Upload
justin-vacula
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech
1/5
Thanks for having me today. This discussion, I hope, will be a start of an ongoing conversation and a
respectful one at that between theists and atheists. I'm very excited to be afforded this opportunity to
speak with you all today and look forward to the question and answer session which follows. After the
question and answer session, please feel free to view more of my content at justinvacula.com, listen toepisodes of the NEPA Freethought Society podcast (also found on my website), and also feel free to e-
mail me and/or interact on social networks.
I've been invited to be a guest speaker today by your professor Dr. Sebastian Mahfood to provide a
perspective of an atheist. Many people throughout the freethought/atheist/secular community were
excited to hear about this including, perhaps most prominently, the Freedom From Religion Foundation(FFRF) the largest national organization for freethinkers, of which I am an active member. The FFRF
seeks to educate the public on matters relating to non-theism and promote and defend the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state two objectives I support and personally spend much time on.The FFRF promoted my blog post relating to this event. The feedback was tremendously supportive.
My speech today will touch on many broad topics. I won't focus on one or two issues, but rather will talk
about several in the allotted time period and may elaborate in the question and answer period. Some ofthe topics I will talk about all related in some way to me being an atheist include my thoughts on the
need for reflection and respectful conversation with those whom we disagree, why I consider myself an
atheist, what it means to be an atheist, my religious upbringing, my path to atheism, the difficulty ofbeing an out atheist in the United States, and arguments against belief in the Christian god.
There seems to be a lack of substantive discussion about matters of religious belief and what seems to beeven worse, a lack of concern for holding justified true beliefs and this isn't only in the arena of
religious beliefs. People avoid conversation because they want to preserve harmony or what some call
'respect beliefs.' Some view disagreement as disrespect. Some even think that disagreeing with people's
religious belief in whatever manner or even providing counter-arguments to religious belief violatesdiversity requirements and is intolerant. Some even think there is no such thing as truth, that we create
our own realities, or that holding truth is impossible. Some believe that it is permissible to believe
something without good reason, because a belief makes one feel good, or even solely because of faith (I'llget to that one later.) I believe that we, even though we may be quite limited as human beings with our
current state of limited knowledge, can talk about truth and collectively work toward reaching it.
In a course like this, one concerned with philosophy, students should be concerned with holding belief
that is both true and justified. The Bible even, in some points, specifically in 1 Peter 3:15, instructs
people to, if asked give the reason for the belief in your heart to prepare a defense and do so withgentleness and respect. As an atheist, I am very much in favor of this attitude and hope to foster it in
discussions I have podcasts I record, speeches I give, and in other aspects of my life. Discussions and
disagreement can and should be had in a respectful manner without a person pulling punches attacking
ideas, not people. In challenging our beliefs, especially our cherished beliefs, we can only learn andprogress. If it is the case that arguments can serve to lead us away from particular beliefs, we are better
for that for having beliefs which are justified and true should be a primary concern in our intellectual
lives and much more important than possible temporary discomfort.
As an atheist, or more broadly as a skeptic, I am willing to change any and all of my beliefs provided
good enough reason and argument is presented. If it so happens that a convincing argument for any godsor the Christian god comes forth, I will be better for encountering that for I will have more justified true
beliefs and less false unjustified beliefs. Even if we happen to not change our minds on issues, we're also,
I would think, generally better off for encountering people whom we happen to disagree provided
7/31/2019 Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech
2/5
something is learned. Justified true beliefs, after all, should be able to withstand objections. In
encountering people and ideas we disagree with, we can formulate responses and be better prepared to
deal with them and even to better understand ourselves.
I am an atheist the term, I think, properly understood, is simply used to describe a person who lacks
belief in any gods. This does not mean to have a belief that no gods exist or serve as a claim of absolute
certainty. I am an atheist because I find no good reasons to believe that any gods exist. To go even further,I find no good reasons to believe that any sort of supernatural or paranormal phenomena exist.
When I think of belief or lack thereof in any matters, I think of what is the most reasonable interpretationof reality to think in terms of absolutes is most unhelpful because I can be mistaken as my senses might
be faulty and my interpretations of reality whether they be results of deliberation, intuition, or empirical
observation -- may also be faulty. Philosopher Johnathan Kvanvig, on this matter, expresses a sentimentwhich I find most helpful, There is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always
impossible; the best that can be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have
achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of
infallibility.
As one atheist, I can't claim to speak for everyone, but only can speak for my perspective although
some atheists may agree with everything I will say and some atheists will agree with portions of myspeech. I'm not Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. While their works and writings
have been influential to me, I don't agree with everything they say and take a much different approach a
philosophical one (especially when considering Dawkins who takes largely, if you will, a scientificapproach to atheism) and I have a different tone.
Atheism and religion alike aren't monolithic entities in that atheism and religion is one 'thing' and that all
atheists or all religious persons (of specific religions) believe the same thing. Knowing that a person is anatheist tells you only one thing about that person that he or she lacks a belief in any gods and is no
guarantee of critical thinking skills or anything else. Similar to this is that knowing a person is a theist
only tells a person that one believes in a god...and perhaps not even a personal god, oddly enough, on theaccounting of some people I have encountered. Some who consider themselves to be Christians, perhaps
mostly in academic settings, think of God as a metaphor, see the Bible as a book which is nothing more
than a beautiful and interesting narrative in which individuals attempt to understand the world. It is bothunhelpful and inaccurate to make wide assumptions painting all religious people or atheists with a broad
brush. Perhaps it is best to try and understand the person who holds a belief to ask questions, to see
where they are coming from, and even have understanding of their background.
I will then provide a short backstory of my background. As a student in kindergarten in a public school, I
first started to attend CCD religious education courses learning, among other things, at the age of five or
six, that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. These classes, for those who may not know the acronym, areRoman Catholic education classes that, at least from my education, were once a week classes with a
religious teacher and a priest. I would go to church for about an hour to hear words of encouragement and
preaching from a priest and then go to class for another hour. In addition to this, throughout my childhoodand teenage years I would regularly attend church services. I was also an alter boy, a reader for masses,
and participated in the yearly Stations of the Cross plays as an actor and, in later years, a narrator. My
parents were also religious but mainly nominally they went to church with me, of course, althoughthis was mainly my father. My mother and my father, as it seems today, think that one should 'just
believe' and found that I should be 'raised in the church' so I was. I received various sacraments in the
Catholic Church from baptism to confirmation. I was very much a believer and so to the point in which
7/31/2019 Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech
3/5
I had considered, although never acted on it, entering the priesthood and people recommended that I do
so...at quite a young age, even. I suppose they saw much religious promise, if you will, in me.
In my second year of undergraduate education at King's College -- a liberal arts Catholic university inPennsylvania I started to seriously question my religious beliefs mainly as a result of a philosophy
course, Ethics and the Good Life that I had and a discussion about atheism on campus. Also important
was a friend of mine, an English teacher I had in high school, who had as far as I can remember beenthe first person to seriously cause me to think about the truth-value of religious beliefs although I, at the
time, had seriously considered that he was acting as a minion of Satan or otherwise was possessed by the
devil.
After writing a paper for my Ethics and the Good Life course in which the prompt concerned whether
one needed to believe in God to find meaning in life I defended a position that one did not need tobelieve in God to find meaning. From there, I found it important to go on a quest of sorts to determine
whether there were good reasons to believe in the Christian god. Long story short, as should be obvious,
my answer was 'no' after all sorts of discussions with religious professors, ministers, priests, friends, and
fellow students. I found these discussions, as an atheist, to be extremely productive and valuable as Icould better understand their positions and challenge my own beliefs.
Entering my third year of college as an 'out atheist' wanting to start a student group a chapter of theSecular Student Alliance I received a tremendous unexpected amount of hate mail and general hate
from students...simply because I wanted to start a student group for secular students. Following this, and
a notification from college administration that my group was not allowed to exist, I received much morehate including threats and a great deal of nastiness and this time from the community of Northeastern
Pennsylvania and two aunts of mine following my challenging the constitutionality of a nativity scene
on a courthouse lawn. I was declared, by a radio show host, the third most hated person in Luzerne
County the county in which I live. #1 and #2, as you may wonder, were two judges indicted in the 'Kidsfor Cash' scandal these were judges who received kickbacks from a private facility when they sent
children in their juvenile courts to a private detention center.
More recently, although this time not generating hate mail, at least yet, I submitted an advertisement to a
county bus company that had the word Atheists in large text this was denied as it was declared an
'attack on religion' and a controversial sign that would spark public debate of controversial issues thusnot permissible on county buses. I haven't though, given up, but it will take some time to properly address
this issue and have the sign placed on buses it may even take a lawsuit and a court date. It's really
difficult for people to be openly atheistic because they fear financial distress, job loss, being kicked out ofa home, losing family members, and other repercussions.
I'm an out atheist and believe that my activism and the activism of many others whether that consists
of writing, protesting when called for, opposing legislation and other governmental activity contrary tothe Establishment Clause, etc. is important. I even feel a sort of moral obligation to make my views
known, address governmental wrongs, educate others, and continue my efforts. Like many of the new
atheists, I feel that religious beliefs are not only unjustified, false, and irrational, but also potentiallydangerous. We cannot doubt that our beliefs inform our actions and some of our actions have the ability
to harm others. Of course, though, not all religious beliefs or beliefs derived from religion are harmful or
potentially so, but some are. Additionally, not all people act on their beliefs there is a wide gap, forexample, from the person who believes that atheists are morally deficient (as Psalm 14 declares) to those
who will openly discriminate against or show contempt toward atheists.
7/31/2019 Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech
4/5
As I said earlier, I don't believe in any gods because I don't find any reasons to do so. Additionally, I don't
find faith to be a reliable or proper mechanism to arrive at justified true belief. A philosopher friend of
mine, Dr. Peter Boghossian, thinks of faith as pretending to know things you don't know and also
considers it to be a cognitive sickness. Others, Dr. Boghossian included, view faith as belief withoutsufficient evidence, argument, or reason. Faith, it seems, at least under this understanding, doesn't seem to
get one to belief in any gods for a good reason in fact, conclusions are arrived at absent of reason.
Perhaps, though, it is possible to combine faith and reason? If reasons, though, can lead one to belief,why would faith need to enter into the picture?
The arguments typically given by religious believers at least by academics and apologists seem to meto be faulty and not lead to justified true belief in the Christian god or any other gods. Arguments like
fine-tuning arguments, cosmological arguments, and moral arguments even if accepted as valid and
sound, don't even get as I see it -- to the Christian god in particular. I don't find any good reason tobelieve in miracles or, perhaps more particularly, the resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that the natural
world is all that exists.
Over time, phenomena or explanations that were associated with the supernatural have fallen to thewayside in favor of naturalistic explanations that better account for phenomena. In other situations in
which a natural explanation is simply lacking, I find no good reason to jump from I can't explain this to
A miracle happened. While problems, some might say, and myself included, regarding the cause of theuniverse (if there even was one) or the nature of consciousness exist, for example, I find no good reason
to jump from I can't explain this to God must be responsible.
With that, I'll move on to arguments against Christian belief.
A song I really enjoy titled And When He Falleth by the metal band Theatre of Tragedy contains
dialogue from the movie The Masque of the Red Death starring Vincent Price which gives an
introduction to one of the best arguments that undermine belief in the Christian god. The dialogue is asfollows: How can you look around this world and believe in the goodness of a god who rules it? This,
of course, as you might have guessed, is a formation of the problem of evil. An evidential form of the
argument is as follows 1) There exists an egregious amount of unnecessary suffering which is guaranteedas a result of the laws of nature. 2) This is incompatible with the Christian god. 3) The Christian god does
not exist. If an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god existed, I would expect to see a much
different world one which does not contain Indian Ocean tsunamis and Haitian earthquakes which killmany people some of them children and pregnant women. This, of course, has nothing to do with 'free
will' or what is often called 'moral evil' actions taken by agents who have free will which harm other
agents with free will.
Another line of reasoning I think is quite effective similarly related is inspired by philosopher
Stephen Law. He calls this is 'Evil God Challenge.' If the amount of what can be called 'good' in the
world that which makes us happy and want to continue living -- would render belief in an all-evil godirrational, why would not the evidence of 'natural evil' render belief in an all-good god irrational? And if
belief in an omni-evil god is profoundly irrational, why is it the case that belief in an omni-good god is
not only rational, but profoundly rational and compassionate? Many of the defenses people use topreserve belief in an all-good god can be 'flipped' to preserve belief in an all-evil god. If a theist were to
say, Well, God is mysterious so we just can't know why he designed the universe so that the Haitian
earthquake would happen. Perhaps there is some greater good and we're lacking in ability to identifythis, the evil god defender could similarly say, Evil god is mysterious. We can't know why he creates
humans so that sex and viewing sunsets are so enjoyable to many. We're just lacking in ability to identify
this. We'd see this reasoning as insufficient to defend the idea of an all-evil god, so why not is it the case
7/31/2019 Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech
5/5
for an all-good god?
These are three quick versions of arguments I would use against belief in the Christian god. Another
interesting argument, I think, is one surrounding the idea of theological fatalism. If God, an omniscientbeing, has all true beliefs and no false beliefs, it seems to be the case that humans have only one course of
possible action. If God, for example, holds a set of beliefs, if you will, pertaining to my life, I could never
'do otherwise' for I would render his beliefs false and this is impossible because God is omniscient heholds only true beliefs and all true beliefs. If God believed that I were to give this speech today and you
were to listen to it, we could not possibly do otherwise for we would render God's beliefs false.
Christianity, though, on almost all accounts, maintains that humans have free will the ability, asunderstood by many, to have some sort of volition and control over actions or on some accounts the
ability to 'do otherwise' or genuinely be able to take multiple courses of action. An omniscient being,
though, seems to be incompatible with free will.
Here, I've provided a good deal of content as this speech was very general in nature...so I am now
excited for the question and answer session.