An Atheist Response, Re: The Richard Dawkins Delusion
I’ve responded to another post on YouTube. Here’s the YouTube link
Here’s a transcript:
Hi Dan, I’m Al. I’m an atheist. I actively believe that supernatural gods, including the Abrahamic God, don’t exist.
This is a video response to Dan Key-ran’s video entitled The Richard Dawkins Delusion, which is kind of a confusing title since he never mentions Dr. Richard Dawkins or Dawkins’ book The God Delusion in his video.
Dan makes two assertions in his video. First he says that without God, we have no method to assign value to anything, and that we can’t say that human life is more valuable than rocks.
Wow, Dan, that’d be a real bummer. But fortunately that’s just a common misconception of atheism as being the same as nihilism.
Just because atheist don’t derive their values from religion doesn’t mean they don’t have any values at all.
Dan’s argument is easy to disprove by simply looking at the people around us.
I don’t know anybody, atheist or theist, who believes that human life has no value relative to, using Dan’s example, rocks.
The atheists I know do hold human life to be very valuable. I know this because those atheists act on this belief in the way they behave in their everyday life.
If these atheists aren’t deriving their values and moral code purely from the Bible, they must be getting them from another source.
One major source of an atheists’ morality comes from our own intrinsic sense of empathy.
Most people realize that we should treat others the same way we’d like to be treated, because we an innate sense of fairness.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a value that is found in almost every culture because it is such an obviously good idea.
A second source of atheist morality comes from our own critical thinking of how we believe people in society should behave.
For example, I’m morally against gambling because I’ve concluded that it is a unproductive zero sum game.
In a zero sum game, one person benefits only at the expense of someone else. There is no net benefit. In gambling there’s one person getting rich at the expense of another, but nothing of value is being produced.
Critically thinking about it some more, you could say that given a fair wager, the gambling parties consented to the gamble and should therefore be allowed to bet as much as they like.
But when I think about it some more, the problems that widespread legalized gambling produces is an overall detrement to society, and that should overrule the desires of the consenting parties.
It turns out that the Bible and many other religious texts aren’t fond of gambling either.
In fact, the Bible has many laws and decrees that are near universal, so atheists will most likely agree with them also.
However, I may encounter new information or insights about gambling that could change my position in the future.
You could see this as a weakness in my moral beliefs because they seem so malleable.
But I consider it a great strength because it protects me from dogmatically holding onto erroneous values even in the face of new information. This helps prevent me from holding unfair or counter-productive values, but only as long as I keep questioning my own beliefs.
This fact shows me that I should keep us this introspection.
Although I may never be completely sure of the right choice in every given situation, if I keep forcing myself to reevaluate my values from several different perspectives, I can become more certain of my conclusions.
But perhaps Dan wasn’t saying that atheists don’t assign value to things like human life but that they can’t assign valid value because regardless of their critical thinking, humans are still flawed.
But I think that the fact that atheist values match up with so many universal values in Christianity and other religions, these human-created values have undeniable substance.
In the second part of Dan’s video he states that without an immortal soul or similar entity, individuals will have no accountability for the good and bad acts they commit during their life.
I agree that this is bad thing, but this isn’t evidence for God’s existence.
This argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to consequences.
The appeal to consequences is an argument that concludes a premise to be true or false solely because that premise leads to a desireable or undesireable consequence.
A negative appeal to consequence is that if my friends are jerks, that would mean I have poor judgement. I don’t like the sound of that, so my friends must not be jerks.
A positive appeal to consequence is that the person I voted for is the most qualified, because that would mean I voted for the right person. I like the sound of that, therefore the person I voted for must be the most qualified.
Colloquially, you could call a positive appeal to consequence wishful thinking.
Dan’s argument is a negative appeal to consequence. If God doesn’t exist, that would mean that some jerks and crooks could get away with the crimes they commit in life, and die rich and happy. That’s awful, therefore God must exist.
You could just say that the world isn’t a perfect place.
But I’ll add that because the world isn’t a perfect place we should work to bring it closer to the ideal.
I can’t stand the fact that even though I may have good intentions, my actions might end up being completely ineffective at bettering the world. So I spend a lot of time thinking how I can make changes that matter.
