Famed atheist Richard Dawkins celebrated his 80th birthday this week. Many leading thinkers and celebrities, such as Stephen Fry and Neil deGrasse Tyson have sent their congratulations and I wanted to add my best wishes as he reaches this milestone.
Whilst I clearly disagree with what many of the things Dawkins says, and I come to a different conclusion as to the existence of God. I have found his work deeply influential in my life.
When people ask me what books have impacted me the most, I say The Bible and The God Delusion.
The impact of The God Delusion
I read The God Delusion some 14 years ago not long after it was released and it had a profound effect on me. It challenged many of my lazy presuppositions on the existence of God and confronted me with some of life’s biggest questions. It was provocative and stimulating. It woke me from my ‘dogmatic slumbers’ and set me on a course to work out if there really was evidence for the Christian faith.
My faith was radically shaken and I seriously questioned whether God was really there: did my prayers merely bounce off the ceiling? Were the Gospels trustworthy? Did atheism better explain the world around me.
Agreement with method
I found that as I engaged Dawkins’ works, I concurred with his method – I value evidence and reasons to believe something is true. I completely agree with Dawkins that religion should not be beyond critical examination and a person should be able to give reasons for their belief in God. Deference to simplistic reasons like ‘just have faith’ or ‘because my mum believes’, or ‘because it’s how I was brought up, were clearly inadequate.
Hence as I seriously contemplated atheism and jettisoning my faith, it was Dawkins’ approach toward evidence which helped me grow in my faith and sharpen the reasons to believe in God and that Jesus was who he claimed to be. I gave a talk several times, ‘Why I love Richard Dawkins, but I’m not an atheist’. The main reason I gave was ‘evidence’, particularly the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus found in 1 Corinthians 15. This is evidence which gives solid reasons to believe Jesus really was raised from the dead because it’s early – predating any of the Gospels by at least a decade – it’s sourced from and references multiple eyewitnesses, it comes from a source initially hostile to the resurrection – Paul once persecuted the church and it best explains the data we have concerning the rise of the early church. Thus we have good ‘evidence’ that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead, which in turn provides me evidence that God is real and the Christian message is true.
So many thanks Richard
So I am very grateful for Richard Dawkins for helping me constantly question and seek answers to hard questions and always desire for evidence. Perhaps it’s not the birthday message he wanted to hear, but I am thankful for Richard Dawkins because he enabled me to be firmer in my faith in God and has helped me articulate much clearer reasons for believing in God.
There is little doubt that question of the reality of God is a question which polarises and divides. Why is there such passionate disagreement? Does what we believe even matter? Would it be better people simply stopped bringing it up?
Some time back I hosted a conversation between two eminent philosophers of different worldviews (one an atheist and the other a Christian) where we thought through these questions and more. Both guests, Graham Oppy and Greg Restall, are full professors of philosophy:. Graham works as Professor of Philosophy at Monash University (and is probably one of the leading philosophy of religion thinkers in the world). Greg works as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne where he teaches philosophy and logic.
The topic was ‘how can we learn to have better conversations about God’. We explored some of the content and manner in our arguments for and against the existence, reality and nature of God.
It was a very good natured conversation and demonstrated that we can indeed have good civil conversations to sharpen our own concepts and understandings on these ‘big questions’.
The problem of evil not enough to reject the existence of God
I was struck, that the atheist, Graham Oppy, was not persuaded that the ‘problem of evil’ was sufficient reason to reject the existence of God. This is contrary to the views of many advocates for atheism, such as Sam Harris, Peter Singer, and Ricky Gervais. Hence perhaps it’s too simple to use the ‘problem of evil’ as a knockdown argument against God.
In fact, Oppy argues that all philosophical arguments used for and against God fail. Perhaps this is controversial, but he contends that whilst philosophy does sharpen our understanding of the world, it’s purpose is not so much for having arguments, but for forming worldviews.
Humility is important
Both Oppy and agreed that humility and listening well to the others would help in the process of having discussions about God. – you may well learn something. Perhaps there is wisdom in the Old Testament book of Proverbs?
When pride comes, then comes disgrace,
but with humility comes wisdom.
A great listen
It’s well worth listening to and I’ve included the two recordings which offer some fascinating insights and perhaps a model for how to have a civil and thoughtful conversation about god, gods and the bigger questions of life.
You can access part 1 of the conversation here:
Part 2 is found here:
The other day I noticed this Twitter exchange stimulated by Richard Dawkins who tweeted that he had finished reading a book on a controversial topic. He recommended ‘The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity’ by Debra Soh. Yet fellow atheist Matt Dillahunty chimed in with an astonishing response:
I found Matt’s response astonishing on several levels:
Dillahunty shows Dawkins a complete lack of respect personally
Dillahunty and Dawkins would know each other personally as they have shared a number of (very big) stages together. Dillahunty has done a number of dialogues with Dawkins (and also Sam Harris) which Dillahunty dubbed a ‘celebration of science and reason’. He’s been effusive of Dawkins when introducing him, describing him as ‘amazing’ and wonderful’. No doubt, sharing these stages with one of the most famous atheists in the world today probably didn’t do Dillahunty’s profile and reputation any harm.
Hence I find it astonishing that someone who you know personally, you’ve shared a stage with, have perhaps benefitted from personally and professionally you can then call an embarrassment and ‘F off and retire’. Astonishing!
Dillahunty shows Dawkins a complete lack of respect professionally
Yet it’s not just the lack of personal respect Dillahunty has offered to someone that you know personally and have shared a stage with, but I find astonishing Dillahunty’s lack of respect towards Dawkins’ professional credentials.
Dawkins is an actual scientist (and a biologist no less) with impressive scientific credentials. Dawkins is also one of the world’s leading science educators. Hence Dawkins would have at least some professional expertise and capacity to judge the reasonableness of the research he’s engaging in the book he’s recommending. Hence wouldn’t someone reacting to his views at least consider what Dawkins’ has to say in this area?
But, unfortunately to Dillahunty, no, his views are an “embarrassment”. Which unfortunately demonstrates a lack of respect to Dawkins’ capacity as a scientist and as one who can interpret evidence. Astonishing!
What does this say about ‘evidence, science and reason’ when it comes to gender theory?
Without confronting this broad topic in this brief post, Dillahunty’s aggressive reaction presents a challenge to the idea that both Dawkins and Dillahunty live by evidence, science and reason. They both claim to live by evidence, but what exactly is the evidence here?
The book Dawkins’ quotes is written by international sex researcher and neuroscientist Debra Soh. In it she claims to ‘debunk popular gender myths in this research-based, scientific examination of the many facets of gender identity.’ Hence the study appears to be scientific study and contains some ‘evidence’ for the views that it presents. Indeed Dawkins’ himself, a scientist, one who ‘follows evidence’ finds it compelling.
Yet Dillahunty considers this embarrassing. So what exactly is the evidence here? What exactly does it mean to two people (who at least claim to be) committed to science and reason?
Moreover Dawkins’ raises the issue of intimidation of scientists, and cites some evidence in support of this view i.e. Soh’s study. Yet Dillahunty fails to engage any of this evidence, he simply refers to it as ‘propaganda from transphobes’! Astonishing!
What does this astonishing exchange mean?
So this astonishing little exchange demonstrates that gender ideology is very divisive – dividing two otherwise (seemingly) friendly advocates.
This astonishing exchange challenges what it means to ‘live by science, reason and evidence’, is that even possible? Maybe it demonstrate that there are bigger presuppositions and worldviews in our minds which impact how we interpret ‘evidence’?
But perhaps more worrying this astonishing exchange unfortunately shows that being a high profile atheist doesn’t automatically mean that you treat eminent scientists with respect.
It has been ages since I’ve written on this blog. The main reason has been that I have been focused on developing a radio show and podcast called Bigger Questions. The show often engages the ideas and reflections of modern atheists, I’d be keen to hear what you think of it.
Anyway, recently a couple of things piqued my interest and made me open up the old blog and type out a few ideas. So I’m not sure if I’ll get back to blogging regularly again (and I’ve always been stimulated and enjoyed the interactions on this blog) But for this little season, I’m back at it and hopefully it will stimulate some more discussion.
I noticed this poll which which someone alerted me of recently:
Surprising and not surprising at the same time
The results of this poll simultaneously surprised and didn’t surprise me at the same time
I wasn’t surprised because unfortunately the democratic nature of information on the Internet has allowed pseudo-intellectual ideas to flourish unchallenged without proper critique or criticism. Moreover in the last 15 years or so there has been a rise of anti-theistic hyper skepticism which affirms that basically, there is nothing true or good or right in anything any religion has ever said, claimed or done. Hence it isn’t overly surprising that there are significant numbers of atheists who reject anything close to something, like an historical Jesus, which might be evidence for god or gods.
However, what does surprise me somewhat is that these results undercut the common claim and at times, mantra, that atheists are evidence based and follow the evidence to where it leads. Many follow the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins who claims things such as:
Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
Or elsewhere he writes
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
This view is perhaps best captured by Neil deGrasse Tyson who said:
Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.
This is the rhetoric and the mantra. But alas, the results of this survey demonstrate that the rhetoric doesn’t match reality.
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates an historical Jesus
The problem is that the historical evidence for an historical Jesus is overwhelming. No full Professor of Ancient History in any classics department anywhere in the world seriously entertains this options. Even skeptical scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Gerd Lüdemann never deny the existence of an historical Jesus. There is a massive disagreement about what the historical Jesus said and did, and huge disagreement about the resurrection of Jesus, but they all affirm that an historical Jesus existed. Curiously, Bart Ehrman, whose works are often popular in atheist “apologetic” circles, wrote a book Did Jesus Exist? affirming the existence of an historical Jesus.
Unfortunately the main strategy mythicists employ for denying an historical Jesus is to ignore all the evidence which points to an historical Jesus. Moreover if the same methods of historical hyper skepticism applied by skeptics to the historical Jesus were applied to other ancient historical figures, then we would pretty much eliminate virtually all knowledge of the ancient world and relegate much of Ancient history to myth.
Jesus mythicism is a fringe wing to modern scholarship into history. Yet unfortunately the Jesus myth view is about as credible in academic circles as climate change denial or young earth creationism.
If you want to follow evidence, you must affirm the existence of an historical Jesus. You don’t need to affirm everything written about him or ascribed to him, but historically speaking he did exist.
Conclusion
So whilst the results of this survey didn’t surprise me overly, it did disappoint me that so many who claim to live by evidence demonstrated that they unfortunately don’t. Which then leads me to think that, perhaps controversially, in the thinking of Dawkins, that these atheists are indeed driven by a faith?
Last night I attended the event in Melbourne organised by Think Inc, Science in the Soul: Richard Dawkins. It was a stimulating and enjoyable night as John Safran was in conversation with Professor Richard Dawkins in front of a packed house in Melbourne. I thought I’d type up some of my thoughts and review the night.
Great speaker + big crowd = good night out. I really enjoyed the night. It’s great to attend a well organised event with a very high profile international speaker. There was a big crowd who were eager to hear from Dawkins and he got a rousing reception. It was great to hear the man ‘in the flesh’ and see him live. Dawkins certainly offered some provocative opinions at times and it made for a stimulating night.
Dawkins is a brilliant rhetorician. I felt that the highlights of the evening were when Dawkins read excerpts from his new book, Science in the Soul. These excerpts were classic Dawkins, full of colour, vivid images and razor sharp insights into science, religion and atheism. He read several including a viciously insightful piece on ‘Thoriology’ and ‘a-Thoriology’ – commenting on what he would argue are meaningless discussions on different versions of theology, based on the same baseless myths. He also shared a letter he wrote to Prince Charles and also a dedication to Christopher Hitchens. These were all very engaging and were a great advertorial for his new book.
The evening was more interesting when not talking about science. I felt the evening got off to a very slow start. The conversation with Safran started with discussion of Dawkins tie and the mating habits of peacocks. Then we talked about the origin of natural selection theory and some rather dry discussion on Pterodactyls and a marsupial glider based on a couple of photos from the natural history museum. Perhaps it’s because Dawkins is a bit of a scientific generalist, but this discussion felt a little dry, technical and boring. Dawkins seemed to lack depth of insight or fluency in conversation on theses topics. It was once we left discussion of ‘science’ and moved into topics like religion and atheism that the energy in the conversation picked up. By the end and the audience Q&A the event was humming and I didn’t want it to stop.
Safran kept it superficial and disjointed. Unfortunately I felt that John Safran was a very poor choice as conversation partner. Safran didn’t add much from a technical side – his knowledge of science was pretty ordinary. He missed opportunities to go into any depth and often asked questions which didn’t flow at all from the previous topic of conversation. E.g. we got into an interesting discussion about religion and culture – i.e. how many people actually do believe the tenets of the Christian faith. Then Safran followed this up with a question asking Dawkins how old he was when he was agitated about religion? Which was followed by a question about exorcisms!
Safran played a video by Ray Comfort on bananas which added very little, other than fodder for a quick moments ridicule. It also unfortunately reinforced the idea that Dawkins actually does only attack ‘low hanging fruit’ so to speak.
I wanted to like Safran, and he had an easy style, but in the end, unfortunately I felt he detracted from the night.
Education is the key, but we’ll avoid the really hard questions. Dawkins repeatedly emphasised how important education and critical thinking were to the improvement of society and the eradication of religion. Yet I found it intriguing that despite extolling these things, Dawkins failed to answer (nor perhaps even understand) some of the hardest questions given to him. His answer to an audience question on free will and determinism was: ‘I hate the free will question and I won’t answer it’. I was surprised and disappointed. He never articulated why he wouldn’t answer it. Does he not actually have an opinion on it? Surely one must have an opinion on this, because it’s such an important and significant question (particularly for a naturalist).
