David Silverman Answers Questions... In The Atheist Fashion

David Silverman is the President of American Atheists, which is an evangelical Atheist group which was started by Madelyn Murray O'Hair, the much reviled iconoclast who led to the US Supreme Court removing prayer from schools.

Here is a video of Silverman answering questions from an audience at the end of a debate. The challenge here is to take notes as you watch the video, and develop your own analysis of what Silverman says. Watch the video before you read my own comments, which are below the video.



The first Q/A is classic. The questioner asks about the "assumption of origin" and claims that there is no scientific, replicable evidence available, so that being constrained to an epistemology requires an "element of faith", that we have "to assume belief", that we have "to assume an origin". Further, that evolutionary theory or Big Bang is fact. "It excludes itself from scientific method at origin", being "not observable, reproducible" in regard to origin. Therefore, one "still has to carry an element of faith and belief". Therefore we're "all religious".

Silverman makes the classic "redefinition" dodge: there is a double meaning to faith/belief which has been improperly used. (Note 1) Then he proceeds to claim that evolution is "proven fact", an unsustainable claim by any interpretation of "fact" or "proof" and a misrepresentation of science's contribution to knowledge (which is contingent). Then he spends considerable effort on the claim that there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution, which he fails desperately to prove with his example, including his attack on the definition of "speciation". In point of fact, actual mathematical fact, micro-evolution remains within the genome, while macro-evolution requires beneficial mutations outside of the genome to produce new features previously not in the genome.

A ≡ A;
A !≡ B, unless sufficient extra is added to A to make it become equivalent to B.
A + Δ(M) = B, where Δ(M) is change: mutation.

There is no credible account of evolution which does not require beneficial mutation, +Δ(M). Silverman starts to look foolish as he pontificates a false representation of mutation/selection.

But most damaging is that he did not answer the origins belief issue at all. He merely attempted to define it away, and dodged with the claim that evolution does not entail abiogenesis. This is the common dodge which is made to avoid the prickly problem of evolving from minerals to life. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that not to be prerequisite to subsequent evolution.

The only reponse regarding the Big Bang is that "it is true": evidence and all that. Nothing beyond that which goes to the origin of the Big Bang, which of course is the actual issue.

The next speaker is the (apparent) moderator, who makes the observation that physics has replicable “trajectory” calculations, and he relates that to the “trajectory” of evolution. He makes this into a pompous big deal of attempting to connect evolution to physics. But it could not be more false. Evolution can make no hypotheses, no predictions, no future trajectories, no way to anticipate the next round of "evolving", because the theory predicts everything and nothing all at the same time. Evolution has no predictive power because it depends on random (potential) mutations to produce (potentially) beneficial genomic changes which will produce new features IFF selected as more efficient in a changing environment. Neither the mutation, nor the acquisition of new features is predictable under the mutation/selection scenario. (Note 2) There is no knowable trajectory into the future which can be anticipated under mutation/selection. The comparison to physics is blatantly false. It is a weak attempt to obtain legitimacy by False Association (fallacy) with a real empirical science.

However, the speaker is talking about reverse trajectories only, looking back in time. But this is also without value, since there is no agreement on whether evolution is represented by a tree, a bush, a web, a grid or something else altogether. So this is defeated by actual knowledge of the state of evolutionary theory.

Then the speaker makes this claim:

"It must be proven that these trajectories are not true."

Why? That is not even part of the question which was posed. And since those "trajectories" are totally imaginary, it is easy to prove that they do not even exist, at least in real evolutionary theory. The attempt to associate evolution with physics is an ongoing failure within Atheism.

At that moment Silverman makes his uncalled for, prejudicial shouting attack:

”And that is what you theists won’t do – look it up!”

...implying that theists employ self-enforced ignorance, and further,

“...that’s why theism is evil”.

It is the self-righteous condemnation opportunity he has been looking for, which he eagerly pronounces despite the fact that there was no reason for making that statement other than his unsuppressed bigotry and the caricature-type profiling of the Other which infests Atheism.

The questioner is not allowed by circumstance to address this egregious and phony, even slanderous attack. This scenario is inevitably destined to preserve the falseness of Silverman’s position as the last, factual word, and his Ad Hominem as valid truth.

The next commenter, an Atheist, is a soft-baller, and he and Silverman agree that American education – as well as all other American failures – correlate well with American religiosity, and therefore religion is responsible for all American faults (which Silverman demonstrates, are many), especially government education. This correlation/causation logical fallacy is continually proven false by comparison of the quite high results of homeschooling with the pitifully low results of secular government schooling. And no rational person equates correlation with causation, anyway. But these two did exactly that. And again there is no chance to address these failures of basic logic during the actual debate process.

Toward the end a theist makes some statements before he gets to asking a question. He points out in disagreement that Siverman makes the claim that theists declare that their “stories are perfect”. This is another absurd caricature which does not apply to any educated theist. He fails to push this issue of Atheist caricature, however, and he continues. Everyone has the same set of facts, he says, and if there actually are facts, then which worldview accounts for the existence of such facts, brute facts which cannot be wrong?

The Atheist answer is pure avoidance. Replies Silverman,

“when you go into that it’s a wasteful experience… sidetrack, sidetrack, sidetrack, and you’re not gonna get to the meat.”

Sye interrupts,

”Of course you would want to avoid that”.

And that is the best analysis Sye has made, one which is obviously valid. This is one issue that should have been pushed clear to the wall.

The questioner makes it clear:

”…the real important issue is, if we’re gonna talk about facts, science, knowledge, we got to find out ‘what is knowledge; what is truth’, and that’s why this discussion ends up going down the road of ‘can we have absolute truth? Can we obtain it?’
…
“If I were to try to get to the root of the problem, that’s the root of the problem; that’s the foundation where things go awry, is – hang on – can we have truth or can we not have truth? If we can’t have truth, then it doesn’t do any good to have a discussion, does it?

Rather than address this question, the moderator asks his own question designed to lead away from the issue presented: he asks,

“Do you believe that the Old Testament is the word of God?”

And Sye interrupts again,

“If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”

And bingo, the question is defused and deflected by Red Herring deviation, a rhetorical tactic. The new question has no bearing on the conceptual issue of the existence or nonexistence of truth. It is pure deflection rhetorical deception. And Sye went for it.

Now the moderator takes the new tack he created, and in self-righteous condescention says,

“When you say that it sounds like saying ‘amen’ in a theistic crowd, maybe in a fundamentalist church [as aren’t they all] but some of us who have actually stidied the Greek / Aramaic would ask you the question, have you considered what an abjad is?”

Sye:

”No I haven’t”

Moderator:

”OK so you’re saying that an abjad, which is a consonantal text, has been actually “pointed” in four different categories, and all diametrically opposed to each other. And it depends on which pointing system as to how you translate it. It’s highly ambiguous and Doctor (unintelligible) is the one who is quoted as stating ”It’s like looking at abstract art, and so it’s all in the eyes of the beholder”

This is quite false. To think that Jews would face the West Wall and recite abstract, meaningless gibberish is absurd. Further, there are cogent interpretations of the ancient Hebrew, which in only a few places are debatable as to single word meanings. (These are frequently the areas which Atheists pick out to argue as “immoral”). The use of “abstract art” as a linguistic mechanism to denigrate a language is absurd. This fake “knowledge” of the abstraction of Hebrew is dredged into the conversation in a deviated response to the issue of the existence of “truth”. And the result becomes that Atheists appear to have the truth – that there is no truth – while theists appear befuddled by "abstract art" which doesn't exist.

He goes on,

”The Jews for years have never argued the protestant theory of the Old Testament, Nor the Catholics have argued the same as the Jews have, because the Jews have always created, they have treated their consonantal text as a traditional model as simply allowing it to be something like abstract art; it was never considered to be an accurate text at all. If you look at the linguists who have dealt with this abjad, it has never been accurately represented in any context, because it’s nothing more than abstract art. And do you have any proof that you can actually render something that’s purely consonantal…
[interruption].

[Actually ancient Hebrew is an impure abjad, which means that while it is consonantal, it also contains some vowel indicators as well. Meaning, if obscure contextually, is obtained from a list of definitions for each word, from which list a contextually proper definition is selected. It is not usually necessary to go to such lengths, because commonly the context is obvious.]

The moderator goes on,

”Can you prove me a syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis to prove that what you are saying is true?”

It’s not clear whether he’s referring to the claim that the bible is valid because of Jesus or referring to whether Hell exists. Either way, it’s another attack from pomposity, with a guaranteed answer which is attackable, and it still doesn't address the issue of whether truth exists.

Sye admits that he doesn’t know the meanings of those words, to which the moderator then, dripping with condescention, replies,

”This is why Dave [Silverman] is extremely upset about theism”

Really? Because a theist doesn't engage with false notions of linguistics?

Sye replies with a question,

”What is your ultimate authority?

[another interruption].

The video ends with no answer to that question.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
Never once do the Atheists answer a question which is posed to them. As shown above, they deflect and deviate and pontificate all around the issue, except for the one time when Silverman declared the question to be unimportant and refused to address it.

The first questioner addressed origins, which is the fatal point for Atheism. Silverman dodged into an arrogant “correction” of definitions, which he pursued at length along with a defense of evolution as Truth, and abiogenesis as just peripheral. In other words, he did not address origins, either the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

The next issue is the point of “trajectories” made by the moderator, a false comparison of evolution with Newtonian physics. The concept of calculatable trajectories as deductive experimental hypotheses in evolution is ludicrous; no scientist would make that claim. Because it is false. And yet Silverman leverages a false accusation out of this false premise, and turns it into a sleazy insult.

The following issue is from the soft-baller Atheist who sets up Silverman with the correlation of theism with all the problems and failures of the USA, problems which in no manner derive from theism; they agree heartily, however, that the correlation proves causation.

The next questioner raises the issue of the existence of brute facts, i.e. Truths. Silverman actually denigrates the question, and refuses to answer while assuming a haughty, arrogant posture and demeanor.

This questioner pushes ahead anyway, with the issue of Truth: if there is no Truth, then there can be no conversation, can there? The moderator takes charge and avoids answering by asking a deflecting question of his own, and pushes the subsequent issue (the exegesis of the Bible) beyond absurdity and into complete falseness, where he designates the Torah to be “abstract art”. He pushes linguistic technical terminology as if he understands it himself (he does not appear to know anything other than a few words, which he gets wrong – Hebrew is not abjad in nature, it is an impure abjad which means that it is not purely consonantal. And I frankly doubt that he has studied anything about linguistics, although he claims that distinction, and he uses that phony weapon to assert his disdain for theism.

Again, not a single question from the theists is addressed head-on by either Silverman or the other Atheists present. Altogether, this video demonstrates a series of dodges, false claims and rhetorical absurdities from the Atheists, who strut mightily as if they had won this “discussion”.

NOTES
Note 1: This doesn't seem to bother a great many Atheists, who claim that Stalin was "religious" in his beliefs, as was Lenin, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, etc., so they get to blame religion for everything evil (or at least evil as they choose to define it).

Note 2: It is doubtlessly possible to engineer a genomic change which will produce predictable results when artificially selected; this is not evolution in the standard model sense: it is genomic engineering in the design sense.