+ All Categories
Home > Documents > EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Date post: 16-Apr-2017
Category:
Upload: nimisha-agarwal
View: 30 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
26
EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM A political perspective NIMISHA AGARWAL POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1-B
Transcript
Page 1: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

EVOLUTION

OF

ATHEISM

A political perspective

NIMISHA AGARWAL POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1-B

Page 2: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF NEW ATHEISM This research paper seeks to probe the philosophy of

atheism, revolving around the question, what can a

comparative perspective of Marxist atheism and new

atheism lead us to understand about the nature of

atheism being political?

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:

Atheism, formally or informally has existed from

the times of Socrates, and in fact ever since ancient

philosophy started taking roots. Socrates actually

denied the existence of national gods in the greek

society, at a time when not believing in deities

proclaimed by the state was a capital crime. There

were many more such dissenters, albeit not openly

expressing themselves in public (or expressing

subtly), but a mass critique of religion happened

only during the period of Enlightenment in Europe

and after. I will not dwell further, since this is

already traced in the historical background to

atheism (in brief), but the reason for choosing this

topic and the particular research question was to

probe the nature and narratives of atheism from a

Page 3: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

political perspective. Can atheism be a political

philosophy? Hence my research paper seeks to

show the political side of atheism, especially the

contemporary part, without going much into the

theorizing part. The aim here is not to theorize

atheism as political, but to start a discourse around

atheism being a political phenomena.

INTRODUCTION: Methodology I have reviewed the literature available to me to

trace the roots of atheism from Greek societies to

contemporary atheism defined mainly by Richard

Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

among others. I have investigated various

philosophies and inspect the atheist element in it

to further strengthen my argument of atheism

being definitely political. I have also used online

lectures at my disposal for topics concerning

ancient atheistic philosophy, and the relevant

footnotes have been provided for the same.

Page 4: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Etymologically, ―atheism‖ is derived from the ancient Greek word

ATHEOS, which is translated into several synonymous meanings-

without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods,

especially officially sanctioned gods1. Contemporarily, it means the

negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God

Western philosophy began in the Greek society in 6th century BC,

when philosophers tried to explain the occurrences in the world by

attributing it to natural processes instead of mythological and godly

explanations. And so, lightning was the result of "wind breaking out

and parting the clouds",] and earthquakes occurred when "the earth

is considerably altered by heating and cooling". The early

philosophers often criticized traditional religious

notions. Xenophanes (6th century BCE) famously said that if cows

and horses had hands, "then horses would draw the forms of gods

like horses, and cows like cows". Another

philosopher, Anaxagoras (5th century BCE),said that the Sun was "a

fiery mass, larger than the Peloponnese", Since this went against the

so strongly established religious ethos, he was considered impious

and was forced to flee Athens.2

Diagoras of Melos is believed to be the first publically known

atheist, as in, the first one to come out in the open. Best known for

1 www.wikipedia.org/wiki/history_of_atheism

2 www.coursera.org

Page 5: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

satirizing the Eleusinian mysteries, the religious annual rites

performed by the greeks, he openly declared that there is no god at

all. At that time, religious and political excitement was very

prevalent. There have been speculations on what exactly was the

position of Diagoras. It is quite possible that he was against direct

interference of these gods in world matters, but his disbelief in

Athenian gods directed the greeks to think of him as nothing but an

atheist. Now, he ridiculed a public institution for religious purposes

of Athens, the Eleusinian mysteries, but he did not just stop there;

he stopped others from getting into this religious fold too.

In an interesting story regarding conversations of diagoras with

others, a friend pointed out an expensive display of votive gifts and

said, "You think the gods have no care for man? Why, you can see

from all these votive pictures here how many people have escaped

the fury of storms at sea by praying to the gods who have brought

them safe to harbor." Diagoras replied, "Yes, indeed, but where are

the pictures of all those who suffered shipwreck and perished in the

waves?" Though he did not write much about atheism, stories and

anecdotes and all of the resources available suggest his disbelief in

god.

Another important atheist was Epicurus, founder of epicuranism. He

was an ancient greek philosopher, and nothing can summarise his

atheistic ideology than his following words:

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Page 6: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him god?

In the middle ages, the islam world did recognize atheism, and non-

believers were frequently attacked. Despite that, many outspoken

atheists existed, for example Ibn-Al-Rawandi, who criticized many

aspects of the Mu‘tazilite school of Islamic theology. In his ‗Kitaab-

Al-Zumurrud‘, he criticized the tradition revolving around miracles.

Since at the time of the performance of a miracle, only a small

number of people could be around the prophet to observe his

deeds, the reporting of such a small group cannot be trusted, and

hence muslim traditions are flimsy. The book also criticizes Islamic

prayers, the strictness associated with ritual purity, and the

ceremonies of hajj.

The encyclopaedia of islam says the following:

"The plentiful extracts from the K. al-Zumurraudh provide a fairly

clear indication of the most heterodox doctrine of Ibn al-Rawandi,

that of which posterity has been least willing to forgive him: a biting

criticism of prophecy in general and of the prophecy of Muhammad

in particular; he maintains in addition that religious dogmas are not

Page 7: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

acceptable to reason and must, therefore, be rejected; the miracles

attributed to the Prophets, persons who may reasonably be

compared to sorcerers and magicians, are pure invention, and the

greatest of the miracles in the eyes of orthodox Muslims, the Quran,

gets no better treatment: it is neither a revealed book nor even an

inimitable literary masterpiece. In order to cloak his thesis, which

attacks the root of all types of religion, Ibn al-Rawandi used the

fiction that they were uttered by Brahmans. His reputation as

irreligious iconoclast spread in the 4th/10th century beyond the

borders of Muslim literature."3

Thomas Hobbes professed the most surprising beliefs about God,

saying that God is corporeal while drawing attention to the first of

the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England: ―God is without

body and without parts.‖

He contradicted this with appeals to a sentence in a work (The Flesh

of Christ, section XI) by the second-century Christian thinker

Tertullian: ―Nothing is incorporeal, except what is non-existent‖. So

basically, he points out that if according to the church, god is

without body and parts, and if the establisher of church says that

something without body and parts does not exist, then god does

not exist. He does not say that god does not exist, but leaves it to

the reader to determine this, by cropping up two possibilities: either

the church is incorrect even through the standards of Christianity,

or that god does not exist, exposing this contradiction with perhaps

an innate intention to cripple the church.

Hobbes said that we only know that there is a god, but we know

nothing about him; in other words, god is incomprehensible. He

3 On Ibn al-Rawandi, from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1971, Volume 3, E J Brill, Leiden, p 905

Page 8: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

said that every imagination comes from senses, partially of fully,

and without sense, the imagination emanating from senseless

observations is redundant. Now a counter perspective was

presented to him: A blind man can sense heat and make out that

fire is causing this heat; or in real terms, whatever is causing heat

can be called fire. Hence, whatever that is happening in the cosmos

can be attributed to god. To which Hobbes retorted; that just like

the blind man cannot know the intrinsic properties of fire, we

cannot know the intrinsic properties of god, except that god caused

the cosmos. Hence, this can be read as we do not know what

pleases god, so prayers and rituals are redundant.

The age of reason and Enlightenment was a break with the past,

especially divine rights of king, theology and religion. Secular

concepts of democracy, freedom of press and speech, separation of

church and state and other such liberal concepts became profound.

Jean Jacques Rousseau challenged the Christian notion that human

beings are sinned since the Garden of Eden, and instead proposed

that humans were originally good, only later to be corrupted by

civilization.

Immanuel Kant said that it is liberation of thought within the

individual, a mature sense of making decisions that are not dictated

by opinions imposed from outside authorities. Enlightenment for

him is to use your own reasoning rather than a received reasoning.

David Hume was an empiricist who was also against religion, He

talked about two concepts: Sense and Reflection, and that when a

person doesn‘t have sense, nothing is acceptable. Sense leads to an

experience, which leads us to act, which requires motion set off by

energy, and that finally leads to reflection. Now when god cannot be

Page 9: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

sensed through our bodies, it cannot lead to reason. Hence, the idea

of god is devoid of both sense and reason, and hence god doesn‘t

exist.

Hume himself, under his own name, says in his first Enquiry that

―While we argue from the course of nature, and infer a particular

intelligent cause, which first bestowed, and still preserves order in

the universe, we embrace a principle, which is both uncertain and

useless. It is uncertain; because the subject lies entirely beyond the

reach of human experience. It is useless; because our knowledge of

this cause being derived entirely from the course of nature, we can

never, according to the rules of just reasoning, return back from the

cause with any new inference, or making additions to the common

and experienced course of nature, establish any new principles of

conduct and behaviour‖

(First Enquiry, section 11)

The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote a letter to the dean of the

college he was studying in entitled ―The Necessity of Atheism‖. He

was eventually rusticated for that. It starts by stating that proofs are

required to know the truth of the existence or non-existence of a

deity. It is necessary first to consider the nature of belief. Belief and

disbelief, which is only another form of belief, are passions of the

mind and not capable of using one‘s own will, and therefore

disbelief cannot by its very nature be an act of will. The senses are

the sources of all knowledge to the mind, and conviction can only

be obtained by three methods - 1. The evidence of the senses; 2.

Reason; 3. Testimony (which should not be contrary to reason).

From these three sources of conviction, it is obvious that no proof

of the existence of the Deity is obtainable.

Page 10: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Friedrich Nietzsche questioned the origins of morality, perspectives,

social constructs and the conception of religion.

Upon studying the foundations of how human thinking is grounded

in fallacies, fears and selfishness, Nietzsche propounded an image

of the perfect Overman, and went on to argue how every human can

pursue attainment of best self by living as the Overman for at least

as many moments as possible.

He went ahead to predict that as humans become more aware of the

truth behind the idea of God, they will inevitably destroy the pre-

existing moral notions and thoughts, and suffer uncertainty, lack of

purpose and despair. This will result in systems being overthrown

and the institution of religion receiving the final blow.

However, beyond that, he synthesized that men and women will be

compelled to think beyond what exists, and gradually accept the

nature of all subjective facts, after which their next dimension would

open up - where human beings finally accept the truth that they

ought to define their own morals, the purpose of their lives, just as

their acts shape their fate. This should usher in a new era of

enlightenment and true liberation of thought.

According to nihilism, there is nothing in life because there is no

god. And then he said why you need god to define your purpose.

You can define the purpose of your life yourself. This led to the

birth of existentialism.

God and religion are nihilistic, according to Nietzsche, because by

setting up a fictitious world against this natural world they slander

and devalue it.

Page 11: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

THE COMPARISON

Marxist perspective:

Marxists consider religion as a tool in the hand of the capitalist class

to morally and emotionally exploit the working classes. Karl Marx

considered the contributions of religion to be useless to the future

of humanity. He argued that religious belief had been invented as a

reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In Marx's

view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion,

and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would

have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind

of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world. Marx

basically contended that religion disengaged humans from reality

and prevented them from realizing their true potential. Thus he

writes;

―The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and

citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed

against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political

emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method

of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when

the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when

political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their

liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of

religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the

same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the

maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as

far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-

Page 12: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil

society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute

itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it

can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its

own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be

permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with

the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements

of civil society, just as war ends with peace.‖4

Marx believed that the economic organization of society was the

root cause of religion and hence abolition of this structure would

put an end to religion. Marxists believe that materialism is the

destiny of mankind; that whichever system provides the most

material comfort for the common man will be the system that

inevitably triumphs. It is this materialist view of all of the struggles

of mankind that led Marx to his system. Of course there's one big

hole in that, which is that the poor who have spiritual comfort are

not going to overthrow their capitalist and imperialist overlords. So

he was particularly critical of that function of any religion that

pacifies those he would have become revolutionaries in the Struggle.

Marx talked about the 'the new man': he believed that within the

perfect environment, man's impulses can be controlled. This is the

entire point of propaganda, to constrain the way that people think

so that they will only desire those things that the state can provide

and control. Any faith in things beyond the control of the state is

counter-revolutionary. Karl Marx pointed out that church is an

institution whose main task is to keep the working class quiet and

satisfied with the idea of serving the ruling class.

4 Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Page 13: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach attacked the concepts

of theology and seeked to introduce a new religion- the religion of

―Humanity‖ which would comprise of the fundamental human

concerns of dignity, the meaning of life, morality and purpose of

existence within an ―atheistic‖ religion that did not hold belief in

anything supernatural, but which would serve as an answer to these

concerns. He wrote:

―But the idea of deity coincides with the idea of humanity. All divine

attributes, all the attributes which make God God, are attributes of

the species – attributes which in the individual are limited, but the

limits of which are abolished in the essence of the species, and even

in its existence, in so far as it has its complete existence only in all

men taken together‖5

Friedrich Engels wrote extensively on how the propagation of

religion can be explained as a series of reflections built because of

the needs of humanity conflicting on a continuous basis. He went

further to analyze that as humanity attains economic and social

equality, and as means of production are not alien desires of one

class and properties of another, these reflections will start to

gradually dwindle away because the desperation and need which

drove them do not exist anymore.