I was similarly disappointed that he failed to really answer (or perhaps understand) what I thought was the best audience question of the night. The question referred to a debate between Sam Harris and Sean Carroll on morality and asked Dawkins if an evolutionary case could be made for moral realism or anti-realism. This was a very sharp question and I was literally on the edge of my seat – how would Dawkins combine moral theory with evolutionary biology? Yet again, I was sorely disappointed, Dawkins seemed to not really understand the question and seemed to try to evade the question as quickly as possible.
I felt it a shame that the most stimulating and thoughtful ‘intellectual’ questions were not even attempted at being answered by an intellectual extolling the value of education.
Nothing really new from Dawkins – except one really interesting thing. Much of Dawkins’ comments on religion and atheism were not new. I’d heard many of his arguments and ideas (though some seemed new to the audience). He spoke about the value of understanding reality, was critical of avoiding explanation by saying ‘God did it’ and continued his vindictiveness against Abrahamic religions – accusing them of being ‘petty’ (although precisely why they’re petty is unclear). Yet Dawkins did say something quite interesting at this point, in that if he were to pick a religion, he would go with a native North American religion. He thought it had a more majestic sense of wonder at the universe – which was intriguing, particularly as the Psalmist extols the wonder of the starry host by claiming that the ‘heavens declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1) – which seemed to be what Dawkins claimed to do when looking up at the Milky Way. I was still intrigued that Dawkins was attracted to native North American religion.
Did Dawkins also undermine naturalism? I was intrigued by several statements that Dawkins made which seemed to undermine his naturalism – i.e. where everything is explicable by purely natural processes. He seemed to imply that everything ‘wasn’t’ completely explained by naturalism (this is related to the arguments from consciousness – i.e. of how consciousness can arise from non-consciousness). Here are the inconsistencies:
a) Look to the future. Dawkins claimed that one of the unique elements of humans is that they had the ability to look to the future i.e. take steps to stop being extinct. Then he admitted that natural selection had no foresight. So – if humans have evolved simply as the result of natural selection – how can this be? How can we have something that natural selection can’t do?
b) Darwinian society. Dawkins admitted that Darwinianism was red in tooth and claw and that a Darwinian society is not a society we would like to live – natural selection is brutal. But haven’t humans evolved simply as the result of Darwinian natural selection? If we don’t like it, why is that? It seems to be biting the very hand that feeds us and undermining the very same idea that Dawkins called perhaps ‘the greatest idea ever’.
c) SETI. Dawkins commented on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) and said that one of the ways to find intelligence is through prime numbers. The reason for this is that we could identify intelligence through a ‘non-biological source’. However if humanity is the result of natural biological processes, then surely things like prime numbers do come from a biological source i.e. us. Which means that Dawkins has undermined biology as the sole explanation of humanity (and intelligence).
d) Meaning of life. Dawkins was asked a question about the meaning of life. He said that the biological meaning of life was ‘reproduction’. Then he said that we can now go beyond this to other meanings, e.g. musical, literary, scientific etc, but again, if we are created by biological processes, how can we transcend a purely biological meaning? It would seem that pure naturalism fails again.
e) Progress. Dawkins also made a point about we have made ‘progress’ in a variety of areas, despite people like Donald Trump, Dawkins suggests that things are moving in the right direction. But the very concept of progress is antithetical to naturalism. We can speak of change, but never ‘progress’ as this smuggles in a telos. Under naturalism, there is never a telos – the watchmaker is blind – so why speak of ‘progress’? This sounds more like a Christian idea of time moving towards a certain end point! Again – Dawkins unwittingly undermines his naturalism.
These arguments in many ways are predicated on biological determinism (which Sam Harris articulates) – perhaps this is the reason Dawkins didn’t want to answer the question on free will.
In the end – let’s talk about reality. Dawkins closed in a fitting way by answering a question about the literary nature of religion – could religion provide meaning ‘just as a story’? Dawkins concluded, that you ‘can’t get away with it’. Religion makes claims about the universe and reality and he disagrees. Here we are vintage Dawkins – as a scientist he is interested in claims that are either scientifically true or not.
The evening stimulated us all to think about these questions – science, the universe, God, religion and reality – hence it was a fitting way to end a fascinating evening.
I registered for the upcoming Think Inc. event Science in the Soul, which will be in Melbourne this coming Saturday night. It was to be a conversation between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. I was really looking forward to the event.
However, recently I received an email about this event from the organisers Think Inc:
Important Announcement: Science in the Soul Melbourne
This is a reminder that Lawrence Krauss will no longer be joining the Richard Dawkins: Science in the Soul and John Safran will continue the tour with Richard in his place.
I read the opening paragraph and was quite shocked. A reminder? I was unaware that Lawrence Krauss was no longer a part of the tour. This was the first I’d heard of it (and I’d had my ticket booked for some time).
I know that Lawrence Krauss had been under public pressure in recent months following allegations of sexual misbehaviour. So I was wondering what Krauss would do with this very public tour with Richard Dawkins given the shadow cast by these allegations. I’m not going to comment much on whether or not Krauss should have gone ahead with the tour (I don’t know enough about the allegations, but given the nature of the allegations, it was probably wise to stay out of the public space for a while). Yet I was not told anything by the event organisers until this email – which was apparently a reminder, but I don’t recall any previous direct communication.
I searched on Think Inc’s Facebook page and discovered a post on March 8th which announced:
Think Inc. wish to advise that Lawrence Krauss has stepped down from the Science In The Soul shows in Australia and New Zealand this May. The ‘Science In The Soul’ shows will continue with Richard Dawkins with a special guest co-host announcement forthcoming.
That is fair enough, but even though I follow Think Inc. on Facebook (and am a reasonably frequent user), I missed this announcement. I would have thought that an email to all people who had bought tickets (and spent quite a lot of money on them) would have been a proper courtesy to inform of the significant change to the advertised event. Perhaps Think could have offered a refund or revision of the terms of the original event?
I can appreciate that it would be difficult for Krauss to appear, but a clear and quick email notification of the change to ticket holders would have been much appreciated (and sufficient).
So when the email announcing John Safran as the host with Dawkins I must confess I felt quite disappointed. I was disappointed, not just about the manner of the way it was announced, but in the choice of Safran himself. Safran has his strengths and some interesting things to add. But Krauss is a world leading scientist and author of popular books on science and public engagement of science, whereas, a friend of mine described Safran as ‘a clown’ after his appearance on Q&A in 2011.
Safran is not anywhere in the same league as Lawrence Krauss. So it really has diminished the attractiveness of the event.
I can appreciate that it is difficult to get a replacement for someone like Krauss, but perhaps choosing an eminent scientist to converse with Dawkins, perhaps a local scientist, or a science educator?
I am willing to change my mind, but I must confess, I’m not overly enthusiastic about Safran on stage. I can see why he has been chosen, he has some public profile, done a couple of documentaries in the ‘religion and God’ space. But he hasn’t really done much in the way of science and I’m not sure how the chemistry will go with him and Dawkins. Dawkins is passionate about science and doesn’t suffer fools lightly, I’m not sure how he’l enjoy a conversation with Safran. Perhaps I have missed something about Safran that makes him a good choice? I’d be happy to be persuaded otherwise, I suppose I’ll find out on Saturday night.
I probably would still have gone to the event even if they had offered a full refund. I will probably still be stimulated by the event on Saturday night.
I don’t want to be too much of a whinger (though this post has a bit of a ‘rant’ feel about it) – I am still looking forward to seeing Dawkins (though I’m not overly excited about hearing John Safran – but I am willing to change my mind). But this whole experience has left me with a slightly sour taste given the expense of this event and the way in which this significant change in line-up has been handled.
The 2018 Global Atheist Convention, Reason to Hope, has been cancelled due to lack of interest. This is obviously a major blow and disappointment to the organisers, the Atheist Foundation of Australia, particularly after such successful conventions in 2010 and 2012.
Whilst disappointing, I am not surprised by this decision. I think that several things went wrong in the planning of this convention.
1. Cost
I received an email just before it was cancelled saying that unless 700 tickets were sold in the next couple of days the convention would be cancelled. Given the average ticket price, this amounted to an estimated $200,000 of income that was required in a short space of time. This would indicate a serious miscalculation in the budgeting process for this event.
The 2012 Global Atheist Convention was priced at a premium, but that event included many of the top popular atheist speakers in the world including the “four horsemen” of the anti-religious apocalypse: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens (he was still alive when he was announced as a speaker, but died before the convention).
That event was priced at a premium but this was justified given the calibre and appeal of the speakers. Yet unfortunately the speakers chosen for the 2018 convention did not have the same appeal and hence did not justify similar premium pricing. The 2018 prices were based on the 2012 Convention, but given the large difference in quality of the ‘product’, the high prices were unjustified. Many people cited cost as a key reason to not attend the convention.
2. Speaker choice
Related to this was probably the key reason the convention failed was the choice of speakers.
The 2012 convention was a success because it gathered the most popular atheist speakers in the world at that time together. It was an almost unprecedented line-up. which included Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Singer, Daniel Dennett, AC Grayling and PZ Myers – all of whom were not included in the 2018 event. Another potential drawcard and star of the more recent AFA Unholy Trinity DownUnder tour of 2015, Matt Dillahunty, was absent. Curiously Aron Ra also from that Unholy Trinity tour and not Dillahunty was invited to speak even though Dillahunty has a much bigger profile and following (and in my view is a better and more appealing speaker).
Whilst the 2018 speakers were no doubt very good, very few had anywhere near the profile as public atheists compared with the 2012 lineup. It seemed like a miscalculation to not invite these ‘celebrity’ atheists.
Moreover the speakers chosen for 2018 were not known especially for their atheism and had not published works in the ‘new’ atheist canon! Furthermore, it was also curious at how within a movement which prides itself on being rational and ‘scientific’ at how few scientists or science educators were invited to speak, certainly far fewer than 2018.
Indeed at the same time the GAC were promoting their convention, Think Inc were promoting an (affordable) event with Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins later in 2018 – which I anticipate to be a sold-out success! It will sell out because the speakers appeal to the core of the AFA constituents: celebrity scientists who oppose and ridicule religion.
Perhaps these ‘celebrity’ atheist speakers were not invited because they were all white anglo males, and the AFA wanted a more diverse line-up. But this misunderstands to whom the ‘new’ atheism predominantly appeals.
3. Misunderstanding their own constituents
The AFA has built a substantial following on the ‘rise of atheism’ stimulated by the writings of the ‘new’ atheists between 2004-2011, and the timing and speaker lineup of the 2012 convention reflected and capitalised on this. This was a substantial factor contributing to the success of the 2010 and 2012 conventions.
But the leaders (and followers) of this movement were predominantly wealthy white males. This is reflected in the main speakers (e.g. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Grayling, Singer, Dillahunty, Krauss and Myers) and those who regularly attend AFA events.
Hence the decision to attempt a more ‘diverse’ speaker line-up whilst ignoring the demographics of they key constituents was a risky decision.
Most notably the decision to invite Clementine Ford was one clearly aimed at redressing the perceived male-oriented nature of modern atheism and to promote a more feminist friendly atheism. Yet this overlooked the fact that there are clear strands of misogyny running through ‘new’ atheism. For example, I recall at the 2012 convention, one of the comedians Jim Jefferies made an appallingly misogynistic joke (which also challenges the objection that it is just religion which is bad news for women!).
Yet Ford was hardly the best person to address the issue of feminism and atheism. She is an aggressive speaker who hardly appeals to this demographic. Indeed her presence in the line-up merely served to alienate core constituents from the convention – which was clear from the outrage on the Facebook page when she was announced.
Hence the decision to invite feminists like Ford, and the failure to invite the ‘celebrity’ speakers (who were white males), demonstrates that the AFA had seriously misunderstood their own constituents and of why atheists would want to attend a convention in the first place.
Ironically, whilst the 2018 the convention was meant to demonstrate diversity and equality, but it would appear that the modern ‘new’ atheist movement is not so interested in diversity or equality.
4. The changing face of atheism
I also wonder if this failure reveals a loss of momentum for the new atheism?
This cancellation reflects the fact that the surge of interest in atheism which accompanied the writings of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc has slowed.
The new atheism was somewhat a celebrity protest movement built on built on emotion, passion and aggression- ie celebrity figures (e.g. the four horsemen) leading a passionate protest against the excesses of religion and religious influence. The catalyst for this movement being the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The successes of the 2010 and 2012 conventions was partly based on a first-time opportunity for people to hear these new celebrity anti-religious heroes in action.
Yet protest movements always die out and lose momentum as the anger subsides.
Part of the loss of momentum is that the memory of September 11 is receding and the perceived urgency of their task of opposing religion has waned.
Part of the loss of momentum has perhaps been that for many, the new atheism embodies many of the same dogmatic and aggressive features of religion they so vehemently criticise?
Part of the loss of momentum is the death of Christopher Hitchens.
Part of the loss of momentum is that these new atheist speakers aren’t saying much new (and once you’ve heard them, why listen to them again?).
Part of the loss of momentum is that divisions and challenges have emerged within atheist movement e.g. elevatorgate!
Hence once the initial anger and unity that the new atheism expressed between 2004-2012 subsided, it is unclear of where the new atheism heads next. What does ‘organised’ atheism stand for?
The 2018 Atheist convention offered a potential pathway to transition the new atheists to a movement of substantial social change – a reason to hope!
But unfortunately a movement which has its roots on protest (and celebrity) becomes difficult to transition to something more lasting, substantial and meaningful. And this is a key factor explaining the failure of the 2018 Global Atheist Convention.
This perhaps reveals that atheists can’t agree on what to stand for (apart from criticising religion), or does it reveal that modern atheism doesn’t stand for anything much? Perhaps this means that there is indeed a lack of hope for organised atheism in Australia?
This past week the traditional owners of Uluru (Ayers Rock) in central Australia voted to ban people climbing upon the rock.
Many have been very positive about this move, including many atheists. For example, Clementine Ford, a speaker at the upcoming Global Atheist Convention, tweeted:
Fantastic news that traditional owners have opted to outright ban climbing Uluru.
— Clementine Ford (@clementine_ford) November 1, 2017
It appears many atheists (and those on the ‘left’ of politics) are enthusiastic about this move.
Personally I was quite happy with the decision and I support it. I love a good climb and when my wife and I visited Uluru a number of years ago we refrained from joining the hordes of tourists clambering to climb the rock and instead elected to walk around this fascinating monolith. The walk around the base of Uluru was enjoyable and rewarding. And I was satisfied to respect the wishes and spiritual concerns of the traditional owners.
Atheist Counter arguments to the ban
However I was intrigued when I saw some of the the responses of other atheists to this decision. I felt that they raised valid and interesting counter points. For example to Clementine Ford’s tweet, one responded with:
It’s still just a rock in the middle of the desert.
— Neutron 2261 (@Neutron2261) November 1, 2017
He went on…
“Respecting the beliefs” of the local aborigines makes no more sense than respecting the views of @LyleShelton on SSM, abortion, euthanasia
— Neutron 2261 (@Neutron2261) November 1, 2017
and more…
It’s all just religious claptrap in one form or another. Why is religion elevated to a level that it is above criticism or critique?
— Neutron 2261 (@Neutron2261) November 1, 2017
@Neutron2261 raises some interesting thoughts..
Uluru is a natural feature
Indeed, as Neutron2261 and others pointed out, Uluru is a natural feature in the ‘outback’. It doesn’t actually ‘belong’ to anyone in quite the same way as other religious or spiritual spaces. Moreover, unlike cathedrals, mosques or temples it is not a site constructed especially for ‘spiritual’ reflection or worship (ironically one can climb famous cathedrals and mosques!)
Hence it is intriguing that an atheist is satisfied with a group banning people from climbing a rock – a natural feature – to respect ‘super’ natural beliefs.
On the homepage of the Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA) it claims:
We can understand why primitive cultures believed that invisible beings controlled what we now call the elements and natural phenomena. With access to factual knowledge, there is now no excuse for believing in gods, fairies or any supernatural concept.
The AFA believes that is ‘no excuse’ for believing in ‘any supernatural concept’, presumably like sacred sites – will they oppose this decision? Encourage the owners to consider the rights and desires of those who visit this national icon? Surely someone should have the ‘right’ to climb a natural feature in Australia – a secular nation?
Yet the fact that atheists are supportive of climbing a natural feature seems puzzlingly inconsistent.
Freedom, Equality and discrimination
This raises the tricky dilemma of competing worldviews. One worldview – the atheist one – suggests that ‘it’s just a rock, a natural feature’, yet the alternative – the one of the traditional owners – believe that it is a ‘sacred’ site with spiritual significance. The atheist view would suggest that it’s fine to climb whereas the traditional indigenous view says it shouldn’t be climbed.
So which worldview wins?
There is no easy answer. And this challenges the maxim that you can believe what you want as long as it doesn’t harm or impinge others. The decision of the traditional owners clearly does impact on the freedoms of the many thousands of tourists who visit Uluru each year.
One commenter from The Age nailed this challenge:
If you choose not to climb Uluru because of your own beliefs, that is your decision.
Telling other people not to climb is religious overreach.
I don’t like the idea of religious groups not allowing certain people to get married, and a climbing ban is an imposition of one persons belief system on others.
Exactly. This decision could be seen as discriminatory as it imposes certain restrictions on many (the many tourists) based on the spiritual convictions of some.
As Neutron2261 raises, could a similar argument be mounted against abortion? That based on the spiritual conviction of some that a fetus is human, prevents some exercising their ‘rights’? Or similarly against Same Sex Marriage – that the spiritual conviction of a few should impact the many who don’t share that conviction and are denied an experience that they would like?
In a land which prizes itself on being young and ‘free’, this decision is one which inhibits freedom to access a natural feature. Hence my question: why are atheists supportive of this decision?
I saw yesterday that the website for the Global Atheist Convention is announcing a brand new 2018 convention. The 2018 Global Atheist Convention: reason to hope. It will be held in Melbourne, Australia from February 9-11.
The title is intriguing: reason to hope. I’m not entirely sure what atheists have to share about hope, because ultimately atheism is a hopeless philosophy i.e. there is no individual, personal hope beyond my death. This is obviously a moot point because many atheists do claim to have hope (and this convention will obviously deal with that topic). So I am intrigued as to exactly what is the ‘hope’ spoken of here.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 2012 Global Atheist Convention. I am wondering who will speak at the 2018 convention?
Who would you like to see?
Personally I hope that the remaining three horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) come. I wonder if Matt Dillahunty will get an invite? (Or others from the Unholy Trinity?) Personally I hope that he does.
Other well known atheists? Lawrence Krauss? PZ Myers? Dan Barker?
What about local speakers? Peter Singer, Jason Ball, Kylie Sturgess?
Which women will speak?
Will there be a comedy night like last time?
What issues will be addressed as the speakers provide reasons to hope?
I can’t wait for more details to be announced. It is sure to be a fascinating and stimulating convention.
Atheist Forum 
Are atheists really content with ignorance?
I recently watched a video recommended by the Friendly Atheist (Hemant Mehta) created by YouTuber KimblyTea, called ‘Fine I’ll watch Christian TikToks‘. In the video KimblyTea offers a glimpse (and critique) into what Christianity looks like on TikTok! She outlines three types of Christian TikToks: Inspirational Fluff, Apologetics and Checkmate Atheists.
Justin Brierley’s video
I wanted to focus on her reflection on the ‘apologetics’ type of video for I was surprised and disappointed with her reflections.
In the video she shares a TikTok created by well known Christian radio presenter, Justin Brierley, host of the popular Unbelievable? radio show and podcast. In his TikTok video Justin deals with the accusation that Jesus was merely a legendary figure who never existed, by providing some historical evidence for the historical reality of Jesus
Brierley claims there is more evidence for Jesus than for many ancient figures and his death is better attested than other significant historical events, including the crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar.
Brierley’s comparison between the crossing of the Rubicon and Jesus’ death is apposite because they both have significant outcomes, both occur in a similar historical period, and both also include famous quotes e.g. Jesus ‘My God My God, why have you forsaken me?’ and Caesar, ‘the die is cast’
KimblyTea’s response
Yet I was really surprised by KimblyTea’s response, for she almost seemed to be unashamed about her ignorance and disinterest in history.
She started responding by admitting she wasn’t interested in or knew much about ancient history – this surprised me because Justin’s video was clearly about history and historical evidence and hence surely any response would need to actually engage with this history and the historical claims he made?
But unfortunately KimblyTea seems to almost relish in her ignorance. With dramatic music and special effects the beginning of her response was: ‘The crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar……(shrug) sounds cool’.
She then said, “I don’t want to be bragging about not knowing stuff”, but unfortunately she does seem to that and be satisfied in her ignorance. She underplays the significance of this event by not knowing when it happened, its significance or even what a Rubicon was!
Then she makes a non sequitur and confusing argument about her ‘not holding a Rubicon up or trying to find meaning in Rubicons etc’. This completely misses the point Brierley was trying to make in the video and seems to just reinforce her satisfaction in ignorance of history.
To be honest, I found her engagement of the Rubicon somewhat cringeworthy and almost embarrassing and the sense I get is that she seems to be saying, ‘because I’ve never heard of this event, it’s not really worth comparing Jesus to it and can’t really be that important?’,
The significance of Rubicon
The point Brierley was making is that there is more evidence for the death of a penniless preacher in a backwater of the Roman Empire than there is for one of the most significant events in the life of possibly the most famous Roman Emperors which altered and forever affected the history of the Western World (and which we are impacted by today). The event is so significant that historian Tom Holland wrote a book entitled Rubicon and in it says,
In 49 BC when Julius Caesar made the fateful decision to cross the Rubicon with his soldiers, and march on Rome this was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic. This is considered the watershed moment of Roman history,
The point Justin was making, was that whether you were aware of it or not, Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon is a massively significant event and there is more evidence for Jesus’ death than this!
Given this, I really was surprised that an atheist would so readily embrace her own ignorance of one of history’s truly significant moments.
Are historical events important?
She then backtracks a bit by saying, ‘I’m not saying the historical events aren’t extremely important’ – even though she just seemed to just say that very thing and making fun of it with music, effects and jokes about Rubicons? Then she makes another curious claim by saying, ‘but needing these things to be literally true to have your meaning in your life, is what leads to these forms of apologetics, and that’s where the problem is’.
Just what the ‘problem’ is exactly is unclear. Brierley’s video and argument is a response to (predominantly) atheists who say there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Yet KimblyTea seems to be saying that the desire for historical evidence to justify believing the words of a figure Christians claim to be historical is ‘the problem’??
This is confusing and makes it unclear exactly what the Christian is to do to justify their beliefs?
Reflections on ignorance
I found this video after the recommendation from Hemant Mehta and I was unfortunately very disappointed. When I watched this, I was very surprised at KimblyTea’s happy ignorance of history and the historical events which have shaped our world. I was also surprised at her happy dismissal of a serious and reasonable comparison between between significant events in the lives of Julius Caesar and Jesus.
I also saw a massive disconnect with this approach and the narrative that atheists are more interested in real arguments, evidence and reasons for believing. Unfortunately, maybe this is a sign that perhaps some atheists are actually not interested in actual evidence and data and are just happy with ignorance?
Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but unless someone reflects intelligently and seriously on significant historical events and people, it’s hard to take their arguments seriously.