For example, if a Focus on the Family podcast about marriage discussed nothing of the sanctity of marriage and only spoke about the value of a two-parent household (ignoring the gender of the parents), the program would lose its appeal to its core demographic - socially conservative Protestant Christians.
Unfortunately, when these programs mischaracterize their opponents, fail to have a diversity of voices on their programs, and shy away from fair debates their message becomes too narrow. The narrowed message might remain relevant to its most devoted base of supporters, but it has the effect of turning off some open-minded opponents.
The podcast might intend to share its views impartially with the goal of winning over converts, but without proper attention it can fall into the trap of only speaking to the core audience. At its worst the message becomes toxic, hateful, ignorant and bigoted.
Atheist podcasts are not exempt from becoming narrowminded. In a quest for truth, atheists may become just as awful as hardcore religious people as their self-righteousness rears it ugly head on their programs in the form of mocking, sneering, and cold-hearted hatred for their opponents.
Perhaps I will list the pitfalls of the religious podcasts at a later time. For now I will focus on atheist podcasts and YouTube debates. I include YouTube debates since I think they, like podcasts, have a desire to rally their base and sway opponents.
1. Pursuing Atheism as a Religion
Some of the most outspoken atheists in the media are activists who come from a fundamentalist religious background. Fundamentalism adopts an old-fashioned, strict, conservative ideology which influences every part of one's life from worship to education to sex. When a fundamentalist becomes used to living every aspect of their life through the lens of their belief system, abandoning the belief system can leave a huge void. If the person turns to atheism they will be tempted to fit "atheist beliefs"* into all of the empty holes left by their losing their faith. For example, they might go from running bible studies to running atheist meetup groups in their community.
Atheist activists often want to spread a secular message to make amends for the "harm" they caused while they were fundamentalist believers converting people to their religious group. Others like JT Eberhard go so far as to reverse evangelize people by pointing out how their religious beliefs do not make sense with the hopes of convincing them to abandon their beliefs altogether.
There is a time and place for activism, atheist meetup groups, and blunt debates, but when these activists pursue their atheism with the same fervor as they followed their fundamentalist religion, they become extremely ineffective messengers of their cause. As is the case with many fundamentalists, extreme atheists become so obsessed with their message, so hateful of religious people, that they themselves become coldhearted and meanspirited. It prevents them from seeing any of the good in mysticism or spirituality. Their message can become toxic and push more religious people away rather than intrigue those who are doubting their beliefs.
*When I say "atheist beliefs" I am referring to the common ideas atheists tend to adopt and promote - secularism, humanism, scientific inquiry, etc.
2. Overlooking the Fundamental Divide: Revelation vs. Reason
The JT Eberhard method of reverse evangelism will not work because the moment someone is told their beliefs make no sense they will erect a defensive wall. They will not admit they are wrong even if they understand the irrationality of it, if only to save face and not grant the critic the satisfaction of an admission.
There is a time and place for calling people out on their irrationality. That goes for the religious and irreligious. When Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who recently became head of a Congressional Committee on the Environment and Public works, said publicly that the Bible refutes climate change, he should have been called out by any thinking person within earshot. The Senator should be muzzled in this situation because his statements are potentially damaging to public policy.
There is a time and place for calling people out on their irrationality. That goes for the religious and irreligious. When Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who recently became head of a Congressional Committee on the Environment and Public works, said publicly that the Bible refutes climate change, he should have been called out by any thinking person within earshot. The Senator should be muzzled in this situation because his statements are potentially damaging to public policy.
But those calling Inhofe and his ilk to the carpet on extreme fundamentalist viewpoints will make little headway unless they acknowledge the biggest divide between atheists and believers - whether or not Revelation is an acceptable means of obtaining knowledge.
Pick a motion put forth in any pro-religion vs anti-religion debates - "God is Not Great," "We Are Better Off Without Religion," "God Does Not Exist," "Reason Triumphs Over Faith." Opponents of these motions can be placed on a sliding scale from extremely religious to very liberal in their beliefs. What they all have in common is the acceptance of Revelation as a legitimate means of learning about the world. In other words, they believe knowledge does not come exclusively from our reason where we observe the world and test hypotheses, but from some truth from a divine being.
Unless the opposing sides in the religious debate address the issue of Revelation they will constantly be talking past one another. But the atheist must be careful not to avoid the pitfall of thinking reason with a capital R is in itself a pure path to knowledge. Using reason does not in itself give humans knowledge. We must know how to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, not give into our prejudices, and constantly challenge ourselves to know more about the world.
3. Atheists are Irrational Too!
Simply because an atheist rejects divine revelation as a legitimate means of obtaining knowledge does not mean their rational approach of using reason and the scientific method to arrive at knowledge always results in correct beliefs!
Positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said, "When it comes to moral judgments, we think we're scientists discovering the truth, but actually we're lawyers arguing for positions we arrived at by other means."
Atheists coming from religion will boast about how they ultimately rejected God because they used reason and concluded he does not exist. If they are honest I bet many of them will attribute their falling away from faith to an emotional incident in their life. It is the same reason many without religion will turn to a belief in God - from an emotional occurrence in their life.
According to the theory proposed by Haidt, it was probably a combination of the person's experience, environment, education, and execution of reason which led the atheist to non-belief, but most likely the use of reason came into play most strongly after the fact when the individual was attempting to make sense of their status as atheist.
The irreligious should stop ridiculing the faithful for their disdain of science while boasting about their own reverence for science in order to project an air of superiority. People are not robots. We cannot be like Dr. Spock. We would all be annoying Sheldon Coopers running around.
4. Worship of Science
Atheists have a keen interest in science because science is the way in which mankind has transformed itself from knuckle-dragging, primeval brute to enlightened 21st century cyborg. Science has helped us understand more about the universe, freeing us from the perils of ignorance and superstition which plagued mankind since the dawn of time.
Many religious people are outright hostile to science because often new discoveries conflict with their theological worldview constructed by means of revelation. If this hostility remained with the individual most atheists would not care, but the hostility even appears in our highest levels of representative government. School board officials in religiously conservative areas favor teaching intelligent design alongside or instead of evolution. When public policy is anti-science, atheists are understandably upset and should take action.
But atheists should acknowledge that pure science has no conscience. Hitler's 3rd Reich learned a great deal from their experiments performed on Jews, homosexuals, and the handicapped. We know that kind of human experimentation is immoral but who or what decides what the boundaries are?
Also, science can inspire us, provoke us to act, satisfy our curiosity, but its pursuit is not the be all and end all of humanity. How many people in this world are extremely interested in physics, chemistry, astronomy, or anthropology? Sometimes atheists come off as eggheads who sit around reading science books all day.
5. Association With Liberal Politics
Conservative religious believers of all faiths tend to support conservative political causes. One of the most unfortunate result of this is the unholy alliance between the religious right and economically conservative politics. Thank you Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson! This affiliation has poisoned religion and politics for the foreseeable future.
Atheists seem to adopt left wing politics. This makes sense for a variety of reasons - liberals tend to enjoy discussing ideas, embracing diversity of opinion, have a keen interest in science, promote education, and are concerned with social justice. Many of these overlap with what atheists stand for. But many atheists are extremely vocal on issues about gender, sexuality, immigration, etc.
Adoption of liberal policies is understandable. After all, if most conservative religious people favor conservative politics, atheists will not feel comfortable with that group. But if a person is fiscally conservative or even socially conservative, tuning into atheist media and hearing only extremely left wing positions is going to be a turn off.
6. Atheism is Not the Finish Line for Skepticism
Dear Atheist:
What if you're wrong?
- Listener
-------
Dear Listener,
Impossible.
- Atheist
Promoting skepticism is an excellent message. We all need to be more skeptical of our world. There is so much to learn, so much disinformation, and so many people trying to manipulate us through the media. But sometimes I wonder how skeptical atheists are of their own positions.
For example, atheists promote climate change as if they cannot wait for it to happen so they can celebrate an "I Told You So" moment with religious people. How skeptical are atheists of climate change and the claims of scientists who might have something to gain by it being true?
How skeptical are atheists of liberal politicians? We see how much politicians of all stripes are influenced by campaign donations. We see how much they lie in order to win their races. Why should one party be trusted more than another?
Do atheists ever question their conclusions about atheism itself? A little humility in this area would not be viewed as a weakness but as an admission of something everyone deals with - doubt.
Conclusion
When promoting their causes in podcasts or on YouTube atheists should avoid the pitfalls of a focused message. They should not try to pursue atheism as if it were a religion, acknowledge the reason vs. revelation divide in debates, admit their own irrationality, not come off as science worshipers, and try to be more balanced with political viewpoints.
Positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said, "When it comes to moral judgments, we think we're scientists discovering the truth, but actually we're lawyers arguing for positions we arrived at by other means."
Atheists coming from religion will boast about how they ultimately rejected God because they used reason and concluded he does not exist. If they are honest I bet many of them will attribute their falling away from faith to an emotional incident in their life. It is the same reason many without religion will turn to a belief in God - from an emotional occurrence in their life.
According to the theory proposed by Haidt, it was probably a combination of the person's experience, environment, education, and execution of reason which led the atheist to non-belief, but most likely the use of reason came into play most strongly after the fact when the individual was attempting to make sense of their status as atheist.
The irreligious should stop ridiculing the faithful for their disdain of science while boasting about their own reverence for science in order to project an air of superiority. People are not robots. We cannot be like Dr. Spock. We would all be annoying Sheldon Coopers running around.
4. Worship of Science
Atheists have a keen interest in science because science is the way in which mankind has transformed itself from knuckle-dragging, primeval brute to enlightened 21st century cyborg. Science has helped us understand more about the universe, freeing us from the perils of ignorance and superstition which plagued mankind since the dawn of time.
Many religious people are outright hostile to science because often new discoveries conflict with their theological worldview constructed by means of revelation. If this hostility remained with the individual most atheists would not care, but the hostility even appears in our highest levels of representative government. School board officials in religiously conservative areas favor teaching intelligent design alongside or instead of evolution. When public policy is anti-science, atheists are understandably upset and should take action.
But atheists should acknowledge that pure science has no conscience. Hitler's 3rd Reich learned a great deal from their experiments performed on Jews, homosexuals, and the handicapped. We know that kind of human experimentation is immoral but who or what decides what the boundaries are?
Also, science can inspire us, provoke us to act, satisfy our curiosity, but its pursuit is not the be all and end all of humanity. How many people in this world are extremely interested in physics, chemistry, astronomy, or anthropology? Sometimes atheists come off as eggheads who sit around reading science books all day.
5. Association With Liberal Politics
Conservative religious believers of all faiths tend to support conservative political causes. One of the most unfortunate result of this is the unholy alliance between the religious right and economically conservative politics. Thank you Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson! This affiliation has poisoned religion and politics for the foreseeable future.
Atheists seem to adopt left wing politics. This makes sense for a variety of reasons - liberals tend to enjoy discussing ideas, embracing diversity of opinion, have a keen interest in science, promote education, and are concerned with social justice. Many of these overlap with what atheists stand for. But many atheists are extremely vocal on issues about gender, sexuality, immigration, etc.
Adoption of liberal policies is understandable. After all, if most conservative religious people favor conservative politics, atheists will not feel comfortable with that group. But if a person is fiscally conservative or even socially conservative, tuning into atheist media and hearing only extremely left wing positions is going to be a turn off.
6. Atheism is Not the Finish Line for Skepticism
Dear Atheist:
What if you're wrong?
- Listener
-------
Dear Listener,
Impossible.
- Atheist
Promoting skepticism is an excellent message. We all need to be more skeptical of our world. There is so much to learn, so much disinformation, and so many people trying to manipulate us through the media. But sometimes I wonder how skeptical atheists are of their own positions.
For example, atheists promote climate change as if they cannot wait for it to happen so they can celebrate an "I Told You So" moment with religious people. How skeptical are atheists of climate change and the claims of scientists who might have something to gain by it being true?
How skeptical are atheists of liberal politicians? We see how much politicians of all stripes are influenced by campaign donations. We see how much they lie in order to win their races. Why should one party be trusted more than another?
Do atheists ever question their conclusions about atheism itself? A little humility in this area would not be viewed as a weakness but as an admission of something everyone deals with - doubt.
Conclusion
When promoting their causes in podcasts or on YouTube atheists should avoid the pitfalls of a focused message. They should not try to pursue atheism as if it were a religion, acknowledge the reason vs. revelation divide in debates, admit their own irrationality, not come off as science worshipers, and try to be more balanced with political viewpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment