While I was doomscrolling on YouTube shorts and procrastinating writing this blog, I came across an interesting discourse by an apparently quite popular youtuber and philosopher, Alex O’Conner, about how the concept of blind faith in theism, particularly Christianity, proves the fallibility of these beliefs. While I am personally a Christian and think there is significant evidence for God, I enjoy hearing other sides of the argument, and this speech was well worded and presented some interesting points.  

The speech starts with the observation of that in many conversions of atheists to theism, common reasons for conversion are often based on emotional or ethical reasons, and seldom on hard, logical evidence of a god. O’Conner then poses the example of evolution and natural selection, a system which relies upon suffering and extinction, and explains that by Ockham’s Razor this process can be best explained through an amoral, atheistic universe rather than one with a benevolent creator. The majority of the video then goes on to give the argument that throughout the history of the church, violence has been substituted for valid evidence in arguments about beliefs, with blind faith and adherence to ancient texts as justification.  

O’Conner demonstrates a strong argument, and very effectively uses the techniques of ethos and logos to communicate his viewpoints. As a graduate of philosophy and theology from Oxford University, O’Conner brings years of research and thought to the topic. This is also evident in his manner of speech; his phrases are thought-out, clear, and use an intellectual vocabulary. He is also very respectful of others who hold differing perspectives, which enhances his ability to be perceived as a rational speaker by those who may oppose his views.  

Additionally, O’Conner’s arguments are structured very logically, presenting a question, hard historic evidence, and then walking through the steps of how to use that evidence to form a conclusion and answer the initial question. An interesting thing I noticed however was that O’Conner stayed away from using pathos and emotional persuasion in his presentation, perhaps because most of his argument centered on the fallibility of emotions when used as proof for theism.  

The purpose of the speech is to persuade its audience that the idea of a god is a delusion, and it is quite effective at that. However, the video does not provide an unbiased viewpoint, and only features O’Conner’s speech without inclusion of the other side of the debate. Similarly, O’Conner centers on the ways that Christians believe in some aspects of their religion through pure faith, without referencing any of the prominent Christian theologians and philosophers who believe in God through empirical observations and logical constructions. In the same manner, O’Conner gives no mention to the ways that atheists themselves rely on blind faith, such as believing in consequences of morality if there is no universal governor. All in all, I found O’Conner’s speech to offer an interesting perspective on the issue of relying on blind faith, yet it did not present a complete picture of all sides of the argument.