When atheists are vocal, in nearly any manner, we get accused of being horribly negative, no matter what we actually say. Now, I don’t think this should be taken as an excuse to be unrestrainedly negative. I don’t think we should judge, as many atheists whine, that since we will take flak no matter what, we had might as well be careless or cruel in our criticism of theism or of religious people generally. We should not give people good cause to hate us and want to silence us simply because they already try to silence us without legitimate provocation. But nonetheless, we have to recognize that when we are criticized for being vocal, it’s often simply because there are unjust social norms against criticizing people’s personal religious beliefs and against criticizing beliefs in gods in general.
And, somewhat more understandably but still problematically, there are mainstream social norms against proselytizing in any way (even in an ironically atheistic way) when it comes to matters of religion. These norms are not only important to many non-fundamentalist religious people but are especially prevalent among atheists and irreligious people, and they are often the most adamant of anyone about them. And so whether our criticisms of theism or its religions are actually good or actually bad. or civilly presented or uncivilly lobbed, is all a matter of indifference on a social level. There are implicit norms we are breaking just by speaking. And some of them are enforced vociferously by fellow atheists. These atheists’ masterplan is to just preach that no one ever really and seriously talk about the substance of religious beliefs with each other so that in that way religious conflict will go away and everything will be more peaceful. They don’t want atheists fighting for their own viewpoints and values and adding yet another side in conflict with the others. Apparently debates about fundamental metaphysics and ethics can only ever be carried out in hopelessly irrationalistic and tribalistic ways, because that’s what inter-religious strife has always amounted. And so atheists cannot offer anything more than the same and so should not be active participants in debates about the truth of such things, but instead just protest all inter-religious conflict. Meanwhile the groups that ignore such encouragement to stop recruiting keep growing in numbers and political influence all the time. One day maybe they will voluntarily just stop because the conflict averse non-believers keep insisting.
We vocal atheists will hardly get any credit for silence even if we join the silent atheists who foolhardily chide us for vocalizing our opinions (which they themselves actually share but think it too impolite to very publicly utter or fight for). While vocal religions flourish and while we vocal atheists get flak for actually lifting a finger to advance our own perspectives, our acquiescently silent cohorts have historically never gotten much of a pat on the head for not speaking. They do not get so much as a cookie for the favor of staying out of religions’ way as they run rampant.
The majority of unbelievers are either closeted or relatively silent and deferent to the theistic beliefs, identities, feelings, and traditions that surround all of us. They already are the silent majority of us unbelievers. And their way has only led to us being marginalized with impunity and demonized without retort. And the broader public is so grateful to all their silence that it reflexively tars all of atheism as one ironically foolish religion, all on account of a few of us having the gall to speak up. That’s how much your silence and disassociation from organization has been noted and respected, silent atheists. You’re conscripted to the cause of the first atheist to open his or her mouth. And this is not by other atheists, mind you. Other atheists recognize that while there can be atheistic religions, our atheism does not conscript us into any of them automatically or default into being any one of them all by itself. (In fact many atheists choose to evade religiousness altogether and do so successfully.) But those for whom you silent atheists have walked on egg shells feel completely at ease in tarring you and mischaracterizing you since, thanks to your obeisant silence, they don’t know a goddamned thing about you.
To understand the silent atheist’s predicament, a detour into moral psychology is helpful.
There are (at least) two kinds of moral actions. One kind of moral action involves doing something that is minimally expected of you and which is expected to be easy. No one pats you on the back for these moral acts. No one congratulates you for not pushing old people down flights of stairs. No one congratulates you for not thieving or lying or cheating or stealing. You’re just not supposed to. And the reason you probably don’t do these things is simply because you are prudent and want to avoid the risks involved anyway. And oftentimes there’s really not much of anything in it for you to do these terrible things. Unless you’re some sort of a sociopath or a psychopath, you’d be much happier not hurting people anyway.
Another kind of moral action involves doing something so extraordinarily morally good that people think you are not just minimally and obligatorily morally decent like an average person with an average conscience and set of moral feelings, but that you are actually someone who deserves special moral credit. You are actually morally praiseworthy. You are an especially moral person or you at least have done an especially morally good deed.
Sometimes these actions may even be considered supererogatory; i.e., so demanding, or even heroic, that they go well beyond merely the fulfillment of duty. These actions are sometimes seen as things we could never blame the average person for not doing but that we are especially appreciative that some people do anyway. It is an interesting moral philosophy debate to have whether there really are acts that, in this way, “go beyond the call of duty” or whether we all are really duty bound to be heroic and the majority of us are simply morally lazy and want to lower the bar when we designate the really hard moral demands as “supererogatory”.
And then there are some cases of simply not doing evil that will garner a lot of special praise, though never be seen as supererogatory. These are cases where you had a clear and advantageous opportunity to do something evil that was both highly beneficial to your own interests and something which you nearly certainly could have gotten away with. People tend to cynically assume that the average person is unlikely to withstand such a temptation and so will praise people who do, even though the action is itself only of the minimally decent kind. Or, even if they do think withstanding is normal and likely, they will still praise those who withstand as a way of reinforcing the behavior and encouraging it in others: “Be good even when you can really get one over on us, and we’ll make it up to you with admiration and maybe even some tangible future advantages in return.”
There is nothing immoral at all about being an atheist or propounding one’s atheism. But, unfairly, there are perverse social norms against it. And the atheists who remain silent do not get rewarded for doing anything especially praiseworthy even under these perverse norms because it is not seen as either especially heroic to silence one’s atheistic thoughts and nor is it seen as requiring any special resistance to temptation. It falls into the category of thankless obedient acts. Typically, you keep silent as an atheist just to avoid trouble, not because there’s any respect to be had or future return favors on account of your silence.
But someone who puts their religion ever so partially aside to be conciliatory or gracious to others is congratulated. And also when they insist on adherence to their faith and take principled stands on it then that must be respected. It’s their religion, after all. Of course that reasonably matters to them and trumps other concerns. Now, it is uncomfortable when their religious insistences are really detrimental to others and then we may either call them a false realization of their religion (thereby sparing the poor abused and exploited religion any blame on account of their sordidness) or we may criticize the content of their ideas as narrowly as necessary and still respect what is religious about it as good.
The atheist does not get any congratulations for shutting up because what is their atheism? Some nothingness? Why should they care about that? It’s not like a matter of conscience. Who cares or could possibly be passionate about what they don’t believe. What an absurdity. And really atheism is just a negativity anyway so only a rude person would want to spread that negativity to others. Only a negative person would want to cut down what others believe in, take comfort in, and form their identity with. So, no cookie, silent atheist.
What if enough vocal atheists come along? Ones who do see their atheism as an important part of their identity—and not because the gods who they think do not exist actually matter to them, but because they think commitment to those rational principles that show them that no gods exist are important, and because dispelling others of false beliefs and practices is something they passionately take to be a moral imperative.
What if these atheists come along and adamantly argue that atheism is one of the (many) tests of moral probity and thorough intellectual rigor? What if atheism comes to be understood as the sort of thing that contributes to many people’s identities in a key way? What if it comes to be understood as related to people’s core values and beliefs about the way the world is? What if these atheists make people stop thinking of atheism as merely a nothing, a negative, or a matter of indifference and mere nuisance? What if they make people see atheists in general as people for whom religious matters are worth analyzing and taking stands on because of their consequences to people’s lives?
Then maybe the silent atheists would get some credit too, the way committed religious people do, for holding all that fierce passion and identity in and for not trying to change anyone’s minds. Maybe they would be appreciated for the ways they affably abide their neighbors’ delusions? Maybe they would be admired for the ways that they are tolerantly indifferent when religious people make terrible ethical or personal or spiritual decisions because of their religious errors. Maybe they would get some credit for the ways they avoid the cardinal sin of proselytization.
So maybe we vocal atheists help the silent atheists after all. Just being silent on their own sure wasn’t getting them (or us) anywhere.
If you enjoy reading my philosophical blog posts, consider taking one of my online philosophy classes! I earned my PhD and taught 93 university classes before I went into business for myself. My online classes involve live, interactive class discussions with me and your fellow students held over videoconference (using Google Hangout, which downloads in just seconds). Classes involve personalized attention to your own ideas and questions. Course content winds up tailored to your interests as lively and rigorous class discussions determine where exactly we go. Classes are flexible enough to meet the needs of both beginners and students with existing philosophical background
My classes require no outside reading or homework or grades–only a once weekly 2.5 hour commitment that fits the schedules of busy people. My classes are university quality but I can offer no university credit whatsoever. New classes start up every month and you can join existing groups of students if you want. Click on the classes that interest you below and find the course descriptions, up-to-date schedules, and self-registration. 1-on-1 classes can be arranged by appointment if you write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.