Answering a Priest’s Open Letter

foreign atheists why hello my fellow apes i hope you're well casey cole of breaking in the habit is a catholic priest writer and blogger and he's recently published an open letter address to atheists as an atheist here's my response [Music] atheists thanks for clicking on this video it means a lot to me really i'm a religious guy who's devoted my life to a god you don't believe in so you're taking a bit of a risk here that i might insult you make you feel bad about your life or at the very least waste your time i really do appreciate it and i hope not to do any of those things here i appreciate the concern casey but in the case of this atheist you need not worry about offense even if you make my blood boil and my fists crack i'll get over it i don't have a right not to be offended and nor would i want one rather i'd like to pose a question to you it's a very simple question in fact it is more of an exhortation from me to you this question is not meant to trick you or convert you i don't have some super ingenious question that will somehow inspire faith in a deity as much as i'd love to i'd rather just like to challenge you you say that you're an atheist that you don't believe in gods and i just want to know one thing are you a good one are you a good atheist it's a question that i ask with two things in mind the first being relate to morality okay so in the context of morality this is a bit of a strange question as to ask if i'm a good atheist is akin to asking if i'm a good non-stamp collector the reason for this is because my standard of what's morally good and conviction as to whether or not i live up to that standard isn't derived from even my lack of believing in god's or my lack of stamp collecting given this i can only really conceive of your question is one of asking whether or not i'm a good person who also happens to be an atheist while religion in general and christianity in particular doesn't necessarily make someone a moral person these ways of life do necessarily demand morality of adherence the word demand here is worth exploring as it raises the euphrate dilemma which asks is an action good because god commands it or does god command it because it's good if god commands it because it's good the morality supersedes god and thus it can be said that the theist and the atheist get their morality from the same source whereas if on the contrary an act is good only because god commands it then morality is arbitrary and all good acts are reduced to mere obedience for instance if god commands as he did in numbers 31 for the annihilation of an entire people except for the little girls who are to be kept alive for rather repugnant reason then this is no longer repugnant but rather it's necessarily good but no matter how you deal with the euphor dilemma and more to casey's point the religious which includes some atheists who believe in such things as reincarnation certainly have something that non-religious people do not the belief that they reap the consequences of their actions after their death there is a particular code of life that one must live in the case of catholic christianity that code is one of peace and justice mercy and forgiveness it's a code that seeks to care for the poor and seek reparations for those who take advantage of the vulnerable you move on hastily from this statement casey but you have to forgive my refusing to do the same let's consider for a moment just a few of the codes you just mentioned beginning with justice according to catholicism i am bound for eternal damnation despite my genuine search for god despite my digesting more apologetic and theological content than the vast majority of theists i am so made as blaise pascal put it as not to believe and because of this finite crime i am to receive the infinite punishment of hell how is that justice and even if you happen to subscribe to the doctrine of annihilationism which most christians don't how is it just that the gates of heaven are closed to me simply because i insist on using the mind that god gave me next you speak of mercy but the problem here is that mercy is by definition the suspension of justice if justice demands that i burn in perpetuity then any act of mercy even a mere second granted to wipe away my tears is a violation of what i deserve it's the suspension of what's just now i appreciate that this is somewhat beyond the crux of your question but the notion that theists have some consistent moral positions simply isn't true not only is abrahamic morality played with logical contradictions and inconsistencies but the briefest grasp of history entirely exposes its relativity to socioeconomic circumstances it pays not to forget that just a few centuries ago christians insisted that it's moral to own slaves and with very strong biblical justification no less and even today the christian perspective of homosexuals is changing rapidly despite the otherwise really quite explicit edicts i wonder is your god changing his mind if he isn't then the majority of christians before you are awaiting me in hell but if he is changing his mind and your christian morality is relative you have moral codes yes but they are of the second horn of the euphyphro dilemma now lord knows we don't always live up to our founder and have actually done some pretty atrocious things through the years but it is our faith that at least informs us when we do these things and gives us and reminds us a moral code to live by reminds us that it's not an option we must strive to be good people now as someone who doesn't have this foundation who doesn't believe in a god or adhere to a religion there is no superstructure making this demand on your life no one telling you how to live in certain situations there actually is a superstructure but we'll get to this a little later as you rightfully emphasize casey the god of abrahamic faiths demands adherence to act in accordance to his edicts under threat of eternal consequence if they you don't act according to his demands then you will suffer repercussion after death but because god's wrath is the motivator all of your good acts are at least tarnished by self-concern the same is not true however of the atheist when an atheist acts in a good way when she gives to charity or puts herself in danger to help a stranger she does so without hope of divine repayment her sacrifice is truly a sacrifice since the whiff of reward is absent her act is good in and of itself i don't say this to one up or anything but rather to illustrate that the divine superstructure the u pedestal actually impairs morality without a belief in an afterlife there might be a feeling that all the world is feudal so what difference does it make to the contrary it makes all the difference if there is no afterlife then what we do in life means everything every finite moment with our loved ones every smile every hug every laugh is infinitely more precious because upon a day we won't be able to do it again our only hope for echoing through the centuries is via our contributions it's through what we leave behind now you might respond what about in 10 billion years when the sun is long gone surely all of our acts are futile if we are destined for oblivion well in that sense yes it's all for nor in the grand scheme of things we're not even a pawn in the cosmic game at play but that doesn't mean that we don't have a superstructure when i express that you and everyone listening are my fellow apes i refer implicitly to the superstructure that binds all life on earth evolution by natural selection you and i are members of a social species we experience joy at the prospect of helping one another we're not in this alone we're in it together as richard dawkins fleshed out in the selfish gene just as when a bee sacrifices herself to protect the hive that is protect her own genes which are possessed by her kin natural selection has imbued us with the same nature we will sacrifice ourselves both literally and metaphorically for the betterment of our hive and we will love and cherish those that do the same this might not be the type of superstructure that you had in mind but it is a superstructure and is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence this of course does not need to be the case some of the world's greatest humanitarians some of the most influential figures today promoting peace and justice efforts are not adherents to a religion but live morally out of a commitment to humanity a recognition of our interconnectedness and acknowledgement that there is something good in itself about loving one another about sacrifice if there is indeed something good in and of itself about loving one another about sacrifice then as stated earlier morality isn't grounded in a god now as a moral anti-realist i wouldn't call any act good in and of itself but because of the aforementioned superstructure i do think that we come into this world with the oblique goal of preserving our hive and that acts that achieve this are deserving of the word good and so i ask you are you a good atheist even though there may be no eternal reward or punishment even though you're free to do whatever you want do you choose the virtuous path that benefits not only you but others i hope so the world needs good atheist now of course the word good points to more than just a sense of morality it also represents an evaluation of aptitude when i ask if you're a good atheist i want to know if you're good at being an atheist do you articulate why you don't believe in god in a coherent way we just think that religion's dumb so use logical fallacies it's not so much that atheists use logical fallacies any more than they use mathematical miscalculations rather they point out the logical fallacies committed by arguments just as they point out the miscalculations within equations now your phrasing of atheists is either one being able to articulate why they don't believe in a god in a coherent way do you articulate why you don't believe in god in a coherent way or two atheists just think that religion is dumb and so use logical fallacies we just think that religion's dumb so use logical fallacies suggests that coherence and emphasizing logical fallacies are mutually exclusive but in actuality they're two sides of the same coin an atheist that can coherently state why she's not convinced of theism will very likely make reference to the fallacies of theistic argumentation have you explored the depths of your mind and heart asking the real questions of life of death faith and reason seeking to understand what this human life is really about you just not want to go to church so this'll do in my experience the average atheist has fought a great deal more about life's difficult questions and the average theist questions such as why is there something rather than nothing why would there be some god rather than no god why did the earth exist for billions of years before our being here why are there billions and billions of stars in the universe if the earth is the main stage why do other animals feel pain why does malaria plague and covet exist why is it that religious people almost always adopt the religion of their parents why are innocent babies born with cancer no doubt a minority of theists take such questions as these seriously but the vast majority answer it with the mystery of god who are we to understand his creation the answer is simple it is the way that it is for a reason perfectly sufficient to god atheists on the other hand don't have this get out of jail free card we don't have an all-encompassing answer for the longest time we've had to embrace the humility of not knowing any of the answers but as science has progressed the god of the gaps has shrunk where once god held the planets in place we now recognize general relativity where once god bestowed us with complexity we now recognize natural selection where once cancer in children spawned theodicy we now recognize that nature smiles upon us with indifference it's not that we just don't want to attend church casey any more than you just don't want to attend a tarot reading have you read the critical atheist thinkers of history people like nietzsche sartre fuerbach high digger people who really ask the challenging questions who pose thoughtful insights of the world or just stick with people like richard dawkins people who provide great sound bites for the cause ep but do little to add anything to the world other than straw man arguments and divisiveness to hand wave dawkins off as someone who hasn't positively contributed to the world is just um well it's just wrong the selfish gene revolutionized evolutionary thought in fact i've even referenced it in this response already and over the years dawkins has so consistently and effectively dismantled creationism that he's heavily contributed to it falling out of favor his conscious raising has made a world of difference now sure he isn't some philosophical superstar but to say that he hasn't added anything good to the world merely reveals that you unfortunately have never given him the time of day have you read for yourself the works of real theologians people articulating our beliefs in the best way we know how carl rauner john henry newman joseph ratzinger augustine of hippo andre de lubac or do you stick with the simplicity of evangelical pastors from some rural anti-intellectual church i wonder casey if we were to enter an average church would you bet your tithe on the majority of the flock having read the names you just mentioned me neither so why expect the average atheist to do the same of similar concern have you read all the venerated hindu scholars articulating and defending samsara what about the creme de la creme of astrology have you read their works do you even know their names you probably don't because if i was to take a guess you have better things to do with your life and i don't blame you well the same is true of many atheists when it comes to apologetics but with that said some atheists for various reasons maintain an interest in theism even when they're long confident that the burden of proof hasn't been met such as myself consequently we do read the words of theologians and apologists including those you mentioned but to say that this is a requirement for one to be a good atheist is pretty clumsy i mean are you a good non-reincarnationist moving on you complain about the simplicity of evangelical pastors but here's the thing it's their arguments that are wielded by most theists as they attempt to enforce and enshrine their religion in government and education it's not the atheist's fault that most theists opt for poor argumentation if you want atheists to consider newman convince the flocks to present his arguments as opposed to the anti-intellectuals as you put it i ask all this not to be accusatory at least not overly accusatory but to simply challenge you to go deeper in your thought simply declaring yourself an atheist and going about your life isn't enough actually it is just as going about your life after declaring that you're not convinced by the proposition of reincarnation is enough if one wants to spend hundreds of hours effectively trying to believe in reincarnation then have at it but to refuse to do this isn't some failure atheism isn't an ideology and thus it doesn't demand expectation outside of its definition there are no edicts in atheism there is no creed there is no way to be good at it just as saying you're a christian and never reading the bible wouldn't be enough ask more questions read more perspectives be able to articulate your understanding of the world with logic and reasoning that will actually add something to the world because here's the thing people of faith need you to be good atheist we do as a christian i don't want you to be a bad atheist with an unexplored mind just regurgitating fallacies and as a non-religious person i don't want to have to point out the fallacies in your arguments but like galileo a christian i believe that if there is a god then she wouldn't bestow us with a mind and then intend for us to forego its use if i might be so bold as to make a recommendation casey may i suggest that you cease associating bad atheists with those who earnestly point out flaws in your beliefs your aspersions that you throw on logical fallacies contradicts your stated desire to engage with good atheists i want you to ask questions that we've never thought to answer i want you to be so smart that it challenges us to be smarter as crazy as it sounds i would much rather you be a good atheist than just an atheist and so that is my humble message to you from one believer to a non-believer we may not agree on much but that doesn't mean that we don't need each other or can't learn something from one another we do and we can peace and good to you father casey peace and good to you too my fellow weep thank you for publishing your letter and should you wish to have a public or private conversation then here's my email and to all of you watching thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who have supported the channel via other memes in 10 billion years time it will probably all be for naught but for now in the time in which anything means anything i sincerely appreciate it

Channel: Rationality Rules

Views: 120,334

Rating: 4.9397001 out of 5

Keywords: priest letter, priest letter response, catholic priest, atheism, dear atheists

Id: OmEBz3G_5DQ

Length: 17min 16sec (1036 seconds)

Published: Sun May 09 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/stolenrange]

Rule number 1 is you dont respond to idiots. If someone is being an idiot or trying to provoke you, responding to them does more damage than saying nothing and cutting them from your life.

[u/spaceghoti]

While this video does an excellent job of getting into the weeds regarding the problems in the priest's letter, he somehow manages to overlook the fact that the entire argument being made is an example of The Courtier's Reply.