Great Atheist Bomb Drops!

Summary

In this impassioned speech, the speaker challenges the notion that morality is derived from religion, asserting that conscience and societal norms, rather than fear of divine retribution, guide ethical behavior. They argue against the misconception that atheists lack morality, citing statistical evidence of lower crime rates among non-religious individuals. The speaker also addresses the idea that religion, as humanity's first attempt at understanding the world, has been superseded by scientific knowledge, advocating for a naturalistic worldview that embraces the universe's knowability without supernatural explanations.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The speaker argues against the notion that morality is solely dependent on religion, suggesting that a person's moral compass is independent of belief in a deity.
• 🏁 The speaker emphasizes that fear of divine punishment is not the only reason people act virtuously; they may also act out of a sense of conscience and societal norms.
• 💭 The belief in an afterlife (heaven or hell) is not a prerequisite for ethical behavior, as the speaker asserts their own atheism while maintaining moral standards.
• 🌍 The speaker points out the discrepancy between the prevalence of non-religious people in society versus their representation in federal prisons, suggesting that atheism does not equate to immorality.
• 🔍 The speaker challenges the misconception that atheists lack morality, using statistical data to show that non-religious individuals are underrepresented in crime statistics.
• 🧐 The speaker suggests that morality is a personal choice, and people select their moral values regardless of religious belief, with the difference being in how they attribute the source of those values.
• 🌌 The speaker promotes the idea that the universe is knowable and that unexplained phenomena do not necessarily indicate the presence of supernatural forces.
• 🚀 The speaker reflects on the progress of human knowledge, from primitive beliefs to scientific understanding, and criticizes the adherence to outdated religious explanations.
• 💡 The speaker highlights the adaptability of religious doctrines to social conditions and the inconsistency of religious beliefs, which they argue is evidence against theism.
• 🌿 The speaker contrasts the elegance and persuasiveness of scientific explanations, like those of Einstein and Darwin, with the crude and less compelling narratives found in religious texts.
• ⚔️ The speaker passionately argues against the destructive potential of religious fundamentalism, particularly its desire for apocalyptic scenarios and the associated harm to society.

Q & A

What is the main argument against the idea that morality is solely based on religious beliefs?

The main argument is that it is insulting to human beings to imply that only a system of rewards and punishments can keep someone a decent human being. People can and do choose to be virtuous for the sake of their own conscience and the betterment of the world, not just out of fear of divine punishment or hope for reward.

What misconception about atheism does the speaker believe is the greatest?

The greatest misconception about atheism, according to the speaker, is that atheists are not nice people or are immoral. The speaker argues that morality is independent of religion and that atheists can have a strong sense of morality based on their own conscience and reasoning.

How does the speaker address the relationship between crime rates and religious belief?

The speaker points out that the population of non-religious people in federal prisons is significantly lower compared to the general non-religious population, suggesting that being religious does not necessarily correlate with being moral or non-criminal.

What does the speaker suggest about the origin of morality?

The speaker suggests that morality is a personal choice and is not inherently tied to religion. People pick their own moral values, and the difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist internalizes it as their own, while the theist attributes it to their religion.

What is the speaker's view on the knowability of the universe?

The speaker believes that the universe is knowable and that one need not appeal to mystical or magical forces to explain phenomena. Even if something cannot be explained at the moment, it is driven by laws of physics that are yet to be discovered.

How does the speaker describe the historical role of religion?

The speaker describes religion as humanity's first attempt at understanding the truth, philosophy, morality, and healthcare. It was a necessary step in our development as a species, but it is now considered our worst due to the advancements in knowledge and understanding we have made since.

What is the speaker's stance on the idea of divine intervention?

The speaker is critical of the idea of divine intervention, arguing that if such a power existed and cared for humanity, it would not have allowed the suffering and ignorance that humanity experienced for the majority of its history.

Why does the speaker believe that theism is not well-defined?

The speaker believes that theism is not well-defined because it can easily adapt to any situation with ex post facto justifications, making it resistant to falsification and therefore less credible in the face of empirical evidence.

What does the speaker find repulsive about monotheistic messianic religions?

The speaker finds the eschatological element of monotheistic messianic religions repulsive, as they often express a yearning for the end of the world and the destruction of life, which the speaker views as a hateful and destructive belief.

How does the speaker argue that naturalism provides a more accurate understanding of the world?

The speaker argues that naturalism, with its reliance on empirical evidence and the natural laws of physics, provides a more accurate and consistent understanding of the world compared to theism, which often relies on supernatural explanations that are less testable and adaptable.

What is the speaker's final thought experiment regarding the history of humanity and divine intervention?

The speaker's final thought experiment challenges the belief in divine intervention by asking the audience to consider the immense suffering and ignorance humanity experienced for most of its history, and questions why a benevolent deity would only intervene in recent history and in specific, less advanced regions.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Ethical Implications of Atheism

The speaker challenges the misconception that atheists lack morality due to the absence of religious belief. They argue that morality is intrinsic to humans and not solely dependent on religious doctrine. The speaker emphasizes the importance of conscience and societal norms in shaping ethical behavior, citing statistics that show a significantly lower percentage of non-religious individuals in prisons compared to the general population. They also discuss the relativity of morality and how individuals choose their moral compass, independent of religious influence.

05:03

🌌 The Knowability of the Universe

This paragraph explores the idea that the universe is knowable and does not require mystical or magical explanations for phenomena. The speaker advocates for science and the pursuit of knowledge, suggesting that even when faced with the unknown, it is the laws of physics, yet to be discovered, that drive these occurrences. They highlight the elegance and persuasiveness of scientific theories such as those by Einstein and Darwin, in contrast to supernatural explanations, and argue that naturalism consistently provides more satisfying answers to the nature of existence.

10:06

📚 The Evolution of Religion and Morality

The speaker discusses the evolution of religion as humanity's first attempt at understanding the world, morality, and health. They point out that early religious beliefs were a product of ignorance and fear, and while they served a purpose in primitive societies, they are now outdated and potentially harmful. The speaker criticizes the persistence of religious dogma in modern society, arguing that it hinders progress and can lead to totalitarianism. They also address the adaptability of religious doctrines to social conditions and the inconsistencies between different religious texts.

15:06

🚫 The Perils of Theocratic Domination

In this paragraph, the speaker expresses concern over the rise of theocracy and its destructive impact on civilization. They recount their efforts to combat theocratic regimes, particularly in the wake of the September 11th attacks, and emphasize the importance of resisting such ideologies. The speaker criticizes the eschatological beliefs of certain religious groups, which they argue promote a dangerous yearning for the end of the world. They highlight the irony of these beliefs, which they see as contrary to the values of life, learning, and progress.

🔥 The Cult of Death and Divine Indifference

The speaker vehemently opposes the idea of a divine plan that involves the suffering and death of humanity. They argue that the concept of a deity that remains indifferent to human suffering for thousands of years, only to suddenly intervene in primitive societies, is both illogical and immoral. The speaker challenges the audience to consider the implications of such a belief, suggesting that it reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of existence and the role of ethics in human life.

Keywords

💡Atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In the context of the video, atheism is presented as a rational position that does not rely on the fear of divine punishment or the promise of reward for moral behavior. The speaker argues that atheists can be moral individuals without the need for religious guidance, as morality is seen as a human construct rather than a divine mandate.

💡Morality

Morality refers to the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. The video discusses morality as a concept that is independent of religion. The speaker suggests that people are moral not because of a fear of divine retribution but because it contributes to a better society and personal satisfaction, challenging the notion that religion is the sole source of moral values.

💡Religion

Religion is a system of beliefs and practices often involving faith in a higher power or deity. The video critiques the role of religion, suggesting that it is often used to control people through fear of punishment or desire for reward in the afterlife. The speaker argues that religious beliefs are not universally consistent and can lead to harmful practices and ideologies.

