The Three Phases of Atheism
by Bill Muehlenberg
Atheism has been around, in various forms, for some time now. At the risk of oversimplification, one can speak of three phases or periods of atheism.
Types of atheism have been in existence in antiquity. In ancient Greece Socrates was accused both of atheism and of corrupting the youth. But there were many different meanings of atheism then, and they could often be contradictory as well. But generally, as in the case of Socrates, it meant denying the Athenian gods and the traditional religions of the day.
The wide diversity of meaning associated with the term back then can further be seen in the fact that the early Christians were even accused of being atheists by their critics. Of course for ancient Rome, an atheist could be anyone who would not worship the official deities of the Roman state. Thus political concerns tended to trump religious concerns, and refusal to bow to the emperor and imperial symbols, for example, was seen as sedition.
‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook! Follow @ThePoachedEgg
Donate to TPE! It is only the second phase, or modern atheism, that most people would recognise today. This was part of the modernist project, especially the Enlightenment. It is most well-known and associated with the French Revolution. Modern atheism is much less nebulous and ambiguous than its ancient counterpart, and the term means much more specifically the explicit denial of the existence of supernatural beings.
Names like Voltaire, Feuerbach and Marx come to mind here. These and other thinkers offered a more nuanced and sophisticated version of atheism, and as such, it can be seen as a relatively recent innovation in Western intellectual history.
Modern atheism has developed over the past few centuries, and won many converts. But a third phase might be demarcated, known as militant atheism, or the new atheism. The new atheists are not only true believers in their cause, but also believe that until atheism reigns supreme, the world will always be in strife. Until all religion is eliminated, and atheism takes its place, the world will find no rest. For according to the new atheists, religion is the root of all evil. Indeed, religion simply is evil…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
The Three Phases of Atheism » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch
RECOMMENDED APOLOGETICS RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target
Shop at Amazon and help support The Poached Egg or donate now!
The article started off with some promise, but unfortunately falls flat rather quickly — not just on the argumentation, but even on Muehlenberg’s use of facts.
It’s true “atheism” in antiquity is not the same as atheism today, and I would likely even agree with his breaking it into the three categories he selects. However, his evaluation of early atheism seems like it derives more from Wikipedia than any serious research.
Early use of atheism becomes evident when one looks at the actual etymology of the word, which derives from a-theos — without god, or even god-forsaken. For example, Epicurus, one of the most cited Greek philosophers by modern atheists, was not an atheist in the modern sense. He believed the gods existed, but the gods had no concern for human affairs – thus, he was without the gods.
Later thinkers did develop atheism into a direct challenge to Christianity and other specific conceptions of god, which Muehlenberg correctly puts to around the Enlightenment era. However, he strangely cites Voltaire — who was not at all an atheist (though he did have many criticisms of Christianity) — while omitting the much more relevant Hume, among others.
He also fails to note that, for the most part, early Enlightenment writers did not reject God per se, but rather they rejected *particular, conventional representations of God.* Hume and others frequently allowed for a loose kind of deism, or at least agnosticism, in their philosophies.
It is not until Marx and others that true atheism – an active belief that god does not exist – takes root. It is from *this* foundation that modern atheism finds its foothold.
The latter part of his response seeks to invert the roles of religion and atheism, suggesting somehow that atheism itself is fundamentalist and, he concludes, jihadist. That is, by describing atheism using essentially *religious* terminology, he seeks to invalidate the position.
Let’s set aside the obvious fact that doing so would undermine his *own* religious ideology, and also recognize just how poor a description it is.
He refers to Dawkins, Dennet and Harris, calling them militants, priests, jihadists, fundamentalist, and so on. He also indicates how they allegedly think religion is the “root of all evil” – another factual error, as Dawkins himself admitted that the title of his documentary of the same name was inappropriate. In Dawkins’ exact words, “nothing is the root of all evil.”
It was his publishers that demanded the title, thinking it would draw a larger audience.
Regardless, the specific comparison Muehlenberg is attempting to draw is between physical, religious violence and modern atheists. Speaking directly of the 3 individuals cited, what has any of them done to suggest they would ever incite physical violence? Violence, I should add, that has been carried out by religions across the globe, including by Christianity.
The entire article is one of projection.
If Muehlenberg is honest, he must be aware of the religious atrocities committed in the name of one religion or another across the globe. One of the greatest modern and ancient attacks on liberty comes in the form of anti-blasphemy laws, a law that is exclusively religious in nature. The same sentiments that constructed these laws are also what have allowed people to blow themselves up for their religious beliefs, among other evils.
None of the New Atheists want to do any kind of physical harm to religious individuals. They don’t even want to restrict individual rights to their beliefs.
The weapon of the atheist – if we can use the term weapon at all – is debate, books and the weight of their own arguments. If you think writing a book is the same thing as the kinds of tortures envisioned during the Christian witch hunts, there’s a serious problem here.
It’s true that atheists do want to put an end to religious beliefs, but they do so within the constraints of the legal system, through intellectual debate, and out of a desire to end the kinds of horrendous anti-human activities carried out in the name of religion. Activities that range from bombing schools, to attacking the rights of homosexuals and women, to preventing children from going to a hospital due to a belief in faith healing.
Now, you can challenge their claim that ending religion would actually end the problems of the world, even the above-cited problems, and I think there are some valid criticisms of modern atheism in that argument (I even say this as a modern atheist myself).
However, he vaguely seems to suggest that Dawkins, Dennet and Harris would be willing to strap bombs to their chest for the sake of the cause, and he does this with a complete disregard for history and fact.
Apparently, Muehlenberg is concerned with neither.