I also can’t stand the fact that people may escape justice or consequences for their criminal acts.
And since I don’t believe in God, I can’t rely on everyone getting their just desserts in the afterlife. This makes it all the more imperative that I work to effect positive changes in this life.
Wow, that was kind of a long response to Dan’s misnomic video.
But I couldn’t help but notice that Dan used two arguments that I have seen over and over again in theist/atheist debates.
Making this video has given me some insights about theism and theists that I’d like to share with you.
If you agree with these insights, then I’d like you to leave comments on why you agree with them.
But more importantly, if you disagree with my insights I’d like you to leave comments telling me why.
I’ll weigh your arguments and if I find them convincing, I’ll alter my beliefs or maybe completely change them altogether.
Insight, the first.
Dan seems to believe that atheism is synnonomous with nihilism, or the belief that there are no objective values, purpose or truths in the universe.
(in a really bad, unrealistic French accent) Life is devoid of meaning as we drift through an unconcerned universe.
I’ve heard this from many theists.
I think they believe this because in their view, their religion offer an inerrant view of some perfect morality.
This absolute belief gives them the confidence that their holy books offer a supreme moral authority.
As I said before, I’m very skeptical of simply taking these values at their word.
Some of them, like their views on gambling, I agree with. But other things, like the examples of misogyny in the Bible, I disagree with, based on my values of justice and fairness.
But I think that since theists believe in the absolute authority of their religion, they can’t imagine how atheists and agnostics can know that their beliefs aren’t mistaken.
Actually, we don’t know if we’re mistaken or not. We have to keep thinking and weighing the arguments for our values, keeping in mind any subtlety or nuance for a particular given situation.
I think this leads them to believe that atheists have completely relavtive values based on nothing.
And since they don’t have any divine authoritaty to instruct them, the’ll ruthlessly act in their own self-interest.
Like the really obnoxious pseudo-liberatarians who always quote Ayn Rand at you.
But I think that if theists had to build up their moral beliefs and the reasons for those beliefs from scratch without referencing their holy books, they would come to many of the same conclusions that are written in those books.
But more importantly, they may also form values that are very different from the ones in their holy books, values they would not have accepted before simply because they had no reason to question their religious dogma.
Insight, the second.
Dan also stated without afterlife equivalents of Heaven or Hell, good deeds may go unrewarded and wickedness may go unpunished.
I find a lot of theists make this argument without considering the fact that this doesn’t mean such afterlifes actually exist.
I think that many theists use this as reasoning because it’s a very comfortable belief.
Nobody likes to consider that aside from blowing his brains out while Soviet troops were closing in on his bunker, Hitler was never apprehended and punished for this terrible crimes.
It’s very comforting to think that he’s going through agonizing punishment right now for his evil deeds, because in a way that would assure us that we aren’t suckers for avoiding potentially lucrative criminal careers.
But just because these beliefs are comforting doesn’t mean they’re true.
I think a large appeal of religion is because they offer so many comforting beliefs. For example:
Jesus offers his love and forgiveness for our human imperfections.
Reincarnation means that our existence doesn’t simple cease at death.
There’s a grand purpose for all us in the universe.People like comforting beliefs, even enough that they might ignore evidence or reasoning that might show these beliefs to be untrue.
At the same time, nobody likes to hold the uncomfortable beliefs that atheism implies:
Our departed loved ones are simply gone and aren’t watching over us.
Some people can become rich and powerful through evil deeds, and they may die in old age rich and powerful.
Your free-loading slob of a former roommate who owes you $200 will never be forced in some way to pay up.I’M TALKING TO YOU, JAMES.
I think that many theists who attack atheism moreso then other, even completely incompatible, religions is because they only see the uncomfortable beliefs of atheism and none of the positive ones.
But atheism does have some positivie implications:
That our actions in this world have consequences, so it really does matter that we act as positive role models for each other.
That through critical thinking and consideration, we’re able to discover values that are both idealistic and practical.
That as a society we’ll be able to make progressive gains in equality and fairness, and not repeat the mistakes of those that came before us.
So I’d like to thank you for watching this video, and I want to consider what I had to say. And if you have anything to say in response, please leave a comment or make your own video so we can learn from each other.
Because no matter what our beliefs about the nature of the universe or existence of the afterlife are…
We’re all in this world together.
I really enjoy your videos. It’s refreshing to see atheism presented in a clear, entertaining manner.
I don’t, however, agree with your assessment that gambling, Vegas style, should be illegal. (I read your comments on the YouTube page indicating that you don’t have a problem with buddies playing poker. I’m refering to corporate gambling. Just so we’re clear. I didn’t want to create a YouTube account just to post a comment there…)
Firstly, I think you mischaracterize a zero sum game. My understanding of a zero sum is a situation where, when all is said and done, there is no gains or losses. Chess, for instance, is a zero sum game. There is either a winner and a loser, or the game is a draw. I don’t think zero sum is necessarily immoral, and I don’t think characterizing it as one person or group exploiting another is fair.
Here’s the wiki on zero sum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
It is true, however, that the odds favor the house. That’s not why I don’t gamble, though. I simply find it boring. If a person finds it entertaining and if they exercise self control, I don’t see gambling as being much different than going to a movie. As you’ve noted, gambling for entertainment isn’t immoral (buddies playing poker). I’d further state that gambling to get rich is, by and large, delusional. (There are professional gamblers, though)
The main point I’m writing to address is the assertion that gambling should illegal. As evidence to support this assertion you mention the deleterious social consequences of gambling. I think history has shown that the negative social consequences of prohibition are much greater than legalization and regulation. There are lot of alcoholics in this country, but they aren’t going blind drinking bathtub gin much anymore. Also, the cost of enforcing prohibition in terms of financial resources and lives lost when criminals are left to control the industry out strip anything legalization and regulation incur. How many people die each year from our “War On Drugs.” I don’t condone drug use. I even try to avoid prescription drugs. But I think it’s a bad law to imprison people who’s only crime is getting high. Likewise, I would object to putting gamblers in jail. From what I see in the history of prohibition and the current drug laws leads me to conclude that the negative consequences of making an activity illegal are higher than the consequences of legalizing and regulating the same activity.
That’s my $ 0.02.
Keep up the good work. I’m looking forward to your next video.
best,
jonathan
Comment on March 14, 2007 @ 9:08 am
I had to leave a comment, wasn’t going to, but reached one bit I completely disagree with…
[quote]
I think a large appeal of religion is because they offer so many comforting beliefs. For example:
Jesus offers his love and forgiveness for our human imperfections.
Reincarnation means that our existence doesn’t simple cease at death.
There’s a grand purpose for all us in the universe.
[/quote]
You don’t have to be religious to believe any of these. We are taught about unconditional positive regard towards our fellow man in humanist terms as we are within Christianity. Reincarnation? I believe in reincarnation, in the basic sense of the word, we are made of other animals, people, earth, minerals, and when i die my remains will become part of the soil around me and so the cycle will continue. I also believe there is a grand purpose for us all, to do good, to love and be loved, to leave behind a legacy. Isn’t that grand enough for you? You seem to be describing the difference between nihilism and a belief system rather than atheism vs theism in these arguements..
[quote]
At the same time, nobody likes to hold the uncomfortable beliefs that atheism implies:
….
[quote]
Do I really need to point out that you’ve not really managed to dispell these beliefs either. Maybe it’s because, for example, Christians would have to act like Jesus instead of just believing that their belief in him will ‘save them’
Comment on March 18, 2007 @ 12:31 am
I love your logic, it’s nice to see a younger person with their head on straight, most of the god fearing persons that i meet, now theres is a good one (god fearing) why fear? anyway getting back to my comment, love your videos and verbalization.. keep it up..
Comment on April 12, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
What was the music gradually building in this video?
Also, my girlfriend and I love your videos. You are the atheist’s Ze Frank.
Cheers
Comment on April 14, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Great Videos, Al. Thanks.
I wasn’t certain, however, if you were advocating a prohibition to gambling or just stating your personal choice to refrain from it.