💡Conscience

Conscience is an individual's sense of right and wrong, which guides moral conduct. In the video, conscience is presented as an internal moral compass that operates independently of religious doctrine. The speaker asserts that fearing one's own conscience is a powerful motivator for ethical behavior, separate from any religious teachings.

💡Theocracy

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. The video speaker expresses concern about theocracies, associating them with the suppression of knowledge and individual freedoms. The speaker's political preoccupation is to oppose theocratic regimes that impose their beliefs on society and undermine the progress of civilization.

💡Naturalism

Naturalism is a philosophical stance that asserts that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural explanations are excluded. The video promotes naturalism as a more rational and evidence-based worldview compared to theism. The speaker argues that naturalism aligns better with empirical observations and scientific understanding of the world.

💡Evolutionary History

Evolutionary history refers to the process of change in species of organisms over time. The video uses evolutionary history to argue against the idea of divine design in nature. The speaker suggests that biological forms are the result of natural selection and evolution, not the deliberate creation of a deity.

💡Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence is information that is based on, or verified by, observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. The video speaker uses empirical evidence to support the argument that naturalism provides a more accurate explanation of the world than theism, citing the adaptability of religious beliefs and the lack of evidence for divine intervention.

💡Messianic Religion

Messianic religion refers to belief systems that center around the idea of a messiah or savior figure. The video criticizes messianic religions for their end-times narratives, which the speaker finds repugnant and dangerous. These narratives often involve the destruction of the world and the belief that the faithful will be saved while others suffer.

💡Eschatology

Eschatology is the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. The video discusses eschatology in the context of monotheistic religions, highlighting the belief in an apocalypse or end of the world. The speaker finds this focus on the end of the world to be a negative and destructive aspect of certain religious beliefs.

💡Divine Intervention

Divine intervention refers to the belief that a deity or deities intervene in the world to influence events. The video speaker argues against the concept of divine intervention, suggesting that it is inconsistent with the observable course of human history and the development of civilization. The speaker uses the lack of divine intervention in the face of human suffering as evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity.

Highlights

The philosophical argument that the absence of God implies moral relativity is challenged, asserting that humans have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong beyond divine commandments.

Munir Easin argues that fear of divine punishment is not the only motivator for moral behavior, suggesting that personal conscience and societal norms also play significant roles.

The speaker expresses a personal belief in the absence of an afterlife, advocating for ethical behavior based on personal integrity and societal well-being rather than religious doctrine.

A critique of the misconception that atheists lack morality, using statistical data to show a lower crime rate among non-religious individuals compared to the general population.

The idea that morality is a personal construct, independent of religious belief, is supported by the observation that people switch religious affiliations based on moral disagreements.

An appeal to the knowability of the universe through scientific inquiry, without the need to resort to mystical or magical explanations for natural phenomena.

The historical progression from religious to scientific understanding is highlighted, emphasizing the advancement in knowledge and the debunking of superstitions.

A critique of the reliance on supernatural explanations in religion, advocating for the elegance and harmony of naturalistic explanations provided by scientific theories like those of Einstein and Darwin.

The argument that theism is not well-defined and offers ex post facto justifications, in contrast to the empirical evidence and predictive power of naturalism.

A comparison of theistic and naturalistic expectations with empirical observations, suggesting that naturalism aligns more closely with the observed state of the world.

The personal motivation of the speaker to counter theocracy and its destructive effects, particularly in the context of international politics and human rights.

A denouncement of the eschatological elements in monotheistic religions that promote an apocalyptic end to the world, viewing it as a repulsive and dangerous belief.

The assertion that religion has historically acted as a poison to societal progress, impeding the development of scientific understanding and moral autonomy.

The final thought experiment challenges the credibility of divine intervention, questioning why a benevolent deity would remain indifferent to human suffering for thousands of years.

A call to appreciate the decline of supernatural belief and to embrace the pursuit of knowledge and ethical living independent of religious dogma.

The conclusion emphasizes the importance of fighting against the negative impacts of religious extremism and the value of promoting rationality and secularism.

Transcripts

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

if God is dead everything is permitted

that's what scares them well on the

contrary that state assumes that human

beings have no feeling about what is

right and wrong

Munir easin is the only reason you are

virtuous because that's your ticket to

heaven it's the only reason you don't

beat your children to death because you

don't want to go to hell it seems to me

that it's insulting to human beings to

imply that only a system of rewards and

punishments can keep you a decent human

being

this is conceivable a person wants to be

a decent human being because that way he

feels better because that way the world

is better I would like to think I don't

believe that I'm ever going to heaven or

hell I think that when I die there will

be nothingness that's what I firmly

believe that does not mean that I have

the impulse to go out rob and steal and

rape and everything else because I don't

fear punishment for one thing I feel

worldly but I fear worldly punishment

and for a second thing I fear the

punishment of my own conscience I have a

conscience it doesn't depend on religion

and I think it's so without the people

to besides even under in societies in

which religion is very powerful there's

no shortage of crime and sin and misery

and terrible things happening despite

heaven and hell I mean I imagine if you

go down death row a bunch of murderers

maybe who are waiting for execution

that's cool if they believe in God yes

ray dismiss reception that exists in the

public mind about atheism oh there's

lots of them but I would say the

greatest misconception about atheism is

that we're not nice people I think that

a lot of people think

morality comes from religion religion

teaches that morality comes from

religion and therefore if you don't have

religion you don't have morality so I

think the greatest misconception of

atheism is that we're not nice and or

immoral which of course cannot be the

case it cannot be the case because all

the data combats that the population of

people who are non-religious in this

country depending on your polls goes

somewhere between 15 and 30 percent the

population of atheists or non-religious

people in federal prisons is 0.07

percent zero point zero seven of one

percent so the the amount of people the

amount of atheists who are committing

crimes is tiny compared to the amount of

atheists out there on the other hand if

you look at it from a morality

perspective from and from an outside

perspective you can see what's happening

people change churches for a reason they

changed churches because they don't

agree with the church they're in if they

don't agree with the church they're in

so they they say okay well this

discharge isn't doing something it's not

striking my moral fancy I'm going to go

to this church over here because it does

well that means morality is independent

of religion and then what they do is

they go to this church over here that

says okay your morality is correct and

God says so and then they say ah God

gives me my morality right and that's

that's it's kind of backwards but that's

how the that's how it works the reality

is that every single human pics their

own morality morality is relative and

everybody picks it everybody chooses it

the only difference between an atheist

and a theist is that an atheist will

internalize it and say this is my

morality and a theist will say this is

my morality because I get it from my

religion

[Applause]

