Welcome to the first Atheism for Lent seminar. This week I’ll be setting up the various reflections, by looking at various classical critiques that have been leveled against the religious understanding of God. The popular religious understanding of God seeing the Absolute as a being that stands over the universe. Numerous thinkers since antiquity have attempted to show that this notion is either improbable, nonsensical or impossible.

Protagoras, Epicurus and Seneca were important ancient philosophers. Protagoras (490–420 BC) was called the first professional sophist by Plato. Nothing of his work remains. The fragments we do have all come from other philosophers who are quoting his work, in a critical manner.

Protagoras is best known for the following claims (1) that the subject is the measure of all things (2) that it was always possible for a skilled orator to make the weaker side of an argument appear stronger and (3) that it is not possible to know if the gods exist. In short, he is most famous for articulating a type of perspectivalism (a position that attempts to take seriously the subjective side of truth claims). Something that we see explored by more contemporary philosophers such as Nietzsche and Kant.

Epicurus (341–270 BC) founded the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments of his 300 works remain. Like Protagoras, much of what is known about him derives from later philosophers.

For Epicurus, philosophy involves helping people lead a happy life, characterized by ataraxia—peace and freedom from fear—and aponia—the absence of pain—and by living a self-sufficient life with friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are measures of what is good and evil; death is the end and should not be feared; the gods neither reward nor punish; the universe is infinite and eternal; and events are based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.

Seneca (4 BC-AD 65) was a Roman thinker who is widely considered to be the most influential of the Stoic philosophers. Seneca wrote on a wide variety of issues and is often read because of his wisdom on how to live well.

By offering a glimpse into how these individuals viewed the subject of God, we can see the beginnings of religious critique.

SUPPLEMENTAL REFLECTION

Today marks the beginning the journey proper. I wanted to start with three of the oldest arguments against God. These three arguments can be described as the argument of improbability, incoherence and irrelevance. And each of them have evolved and developed in fascinating ways over the history of thought. I call the two fragments of Protagoras an ‘argument of improbability’ because he is basically saying that our views on the world are a reflection of our inner life. They reflect our hopes, fears and dreams, and therefore are unlikely to be correct. If they are correct, we would just happen to be very lucky that our inner disposition happened to reflect the nature of reality. In addition to this, he points out that the difficulty of the question of God, combined with the shortness of life, leads to it being highly unlikely we would get to a true insight. 

I call the argument of Epicurus an ‘argument of incoherence’ because he is attempting to show that the classical metaphysical notion of God is as impossible as the idea of a square triangle. Therefore it can be rejected a priori. 

Lastly, I refer to the argument of Seneca as an ‘argument of irrelevance’, because he aims to show that there is no need to worry ourselves over the question of God once we have achieved a type of Stoic Enlightenment.

Another way to break the three positions down would be with the words 'agnostic’, ‘atheistic’ and ‘ignostic' In the first you can't know, in the second, a specific conception is rejected a priori, in the third, the question becomes superfluous.

The main reason for starting this week with these three thinkers however is to show how they start a type of dialectic journey by beginning to question the beliefs of the day. Instead of thinking of these individuals as making definitive statements designed to stop a conversation, I hope that you can see how they are actually sparking off a conversation. A conversation that has been going on ever since, and will continue long after we are gone.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Below I’ve included a link that shows a powerful piece of graffiti called “Son of Protagoras”. The work was carried out by the famous French Graffiti artist MTO, and is located in Belfast. Click the link to find out more about this incredible piece. I have also included a link to the book The Courage to Be by Paul Tillich. This is the book that I quote in relation to the thoughts of Seneca.

Jean Meslier (1664 – 1729), was a French Catholic priest who secretly penned the first systematic text wholly devoted to atheism. While his work is still largely unknown, he is increasingly seen as the father of modern atheism. This secret work of unwavering critique was only discovered after his death.

He was a quiet, hard working parish priest. He lived in complete simplicity and gave any money he made to the poor and oppressed. He also got into trouble when he preached a sermon that involved critiquing the noble man of the town - Antoine de Toull - and refusing him holy water. The noble man reported him to the Bishop and Meslier was disciplined. Yet the priest did not relent, inviting his congregation to pray for the noble man, that he might repent from mistreating the poor and robbing orphans.

While the style of his book is repetitive and often bombastic, Meslier also offers some careful philosophical objections against the existence of God, exegetical arguments against the reliability of the bible and moral arguments against the teachings of scripture. While he applauded how the early Christians shared their goods, he believed that Christianity quickly degenerated into a religion that encouraged submission to tyranny and acceptance of suffering.

The following is a reading from Volume 9 of The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. This reading gives you a glimpse into his life and introduces his thinking through direct quotes.

SUPPLEMENTAL REFLECTION

I’m particularity taken by the life and work of Jean Meslier because of the way that he shows how the best atheistic critiques arise out of the very ground they reject. The greatest ‘enemies’ of the faith often know that life intimately, have dedicated their lives to it and have first hand knowledge of the inconsistencies, antagonisms, deadlocks and contradictions. For some philosophers, it is only the truly religious figure who can actually transcend religion. The reason for this lies in the idea that religious sentiment is almost impossible to get rid of - persisting in secular ways through the pursuit of wholeness in money, fame, fitness etc. Nietzsche once wrote that, ‘after the Buddha had died it is said that his shadow remained on a cave wall for thousands of years,’ he then claimed that, ‘the shadow of God remains after the death of God, and must also be removed’. Here he was referring to the religious sentiment in secular life.

It is hard to find a better expression of this idea of transcending religion than in the work of Meslier, who lived a simple life devoid of any desire to find salvation in money, religion or reputation. He not only rejected the religious God, but seemed to live a life freed from the very shadow of that God.

His intimate knowledge of the religious life gives his critique a profound authority, and includes elements that act as a foreshadowing of what we will encounter in week four - where we shall encounter the materialist critiques of people like Feuerbach, Marx and Goldman.

But his savage critique also opens up the door to a profound understanding of faith that we will see being taken up in the fifth week. Indeed, at one point in his Testament, he even writes that, if people take his attack seriously; casting off the inequalities of religion and working towards a this-worldly kingdom of equality, then Christianity would finally become real. An interesting comment that foreshadows the work thinkers like Bonhoeffer, who saw the rejection of religion in favor of human justice to signal the next Reformation of religion.

I hope that this reflection provides a powerful example of how the most passionate critique of religion is intimately connected with what it rejects. Hinting at the type of dialectic relationship theism and atheism have.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

I’ve also enclosed a document with some excerpts from Testament, as well as a link to his book.

Derren Brown (1971-) is an English showman, illusionist, and author who has spent considerable time helping to expose the methods of mediums, faith healers and evangelists. Brown mixes traditional magic with psychological techniques and the power of persuasion to create spectacles that are often designed to warn people against the power of manipulation, demonstrate the dangers of group think, and encourage free thinking.

In his teenage years, Brown was an evangelical Christian, and has since created shows like How to Convert an Atheist, Messiah, Miracles for Sale and Miracle to expose how people can be fooled into thinking they have had a supernatural experience.

His latest Netflix special Miracle is definitely worth watching in the context of Atheism for Lent (particularly the second half), but I wanted to offer something that is freely accessible. So I’ve gone for an episode from a television show he made called Fear and Faith. This episode is called How to Convert an Atheist, and in it he explores the nature of persuasion.

NOTE: Some countries seem to block this content for copyright reasons. I thought I’d found a way around the issue, but obviously not! Hopefully you can find this, or one of the other ones I recommend, from Youtube or a streaming service!

SUPPLEMENTAL REFLECTION

Derren Brown’s personal journey beyond the sincerely held evangelical faith of his youth, was deeply connected with his early interest in magic and psychology. By learning the arts of misdirection, manipulation and deception, he began to see how susceptible we all are to mistaking illusions and fantasies for reality. In many ways, much of Brown’s best work can be seen as object lessons in some of the insights first systematically developed by Freud. 

Not only this, but Brown also holds the same kind of ethical stance as that of Freud. It’s worth noting that Freud rejected ‘therapeutic’ treatments that worked by acting as a type of external authority manipulating the individual (such as hypnosis, or the therapist becoming a substantive parental figure). For Freud, individuals shouldn’t be manipulated or persuaded into certain behavior, even if the outcome could be judged as good (such as giving up smoking, or being less angry). Rather, analysis consists of helping an individual have a confrontation, and conversation, with their unconscious. In this way, they become more aware of why they act the way that they do, and slowly become less in the thrall of seemingly inexplicable, and often damaging, behavior. This is not dissimilar to the rejection of the ‘Noble Lie’, a position that claims we are justified in deception if it leads to a good outcome. In the same way, Brown wants to help expose people to the ways that they can be manipulated and lead astray. He isn’t interested in telling a person what they should think, but rather to better equip individuals, so that they might resist being deceived by others and by themselves.

Ideological structures are often sustained by appealing to peoples hopes and fears, while simultaneously excluding or downplaying critical thinking, the exploration of alternative positions or insight into how beliefs are formed. For some, all forms of faith fall foul of this tendency, while for others, faith can, and must, transcend this type of ideological entrapment. Westphal, as we have seen, condemns the type of faith expressed above as ‘instrumental’, while Bonhoeffer rejects it as the faith of the ‘Deus ex Machina’ and Tillich bemoans it as mere ‘superstition’. Later in the course we’ll encounter Bonhoeffer and Tillich directly, as well as some contemporary thinkers who link the political critique of ideology with the theological critique of religion.

All this to say, I included Brown today as a great example of someone who understands our susceptibility to being uncritically ensnared by various ideologies, who is dedicated to helping people see this in their own lives and who courageously applied the insights into his own life.

After watching this master magician at work, it is hard not to become more sensitive to potential ways we might have been duped in our religious, cultural and political ideas. 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

I’ve also included a second show called Messiah. In this show, Brown travels to the United States to try to convince five influential figures that he has special abilities in their particular field of expertise: psychic powers, Christian evangelism, New Age theories, alien abduction and contacting the dead, with the objective of getting them to endorse him as a practitioner in their field.

This material might be restricted in certain countries because of copyright. But you should be able to find it, along with his other shows, on various streaming services.

Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) is the founder of modern biology, and one of the most influential intellectual figures of the 20th century. He developed the theory of natural selection through struggle and published his work in On the Origin of Species.

In this excerpt from Darwin’s autobiography he writes of how his work in evolution slowly eroded his religiosity. This section is from The Portable Atheist, Ed. Christopher Hitchens. The introduction to the reading was written by Hitchens.

SUPPLEMENTAL REFLECTION

I’ve included this small reading from Darwin’s autobiography, because it beautifully expresses the struggle he had with being a pious man and a courageous scientific explorer. Darwin was religiously devoted in his youth, and remained deeply sensitive to the religious beliefs of those around him, especially those of his beloved wife.

Darwin’s religious belief was largely sustained by the classical notion of the Glory of God being witnessed in the beauty and mystery of the world.  He found this, not only personally convincing, but also philosophically sound. Like many of his day, he was convinced by the coherence and conclusions of the teleological argument. The most famous version of this in day way the argument from design put forward by the clergyman William Paley, who compared the structure of the world to the design of a watch. Paley argued that, in the same way a watch points to the existence of a watchmaker, the world points to the existence of a worldmaker. 

In the course of his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle, Darwin observed anomalies in the same biological species that pointed to the existence of a natural mechanism of adaptation. This discovery gradually lead to him to affirm an alternative explanation for the complexity and seeming design of the world. One that didn’t require a designer. By doing so, Darwin discovered a type of 'blind teleology’ that undermined the analogy Paley made between watch and world.

This lead Darwin to deeper, more philosophical questions. Questions that ultimately convinced him to leave aside his religious beliefs. 

In today’s reflection, you witness anything but an armchair rejection of religious belief. What you glimpse instead is the genesis of one of the most famous critiques of God as it gradually grew from the soul of a conflicted individual attempting to wrestle through the implications of his world-historical scientific discoveries in relation to his own deeply held faith, and the faith of those he loved.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Melvin Bragg is one of the most well known and respected BBC broadcasters and presenters. He is perhaps best known for his insightful interviews with intellectuals on a whole host of matters. Mostly on his show In Our Time. I’ve included a link to a three part series Bragg did on Darwin, as well as a link to his podcast on iTunes, and a link to Darwin’s classic work On the Origin of Species.

Robert Ingersoll (1833 – 1899) was an American lawyer, a Civil War veteran, political leader, and orator of the United States during the Golden Age of Free Thought, noted for his broad range of culture and his brilliant defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic".

Ingersoll was known for his passionate and articulate speeches that were often delivered in packed auditoriums across the US to rapt audiences. The following is one of short speeches called “How the God’s Grow”.

SUPPLEMENTAL REFLECTION

I decided to include Ingersoll in the first week because he is such a fascinating figure, who remains quite unknown today. 

Ingersoll lived at a time when people would pay to listen to talented public speakers for entertainment and education. It was something of a Golden Age for the public intellectual, a time that would appear to be going through something of a revival in the US with the growth of podcasting and online seminars. 

Ingersoll could perhaps be described as the forerunner to the New Atheists. In particular, he appears to have had a personality, intellect and popularity not unlike that of the late Christopher Hitchens. He was likable, charismatic, funny and quick witted. And his speeches where said to be mesmerizing.

The religious world has largely dominated when it comes to the art of preaching. But Ingersoll is one of the exceptions. He could perhaps be described as the great preacher of agnosticism, captivating audiences in the way that a masterful preacher can enthrall their congregation (sadly the reflection isn’t spoken by him, and so lacks a lot of power it would have had for its original audience).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

All of his speeches are available for free on the internet. I’ve included links below.

Antony Flew (1923 – 2010) was an analytic philosopher, most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. The following excerpt is from an essay called ‘Theology and Falsification’. An essay that is widely regarded to be the most widely read philosophical publication of the twentieth century. It has undergone at least forty reprints and been translated into multiple languages.

The paper was a development of a paper first read to the Socratic Club (founded by C.S. Lewis). In this paper we encounter the famous parable of the invisible gardener. I've included this paper because it offers one of the clearest and most concise expressions of the analytic argument against God as a being.

Part of this excerpt gets a little complicated if you're not used to philosophy, but the parable itself - and the concluding paragraphs - make his point quite clearly. I've recorded myself reading the excerpt, as well as providing a written version.

SUPPLEMENTAL reflection

In this week’s seminar I talked about how the critiques of theism have been a driving engine in the development of theological and philosophical thought. 

When a position is critiqued, the critique itself opens up new avenues to be explored, avenues that themselves become open to critique. In this dialectic journey of thesis and antithesis, a richness and depth evolves. Until eventually we discover that the movement itself, rather than the always illusive endpoint, is where the life is.

Yet I also mentioned how this movement can be stifled in various ways. One of them being cleverly captured in today’s reflection. In a nutshell, Flew employs a parable to warn against what I would term a ‘false dialectic’, which - to mix a metaphor - keeps moving the goalposts to avoid moving forward. 

Today’s reflection gives us a chance to think about whether we have ever fallen foul of this stagnation. Something we might have done through fear of entering into unknown territory.

In truth, this is a temptation for all of us. It is in no way limited to the religious world, as we witness everyday on social media. Many of us, for instance, defend our political positions in a way that is similar to how the apologist defends the invisible gardener.

While Flew focuses here on religion, he reveals a pervasive strategy that is alive and way today. A strategy threatens to extinguish genuine, productive conversation in various arenas, whether that be the religious, political or cultural.

supplemental material

I’ve included the Theology and Falsification essay in its entirety below, as well as a link to a book of essays that it comes from. In addition to this, I’ve included a short recording that covers the argument, it’s context and some of the original responses to Flew’s argument. In addition to this, I’ve included an article by John Wisdom. This article contains the original parable of the Invisible Gardener.