David Silverman is the Communications Director for the web site American Atheists [1], which describes itself as an organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, a total wall of separation between church and state, and providing information about Atheism [2]. A philosopher could almost make a career out of critiquing the ideas and propaganda that are published at that site, but in this piece here I want to critique one specific article: the list that Silverman published about the "Top Ten Atheist Myths" [3]. (I am trying to ignore my pedantic itch to indicate that the title implies myths which atheists have; i.e., it ought to say "Top Ten Myths About Atheists.") And I want to be clear that I am writing from the perspective of a Christian philosopher, not from that of a generic theist (which would include any religion that advocates a deity or deities, e.g., Islam, Hinduism, etc.).
Out of the ten alleged myths that Silverman claims theists have about atheists, he successfully identifies only one: Myth #4, and only assuming that I have correctly understood the alleged myth. The other nine are either not myths (e.g., Myth #1) or they are not about atheists (e.g., Myth #10). The only myth he manages to successfully identify—assuming I have correctly understood it—is the myth that atheists must be able to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. That is indeed a myth. However, he is wrong that it's one which theists have. Hardly any theists think that. That is a popular myth only amongst brainless Protestant Christian fundamentalists (especially Myth #2), which is a very tiny fraction of those who are theists.
But that is the other problem with Silverman's article. Despite his constant allusion to theists, Silverman spends no time whatsoever on theists; the context of his responses are seemingly geared toward only one select demographic (brainless fundies) of one select branch (Protestant) of one select theism (Christianity), evidenced probably nowhere better than Myth #10. Furthermore, Silverman spends most of his time defending Secular Humanists, not atheists. He needs to change the title of his article to "The Top One Myth That Brainless Protestant Christian Fundies Have About Atheists."
1. "Atheists are all the same."
I am not even sure what this means, quite frankly. And despite the considerable extent of my experiences in philosophical education and discourse, both casual and academic, not once have I ever heard this supposed myth. Something this obscure certainly does not belong on a Top Ten list. Having said that, if I were to make an educated guess at Silverman's meaning, I would assume that he is calling it a myth the notion that all atheists can be lumped together.
Despite his contention, that is actually not a myth. It is a fact that atheists can all be lumped together—under 'atheism', which he nearly recognizes by his statement that atheists "are bound only by our atheism." It is true that atheists quickly diversify ideologically beyond their atheism; e.g., one atheist may be a Buddhist, another may be a Secular Humanist, etc. But what Silverman apparently fails to realize, having tripped over his own equivocating fallacy [4], is that this is also true for theists. It is likewise a fact that theists can be all lumped together—under 'theism' (being bound only by their theism). And it is likewise true that theists quickly diversify ideologically beyond their theism; e.g., one theist may be a Christian, another may be a Hindu, etc. It is unfortunate but Silverman did not address this so-called "myth" accurately or fairly.
Additionally, Silverman insists that "believers must be bound by much more than a simple belief in God." But this is erroneous, too: it is not true that a theist is bound by more than a simple belief in God. Although specific types of theists may be committed to a number of additional beliefs (e.g., Muslim), this is also true for specific types of atheists (e.g., Secular Humanist). A 'theist' is nothing more than a person who assents intellectually to the existence of a deity or deities, whether emphatically or agnostically, just as an 'atheist' is nothing more than a person who consciously rejects the existence of any deities, whether emphatically or agnostically. Moreover, a theist's beliefs are no less a choice than an atheist's beliefs; i.e., indeed atheists freely choose their beliefs, but so do theists. Understand that clearly. There is no "must" in a theist's beliefs substantively different from the compelling motivation that drives an atheist to his beliefs. Both camps are comprised of those who affirm their convictions zealously (fanatic) and those who may not have explored their beliefs very much at all (apathetic).
Furthermore, he states that atheists are Republicans and they are Democrats, they are both men and women, they are gays and straights, blacks and whites. The same is true for theists, Mr. Silverman. There are Republicans who are Jews, Democrats who are Muslim, men who are Sikh, women who are Baha'i, gays who are Christian, straights who are Zoroastrian, etc. There is diversity in both camps, atheism and theism alike.
Finally, he claims that atheists "accept every person, as they are, as equals." That, unfortunately, is a bold generalization that fails to square with reality, a delusion in virtue of being contradicted by evidence. It is true only for those atheists who affirm the system of values described by Silverman's statement. It is not true for atheists who are racist, for example, who do not accept every person as equals. Does the fact that they don't share his system of values mean they are not atheists? Of course not, which leads to another problem with his statement: it reaches beyond what atheism is, in itself. Atheism is a position on the question of deities, not on the question of ethics (i.e., morals and values). For the latter, one must reach beyond atheism to something like Secular Humanism, for example—which is atheistic, but it is not atheism. Yet atheism is precisely what the subject of this list is supposed to be. This is not a list of myths about Secular Humanism or any other atheistic belief system, but rather atheism itself.
2. "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God."
I am willing to believe that there are people who "seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good," but I have good reason to believe that they are very few in number. It almost seems as though Silverman is taking the extreme views of certain Protestant Christian fundamentalists and pretending that this characterizes theists nationwide (Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Tenrikyos, Christians, Baha'i, Sikhs, Rastafarians, Jews, etc.)—all of whom are theists and who are the ones that Silverman wishes to disabuse of these ten myths ("the myths about atheists that are popular among theists"). In actuality, Mr. Silverman, it is "a sad world" when so many like you think that 'theist' means brainless Protestant Christian fundamentalist, a very narrow definition in the extreme which excludes hundreds of millions of other Christians and, worse yet, billions of theists.
No intelligent theist believes that "atheists have no morals." No intelligent theist thinks that "just because [atheists] are different from them" it somehow makes atheists "inherently bad." If Silverman is writing for unintelligent theists, then I fear he is wasting his time and efforts. Unintelligent theists do not typically appreciate rational discourse (assuming they can even recognize it) nor is that what shapes their ideas and beliefs. Silverman ought to be writing for intelligent theists with whom his arguments would have a far better chance of finding traction. And, as I said, no intelligent theist believes that atheists have no morals.
At any rate, Silverman argues that "humans have the idea of 'right and wrong' imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as [by] their upbringing and society." This statement of faith is obviously something that Silverman himself believes, but the reader needs to realize that although it may be atheistic it certainly is not atheism. That is to say, it is myths about atheists that Silverman is supposed to be addressing so he needs to broaden his thinking to include all those atheists who don't necessarily agree with his statement. Although there are some atheists who do share this belief in common with him, there are certainly many who do not. There are, for example, atheists who believe there is no such thing as 'right and wrong' in any real or meaningful sense (e.g., Sartre, Nietzsche, etc.), that such ideas are nothing more than certain firing patterns of neural activity in the human brain in a causal relationship with the universe's physical laws (the only consistent atheists, I submit). If Silverman is going to cherry-pick the atheists his list is supposed to defend, he ought to be honest about it within the article itself. Otherwise he should stick to myths about atheists that can apply to all atheists, instead of espousing these ethical theories that atheism has nothing to do with.
As for Silverman's remarks about the number of self-identified atheists in the nation, as well as those in various stages of the correctional system, I have no idea how that relates to myths about atheists, refutes the Christian philosophical argument on metaethics, or is any sort of criticism of Christian theology in general. Although Silverman would like to think that he has thus far successfully proved that "religion and ethical behaviour are not even slightly related," it has been exposed here that (a) he has not even come close and that (b) it would nevertheless be utterly irrelevant to the task he set before himself: clearing up myths about atheists.
Do his statements thus far truly "piss off the theists"? Of course not. For one thing, his statements have been incredibly weak at best, being mostly irrelevant. For another, his statements have pretty much ignored theists, seeming to concentrate instead upon a select demographic of a select branch of a select type of theist. There are millions upon millions of theists throughout the United States who would be scratching their heads wondering why Silverman is not more honest, editing his article to address brainless "Christian fundies" (which it does) instead of intelligent "theists" (which it does not).
3. "Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn't answer as many questions as creationism."
Once again, completely irrelevant to the task of clearing up myths about atheists. Period. This should not even be on a list like this. First, practically all atheists do believe in evolution. That is not a myth, sorry. It is an easily verifiable fact. And whether or not evolution answers "as many questions as creationism" has absolutely nothing to do with myths about atheists in the first place. There is literally nothing here for me to address. It is that irrelevant.
But I do have to address one particular point. Silverman claims that "believers are loath to discuss where God came from, or what he was doing before the creation." This could not possibly be any more false. It is in fact contradicted by volumes of evidence, rendering his claim delusional. (Yes, I know that Silverman is again speaking of a specific type of theist, i.e., those who believe in one eternal God who personally created the world.) They are not loath to discuss the question: they have answered it, directly and repeatedly, and there are countless articles online and in print where it can be found. The question is identified as being fallacious; it commits the
plurium interrogationum logical fallacy [
5] by assuming within the question a God that no monotheist believes in (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). In order to ask where God came from, one has to first assume that God came from somewhere. But such an assumption fails to correspond with the monotheistic belief in an eternal, self-existent God. In other words, he did not "come from" anywhere; he has always been. The question fails to address that God. As for what God was doing before creation, that too has been answered numerous times throughout the centuries: no one knows because (a) no one was there and (b) no one has been told. (I have chosen to refrain from nitpicking the fact that "before" is temporal language that is meaningless outside the existence of 'time', to which it stands in relation.)
4. "Atheists cannot know there is no God, since you cannot prove he doesn't exist."
This, too, does not belong on a list like this because it's not a myth about atheists. It is not a myth but a fact that atheists (a) cannot know there is no God and (b) cannot prove he doesn't exist. That is true. And I have read a number of atheistic scholars who have admitted as much (e.g., Michael Shermer). So what could Silverman have been trying to address here?
Judging by the context of his response, it seems that he is addressing a myth that atheists must be able to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. If that is the point he is addressing, and I certainly believe that it is, then he is right to address it. Atheism does not explicitly affirm the non-existence of God (although individual atheists can, and some do); atheism is simply the conscious rejection of theism, typically a refusal to believe that God exists. Etymologically, an atheist is someone who is "without God," someone who views the world and lives his life as though God does not exist, "godless," in the same way that something is asymmetrical when it is "without symmetry." Whether or not God actually exists is irrelevant; Silverman can be an atheist even if God does exist, because 'atheist' describes the nature of Silverman's belief system without saying anything about God.
5. "Atheists seek to remove religion from society, and to force all people to be atheists."
This is not a myth, although it certainly is a sweeping generalization that fails to square with reality. In other words, it is not true of all atheists—
but it is not a myth either. There certainly are a number of atheists, both contemporary and historically, who this accurately characterizes (e.g.,
The End of Faith by Sam Harris). So although this is not false—not a myth—it is true of only some atheists and should, therefore, be properly qualified (e.g., "There are atheists who seek...").
6. "Atheists are so closed-minded, they can't see that miracles happen every day!"
This is not a myth,
as demonstrated by Silverman himself within his own response! In the event that you are wondering what 'irony' is, please read his response. His stated intention is to identify and clear up at least ten myths about atheists, and yet on this point his response went toward establishing that it's not a myth. When it comes to whether or not miracles exist, Silverman proclaims that "they never do." The irony is thick, and certainly amuses this author.
7. "Atheists are pushing a negative sentiment, and have a dreary life."
Silverman's response to this one is simply erroneous, which will be addressed in a moment. First I want to point out the fact that (a) the first clause is true by definition and (b) the second clause is not a myth, although its truth does not bear out in every case; in other words, it is true of many atheists but not of all atheists.
It is not a myth that "atheists are pushing a negative sentiment." It is true, and that by definition; i.e., the very definition of atheism is a negative, insofar as it's the negation of 'theos'. That is the "negative sentiment" which all atheists push, by being atheists: the negation of God from every equation.
The second clause is not a myth, although it is not necessarily true in all cases or at all times. It is a sweeping generalization and those never succeed. There are some atheists who for the most part lead content and rewarding lives, and there are many whose lives are dreary at times and rewarding at times. But certainly there are some whose lives are mostly dreary. The sticky part (for whoever tries to make such a suggestion) is trying to prove that this dreariness is a result of their atheism. The best of luck with that. It can be done, of course, but neither easily nor categorically.
So what was erroneous about Silverman's response? Quite succinctly, his response defended something other than atheism. It promoted a number of sentiments that had Secular Humanist characteristics, but here is the problem: not all atheists are Secular Humanists. And yet it is myths about atheists that Silverman is supposed to be identifying and clearing up. Throughout his article Silverman almost routinely conflated Secular Humanism with atheism, the same way he almost routinely conflated Christianity with theism. These are the equivocations he commits repeatedly.
It is very interesting to note that he refrains from identifying who this "false deity" is, but it's good that he refrained because the moment he identifies it he's committed to a logical fallacy that is impossible to escape (
argumentum ad ignorantiam, "Since X has not been proven true, it is therefore false").
8. "If atheists are right, then religious people are wasting their time, but at least they're happy. No harm in that! If religious people are right, then atheists are going to hell. It seems logical that atheists should become religious just to be safe."
This is not a myth about atheists. This is Pascal's Wager [
6]. There is literally nothing to respond to here. (And did Silverman really state that "drug addicts go through life happy"? Really?)
9. "There are no such things as atheists." a.k.a. "There are no atheists in foxholes."
This is not a myth about atheists. It's a denial that atheists exist. There is nothing to respond to here.
10. "This country was founded by Christians, on Christian values, and should therefore be a Christian country."
This is not a myth about atheists. There is nothing to respond to here. (It does, however, support my contention that Silverman routinely conflated Christianity with theism. Christianity is theistic, but it is not theism.)