if I could ask you if there's one thing

you wanted people to remember that you

could say about science what would that

be that the universe is knowable and

what one need not appeal to mystical

magical forces to account for things

even if a day arises where something

unfolds in front of your eyes that you

cannot explain just because you cannot

explain it does not mean it is being

driven by mystical magical forces it

just means it's being driven by laws of

physics that we know and you have yet to

learn or that we have all yet to

discover but the universe is knowable

and that's an amazing thing

it's knowable by our feeble human brain

that rose up out of the you know the

Serengeti

it's the plains of Africa to rise up

just to survive to not get eaten and we

build a civilization where we have

sufficient free time so that we can

contemplate our place in the universe

the second third is a little more

pragmatic religion is our first that's

why I'm so fascinated with it it's our

first version of the truth it's our

first attempt as a species it's what we

tried when we didn't know anything we

didn't know we lived on a spherical

planet we didn't know that our planet

revolved around the Sun we didn't know

that there were microorganisms that

explain disease we thought diseases came

from curses or witches or ill wishing or

Devils or dust devils we know anything

from the childish terrified ignorant

origins of our animal primate species we

come to regen it's also a first attempt

of philosophy our first attempt at

morality our first attempt at health

care actually but because it was our

first it is our worst we now have better

the nation's for all these dreads and we

have cleared up all of these mysteries

yet we still dwell and in some countries

in some societies not just dwell but

live under under a totalitarian regime

that forbids us to think about the

progress that has been made or denies us

the knowledge that these advances have

in fact occurred so it has become where

once it probably was an aid to our

survival a really great peril to our

continued ability to live as a civilized

species thus it seems to me that in

point of its proposing of a totalitarian

solution to what is after a real problem

to it's ghastly

reliance upon the supernatural rather

than the much more miraculous much more

beautiful much more elegant much more

numinous much more harmonious natural

explanations think how much lovelier

Einstein and Darwin are think oh how

much more elegant and persuasive they

are than the idea of the burning bush or

the for the eye or the or the demand

that without circumcision there can be

no redemption just just you should be

doing over and over again is comparing

the predictions or expectations under

theism to under naturalism you find that

over and over again naturalism wins and

I'm gonna zoom through these it's not

the individual arguments that are

important it's the accumulated effect if

theism were really true there's no

reason for God to be hard to find he

should be perfectly obvious whereas in

naturalism you might expect people

believe in God but the evidence to be

thin on the ground under theism you'd

expect that religious beliefs should be

universal there's no reason for God to

give special messages to this or that

primitive tribe thousands of years ago

why not give it to anyone

whereas under naturalism you'd expect

different religious beliefs inconsistent

with with each other to grow up under

different local conditions under theism

you'd expect religious doctrines to last

a long time in a stable way under

naturalism you'd expect them to adapt to

social conditions under theism you'd

expect the moral teachings of religion

to be transcendent progressive sexism is

wrong slavery is wrong under naturalism

you'd expect that they reflect once

again local mores sometimes good rules

sometimes not so good you'd expect the

sacred texts under theism to give us

interesting information tell us about

the germ theory of disease tell us to

wash our hands before we have dinner

under naturalism you've expected sacred

texts to be a mishmash some really good

parts and poetic parts and some boring

parts and mythological parts under

theism you'd expect biological forms to

be designed under naturalism they would

derive from the twists and turns of

evolutionary history under theism Minds

should be independent of bodies under

naturalism your personality should

change if you're injured tired or you

haven't had your cup of coffee yet under

theism you'd expect that maybe you can

explain the problem of evil God wants us

to have free will but there shouldn't be

random suffering in the universe life

should be essentially just at the end of

the day in theism you basically expect

the universe to be perfect

under naturalism it should be kind of a

mess this is very strong empirical

evidence now I know what you're thinking

you're thinking but I can explain all of

that I know you could explain also can I

it's not hard to come up with ex post

facto justifications for why God would

have done it that way why is it not hard

because theism is not well defined

that's what computer scientists call a

bug not a feature Amani wilcott famously

said there will never be an Isaac Newton

for a blade of grass

in other words sure you can find some

physical explanation for the motion of

the planets but never for something is

exquisitely organized and complex as a

biological organism except of course

that Charles Darwin then went and did

exactly that we can paraphrase dr.