If the former, I’d have to disagree with you on that point. Your assertion gambling is a definite detriment on society, too, leaves something to be desired. As a form of entertainment, it has value much the same as watching professional sports, reading literature or looking at art, watching T.V., engaging in roleplaying games, or any other numerous activities some may easily claim are a complete waste of time and nothing more than non-productive pursuits. So even when such things may be considered zero sum activities on one front, they may yet have value in other ways that should not so easily be discounted.
More to the point, one must consider the alternative before making general proclamations as to the overall social detriment any activity may have. In this case, as in the case of recreational drugs, alcohol, prostitution, or other choices, one must compare the loss of our personal freedom to choose, as well as the frequent consequences of illegal operations and organized crime that might arise to circumvent such prohibitions. In particular, I’m fairly certain society would be far worse off if we didn’t have our freedom to make these choices and had to endure the fallout of society’s lame attempt to curtail these freedoms. After all, many wars have been deemed worthy enough to send millions to their deaths to win or maintain our basic freedoms, so it’s probably not the wisest suggestion to surrender these freedoms to allegedly help those few who cannot exercise sufficient discipline and essentially punish the majority for the actions of a few. There are better means to help this minority than a general prohibition.
However, if the latter, then yes, I agree, too, one should lead by example and never by force, so if you were merely saying you think gambling is a bad idea, others, also, may concur and refrain from such activities.
Similarly, I think atheism is intellectually correct and the only self-consistent, logical, and rational approach to life, but one may only lead by example, as you have done. And while I’d like to believe we’d all be better off embracing atheism, I’m not convinced the majority of people can intrinsically understand the wisdom of the golden rule and live their lives accordingly, and often think, if not for the fear of divine punishment in most people’s mind, society might be worse off as far too many would lose this fear and embrace choices far removed from altruism, empathy, and concern for the consequences of their actions.
Without the fear of God, what prevents one from doing evil? Well, what prevents us from doing good, too, one might reply. It’s a choice. Thus, ultimately, I often think my time is better spent teaching the wisdom of the golden rule, regardless of one’s belief in god, or the lack thereof, and the ever present on-going debate of atheism vs. theism is of secondary concern in comparison.
Might you craft a wonderful video in your style on the topic of game theory, wherein one does better embracing the golden rule rather than the practice of screwing over one’s neighbor? I’d like to see that.
Thanks again for the videos.
- Jim.
Comment on April 15, 2007 @ 12:33 am
You’re a very good speaker, your presentations are well prepared and you argue very persuasively. Us atheists who can’t articulate our thoughts need more guys like you to spread the ‘Gospel’ of atheism. Although having others who are good speakers does mean the less articulate ones shouldn’t take it upon themselves to defend their beliefs or lack thereof. Good work, keep it up!
Comment on April 15, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
While I have seen your other videos through youtube and Atheist-Nation, I especially enjoy this video’s positive outlook on debate and reason. Too often do I find myself and other atheists not wanting to debate an issue, or begrudgingly arguing a point but with a sarcastic tone, somehow asserting that because one recognizes the lack of god or gods in the universe, it somehow immediately makes the individual a more moral person.. As you correctly mention, Ayn Randians are proof otherwise.
When I finally get around to making a video for the Blasphemy Challenge, or for any other subject that I believe in, I would like to try and emulate your positive tone and fair argument style.
In short, thanks for being a good example.
Comment on April 15, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Hello,When people say..in the name of the father,the son and the holy ghost.It seems they forgot to mention MARY,who gave birth to gods boy in a stinky old stable.very unhealthy,After jesus grew up a bit,he started raising the dead..big mistake..If god knows exactly when your time is up?Would not this guy walking about,bringing dead people back to life,sort of mess up gods overall plan for humanity?
I myself think that god had his son killed,so things could get back to normal once again,like it was before he raped Josephs wife,and got her pregnant.As it turned out he learned by his mistake,with Mary and Joe,and there has never been another rape by HIM ever again..
I think he just used MARY,and never really liked her that much.
Comment on April 19, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Nifty site. I dig the logic.
As far as I see it, Al’s thoughts on large scale gambling were an attempt to describe how he came to the opinion that he holds about gambling. Based on what he can observe, gambling tends to cause more harm than benefit to society as a whole (like most observations made by one person, the information may not be whole or complete, so some kind of “guess” or “blind faith” will need to be used to actually come to a conclusion.) If, for some reason, the negative consequences that Al uses to form his belief about gambling somehow change (or are mitigated) he retains the OPTION to change his views in regards to the new information (so long as the new information is compelling enough to cause him to change his opinion.)
Compare this to the anti-gambling (usually of ANY sort) laws, rules, regulations promoted in religious texts. I’m no religious scholar but from what I can make of these rules, there was no logical arguments given as to why gambling is bad. Instead there is only commandments given by God (or a messenger of God.) Thereby eliminating the POSSIBILITY that the followers of God, giver of commandments, could ever decide to gamble, even if there were no harm in it.
Most devout Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol, even though the majority of humanity has the ability drink alcohol responsibility and in moderation with few ill consequences or themselves or society, these devout followers are not supposed to ever consume alcohol by religious decree. I can respect their choice to abstain from alcohol but I can’t support the reason why they choose to abstain.
So, while Al can agree with many of the religious on the subject of gambling, their basis for being against gambling differ. Al can change his mind with no expectation of punishment. The religious may not be able to change their beliefs system to allow for gambling as it would require an act of God (or a messenger thereof) to change the rules they are to live by.
Comment on April 20, 2007 @ 8:11 am
great videos! In the responses to this first video there are a few people still trying to argue ‘right’ vs ‘wrong’ (i.e. gambling should be legal, . I think that people are being taught or given the opportunity to think critically. It’s an either/or world– “you’re either with us or without us”– or at least that is how the world is often present and how people typically operate. hetero/homo, white/coloured (Canadian spelling!), theist/atheist, moral/immoral, gabling/no gambling.
Anyway, I applaud your critical thinking, your enthusiasm, your insights and that you’ve taken the time to post these videos! Keep it up! Oh, and I’d love to hear some of your responses to the comments people have left.
Comment on April 21, 2007 @ 8:05 am
I have posted my introduction and niceties elsewhere. In order to eliminate redundancies of that nature, let’s just jump right into the fun!
1) You commit an “appeal to popularity” by, in effect, stating, “No one believes that humans don’t have value, of course atheists don’t either.” But that seems to be an unwarranted extrapolation. You will have to justify why atheists believe in the value of human life besides simply saying that most people do. In fact, that is (and many fallacies do overlap), to commit the naturalistic fallacy (the “unwarranted inference of ‘ought’ from ‘is’”) by saying that, normatively, an atheist is justified in believing in human value because, factually, everybody (or most people) do so.
2) What is the justification for not believing in certain religious matters, but still ascribing value to human life? I asked this in another post: Whence comes the value of human life? It is just not sufficient to simply assert it. Why aren’t atheists nihilists? I have my own reasons for believing that they need not be, but certainly the point here is for you to enlighten us as to the uniquely (or perhaps not uniquely) atheist position.
3) Naturalistic fallacy: We do believe in fairness, so we should believe in it. You seem to be feriving from our, perhaps evolutionary, normative prescriptions and saying that these are therefore universal valuative judgments. In other words, just because we do think that we should, does not mean that we should think we should…
4) Apparently one of your objections against religion is that it claims the destruction of life and individual agency in the name of a higher “purpose.” However, you state that individual consent can be overruled when it goes against the overall good (presumably determined by scientific, or even utilitarian, calculations). But isn’t this similarly sacrificing individual will, agency, and consent in the name of a higher good? How can this incongruity be reconciled?
5) The matter of revision is one of degree not kind. There is no such thing as extreme dogmatism, no one could possibly survive on that, and there is no such thing as extreme revision, our world would be totally incoherent. Even if we grant that new evidence inclines her to revise ger valuative prescriptions, nevertheless at every moment in between the presentation of new evidence, one’s prescriptions are just as dogmatic and universal as more revision-resistant institutions such as religion. Perhaps one could say that religion is undesirable insofar as it is more stubborn to accept new facts, but is this necessarily an inherent property of religion? Indeed, if it is, perhaps it is simply because the domain of religion (e.g., absolute facts of the nature of reality, etc.) is putatively resistant to such revision. But, given the proper domain of inquiry, resistance to revision need not be especially dubious.
The standard religious person, who is not an extreme outlier, is probably much more inclined to revisions in his or her web of belief (cf. W.V.O. Quine; although, just as with atheism, such revisions often do not completely change the web of belief, but are already framed within that “conceptual schema,” if we use Quine’s terminology). Besides, absolute dogmatism can only be truly maintained in abstracted theory. In our everyday lives, we necessarily make revisions, and this includes some theses that are related to religion. (You do accept this in your video on “What science isn’t”)
6) Isn’t it an appeal to consequences itself to assert, against religion, that it leads to killing, etc., and therefore it should be rejected? Now, I am not at all saying that this is your main argument, but you do state it several times, and this it warrants consideration.
Comment on May 22, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Love your work. Dynamic belief systems are the best.
I would nitpick with your use of the term “conspiracy theorist” in one of your other videos. Not all conspiracy theories are loony, and everyone on the planet believes in conspiracies– they happen everyday– they are agreements between people to commit crimes.
Please revise your belief!! hahaahah
I admire your morality. Have you considered becoming vegan?
Comment on May 23, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
A very interesting response to “The Richard Dawkins Delusion”, but I think in many ways it isn’t entirely helpful. I don’t personally know anyone who believes that atheists are amoral because they don’t derive their moral intuitions from scripture. I feel the real point theists are making is that, even if we don’t believe in God, our moral intuitions are instilled in us by God. You made the point that our morals are inherent in all of us, and therefore are not dependent on the morals of any particular brand of faith. We are in agreement on this point but I would say, why are these morals inherent in all of us?
It is my personal belief that just as God created us through naturalistic process (evolution), he created our sense of right and wrong naturalistically. Of course this assertion can’t be verified by evidence, and I’m sure many will dismiss it because of that. But after reflecting on these issues I’m inclined to think that our moral intuition in and of itself is evidence of a God.
If this universe had no meaning, how would we have found out that it had no meaning? This is a point made often by C.S. Lewis who, admittedly, also came to some flawed philosophical conclusions. But I still feel this statement makes sense. You also talked about how the after-life seems appealing to many people, but that this doesn’t make belief in an after-life true. I would concede this point, but I would also like to note that it doesn’t make it untrue either. I’m inclined to disbelieve in the after-life, but I feel that existentially I can commit myself to a belief in God and consequently the concept of life after death becomes entirely plausible. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, but what a pitiful, meaningless life of utter nothingness our existence is if our hopes of a loving God turn out to be entirely misguided. Surely, religion often obscures our moral intuitions. But this says nothing about where morality came from.
Comment on July 23, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
I have to agree with the first insight because, being a Christian, I used to run in very extreme religious, but I also go to a public school and have friends from all backgrounds and I know several atheists who have a purpose in life and maintain a sense of morality.
I disagree with the second insight as to why theists believe what they do. I don’t believe in Christ because my friend who stabbed me in the back is now gonna get it when she dies or that I have comfort of love, forgiveness, and Heaven in one nice little package. I believe in Christ because whether or not I am forgiven and sent to Heaven, He is still worthy to be praised and served. Even if I were to go to hell I would still serve Him. And I know the first argument against this is that I can never be serious about that because according to my beliefs I never will go to hell, but in the coherence test of knowledge (something proven by my own experiences to be true) proves that for me (maybe not you, but me). I know several Christians that feel this way also. So don’t generalize.
Also with the second insight, even though many do reach out to Christianity because they think it offers comfort beliefs, there are several that know and don’t think that it’s that way. If you truly read the Bible, Jesus says that His followers will be persecuted and that “the way” is hard and narrow and few find it. That’s not comforting to me. If I wanted a “comforting” religion I’d chose anything, but Christianity, because in every other one you have to do something to get to Heaven instead of “picking up your cross and following Him”.
Unless you can go to all the corners of the universe and see that there’s no evidence for the existence of God, than you have to default. If the default is not good enough for you than I suggest you and anyone reading this blog to read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. If you are in search of truth than you can’t make any claims until you read this.
Comment on November 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm