because we regard the existence of a god with
the same level of agnosticism as we do with the existence of fairies, but make no mistake
about it, you are an agnostic atheist David – and that’s why so many identify you
as such.
Now you might want to counter me by asking “Who’s to say what the definition of atheism
is?
Why’s the definition that you’ve just presented more valid than the one that I use?”
But in response to this I have two answers.
The first is that the word ‘theist’, which comes from the Greek word ‘theos’ literally
means ‘god’, and the prefix ‘a’ literally means ‘without’, and so the word ‘atheist’
literally means ‘without god’ (not ‘there are no gods’).
And the second (and far more important) is that it stands to reason that the definition
of an endorsed label should accurately describe those who identify by it, and since the vast
majority of atheists use the definition that I’ve just presented, this at the very least
makes it the definition that critics should address, lest they want to commit a strawman
fallacy.
“Atheism also requires a leap of faith, albeit a nihilistic one.
It might as well be a religion - many of its adherents evangelise about their philosophy
and beliefs as much as the religious do.
They claim their opinions to be certainties.
They viciously criticise those who believe otherwise.
They are, in some cases, emotionally attached to the idea that there’s no god and dislike
being gainsaid as much as the Pope or an Ayatollah does.”
This, again, is born of your misconception of atheism.
The reason that I (for example) so furiously oppose religion actually has very little to
do with the fact that I’m an atheist – it’s because I recognise that beliefs inform actions,
that actions have consequences, and that the consequences of religious beliefs are often
deeply and unnecessarily devastating!
Or in other words, it’s because I’m a proponent of secularism and the scientific
method.
Look, at the beginning of your autobiography you expressed that: “You’ve probably guessed
that all things New Age tend to make me raise a sceptical eyebrow, and a sceptical fist,
which I bang sceptically on the table while riley starting a sceptical chant of ‘fuck
off, fuck off, fuck off’ before starting sceptically to throw stuff and scream ‘you
can shove your trendy scientifically unsubstantiated bullshit up your uncynical anuses!”
Which, I must say, is a sentiment and reaction that I equally share, and from what I can
tell, it’s for the precisely the same reasons.
As you’ve pointed out before, New Age nonsense isn’t just nonsense… it’s dangerous,
because if someone tries to heal their child with, say, crystals rather than medicine,
then the result has a fair chance of being devastating… but this is also true of religion,
and I would argue even more so because it’s shielded by not only the religious, but by
otherwise rational and sceptical people like yourself.
Parents have, and continue to, pray for their children’s health rather than seek medical
help.
My point being is that if you replace the word ‘New Age’ with ‘religion’ or
‘god’ then you’ve got my position exactly.
“They then wrap up this annoyance as anger at the terrible suffering religion has brought
to the world - as if they truly think it’s the religious beliefs themselves, rather than
humanity’s in-built urges to kill, persecute and suppress, that led to the Crusades or
the Troubles or the failure to address the AIDS Pandemic.
Don’t they get it?
Humans will always find an excuse.
The avowedly atheist communist states of 20th century killed greater numbers than any regimes
before or since and needed no religious justification – a politically ideological one served just
as well.
Humans don’t kill or boss each other around, or say sex is evil and should be controlled,
or that certain people are wicked and should be oppressed or that certain clothes are inappropriate
or compulsory because of their religious beliefs… we do it because some of us want to, and religion
is a convenient excuse.
Atheists are being incredibly naïve if they think that in the absence of religion other
reasons won’t be found for disguising violence as virtue or indeed that atheist belief systems
aren’t just as potentially susceptible to murderous extremism as any of the religions
they oppose.”
Now I’ve got to be honest David – this is by far the most stupid thing I’ve ever
heard you sincerely say.
Seriously, I don’t know where to start.
If this is what you really believe atheism asserts, or at the very least what most atheists
think, then it’s you who’s being incredibly naïve… in fact no, you’re being incredibly
obtuse.
I mean, what atheists have you met in order to muster this outrageous strawman of us?
Seriously, have you even had a conversation about atheism with a self-described atheist?
First and foremost, and as you actually said, the communist regimes of the 20th century
were the result of political ideologies, and so why exactly you added the word ‘atheist’
is baffling.
Why didn’t you also add the word ‘afairist’ or ‘afootballer?
That’s right, because a lack of believing in fairies and a lack of playing football
had fuck all to do with it – just as atheism had fuck all to do with it.
Sure, the leaders may’ve been atheist, and their ideologies may’ve necessitated atheism,
but that doesn’t mean that these reprehensible regimes were somehow inherent, or a consequence
of, a lack of a belief in a god… and you’re more than smart enough to know this.
To make it clear, what you’ve done here is commit a Fallacy of Division; you’ve
implicitly asserted that something true of a whole is also true of one of its parts – that
because these regimes caused millions of deaths, and because these regimes necessitated atheism,
atheism therefore caused millions of deaths.
Which is as fallacious as asserting that because Nazi Germany caused millions of deaths, and
because Nazi Germany necessitated European and Western Asian heritage, European and Western
Asian heritage therefore caused millions of deaths.
And secondly, I don’t think I’ve ever met an atheist whose so naïve as to believe
that without religion humans would all of a sudden cease extorting, exploiting and murdering
one another.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure one exists (because the world is full of stupid people,
theists and atheists alike), but I know for certain that most atheists wouldn’t make
this silly assertion.
We’re quite aware that with or without religion good people would be doing good things and
bad people would be doing bad things, but we recognise that if you want a good person
to a bad thing (such oppose equal rights) then religion is sure-fire way of achieving
it.
So there’s my response you David, and to all other agnostics who share your current
misconceptions.
In truth, I doubt you’ll ever watch this, but if you do and you’re both willing and
able to respond, then here’s my email – I’d genuinely love to read or hear your reply.
And again, despite this disagreement, know that I’m a huge fan of your work and that
I sincerely hope your happiness and career continues to prosper.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my
wonderful patrons and to those of you who’ve donated via PayPal.
Without your help, videos such as this almost certainly wouldn’t exist.
Stay rational my fellow apes!