British Theism And Atheism

[Theoretical Skeptic]

In nearly 30 years of discussion on the subject of theism and atheism the most knowledgeable person I have ever come across was a British atheist. Since nearly all of the people I've had discussions with were American I've never had a discussion on how the subject might have differed from my own American perspective.

I see American theism as primarily traditional, cultural and familial. I don't think much attention is given to any academic or intellectual consideration. Theists here are by majority Christian, lacking, if not opposed to, in any real understanding of the Bible or theology. They grow up in an obviously hypocritical fundamentalist paradigm which they will probably leave when they mature to "sow their oats" and perhaps return when it's time to "lay down roots." Archaic terms for modern times perhaps and in fact perhaps this has changed over time, but the point is there isn't a great deal of thought put into theism in America.

I believe that aside from these traditional, cultural and familial aspects, most American theists are more atheist than theist. As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins "the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states. So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British? 

[Gordon]

I suspect the short answer to that would be that in the UK, as various surveys have found, there has been a weakening of the privilege and social influence of organised Christianity over recent decades, to the extent that it has now become a background noise that is easily ignored by those who have no affiliation to, or interest in, organised Christianity: some of us are, as I heard one cleric describe it, 'unchurched', hence for us the traditional, cultural and familial aspects you mention are irrelevant.     

My impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, that in the US where you are Christianity is still a factor: there are a plethora of churches and pastors, and politicians talk about 'God' and mention 'praying' constantly and that any politician who stated they were an atheist would have a brief career.     

[Aruntraveller]

So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?

I think that might be the overestimation of a group, if indeed you can call "militant atheism" a grouping.

The British, and even here there are difficulties, as the religious traditions in N. Ireland vary significantly to those in England, are I think less inclined to "militant Christianity" than the population of the USA, and even in the USA there are huge variations between different regions.

I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

In nearly 30 years of discussion on the subject of theism and atheism the most knowledgeable person I have ever come across was a British atheist. Since nearly all of the people I've had discussions with were American I've never had a discussion on how the subject might have differed from my own American perspective.

I see American theism as primarily traditional, cultural and familial. I don't think much attention is given to any academic or intellectual consideration. Theists here are by majority Christian, lacking, if not opposed to, in any real understanding of the Bible or theology. They grow up in an obviously hypocritical fundamentalist paradigm which they will probably leave when they mature to "sow their oats" and perhaps return when it's time to "lay down roots." Archaic terms for modern times perhaps and in fact perhaps this has changed over time, but the point is there isn't a great deal of thought put into theism in America.

I believe that aside from these traditional, cultural and familial aspects, most American theists are more atheist than theist. As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins "the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states. So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?

Several issues there:

1. How would a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims ("God" etc)?

2. What do you think JP's ""the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted" actually means? I've seen him say similar things before, but have never understood what in tangible terms he actually means by it.

3. Re "the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism", what indoctrination do you think there need be to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be wrong? Atheism isn't a set of beliefs - it's just the absence of good reasons to accept the claims of theism. Were you "indoctrinated" into your a-leprechaunism?   

4. What "militant atheism among the British" do you think there to be? I'm British and I've never seen atheists marching on Parliament with pitchforks in hand demanding the demolition of churches and suchlike. Did you mean just anti-theism perhaps?     

[Gordon]

I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.

I think that is indeed the case: in the UK one can simply ignore religion without having to proclaim or subscribe to atheism and we don't have our politicians making religious references routinely and we don't have slogans like 'In God We Trust' printed on our money.

Religion is there if people want to participate if they feel so inclined as is, for example, golf. For those of us who are neither religious nor golfers (or religious golfers) these activities occur in the background and would only be issue if the adherents of either presumed that what was important for them should be equally important for the rest of us, or that their choice of preferred activity (be it religion and/or golf) merited special privileges.

[SusanDoris]

The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states.

Indoctrination is the RC method* but inculcation is a more apt term in the case of moderate CofE families I think. I don’t think it is so much “to” atheism or against theism, but more of an absence of the teaching or inculcation of a faith belief and the change of life styles that means Sunday is no longer a day for The Christian churches to decide how people should live on that particular day of the week.

So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?

I can well understand why atheists feel they should speak out more clearly, more often and more strongly than before having been pushed aside, ignored, even by Philosophy and of course the theologians, but then there was not just one, but two World Wars wherein the news about its horrors were more widely known, and once TV documentaries exposed the fraudulent claims of spiritualists etc by means of recordings, films, time-lapse photography and so on, plus showing the reality of so many  myths and apparent magic about the natural world,  that it was high time theyi (atheists) spoke out. I hope the motivation was a desire to replace falsehoods with truth and knowledge, especially as the science and technology were clearly entirely without the need of any mysticism or magic to make them function.
*and this applies to Islam Hinduism, etc

[Theoretical Skeptic]

My impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, that in the US where you are Christianity is still a factor: there are a plethora of churches and pastors, and politicians talk about 'God' and mention 'praying' constantly and that any politician who stated they were an atheist would have a brief career.   

According to Wikipedia in the UK there have been about 50 and in the US about 22 atheist politicians. I would think that the difference would be essentially that the UK has had a head start. In other words what you say is true, but here in the states just in my relatively brief life that has changed dramatically while in the UK that same change has been more firmly established over time.

Now when I went to school you didn't hear much of God outside of the pledge. The teaching method here was adopted from Germany through Benjamin Bloom, as The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America, by Charlotte Iserbyt indicates began in the late 1960's. Bloom's Taxonomy, which is still the primary guiding force in American education, wrote that the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students. To challenge their fixed beliefs. For example he claims his methodology could change a theist into an atheist in one hour. It wasn't an empty claim, it was demonstrably so.

They wanted to create dumbed down obedient workers.     

[Theoretical Skeptic]

The British, and even here there are difficulties, as the religious traditions in N. Ireland vary significantly to those in England, are I think less inclined to "militant Christianity" than the population of the USA, and even in the USA there are huge variations between different regions.

We have huge variations between different regions as well. I suppose everyone does. Here the Bible Belt and the New England states would differ considerably. Militant Christianity would be much more likely in the former than the latter, of course.

I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.

That was part of my point. Here in the US there are, I suspect, more atheists than may be counted. I think most are apathetic. Sort of like Shintoism in Japan. Most wouldn't profess Shintoism but it's such a part of the very fabric of their environment they don't even acknowledge it.

[jeremyp]

According to Wikipedia in the UK there have been about 50 and in the US about 22 atheist politicians.

I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).

[Theoretical Skeptic]

1. How would a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims ("God" etc)?

In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them. 

Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.

Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth. 
 

2. What do you think JP's ""the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted" actually means? I've seen him say similar things before, but have never understood what in tangible terms he actually means by it.

He explains it pretty well in the video I linked to. What he means is that mythology, which he lumps Judeo-Christian teachings in with, not surprisingly given the answer to your first question, is the very foundation of Western culture. I would broaden that to include the entire world but we would have to go back to Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel 8) otherwise known as Nimrod, founder of Babylon, but that would be a somewhat distracting excursion. 

3. Re "the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism", what indoctrination do you think there need be to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be wrong? Atheism isn't a set of beliefs - it's just the absence of good reasons to accept the claims of theism. Were you "indoctrinated" into your a-leprechaunism?

I wasn't but I could have been. If atheism is the antithesis of theism then what is theism? The antithesis of a thing would incorporate a considerable portion of that which it is the antithesis of. Theism is no more wrong than atheism, that wasn't the point. The point is what were you indoctrinated for? Educated. Instructed.

The Hebrew and Greek word for spirit means an invisible active force that produces results. For example they can be translated as wind, breath, mental inclination or highly intelligent beings. The English words pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek word pneuma, translated spirit, wind, etc. So spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural or religious or involving a deity. Gods. It's the things that form us. Tradition, culture, art, music, nature, religion, everything. Fashion, sports, et cetera.     

4. What "militant atheism among the British" do you think there to be? I'm British and I've never seen atheists marching on Parliament with pitchforks in hand demanding the demolition of churches and suchlike. Did you mean just anti-theism perhaps?     

Militant is used in such a manner to imply a more aggressive support. Most atheists are apathetic. Militant atheists are the more outspoken, or concerned about the subject of theism vs. atheism. Really, I get your point. I myself hate terms like  atheism, theism, militant - to me they are descriptive labels useful in conveying a general association but in themselves potentially limiting or misapplied. Let's just use the term "more outspoken atheists?"

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).

Exactly. Much higher. Kennedy and Carter was maybe theistic. Maybe even Ragan in a nonsensical half assed way, but Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Either Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump? Nah. I don't know if autotheism is a concept but political bullshit is.

[Nearly Sane]

I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).

It's noticeable that the US has a lot less high profile politicians in it as well.

[Stranger]

Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth. 

Why on earth do you think atheism is "hinged upon" this particular idea of theism?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Why on earth do you think atheism is "hinged upon" this particular idea of theism?

How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it? Without theism would there be atheism?

[Nearly Sane]

How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it? Without theism would there be atheism?

it isn't the antithesis.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

it isn't the antithesis.

Why not?

[Nearly Sane]

Why not?

Because a lack of belief in something applies you have never heard of something.

[Stranger]

How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it?

Atheism isn't the antithesis of theism, let alone one particular type of theism (which is what you implied).

Without theism would there be atheism?

Yes.

If I were to make up some fantastical story about something or other (let's call it X) but gave you no reason at all to take it seriously, then (if you were being rational) you'd be an a-Xist until and unless I gave you some such reason.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Because a lack of belief in something applies you have never heard of something.

It seems that would be confusing lack of belief with ignorance. One either believes or they don't. A decision either way requires an intellectual choice.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems that would be confusing lack of belief with ignorance. One either believes or they don't. A decision either way requires an intellectual choice.

No, it seems you are ignoring the default position. It is not a choice either way. Atheism includes the lack of belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi TS,

In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them.

Oh dear. You’re not seriously claiming the Bible to be prophetic are you? Seriously though?

You’re new here so let’s take this a step at a time. To be prophetic – ie, actually to foretell the future – any text would need to satisfy various conditions. They include:

1. Non-inevitability. “A great city will fall” isn’t a prophecy – many cities will “fall” given enough time.

2. Precision. “A terrible plague will occur” - which plague? The bubonic plague? Spanish Flu? Covid-19? Where? There’s something called the narrative fallacy – essentially we look at what happened, and then retro-fit it to an earlier story and thereby think to have been prophesied. It’s just poor reasoning.   
   
3. Consistency. This is called the problem of silent evidence. If I predict 100 things and one of them happens but 99 don’t, does that mean I have the power of prophecy? Why not? Short answer – you have to take into account the Bible's misses as well as the hits if you want to claim prophecies.

4. Context. Biblical "prophecies" concern only phenomena that would have been known, a least conceptually, to the authors. Why no prophecies about ipods or MRI scanners?     

There are more basic tests in reason than these, but you get the idea. Show me something in the Bible that’s a prophecy in a logically sound way and then we’ll have something to discuss. Until then though…   
 

Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.

All very lovely if you like that kind of thing no doubt, but what you were actually asked was how a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims. If the Biblical authors assert there to be such a thing as a “soul” no amount of further expiation about this supposed soul will tell you anything about the veracity or otherwise of the initial clam of its existence at all.
 

Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth.

No it isn’t. Atheism doesn’t “hinge on” that at all. Sure it’s trivially easy to falsify the Bible literalists, but unless the more nuanced, allegorical theists can produce sound arguments to justify their beliefs then atheism is the only rational response to their claims too.       
 

He explains it pretty well in the video I linked to. What he means is that mythology, which he lumps Judeo-Christian teachings in with, not surprisingly given the answer to your first question, is the very foundation of Western culture. I would broaden that to include the entire world but we would have to go back to Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel otherwise known as Nimrod, founder of Babylon, but that would be a somewhat distracting excursion.

Then you need to tell us what you mean by “mythology”. What mythology is it that you think post-Enlightenment thinking rests on exactly? The closest I can get to what JP is actually saying (though he won’t say so) is that all understandings rest on axioms (which is true), and therefore that all understandings at some level have equivalence (which isn’t). If you think he’s trying to say something else though, perhaps you could explain it in plain terms.   

I wasn't but I could have been. If atheism is the antithesis of theism…

It isn’t. Theism is a set of beliefs asserted to be facts; a-theism is the response that there’s no good reason to treat them as facts. Opposing them as thesis/antithesis is called a category error. If on the other hand atheism required the statement “there is no god” you’d be on firmer ground. It doesn't though.       

…then what is theism? The antithesis of a thing would incorporate a considerable portion of that which it is the antithesis of. Theism is no more wrong than atheism, that wasn't the point.

That’s a lot of wrong in a few words – see above. 

The point is what were you indoctrinated for? Educated. Instructed.

Does one need to be indoctrinated to conclude that reason provides more robust epistemology than non-reason, or just to be alive and experiencing?   

The Hebrew and Greek word for spirit means an invisible active force that produces results. For example they can be translated as wind, breath, mental inclination or highly intelligent beings. The English words pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek word pneuma, translated spirit, wind, etc. So spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural or religious or involving a deity. Gods. It's the things that form us. Tradition, culture, art, music, nature, religion, everything. Fashion, sports, et cetera.

But in a theistic context it very much entails supernaturalism, gods etc. You’re just hiding behind the ambiguity in the term "spiritual" here. I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start in the morning. I have no “faith” (religious sense) that Jesus will stop me from crashing it. See? Same word, very different meanings.     

Militant is used in such a manner to imply a more aggressive support. Most atheists are apathetic. Militant atheists are the more outspoken, or concerned about the subject of theism vs. atheism. Really, I get your point. I myself hate terms like  atheism, theism, militant - to me they are descriptive labels useful in conveying a general association but in themselves potentially limiting or misapplied. Let's just use the term "more outspoken atheists?"

Then you badly devalue the term “militant”.  You may have seen a few days ago that a Muslim fundamentalist beheaded a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed. That’s militant. Writing books on the other hand that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs (and then use as a platform to intrude into the public space) isn’t “militant” at all. Sometimes the choice of words matters – really matters – and the equivalence you’re attempting here doesn’t work.       

[Theoretical Skeptic]

No, it seems you are ignoring the default position. It is not a choice either way. Atheism includes the lack of belief.

Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.

 

[Nearly Sane]

Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.

Disagree. If I don't know of something i have no beluef in it. And your use of 'existence ' here illustrates the problem. If i 'know' of something's existence then I believe it exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.

It's non-belief, and yes you can. If your reasons for believing something are false, then I have no good reason to treat your beliefs seriously. What those beliefs happen to be is for this purpose neither here nor there. A bad argument for god and for leprechauns is still bad argument. Think of it as the difference between content and (justifying) method if that helps.     

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Disagree. If I don't know of something i have no beluef in it. And your use of 'existence ' here illustrates the problem. If i 'know' of something's existence then I believe it exists.

If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.

For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.