Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

[The Thinker]

Read more: http://phys.org/news/2016-02-disbeli...m-natural.html


Thoughts?

[Carrikature]

This probably belongs in apologetics, not civics.

[Jedidiah]

Since I never believed in "Religion as a default setting," This does not disturb me at all.

[Littlejoe]

[Adrift]

Whitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.

What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.

Since I never believed in "Religion as a default setting," This does not disturb me at all.

That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...

Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.

[The Thinker]

Whitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.

What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.


That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...

Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.

Interesting. I'm an atheist and I've always thought religion/belief in god was probably the default setting. Would you say that the epicurians were really just polydeists? I.e. They believed in many gods that never interfered with human's and nature.

[Adrift]

Interesting. I'm an atheist and I've always thought religion/belief in god was probably the default setting. Would you say that the epicurians were really just polydeists? I.e. They believed in many gods that never interfered with human's and nature.

Yeah. As far as I can tell, epicureans were essentially the deists of their day.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.

This does seem to be the general case, as I've understood it, as well-- though I do recall evidence that there existed at least some "atheist atheists," in antiquity. For example, as I recall, when certain philosophers were accused of atheism, they responded by saying that they believed in the gods, but simply ascribed different properties to the gods than did the mainstream. This would seem to imply that they are differentiating themselves from others who explicitly did not believe in the gods. However, my recollection on that subject is admittedly vague, so take it with a sizable portion of salt.

I'm also very interested to see what Whitmarsh brings to the table, in this regard.

That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...

I was never comfortable with other atheists who pursued that line of reasoning. It seemed like a fairly blatant genetic fallacy to me. The manner in which a belief originates does not necessarily tell us anything about the veracity of that belief.

[The Thinker]

Yeah. As far as I can tell, epicureans were essentially the deists of their day.

But they believed in more than one god right? That would make them polydeists.

[Adrift]

But they believed in more than one god right? That would make them polydeists.

I suppose so. :)

[Carrikature]

I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either way. Neither the origins of nor the duration of a given belief has any impact on its veracity. It's definitely interesting to see what ancient peoples believed, though.

[shunyadragon]

Whitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.

What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.

That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...

Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.

It would be bazzario that Romans whould accuse Christians of being atheists. Roman and Greek philosophers understood what atheism was, the belief that Gods do not exist, such as the philosophy of Lucretius, who believed specifically in Philosophical Naturalism or in other words atheism. The Romans accused the Christians of believing and worshiping a false God and rejecting the Roman Gods. This, my friend are facts of history.

[Adrift]

It would be bazzario that Romans whould accuse Christians of being atheists. Roman and Greek philosophers understood what atheism was, the belief that Gods do not exist, such as the philosophy of Lucretius, who believed specifically in Philosophical Naturalism or in other words atheism. The Romans accused the Christians of believing and worshiping a false God and rejecting the Roman Gods. This, my friend are facts of history.

Breaking news: Early Christians were impious atheists . . .Philip Harland, Associate Professor of Humanities with a specialization in Religious and Social Life in the Roman Empire, York University, Toronto

There's also, of course, Athenagoras' (C.133-190) apology "A Plea for the Christians", which attempted to refute the charge of atheism against the early church: He then goes chapter after chapter explaining how Christians are not atheists: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm (chapters 3-14).

In the Roman world, the accusation had more to do with the lack of public worship than anything. Judaism was largely able to get around this for being such an old religion, and in the ancient world, anything that was considered old was good. But Christianity was seen as an upstart split from Judaism, and so looked upon with suspicion.

I'm surprised at your objection shunya. This is all uncontroversial, relatively well known stuff. I find it a bit ironic that you imply that you know something about "facts of history", and didn't seem to know this.

[Adrift]

By the way, Lucretius was your standard Epicurean. He believed in the existence of gods, he simply didn't think they had any interaction with the known world.

[Cerebrum123]

By the way, Lucretius was your standard Epicurean. He believed in the existence of gods, he simply didn't think they had any interaction with the known world.

Be prepared for the backlash. Epicurus is practically shunyadragon's hero. Odd that he would pick someone whom he thinks is explicitly atheist for a hero when he is a Bahai'.