Readers will have strong feelings for and against the positions I expressed in this book. While I can’t anticipate every single objection, here are some preemptive replies to potential pushback.
“All in all, religion does more good than harm.”
I’m not sure how to measure the amount of goodness religion brings to the world and compare it against all the negatives. Regardless, it’s certainly not a net positive when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the downsides clearly tip the scales.
“You’re just expressing your opinion.”
Guilty as charged. Finding neutral discourse or totally independent research about the conflict is rare. Virtually everybody voices their opinion in some way, with or without disclosure. People who express this kind of pushback mean “I disagree with your opinion,” which is understandable. To each their own.
“You don’t have references.”
All the facts I mentioned can be easily referenced through an online search. Having said that, be skeptical of resources found offline and online, including AI summaries. I chose not to list references because the lion’s share is biased in undisclosed ways, and most have a religious bias one way or another.
“You don’t understand the situation well enough.”
Who does? I know enough about the conflict, about the region, about religion, and about atheism to write a book covering the intersection of these topics. Unlike most authors, I don’t let an Israeli or Palestinian bias skew my opinions. I disclosed my inherent biases early on, so you know where I’m coming from.
“You don’t understand what it means to believe in God.”
I don’t know how each person thinks, because we’re all different, but I work hard to understand how people of faith think and act. I grew up Jewish and have been curious about belief systems my entire life. All the countries I’ve lived in have soaring rates of religious following, and nearly everyone I know is a believer. It’s natural for me to observe human behavior and try to understand why people do what they do. So, while arguing that atheists misunderstand religion is a frequently used trope, I’m afraid I’m not an easy target.
“You disrespect people of faith.”
I don’t disrespect anyone, but I see through historicized fiction and don’t buy into religious dogma. Besides, such an accusation coming from people whose holy texts condone burning atheists at the stake is rich. Needless to say, unlike our critics, we atheists don’t have a sacred book that instructs us to hate, disrespect, or kill anyone.
“You’re a traitor.”
Israeli Jews will say that I betray my heritage, my motherland, the Zionist cause, the Jewish people who suffered so I can have a good life, and the sacrifices of Israeli soldiers. They would say that I’m spitting in the well I drink from. My response is unequivocal: if Israel is indeed the democratic country it claims to be, it should be able to tolerate criticism of any kind, even if it hits at the fundamental ideas behind its raison d’être. I’m not calling for the destruction of Israel and expulsion of all Jews from the region. I’m just pointing a floodlight at the issue underlying the conflict in the hopes that people will stop ignoring it.
“You’re an Israel supporter in disguise.”
Palestinians and their proponents may feel that I betrayed the cause of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This statement is no less morally repugnant than the Imperial arrogance and colonialist actions of Zionism. If you expect me to support an ethnic cleansing of Jews, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
“Your book is nothing but a rant by a confused individual who lost his moral compass.”
I’ll admit the tone is sarcastic, bitter, and ranty at times, since the book expresses my anger at the situation. My moral compass, on the other hand, is powerful and impactful. Importantly, it is mine and not somebody else’s. People who blame atheists for being morally lacking cling to moral codes imposed on them by their religious leaders instead of thinking for themselves. I’m not talking about reasonable values like “Thou shalt not kill,” but the questionable “moral” aspects of religious belief like those encouraging xenophobia and misogyny.
“You generalize too much.”
In the interest of keeping this book concise, I may have over-generalized here and there. Non-academic works tend to do that, and when dealing with the conflict, even academic ones often do. Generalization can reveal a bias, and in this particular case, readers may object to terms like “religious people.” It’s difficult to define what religion is, and it’s wrong to assume that all people of faith act in unison or have identical thought patterns. That said, writing a screed about it would have been boring and out of scope. I chose to use this term and similar ones under the assumption that readers will understand them in context.
“You’re not really an atheist.”
Some say that capitalism is a form of religion. It implies that atheists living in Western countries merely trade one religion for another, obeying the demands of big business while being controlled by the powers that be. This straw man fallacy is a standard tool for bashing atheists. While worshipping money and its prophets of profits may resemble a spiritual rite, the similarities are not enough for capitalism to be considered a religion or a cult. The math doesn’t add up either: people of faith believe in one religion and often in a single God, but in a capitalist country like the US, for example, the vast majority of people already believe in Jesus as their one and only God, leaving no room for another.
“Saying that the conflict boils down to a religious war is a conspiracy theory.”
While I don’t claim to know a secret truth that most people don’t, I admit that my main claim may sound conspiratorial. However, unlike in the juiciest conspiracy theories, the people pulling the strings here are not some secretive cabal. Instead, they do their deeds openly and are proud of their achievements. Although they pretend to do it for the glory of a mythical being, they are driven by an ungodly hunger for power and control.
“Describing the conflict as a religious war is faithwashing.”
In other words, focusing on religious causes undermines the legitimate rights of the warring parties. When directed at someone promoting interfaith dialog to resolve the conflict, this criticism is valid. I, however, don’t claim that the conflict is caused by the fact that Muslims and Jews simply can’t get along. Instead, I argue that religious beliefs on both sides exacerbate the conflict. I don’t wish to validate religion or grant religious leaders any role in striving for a solution. It’s exceedingly cynical to think that Imams and Rabbis can broker peace. Both sides will have to make difficult concessions, and faith leaders are not known for their flexibility. In other words, religion is a cause of the conflict, not a path to a solution. Nothing in my arguments takes away from the right of both sides to live in peace.
“What’s the alternative? Rationalism is as bad, if not worse.”
Indeed, if everyone lost their religion, it’s unlikely that all the world’s problems would go away. Rationality is not a panacea. The problem is not a lack of reason, but rather that reasonable people fall prey to those who use religion as a tool to win undeserved support.
“You’re wrong! The Bible says…”
I’m not infallible and could be wrong, but claiming that the Bible says this or that isn’t a convincing argument, as outlined throughout my book Holy Mess.
“Religion is not the cause.”
My main point is the exact opposite of this claim. Religious belief is indeed a key cause of the conflict, not just a correlated phenomenon. If, after reading Holy Mess, you still disagree with this assertion, then I clearly failed to convince you. I just hope you say it after doing your own research rather than jumping to a conclusion based on your inherent beliefs.