I’ve been reading James Turner’s intellectual history of western atheism, Without God, Without Creed. I’ve been writing a post about it, but it keeps getting longer and more complicated. So I decided it’s time to fish or cut bait. Here’s the quicky version.
Atheism didn’t exist in the west for most of the past 2,000 years. After philosophical groups like the Epicureans died out, atheism just disappears. If there were any atheists, they left no journals, notes or private correspondence.
When atheism reappeared, it was sudden and with a distinctive culture. Since everybody around was Christian, atheistic culture must have been an offshoot of Christianity. As it happens, this was a from particular kind of Christianity that we’ll call “Reasonable Christianity.”
Reasonable Christianity
Pullquote: When all is done, reason must govern all since our very faith must be a reasonable faith.
Reasonable Christianity is what you get when Christianity goes through the Enlightenment. It was an attempt to make Christianity rational and useful. Atheism came when people who had been raised to believe that Christianity was rational and useful decided that it wasn’t either.
Let’s take this in two parts: rational and useful.
Rational, I think you can guess. Reasonable Christianity was heavily invested in the argument from design. They argued that you could just look at the world and reason out that there was a creator. Since there was no other way to explain the natural world at that time, this worked extremely well. Every scientific discovery just showed the complexity and wisdom of God’s design.
That ended with some major transitions in science during the 19th century, but for shorthand we’ll just blame Darwin. Chuck took an axe to the argument from design. Reasonable Christians had banked heavily on it, and once it was gone there was a lot of flailing. Before they could recover, some of them had decided that religion was no longer rational.
The Moral Center
Pullquote: I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures; and if such a creature can sentence me to Hell for not so calling him, to Hell I will go.
Useful is a bit trickier. I think it’s best summed up by the quote from Benjamin Franklin that “…the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.” Morality was the Alpha and Omega of religion. Everything else – mystery, ritual, traditions, worship – went out the window. Religion’s purpose was not to get you to the next world, it was to help you live right and wisely on this world.
So religion was useful – even necessary – to explain the moral laws that God have woven into his universe. This idea took a number of hits over the course of a century. I’d set the starting date at 1755, the year of the great Lisbon Earthquake. This reintroduced western culture to the problem of evil. For a start, it’s what inspired Voltaire’s Candide.
The 19th century has been called the “Age of Pain,” but also the “Age of Humanitarianism.” People started to become aware of exactly how much suffering there was around them, and they wanted to do something about it on more than just a local scale.
Reasonable Christians expected God to be reasonable. They began asking how a reasonable God could create such an unreasonable world. Worse, they began asking how this system of divine morality could allow such suffering. Christianity was looking less useful.
Angry Atheists
Pullquote: The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing, though it might be free from dogma.
For some Reasonable Christians, the whole thing was no longer rational or useful. But they were still Reasonable Christians are heart. Reasonable Christianity had been based on morality, had valued science, had faith in reason and looked forward to human progress. When some became atheists they kept those things. Particularly morality, and I think that’s the important thing to understand about the first wave of atheists.
The reason people like Robert Ingersoll, Elizabeth Cady Staton and Charles C. Moore sound like pulpit-pounding moralizers is because that’s exactly what they were. God, religion and the church had not measured up to what was supposed to be their own morality. So the early atheists told them, in no uncertain terms, exactly how they had failed.
I’ve sometimes heard it said that the New Atheists are different because they are hostile to religion. Actually, from our very beginning in the middle of the 19th century, western atheists have viewed religion as harmful, immoral and a capitulation of our responsibility to use our minds.
Let’s face it: we were BORN angry.
Vorjack, I think atheism just had bad or no press in the west for most of 1500 years. Atheists were as likely to become victims of whitch hunts as pagans were. Also I think when you read some of the things written during the time periods in question you can find the missing atheists. There was no sudden reapperance,and definitely no common culture, it just was no longer a death sentance,so people were more open about their lack of faith. There is no MUST…and it isn’t/wasn’t an offshoot of xtianity as much as a response to the 1200 years or so of war based on religon in the west.
I would also suggest that rational xtianity is on oxymoronic concept as is xtian morality being useful,when you consider those killed for adhering to rationality and the morality was alway situational and do what I say and not what I do when morality came out to play.
Though I do agree some of us are angry a bit,none of us were born angry.
I was not born angry; it was when that bastard gave me a hiding just after I was born that made me angry! ^_^
I think the threat to life, liberty and health for non-belief in the West drove atheism underground. Atheism has always existed, but in the West for that period of time, not in an open and organized form. Even that prick Plato threatened to kill atheists in The Republic.
The Carvaka school of atheism in India is known to have existed for quite a while, from ~600 BCE up to at least the 16th century.
The Carvaka school of atheism in India is known to have existed for quite a while, from ~600 BCE up to at least the 16th century.
Wow, these guys are new to me. All sorts of neat stuff on the wiki page.
For the record, the Cārvāka are exactly what I was thinking when I limited the discussion to the west.
I think Atheism has been around long before Religion or they were established at exactly the same time.
When the first person said “Let There Be God” and saw that it was good, I am sure that a lot of the people sitting aroung the tribal fire politely moved away from the crazy person.
Unfortunatley crazy people tend to be more charismatic than the smart people.
Those of us that used to be born-again Christians – does that mean we were born twice as angry?
My personal experience would strongly point to “yes”.
I’m noticing most of these histories and books you bring up are written by ex-Xian atheists, or the poor me born to an atheist family in the middle of a crazy Christian society type atheist. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be writing their thoughts and research, but they can’t be the only voices out there. There must be atheists among every society with access to education, regardless of the regional gods and superstitions. There must be atheists who aren’t white and don’t speak English. Where are their writings?
I think it’s still pretty dangerous in most parts of the world to be a visible atheist. Overt burning of heretics is out of fashion in Western culture, which makes visibility much safer than it used to be. It’s still political suicide to be an atheist, at least in the U.S. The repercussions are much more severe elsewhere.
I think I spoke about that,lol..that burning is out of favor anyway.
In China it is risky to be an intellectual (offend the wrong people and you are in deep trouble), in most south Asian countries (Pakistan, India, etc.) heresy is illegal and there are armed mobs of religious fanatics that have killed because you offended their god. In the middle east it is a death sentence to be atheist. Northern Africa is strongly muslim and so it is a crime (often a capital one) to be atheist. Much of south Africa murders witches and homosexuals, so I can’t imagine that Atheists have much safety.
Buddhism is often called atheistic, however anyone who advocates buddhism would write about the virtues of buddhism, not the perils of religion.
Finally, if one is an atheist in a region where everyone else is atheists, there will be no conflict and thus very little reason to examine or defend atheism. If one is an atheist in a region of overwhelming religion then one would hide their atheism because it will lead to extreme ostracism or even death. The periods of history and regions of the world mentioned are ones that sit on the cusp of religiosity that allows intellectual atheism to flourish.
Of course one must also note that western society has ignored non-western intellectualism so profoundly that it is difficult for us to recall non-western intellectuals and thus very difficult to research said intellectuals.
I have yet to see a culture that doesn’t prefer gazing at its own navel.
That’s funny but true, Ursa!
So what you’re saying, it is to be mostly white guys writing mostly the same thing most of the time? Unless another part of the world finds itself in the right combo of irritating, but not deadly, to the non-believer?
You mentioned that in China, “it is risky to be an intellectual”. I’m sure the members of Christian home churches in that country would agree with you.
Any totalitarian government is incredibly dangerous, religious or atheist. We see it with countries under Sharia Law such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, just as much as we have in atheistic communist countries such as China and North Korea.
You say that “if one is an atheist in a region where everyone else is atheists, there will be no conflict and thus very little reason to examine or defend atheism”, again, this could be said of any world view. Humanity has proven again and again that groups will attack those who think differently to them, unfortunately, we’re seeing history repeated with this new wave of “angry atheists”.
Google: Arab atheists, European atheists, atheism in India, and you’ll find plenty to read.
How much of Christianity’s following today is based on cultural and familial pressures? Think about it, most Christians know very little about their own faith or history, or how their holy book was formed into the cannon they use today. To venture outside of cultural norms in the past meant risking torture and death; today, ostrasization to be sure, if you’re vocal, perhaps death threats, but for the most part one is finally free to be. I don’t think atheist are any angrier than any other group who are struggling for a place in society. Much of the anger we appear to have is frustration. Attempting to express our thoughts to a faith based worldview hostile to any disconfirming evidence is …….. frustrating.
A great little summary.
I think atheists could be calmer if they only interacted with educated people who were willing to engage in philosophical discussions. One could be intellectually angry about the negative effects of religion in the same way that one was angry about, say, illiteracy. Now, however, we have to constantly defend our basic human and legal rights, and that makes us viscerally angry.
For me, it can be quite difficult not to feel angry. Sure you can start off calm, considerate and respectful of people’s religious views, but then you think of the wars, the death and destruction, and the pure and utter barbaric nature of some modern sects, and that deep down, any religious person you talk to will have some small amount of sympathy for them, no matter how moderate they claim to be.
For me, it’s because of the ridiculous attitude of entitlement theists have. It’s always the same. Somebody starts harping about their religion until it starts to get irritating, so you ask a couple of innocuous questions that you know they can’t answer in order to shut them up – and their response is not so much to play the victim card as the entire deck. It’s like they think that me not believing in Jeeeeezus-uh is some kind of personal attack on them :-/
Atheism began to attain a status of legitimacy (or at least some measure of safety) after the inquisitions and various forms of religious persecution had been in force for a couple hundred years, as political leaders, rational thinkers and influential figures became aware of new alternative explanations offered by early science for some of the superstitions and ignorant assumptions that fed the unjustifiable (except under authoritarian ecclesiastic law) atrocities being committed. I believe this was a significant factor which was manifest, for example, in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written just a hundred years after the Salem Witch trials, and a hundred years before the last heretic was condemned and hung. The imposition of secular law gave protection to religious dissension for perhaps the first time in history.
As Shannon points out, atheists are not the only persecuted minority in the world, but you guys certainly know how to play the victim card. Maybe you all live in the USA; certainly atheists have field day here in Australia! But your arguments against Christianity aren’t nearly as strong as you imagine. Just because you can find some faults with the Bible or Christians’ behaviour doesn’t prove Jesus wrong.
HAHAHAHAHAAHA!
Jonny, I went to your website. I read your first post. I noted (this is tired, at 3 am and a little unfocused) at least 4 contradictions to yourself in the first post. (i can completely point them out if you want me to. I have limited time now, as i am getting ready for work)
Your arguments for the bible seem forced to me, as if desperately trying to justify something you know in your heart to be shaky in the first place.
Maybe you want to re-examine exactly what you’re saying. Proofread it a little bit, make sure it’s all copacetic before you come here and criticize what we say.
Or, you might simply want to actually make an argument instead of just coming in and saying what amounts to “Nu-uh, you’re wrong”
I’m always happy to receive constructive criticism, Trick Question. Maybe you could go to my blog and leave a comment there. I agree my statements were generalized but it seems to me that most of the bloggers here were also trading in unsupported generalities, except the original comments on “reasonable Christianity” which were historically solid, though I would interpret the Enlightenment narrative differently. One thing that does come out, though, is that both passionate Christians and passionate atheists face opposition. In fact, early Christians were often accused of atheism because of their opposition to the traditional Greco-Roman religions.
“….But your arguments against Christianity aren’t nearly as strong as you imagine. Just because you can find some faults with the Bible or Christians’ behaviour doesn’t prove Jesus wrong.”
Too much stupid… Cannot compute….
“One thing that does come out, though, is that both passionate Christians and passionate atheists face opposition. In fact, early Christians were often accused of atheism because of their opposition to the traditional Greco-Roman religions.”
So you equate the persecution of an ancient civilization because of an ancient holy text, within the context of an ancient knowledge of the universe to the ‘opposition’ that an athiest encounters today from people still wielding the same nonsense? Can you see how your diluded and misguided representation of what it means to be persecuted and misunderstood are completely unbalanced? What exaclty are you trying to say here ’cause i’m lost?
So “Transformed”, are you saying that everything “ancient” is somehow irrelevant or wrong by definition? Or am I just too “diluded” (sic) and “misguided” to get the point?
I pose the same question to you about most of the old testament, and all the faiths that came before your own.
Let us not neglect to examine the many faiths that came after. Islam, Baha’i, etc. One needs criteria to determine which religion is true and which is incorrect, and they have to be more solid than “It’s true because it’s my religion, and it wouldn’t be my religion if it weren’t true.”
Now Trick Question, to me that sounds as though you’re trying to justify discriminating ancient works by accusing someone else of doing so. Not a very strong argument. UrsaMinor raises a good point. One must evaluate each religion (or areligion) of its own merit and set a criteria to prove which is correct. Therefore an agreeance with one of these ancient texts wouldn’t be “wrong by definition”, it would be considered right or wrong by content.
@ Shannon
On the contrary. I’m trying to prove the equal validity of them.
TrickQuestion, in that case, I’m curious to know the timeline before we consider a thought “ancient” and are forced do disregard it. Isaac Newton’s theories on gravity from 1687 are pretty dated, or must we look at older ideas?
We can date mathmatics back to Babylon and perhaps older.
Writing to Mesopotamia circa 3200BC.
Should we disuse these silly, ancient ideas?
The concept of disregarding something due to its age is ridiculous, but I’d like to assume the best of you, and consider that you’re already aware of that, and are using this argument to prove some sort of point. What that is, however, I haven’t a clue.
With age (and further discovery) comes disregard for the old ways that have been shown to be inaccurate or simply untrue.
I never said anything about disregarding anything due to age.
Absolutely, Trick Question (what a name!). That’s why Christianity doesn’t disown the OT, although we interpret it in the light of Jesus
The name is apt in most cases.
So the bible is not meant to be taken literally, but to be interpreted (much like poetry, yes?)?
Doesn’t that mean that a person can pretty much say that it means whatever they want it to mean, as long as there’s some explaination from that person’s standpoint behind it?
@ Jon> when a text that makes specific claims about the universe that have been since proven exactly wrong (or at least way off) and has less and less relevance due to such a condition…. Yes I feel that the claim of irrelevancy of the bible is merited. However no where did I make the claim that EVERYTHING in our collective past is irrelevant or wrong.
Secondly, you haven’t addressed the question. The modern atheist/ religion debate is sooooo categorically different than the supposed persecution of christians at any level and at any point in time.
@ Shannon> don’t get hung up on semantics. Can we agree that by ‘ancient’ I meant to reference a point in time undeniably outdated from my own. Could be 1000 years or 10,000 years. Hell comparatively speaking even a hundred years ago can be so referenced as ancient on the basis of knowledge, technology, culture trends, applied sciences and mathematics.
The point is that Jon, here, is trying to draw some sort of parallel between persecution complex of christians and the qualms an atheist would have with the unjustified claims of religion.
At least that’s what I can get out of it.
Atheists can’t prove Jesus wrong. Neither can we prove Allah or Vishnu wrong. That doesn’t mean we think any of them should be taken seriously (in the same way you don’t take Allah or Vishnu seriously yourself). And though it doesn’t serve as positive disproof of Jesus, it doesn’t exactly help either that he is part of the Bible which has been found to be factually wrong about a number of things.
Well we can prove that Jesus didn’t exist as an historical figure: basically there’s only one mention of him from contemporary historians, and that mention (Josephus) is highly suspicious. Someone linked to a very good summary a while back, but I can’t remember where it is.
We can’t disprove God, but we can say ‘probably not’.
There are certainly some things in the gospels about which we can say it is simply inconceivable we have no historical records if these events actually happened. This goes for the three hours of complete darkness over the land and zombies walking around in Jerusalem after Jesus’ crucifixion, or how Jesus according to John did so many things that all the books in the world would fail to mention it all, yet there are no mentions of any of these deeds anywhere outside the gospels. Neither are there are mentions of Jesus himself at all, except for that Josephus reference which most scholars agree is forged.
So we have to decide whether every trace of these extraordinary and widespread events have been lost from history, or whether the gospel authors might have fallen to the temptation of making stuff up. Not really a tough choice.
Actually, considering the statement we’re working off is
“So “Transformed”, are you saying that everything “ancient” is somehow irrelevant or wrong by definition? Or am I just too “diluded” (sic) and “misguided” to get the point?”
“I pose the same question to you about most of the old testament, and all the faiths that came before your own.”
We were in fact arguing YOUR position of disregarding things due to age. I’m fine with letting you change topic now if you so wish. I’d also be happy to hear your “discoveries” that show religion to be “inaccurate or simply untrue.”
I do assume they will be unbiased and logical.
Of course they will. Logic and bias are the very antithesis of what i strive to do.
Please specify which religion you are referring to.
I like to go from the assumption that they are all true, and all equally valid and go from there.
Actually, I wasn’t referring to any religion in particular. I find it more useful to first investigate the atheist/theist questions before moving onto a particular religion. Of course, if you make an argument that works for one religion and not another, I’ll be happy to let it slide, or notify you of it so you can make a rebuttal in your own time.
(Because we all CAN be polite, and maybe shake that nasty “Angry” atheist tag… wow, we’ve drifted fairly off course of the original post, ha!)
Well, to start with, you have to define the reasoning behind the disbelief, which does sort of qualify defining which faith in question. The reason to disbelieve one faith, the specifics, are generally unique to that particular faith. Sure, there are similarities within, but in order to get specifics we have to know the one being argued.
If not, I’ll just go with Scientology.
In that case, let’s work with Christianity. (I would love to hear the dismantling of Scientology just for the sake of it, although I don’t think that meets my original criteria as Scientology is an atheist movement. Plus, I’m not sure if any mind could counter such high proofs as, “Tom Cruise is a member so it must be true.”)
That being said, it looks as though it is now time for sleep, I’ll hopefully get a chance to look at your response sometime tomorrow.
It’s been fun debating. Have a great day/night/afternoon/something.
Scientology is an atheist movement? That’s the first I’ve heard of it being such.
L.Ron Hubbard said himself
“No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical and less valuable to themselves and society….A man without an abiding faith is, by observation alone, more of a thing than a man.”
Nah, Let’s not work with Christianity. That’s been done to death already. Let’s talk about something that’s not even an offshoot, in any way. How about the Norse beliefs. Let’s do those. Cool?
Just to clarify, I am not in any way attempting to dodge the issue or anything. It’s just that all we ever really work with here is christianity, and I would prefer to break the tedium.
Hinduism never gets discussed here, and unlike Norse paganism, it’s still very much alive. How about that?
(And yes, I know there are a few Norse neo-pagans out there, but they have little if any historical connection to or continuity with the original religion).
So many comments since I last visited this blog.
My point about ancient-ness is that old ideas are not always wrong and new ideas are not always better. Most people still find Jesus an inspiring figure and a great moral guide. I don’t know if anyone has ever improved on the sermon on the mount and it inspired the likes of Gandhi even though he rejected Christianity. The Bible as a whole continues to be relevant even though its “science” may be dated in some points because humanity hasn’t changed that much over the past few thousand years and therefore the Bible still speaks about lots of important needs and issues.
It’s also worth noting that some recent science, especially Physics, supports the idea of a Creator, e.g. the big bang; the anthropic principle.
Are there intellectual issues for Christians? Indeed there are. But the evidence doesn’t all go in one direction, which I think atheists tend to ignore at times.
HAHAHAHAHAAHA! x2
OK.
Present the evidence we’ve been so willfully ignoring.
Funny how the big bang was seen as evidence against God until one day a cleverer than average Christian said “Hey wait a minute! We can TOTALLY twist this to fit with Genensis!”
Also, you fail to grasp what “evidence” means. The big bang DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A CREATOR. Did you get that? Good. Then I’ll expand: The big bang could be said to support a definite moment in time when the universe came into being, but it has nothing whatsoever to say about what happened before that. We don’t know what caused the big bang – to use that lack of knowledge as “evidence” for God is just more standard-issue God-of-the-gaps bullshit.
The bible is not still relevant “as a whole”. If I pointed out that buying slaves and forcing virgin girls from slaughtered cultures to marry you are explicitly allowed by god the O.T., I’m sure you’ll be quick to point out that it’s no longer relevant to our culture, or some dismissive statement to that effect. ( e.g. “4. God’s ethical revelation and dealings in the Old Testament are to some degree relative or situational. It was too early to expect the level of ethical purity we see in the Sermon on the Mount. God tolerated, but restricted, such evils as war, polygamy and slavery until Jesus came.” Jon K Newton, God of Genocide?, August 26th, 2011 at http://www.jonknewton.com/god-of-genocide/)
The only way we could call the bible “relevant” is to say that large chunks of our population still take it seriously, but this is a far cry from saying that anything the bible contains is still applicable.
The bible contains little of relevance that isn’t articulated better or more thoroughly/practically by other sources, ancient and new. Musonius Rufus, for a start. The sooner more people realise this, the sooner the bible becomes irrelevant in every sense.
The big bang is not evidence for god. If anything, it fills a gap that god once sat in. Your religion-tinted spectacles bias your observations. The anthropic principle, again, is not evidence for god, nor is it scientific. The intro to the relevant wikipedia entry does a good job of explaining it, as well as why it fails. Vorjack wrote a great parody of the idea here, switching the anthropocentric bias for a black-hole-centric bias (Richard Carrier makes the same observation in an interview, look it up on Youtube).
Stay hiding behind your wall of vague promises and baseless assertions. Any man who would use “it only happened once” to justify the god-sanctioned genocide in the bible, as you did on your website, clearly has little of use to contribute to a discussion on the behaviour of atheists.
The anthropic principle is not evidence for a Creator. It is not evidence for anything at all. It’s simply a statement that wades barefoot through the obvious: “If conditions were such that we couldn’t exist, we wouldn’t exist.” Well, duh. This is not exactly controversial, but it doesn’t lead you to any further knowledge. It can’t.
We have exactly zero information about how likely any particular combination of natural laws is to come about. Any statements that arbitrarily assign a probability and attempt to draw conclusions from that are pure nonsense.
The pedant inside me is compelled to object. A more correct summary of the antropic principle would be: “If conditions were such that we couldn’t exist, we wouldn’t be here to determine that we couldn’t exist.”
I think you left the gate unlatched. :)
I see that I misspelled “anthropic”. Bad pedant :(
No, no. You’re a good pedant, because you pointed out your own error.
I suppose so. I did quadruple-check for spelling errors in my previous post which mentioned my spelling error.
“The Bible as a whole continues to be relevant even though its “science” may be dated in some points because humanity hasn’t changed that much over the past few thousand years and therefore the Bible still speaks about lots of important needs and issues.”
~ Seriously? Haven’t changed that much? The science is only “a bit” dated? Bible speaks on needs and wants for humanity (today)? I’m confused….
Jon we are clear that we are discussing a text that claims to be %100 correct %100 of the time. If at any point one can find legitimate error with the bible, that should be enough to destroy the legitimacy of the bible entirely.
While the Sermon on the Mount was beautiful and poetic…. There’s nothing ground breaking about comradery, “love your neighbor as yourself”, and “the meek shall inherit the earth.”
….And I’m not going to beat the God of the gaps horse.
Hi Jon I used to believe in Christianity, I leaned on the NT, but , since 2008 , I came to another understanding of God, that seems to exist……
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/judaism.htm
http://www.christiandeistfellowship.com/withoutchurches.htm
http://www.christiandeistfellowship.com/bibleprayer.htmstudy,” my focus as a Christian deist is on the teachings of Jesus found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament