Udo Schüklenk

This is introductory chapter of 50 Great Myths About Atheism offers readers some useful entry points into the long‐standing philosophical debate between theists and atheists. The attacks on atheism are often driven by strong emotions, perhaps because atheism threatens values associated with religion. The authors examine 50 myths, and in each case, they are convinced that something is being claimed that is, if not straightforwardly false, at least seriously and demonstrably misleading. The authors provide some historical perspective on the rise of atheism, examine why the traditional arguments for the existence of God turned out so inconclusive when philosophers subjected them to scrutiny, and offer some deeper thoughts on the relationship between religion and science.

Science has tended in numerous ways to undermine religion — and supernaturalism more generally. This chapter discusses aspects of the relationship between theistic religion and science, noting, in particular, how the success of science contributed to a disenchantment of the cosmos. The chapter provides some historical background about atheism. It explains why traditional demonstrations of God's existence tend to be so unconvincing, especially in the light of modern science. The chapter discusses how science has undermined religion. There are unavoidable tensions between the emerging scientific picture of the world, the universe, and ourselves and traditional religious, and especially Christian, understandings. Deep skepticism about the existence of God seems reasonable to us, and no truly persuasive argument has ever been advanced for the existence of such a strange being.

This chapter deals with the myths: atheism is a bad bet (Pascal's Wager); atheism is only for an educated elite; and atheism is doomed in a postsecular age. The argument that atheism is a bad bet starts off with an invitation to acknowledge an uncertainty as to whether or not God exists. Even assuming atheism is true, there's a legitimate question as to whether this might not be too harsh a truth for some or many people, one not easily embraced by people who have no worldly hopes. Individuals whose lives are seriously constrained by personal circumstances may continue to seek meaning in some external purpose, perhaps provided by God, rather than in their “inner freedom.” For atheism to become more widely attractive it may be that much social and economic progress will need to be made, altering the conditions in which people actually live and work.

Atheists mistakenly think that faith is just a matter of belief without evidence. Many theologians, in particular, insist that this is a naive understanding of faith, and they describe more sophisticated or elaborate concepts of faith. One approach to defending religion claims that atheism itself depends on faith. If that can be demonstrated, then atheists are no better off than the religious, and it becomes just as arbitrary to deny the existence of the gods as to believe in them. The claim that “faith” is something personal and modest is unconvincing when viewed in the light of history and contemporary political reality in many countries. Atheism is self‐refuting, as rational argument presumes the existence of god, and while this particular argument deserves its own discussion, the idea often seems simpler.

Many contemporary atheists find support in what they take to be the methodology and findings of science. In response to this, it is often suggested that these atheists are wrong‐headed, and that religion and science are completely compatible. It is often claimed by critics that the widespread acceptance of philosophical naturalism by scientifically informed people results from a simple mistake. Evolutionary theory is best regarded as a sort of atheistic religion. This myth crops up frequently, as does the idea that evolutionary theory is inherently antireligious. The essentials of contemporary evolutionary theory are robust—they have so much empirical support that they are almost certainly true. Miracles are the subject of endless popular debate between religious apologists and religious skeptics, and there is a more specialized academic debate about this in philosophical journals.

In modern liberal democracies, our freedom of speech is rightly respected. We are all permitted to argue for the truth of whatever we believe, both in private and in public forums. We are permitted to persuade others, if we can, to live in certain ways and not to do certain things, to take a particular view of the good life for human beings, and to believe certain things rather than others. You won't be surprised to learn that many atheists think that children should not be indoctrinated with the teachings of a particular religious system. Criticism of religion has its place in the public square just as much as religion does, but antireligious speech is often criticized in a way that goes beyond attempts at refutation to a suggestion that it is socially unacceptable. Freedom of religion requires that governments restrict themselves to protecting and promoting worldly interests.

Clearly not all atheists are left‐wingers or liberals. This myth is based in part on the mistaken assumption that atheists must all agree with each other across a range of issues, including political ones. Atheism and communism were closely associated in political discussion and the public mind, with the result that many people still conflate atheism and communism, hearing an echo of the word “communist” in the word “atheist”. Communism is most certainly not the main motivator in current expressions of atheism in Western culture. Theists claim that many atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism. Nazi Germany was never an atheist state, regardless of what Hitler's personal views might have been, and none of its atrocities were committed in the name of atheism — quite the opposite.

Many religious thinkers hold that for our lives to be meaningful we need to be immortal in some way, or else our lives would be just as meaningless as those of other animals. According to this line of thought, God soon comes into the equation, as only God is capable of offering us immortality. The existence of God, then, is a logically necessary condition for a meaningful human life. Another myth suggests that atheists would be unable to create great works of art such as religious artists have created, simply because these artists were driven by their religious beliefs. Atheist parents do not celebrate Christmas (or similar festivals and holidays). This is often beaten up by media commentators into a “war on Christmas.” Atheists are unable to appreciate the beauty and perfection of God's creation.

This chapter deals with the following myths: without God there is no morality; atheists are moral relativists; atheists don't give to charity; atheists deny the sanctity of human life; and if there is no god we are soulless creatures. Atheists, informed by secular approaches to ethics, are more likely to be focused on what will cause, or prolong, or conversely, ameliorate, suffering, rather than taking the view that human life possesses some kind of transcendent or supernatural value. Many thinkers in the Eastern philosophical tradition have put forward arguments for the existence of something much like the concept of the soul, without depending on theistic arguments.