​
 
Speaking as an atheist, I’ve participated in many debates, usually with Christian leaders. Below are some of the points I made. I hope it will be instructive to those of you who engage in religious discussions. Feel free to use or modify any of my comments. Basically, an atheist is simply someone without a belief in any gods. I can’t prove there are no gods. I just find no credible evidence for them, which is also why I don’t believe in astrology or alien abduction by UFOs. Suppose I tell you that the universe was really created just 30 minutes ago, and a supernatural being planted false memories in all of you. You can’t show I’m wrong, but wouldn’t you want evidence before believing it? The burden of proof is on those whoassert a belief, not on those who don’t accept it.
 
I understand the appeal of religion. Fear of death can lead to a longing for an afterlife, where we can be united forever with loved ones in eternal bliss. But it’s important to distinguish between the world as we know it, and the world as we’d like it to be. Many individuals believe they’ve had personal experiences with gods, and that can be comforting. But with over 7,000 gods people believe in, do they investigate all the world religions and select the one with the most reasonable faith? I think not. As it turns out, there’s a remarkable coincidence. The overwhelming majority simply choose the religion of their parents.  

​https://thehumanist.com/features/interviews/an-interview-with-herb-silverman
 
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s been a hot minute since last talking virtually. However, since I was travelling all over the States, I did get the opportunity to, in fact, meet in person, Sharon [Herb’s wife] and you. That was lovely, so thank you: for showing me Charleston, having a meal, taking a walk, and just being hospitable. Do you get a lot of visitors?
Dr. Herb Silverman: It was a pleasure to see you, Scott. Now you understand why Charleston is the top tourist attraction in the US. There are many lovely sites. And it’s also where the “War of Northern Aggression” (Civil War) started.
Jacobsen: How has it been living in Charleston, South Carolina as one its most prominent long-term atheists? 
Silverman:  Over time and as the “nones” (those with no particular religion) have slowly increased, the need for open atheists here is no longer as crucial. Many Northerners have moved to Charleston, so it has become a purple city in a red state, which makes it easier. And we have a thriving secular humanist group in Charleston for social support.
Jacobsen: Now, to the point of this interview, what is the overarching tone of secularism in the United States now?
Silverman: I think it is “on the fence”. Atheism is not the dirty word it used to be, and the fastest growing demographic is the “Nones.” However, white Christian nationalists are achieving their legislative goals in too many states, just consider the abortion restraints they’ve accomplished.
Jacobsen: What do you see as the major setback in the United States for church and state separation?
Silverman: I know “church and state separation” is a popular expression, but I never use it. I refer to “separation of religion and government” to show we include synagogues, mosques, and all theistic religions. The major setback here is that too many Christian nationalists believe we are a Christian country, and they are a serious threat to separation of religion and government.
Jacobsen: How is the Secular Coalition for America?
Silverman: SCA is doing very well. I helped found the organization in 2004 with just four national member organizations. SCA now has twenty national atheist, humanist, and other nonreligious member organizations, including of course, the American Humanist Association.
The Secular Coalition has a dedicated lobbying organization within the Coalition, with a mission to advocate for the equal rights of nonreligious Americans and defend the separation of religion and government. Representing twenty national member organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, SCA combines the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government. Furthermore, the Secular Coalition takes every opportunity to support the Congressional Freethought Caucus, which currently has twenty-three members of the House of Representatives.
 

My values are tied in with my purposes. What is the purpose of human existence? The primary purpose of every living thing is to replicate so the species will survive. The more we learn about our natural world, the less significant humans seem to be in it. Charles Darwin showed that we are all animals in a long evolutionary line. But purpose for humans is about more than mere replication and survival. It’s about what we believe we should do in the brief time we’re alive. And most people have more than one purpose. I believe we all need to find individual purposes in our lives. Purpose involves having goals and activities that give us direction and meaning and help us engage in productive ways.I think part of our purpose in life should include making good moral decisions. For some conservative religions, morality is more about belief than behavior, and they view this life as a preparation for an imagined afterlife. If loving and worshipping a god inspires a person to treat others with loving kindness, that’s great. Unfortunately, love of a god all too often makes some people less loving of those who don’t believe and worship as they do. And if this life is just a religious test to get into heaven and avoid hell, what kind of morality is that?

This just appeared In The Humanist magazine

​As a long-term academic before I retired, I often served on the College of Charleston’s Tenure and Promotion Committee. For faculty who apply for tenure (lifetime appointment), usually in the sixth year of teaching at an institution, the committee looks at the candidate’s vita, teaching evaluations, and letters of recommendations. They make decisions based on research, teaching, and service to the academic community. The committee discusses the candidate and formulates questions. They then hold an extensive interview with the candidate, followed by more deliberations. Finally, the committee makes a recommendation for or against tenure. If the candidate fails to receive tenure, he or she is permitted to teach at the institution for one more year. All these discussions are held in strictest confidence.
 
Hear is my fantasy, along with a decision.
 
God is a faculty member who has just applied for tenure. The committee sees on his vita that he lists only one (possibly two) publications. These publications have not gone through the normal process of being refereed by an outside expert. They contain many unsupported scientific claims and incorrect statements. God has also repeatedly violated the “informed consent” standard when performing psychological experiments on human subjects. We illustrate with one particularly egregious example. God gave his subject Job boils from head to toe and killed his children just to see if Job would become disloyal. Job, amazingly, remained loyal to God, which helped God win his little bet with his pal Satan, who understandably thought Job would abandon God because God was responsible for causing such tragedies. God never told Job about his bet with Satan. God was so pleased with the success of his experiment that he restored Job’s health and gave him new children. God claimed that these new children were better than the ones he had killed.
 
​Some members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee were originally supportive of God’s book, believing it to be an interesting work of fiction. After all, there were some well-written and moving passages. God, however, claimed that his book was not fictional. He said the book was historically and scientifically inerrant, much to the amazement of the committee that easily found countless factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
 
God also listed a follow-up publication, which some on the committee attributed to his son. God can’t count as his own publication anything his son or anyone else had written. God then said the second book was also his because he is his own son. When the committee appeared skeptical, God displayed his wrath and said he was also a third person and he (they?) would make sure that all members of the committee would burn in hell for doubting him. At this point, there was some sympathy by the committee for postponing a tenure decision until a psychiatric evaluation could be completed. Unfortunately, God refused to be evaluated for what appeared to be his delusions of grandeur. 
 
God’s teaching credentials are decidedly mixed. While some of his students praise him daily, it appears that they are motivated to do so primarily out of fear. God requires them to follow unquestioningly his many arbitrary and seemingly outdated rules and threatens them with incredibly cruel punishments for disobeying. God’s most devoted students, those few to whom he takes the time to speak directly, claim that fewer than 1% understand his teachings. Even these top students fare no better, frequently contradicting each other and themselves. Is this the sign of a competent teacher? Faculty members are often denied tenure when their students fail to understand the basics of their teachings. And these faculty haven’t been given thousands of years to improve their teaching techniques, either.
 
Finally, we look at service to the academic community. Service for faculty members is about things like serving on committees, mentoring students, building programs, editing journals, and being on shared governance boards to help improve the institution. God partook in none of these service areas. Further, on the downside, every academic institution contains intolerant and jealous colleagues. Some, like God, think they are perfect and try to lord it over everyone else. But there is no place in a college or university for a faculty member who is so opposed to critical thinking and reasoned debate that he abuses his position of power by continually threatening and intimidating those who refuse to worship the ground he walks on.
 
For these reasons and more, the Tenure and Promotion Committee votes unanimously to deny tenure to God.
 
 

My LTE in the Charleston Post and Courier (May 20)

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/opinion-letters-drunk-driving-transportation-charleston-county-sheriff-scouting-america/article_af7a904e-062d-11ef-b269-d372d75ee466.html 
 
Inclusion for all Boy Scouts of America is in the process of changing its name to Scouting America. The organization first admitted LGBTQ boys in 2013, then gay scout leaders in 2015 and girls in 2019. 
Roger Krone, president of Scouting America, said the name change reflects that now everyone in America can "bring their authentic self" to the program. 

Maybe not everyone. Despite the name change, some boys and girls still won't be able to join. That's because the Scout oath will not change. It begins, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country." 

What about boys and girls who do not believe in God? Their numbers are increasing in our country. Scouting America, like Boy Scouts of America, continues to exclude all who do not believe in God. They need to take that one additional step for inclusivity. 
​
Girl Scouts recognized that fact years ago. The Girl Scout Promise allows that "Members may substitute for the word God in accordance with their own spiritual beliefs." 
Boy Scouts of America needs more than a name change to allow members who "bring their authentic self" to the organization. 
HERB SILVERMAN 
Charleston 
 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/May-June-2024-Ezine.pdf
 
Some God believers say they don’t believe in science even though they frequently use science, for instance, when they engage in technology or rely on antibiotics. I can’t say I “believe” in science because science is based on evidence, not belief. Scientists try to disprove their own theories or the theories of others before they submit their findings to peer-reviewed journals. Eventually, there is a consensus among scientists, which might change with new scientific evidence. There are no peer reviews for gods because there are no gods to do the reviewing, and no actual “theories” of gods to review. Many theists believe that science does more harm than good. They see conflicts with forms of science that disavow “God’s role” in the world, and the value and “sacredness” of humanity, including our special human nature. Religion also differs from science in coming to conclusions based on faith, not evidence. Is science or religion a better tool to understand the world? Science and religion disagree about the origin of the Earth and humans. Unfortunately, to the extent that some religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally. You don’t have to be an atheist to support science, but it helps. 
 
While science has had success after success understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proofs of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? For theists, there is no one answer to any of these questions. All is a mystery. Religion relies on dogma, scripture, and authority that requires faith as expressed in Hebrews 11. Faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, faith without evidence is a vice, while in religion it’s a virtue. 

​Every deity ever worshipped is the product of ancient superstition invented by people who knew little about the universe and our place in it. They didn’t know our Earth revolves around the Sun or that our planet’s day/night cycle is the result of the Earth spinning on its axis. Genesis 1:16 says “God (also known as Yahweh) made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser to govern the night. He also made the stars.” The authors didn’t know that our sun is really just an average size star, one of more than 200 hundred billion stars in our galaxy. And there is another problem. This god allegedly is all-good, all-knowing, and perfect, but then we read in Genesis 6:5-6 that he recognized he had screwed up. “Yahweh saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the Earth and every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And Yahweh was sorry he had made humans on the Earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” 
What’s a god with a broken heart to do?

God brought a Holocaust to all the Earth, except for eight humans (Noah, his three sons, their four wives, and pairs of all animals on Noah’s Ark). Noah was 600 years old when God drowned everyone else with a flood. Those left alive on the Ark reproduced, but the new humans were no better than the old humans. So, God then killed many more humans. 

Reading this story, some immediate questions come to mind: How could this perfect god not know how the humans he created in his image would behave? Wasn’t the wickedness of humans caused by his own design flaw? And why is this god worshipped as a loving and just god?

God allegedly gave humans ten commandments to live by. Americans praise these commandments even though hardly anyone can name all of them. These commandments are problematic. Rather than condemning covetousness and threatening to punish children if their parents didn't worship in the correct way, why don’t the commandments or other parts of the Bible condemn slavery, racism, misogeny, homophobia, sexual assault, child and spouse abuse, torture, and war? 
​
War, in particular, has been by far the greatest destroyer of humans, especially as weapons have become more advanced to create increasingly devastating killing machines. For example, how many people know what World War I was fought over? That war lasted four years, with an average of more than 11,000 lives lost every day of the conflict. Human pride (another of god’s design flaws?) got in the way of shortening this useless war. The treaty that ended World War I was brutal, and fueled hatreds that led to World War II, with far greater loss of life. Just for good measure, after World War I, the Spanish Flu Pandemic (1918-1920) killed another 50 million people. This endless list of suffering seems to rule out a good god who has compassion for humanity. 
 
How do theists justify such suffering when they have a god who could have prevented it? Some say suffering serves a greater purpose, or that certain types of suffering are the only way to bring about something of immense value. Some use the excuse that God is inscrutable and works in strange and mysterious ways his wonders to perform. In other words, theists don’t have a clue why their loving, caring, competent, all-powerful deity allows or encourages so many bad things. We don’t need to understand God’s reasons (assuming such a god exists). We know that innocent human suffering can’t be justified if a perfect being exists who can prevent it. 
 
For a believer in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent personal god, every horrendous act of evil in the world, every natural disaster, every injury, illness, and genetic defect that causes senseless suffering has a mysterious witness— God. For example, after the Sandy Hook School massacre, one pious woman was quoted as saying, “God must have wanted more angels.” What more alarming example of easy acceptance of a terrible act could there be? She was willing to make her god a co-murderer along with the gunman.
 
When I was in public elementary school, Pennsylvania law required that at least ten verses be read from the Bible at the opening of each school day. The home-room teacher would usually read the passages. One of my teachers asked the students to take turns and read a passage they liked, with nobody allowed to comment on the passage. When it was my turn, I chose to read the begats from Genesis 5, including: “Seth begat Enosh when he was 105 and lived another 807 years. Enosh begat Kenan when he was 90, and lived another 815 years. Methuselah begat Lamech when he was 187, and lived another 782 years.” Of course, the entire class laughed at my begats and the alleged ages of humans, which I also found hilarious and unbelievable. The teacher reminded the students to be quiet during my reading. When I finally finished my begats, the teacher was not allowed to comment, but she gave me quite a look. And from that day on, only the teacher would read aloud passages from the Bible. This practice of required Bible reading in public schools finally ended in 1961 with a US Supreme Court victory brought about by Ellery Schempp. 
 
Many people have abandoned their faith because of the strange things they found in the Bible, including parts like the above. Most of the Bible is ignored by believers, partly because it is boring and tedious. Religious people often haven’t read the Bible, but rely on what their clergy say about it. The clergy never read the ridiculous parts of the Bible that atheists make fun of. Those who put time into reading the Bible must be puzzled that so much of it has little relevance to their piety or their daily lives. Yet, somehow, this ancient book is still touted as the Word of God.
 
The goal of “Christian apologetics” is to persuade the faithful that belief in God is not damaged by horrendous events that have happened for millennia—and still happen every day. Apologetics is meant to be an intellectual defense of the truth of the Christian religion. But most of their assertions have been thoroughly debunked. Many of their arguments use circular reasoning, like quoting from the Bible, and apologists depend on commitment and faith. There is no such thing as “Science apologetics” because science is based on evidence, not faith. 
 
Some people believe their god is an immaterial, pure spirit who exists outside of time and space, and that he created our universe after which he retired to become deity emeritus. Nobody would worship or care about such an impersonal god. This deistic god concept sounds more reasonable than the theistic one, but I see no reason to suspect that either could possibly exist. 
 
The god in the Christian Bible purportedly maintains a close eye on every human. He keeps track of all our words and thoughts. Yet, somehow, Christianity has splintered into thousands of different, conflicting labels. Many of these brands hate the others and have started religious wars with them. Clergy can’t agree on the alleged “information” about their god because there is no verifiable evidence from their sources. In truth, they have no sources, only products of their imagination, as is the case with thousands of other gods that humans have imagined, worshipped, and adored. 
 
I hope that Yahweh and all the other gods imagined over the centuries will one day be considered relics from the past, not present beliefs. This is happening slowly in the Western world.
 
Unfortunately, the endless fight over territory in the Middle East shows that ignorance still prevails, as Christians, Muslims, and Jews continue to claim that their god was in the real estate business and gave each religion the exact same portion of the planet to maintain and keep holy.  

Published in the Spring issue of The Humanist magazine

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/March-April-2024-FS-Ezine.pdf
 
While I have many problems with the Christian Bible, there are some portions I agree with. One is Luke 12:48: “To whom much is given, much is expected.” I recognize how fortunate I am to have been born in a country and a family where I had ample opportunities to attain a decent education and standard of living. But I ask myself what we should do about those to whom much is not given, whether born in this or another country. And I’ve noticed that people opposed to helping immigrants also seem less charitably disposed toward helping some of our least fortunate American. To give but one example, Americans who want to abolish estate taxes (which only kick in above $12 million) use the misnomer “death taxes” and have a silent mantra: “To whom much is given, much more should be given.”
 
Passing tax-free wealth to the next generation of family members who have been financially privileged since birth is welfare for the rich. Their estates can provide more than adequate annual tax-free support to family members. The estate tax, in my opinion, should be used to help level the playing field by taxing inheritances at a higher rate. This would generate more federal revenue and could provide extra funding for programs to benefit low-income workers. As bad as things are for some of our poorest Americans they are usually worse for illegal immigrants, who live in the shadows of our bountiful American plenty. Do we expect them to suffer in place under the dreadful circumstances they are trying to escape?
 

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/us-capital-punishment-does-not-deter-crime/article_18ee5676-b4a0-11ee-abe4-e37300c677fd.html

There is a lot in the news about Alabama executing a man by using nitrogen gas, instead of a more common method like lethal injection, hanging, gas chamber, firing squad, beheading, or the biblically approved practice of stoning to death.
Regardless of the method used, and whether the victim suffers for a few minutes or a few hours, I am opposed to this legal form of murder by the government known as capital punishment.
And I don’t believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, as found in Leviticus.
I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime, which might be as harsh as life imprisonment.
It’s known that capital punishment does not deter crime. There is also a racial bias in who is given the death penalty, as well as a disproportionate number of poor people who can’t afford to hire a good attorney.
More than 70% of countries in the world have abolished the death penalty because it is so inhumane, and new evidence sometimes exonerates a person who was innocent of a capital crime.
Above all, capital punishment is irreversible.
HERB SILVERMAN
Charleston
 


`

​My letter published in the February/March 2024 Vol 44 No 2 issue of Free Inquiry.
https://secularhumanism.org/2024/01/letters-february-march-2024/
 
  
Re: “Why Am I Agnostic?” by Alejandro Borgo (FI, October/November 2023), Borgo mischaracterized atheism. He said, “The fact of being an atheist is a position taken in the conviction that there is a proof that the entity called ‘God’ does not exist.” 
 
Not so. 
 
I used to call myself an agnostic because I could not prove if a god exists, so I took the agnostic position that the existence of a god is unknown—and perhaps unknowable. I was without belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent with atheism (without a belief in any gods), I became an atheist. So, my "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional than theological.
 
In reality, depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic, as well as a humanist, secular humanist, secular Jew, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more. 
 
I’m curious about why people find “atheist” so much more threatening than “agnostic," when self-described "atheists" and self-described "agnostics" often hold identical views about deities. As with atheists, agnostics almost never give equal merit to belief and disbelief. For instance, I can neither prove nor disprove the following: “The universe was created 10 minutes ago and its creator planted false memories in all of us.” I assume we are all “agnostic” about this hypothesis, while quite certain that the claim is false. We agree that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion—as it should be with any supernatural claim. 
 
I’m comfortable with agnostics, and don’t particularly like to hear atheists refer to agnostics as gutless or cowardly atheists.
 
Herb Silverman