Craig's message as saying there will

never be an Isaac Newton for the cosmos

but everything we know about the history

of science and the current state of

physics says we should be much more

optimistic than that

thank you

try to convince people that there isn't

why don't you just stay off was the was

the question the question is if there if

there is no God why spend your watching

career trying to refute that why not

just leave it alone and stay home fair

enough

well it's it's not my it isn't my whole

career for one thing it's become a major

preoccupation of my life though in the

last eight or nine years especially

since September 11th 2001 to try and

help generate an opposition to theocracy

and it's depredations internationally

that that that is now probably my main

political preoccupation to help people

in Afghanistan in Somalia in Iraq in

Lebanon in Israel so resist those who

sincerely want to encompass the

destruction of civilization and

sincerely believe they have God on their

side in wanting to do so the thing may

be I will take the few minutes just to

say something that I find repulsive

about especially monotheistic messianic

religion in it with a large part of

itself it quite clearly wants us all to

die it wants this world to come to an

end you can tell the yearning for things

to be over whenever you read any of its

real texts or listen to any of its real

authentic spokesmen not the sort of the

pathetic apologists who sometimes

masquerade for it those who talk there

was the famous spokesman for this in

Virginia until recently about the

rapture say that those of us who have

chosen rightly will be gathered to the

arms of Jesus leaving all of the rest of

you behind if we're in a car

it's your lookout that car won't have a

driver anymore if we're if we're a pilot

that's your lookout that plane will

crash we will be with Jesus and the rest

of you can go straight to hell the the

eschatological element that is

inseparable from Christianity if you

don't believe that there is to be an

apocalypse there is going to be an end

a separation of the sheep and the goats

a condemnation final one then you're not

really a believer and the contempt for

the things of this world shows through

all of them it's well put in an old

rhyme from a an English exclusive

brethren set says that we are the pure

and chosen few and all the rest are

damned

there's ruin up in hell for you we don't

want heaven crammed you can tell it when

you see the extreme Muslims talk they

cannot wait they cannot wait for death

and destruction to overtake and

overwhelm the world they can't wait for

for a what I would call without

ambiguity a final solution when you look

at the Israeli settlers paid for often

by American tax dollars designed if they

can steal enough land from other people

and get all the Jews into the Promised

Land and all the non-jews out of it then

finally the Jewish people will be worthy

of the return of the Messiah and there

are Christians in this country who

consider it their job to help this

happen so that Armageddon can occur so

the painful business of living as humans

and studying civilization and trying to

acquire learning and knowledge and

health and medicine and to push that can

all be scrapped and and the cult of

death can take over that to me is a

hideous thing in eschatological terms in

end times terms on its own hateful idea

a hateful practice and a hateful theory

but very much to be opposed in our daily

lives where there are people who

sincerely mean it who want who want to

ruin the good relations that could exist

between different peoples nations racist

countries tribes ethnicities who say who

openly say they love death more than we

love life and who are betting that with

God on their side they're right about

that so when I say is the subtitle of my

book that I think religion poisons

everything I'm not just doing what

publishers like and coming up with a

provocative subtitle I mean to say it

infects

in the you know most basic integrity it

says we can't be moral without Big

Brother without a totalitarian

permission it means we can't be good to

one another means we can't think without

this we must be afraid we must also be

forced to love someone who we fear the

essence of sadomasochism at the essence

of abjection

the essence of the master/slave

relationship and that knows that death

is coming and can't wait to bring it on

i say this is evil and though i do some

nights stay home i enjoy more the nights

when i go out and fight against this

ultimate wickedness and ultimate

stupidity thank you

then I'll give you one final thought

experiment this is what you have to

believe now if you're monotheistic we

because we now know things we didn't

used to know we know that the human

species could be as not just 200,000

years ago it did it become separate from

the cro-magnons and the rival premiums

which could be as little as a hundred

Richard Dawkins thinks two hundred

thousand Francis Collins who did the

human genome project who's by the way CS

Lewis kind of Christian things one

hundred thousand all right I'll take a

hundred I'll take a hundred here's what

you have to believe for a hundred

thousand years humans are born as the

primate species expectation of life what

25 years for the first few hundred

thousand first few tens of thousands

infant mortality right microorganism

disease terrified earthquakes volcanoes

extraordinary but and fights over land

over territory over food over women of

tribalism frightening two four ninety

five ninety six thousand years heaven

watches this with folded arms with

indifference with coldness and then

around three to four thousand years ago

but only in really barbaric illiterate

parts for the Middle East not in China

not in China or where people can read or

think or do science no no no in barbaric

illiterate backward parts of the Middle

East it's decided we can't let this go

on we better intervene and what better

way than by human sacrifices and plagues

and mass murder and if that doesn't make

them behave morally we just don't know

what ants

if there is a single person in this room

who can bring themselves to believe

anything remotely like that they convict

themselves of being first very stupid

and second very immoral and thus it

seems to me that the case for divine

intervention for the supernatural Falls

and that we should be glad that it's

fallen and thank you

[Applause]