Engels also believed that science is instrumental in human

understanding of the world, and hence plays a pivotal role in

answering the multitude of questions a person might face

throughout life. He also proposed that as science advances further,

5 Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, chapter 16 found at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm

Page 14: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

it becomes crucial to build upon and learn from each of the sciences

not only as philosophical bodies of knowledge but as disciplines

answering the most basic questions. Thus, Engels predicted that as

science progresses and reaches wider audience across the world, a

religious outlook of the world will pave way for a more evidence

based understanding of all facts concerning humans. To aid this, he

authored several works detailing discoveries in natural sciences and

other conceptions surrounding the world. It is worth noting that the

ideology proposed by Engels was later adapted by several

philosophers and scientists besides communist governments, one

example of which is the later Soviet Government‘s control over

education, emphasis on science and vehement rejection of religion.

Page 15: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

New Atheism

New atheism is the 21st century framework of atheist and secular

ideas, conception and proposition primarily expanded by Sam

Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens

(also known as the four horsemen) through their books, articles,

press appearances and videos centered on history, politics and

philosophy of religions and moral conceptions. Their general

position is to examine the effect of religion on the world, and

highlight the moral and etymological challenge of blind faith and of

unquestionable authority of statements not backed by evidence.

Consequentially, studying the political implications of the new

atheism movement is of general interest.

Despite being continuation of works of other similar schools of

atheist and secular philosophies established and known for long,

the new atheist thinkers are especially known for few common

qualities including:

1. Confidence in expressing views, with an emphasis on being

correct by the virtue of evidence to reject the religious

hypothesis

2. Taking moral stands and claiming that an objective thought

process irrespective of religion can still yield insights on what

the morally correct and wrong are, and that empirical evidence

is the best way to do this so far.

Page 16: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

3. More direct references to flaws in religious ideologies at the

base, and how they perpetuate into the lives of general

populace.

The new atheist writers rose to prominence mostly through their

works including The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of

Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, The selfish

gene and The God Delusion and the television documentary The

Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins, Breaking the Spell: Religion as

a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett, God Is not Great: How

Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens and countless

other works by other authors including Atheist Manifesto: The Case

Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray, Infidel:

My Life by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, God: The Failed Hypothesis—How

Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J.

Stenger, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of

America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker, The God Argument by A.

C. Grayling. It is worth noting that majority of these writers have

occupations unrelated to religion or philosophy, and have varying

viewpoints on atheism and the world, though there are

commonalities.

Recurrent themes among a vast majority of the new atheist works

are:

1. Religion beyond science: The idea that religion need not be

exempt from questioning and understanding and in general,

the scope of science has been challenged. Such challenge

Page 17: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

ranges from assertion that existence of lack of God is verifiable

through empirical methods to mentioning that several religious

claims trespass upon the territory of what science attempts to

explain.

2. Moral principles unguided by religion: The notion that the role

of science is positive and not normative in nature has been

prevalent for centuries. Among the new atheists, Sam Harris

attempts to deduce the answers to moral questions by

reaching for the best possible future for humankind and

eliminating the lesser favorable alternatives.

3. Call for awareness: Despite being similar to the older atheist

writers, the new atheists emphasize on pragmatic approaches

towards unifying the world population based on scientific

awareness, reason and rational thinking.

Among other arguments, the most critical concepts pushed forward

by the four horsemen include:

Faith and reason:

The call for reason has been as old as Greek philosophers. Religion

often resorts to a last attempt at non-interference by quoting that

faith justifies the existence of religious beliefs, despite what

evidence suggests. New atheism aims to dispel blind faith as a

protective layer to unobservable claims. Richard Dawkins often uses

examples of observable world including fossils, geographic

formations, etc to communicate to the audience that reasoning does

not necessarily require advanced scientific theories to explain

Page 18: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

what]is, and how it is. ). Dawkins argues that the ―God

Hypothesis‖ the claim that there exists a superhuman, supernatural

intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe, is

―founded on local traditions of private revelation rather than

evidence‖ 6. Hitchens often criticized the practical tragedies

resulting from the unquestionable authority of religious autonomy

resulting from blind faith, and how the world has historically

evidenced atrocities of small and large scale that can directly be

attributed to religion.

Moral standards attributed to religion:

Against the landscape of political change and unified world, religion

is often cross examined in the acid test of humanity, empathy and

moral guiding principles of interest to the world. The new atheists

claim that by moral standards, religion fails its own tests and spirals

down in hypocrisy. They also continue to propound that objective

secular morals are not impossible, and can very well be deduced by

human observation and understanding rather than archaic

principles. Sam Harris quotes the example of visualizing the best

welfare to humankind being peaks in a virtualized space and the

worst agony being the deepest valleys. By simply attaining the path

providing the most peaks, the correct moral direction can be

decided. This analogy is akin to an artist‘s abstraction drawn on the

sketch of a scientist.

6 From The god Delusion, 2006, p. 31-32

Page 19: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Arguments against God‘s existence:

As arguments against God‘s existence, the new atheist do not

propose a new ground breaking philosophical or scientific theory.

Instead, they assimilate the existing physical, evolutionary,

epistemological and logical arguments around the conception of

God and through various dimensions, attempt to explain that the

existence of God was already disproven for the aware reader.

Famously, Dennet describes that the proposition of God is so

ambiguous and heterogeneous that no support can be brought forth

in its support.

Political interference by religion:

As a step forward by the global community of disbelievers, the new

atheists actively speak about reduction of religious influence in

governance, policy making and education.

The stance of the new atheists is usually contrastingly directed

explicitly towards the organized religion, especially the Abrahamic

lineage of religions. There are sometimes references to the sacred

texts of these religions in which contradictions could easily be

spotted, or towards instances of acts by the clergymen resulting in

historical tragedies. For their bold stance, and for their inclusion of

political ideas within the gamut of atheism, the new atheists and

related activists have received severe criticism not only by the

organized religious institutions, but also from the religious

apologists and the liberal religious people who believe that a

Page 20: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

moderate involvement of religion in the lives of billions of people is

mandated. For example, Dawkins said that ―The God of the Old

Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of

fiction‖ 7. Though he says that ―Jesus is a huge improvement over

the cruel ogre of the Old Testament‖ 8, he argues that the doctrine

of atonement, ―which lies at the heart of New Testament theology, is

almost as morally obnoxious as the story of Abraham setting out to

barbecue Isaac‖ 9.

7 Dawkins 2006, p. 31

8 Dawkins 2006, p.25

9 Dawkins 2006, p.251

Page 21: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

A comparative perspective

After analyzing the key principles and the narratives on atheism

provided by these two perspectives on atheism, the following

conclusions can be drawn as a way of comparison:

Context:

While Marxist atheism embodies ideas in the medieval to early

modern era, New Atheism chiefly draws upon the canvas of

contemporary issues. Given the differences in the settings of their

timings, the intensity of scrutiny and the confidence of expression

of these schools of thought are quite different.

Evidence:

While Marxist atheism examines ideological scenario of religion in

relation to class struggle, the new atheists directly investigate into

religious phenomena in observation through the lens of science and

reason.

Scope, target and reach:

While the audience of the new atheism is global and while it is

intended to apply to all kinds of religions, Marxist atheism was

concerned with atheist conceptions concerned around communism –

especially class struggle, church vs state, the desperation of the

poor and dialectical materialism.

Page 22: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Though these differences exist, it cannot be denied that both the

perspectives do give emphasis and importance to scientific concepts

to encourage atheism.

Page 23: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Personal Analysis:

Is atheism political?

This comparative perspective, influenced and shaped by the gradual

evolution of atheism over centuries has led me to conclude YES.

Now God can be thought of a power, which controls the structures

and the mind of the society. Before the concept of secularism came

into being, religion and god held legitimate power, governing the

matters of state. After the separation of church and state, religion

was relegated to the private sphere mostly, and assumed

illegitimate power. But what was common is the fixation of power in

the hands of god and religion. Since ‗political‘ is essentially power,

and religion holds a power over people which has been accepted,

refuted, opposed, embraced or even faced rejection, atheism is

definitely political.

Consider both Marxist atheism and New atheism. Both want to

change the existing power relations which favour religion and god.

New atheism of Dawkins and the like is often taken to be scientific,

based on theories of natural sciences, but a close analysis will yield

the conclusion that even this is entirely political. Who said that

political does not include scientific principles? Many concepts

deemed political have an element of science in it. And the nature of

the new atheism movement led by them is conveniently political.

Recently, Hindus and Muslims came together to stage a violent

protest against an atheist conglomeration in Mathura.10 Many

10 http://scroll.in/latest/819082/hindu-muslim-groups-come-together-in-violent-protest-

against-meeting-of-atheists-in-mathura

Page 24: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

atheists are being persecuted by the state or by ‗delusioned‘ people

across the world, especially in middle-east, where being a non-

believer is still a crime. Atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to flee their

country. Ali in particular, got a gory death threat with the threat

pinned on the chest of the dead body of her friend. Various feminist

movements are focusing on feminism, advocating an outright

rejection of religion which founded patriarchy. All of these situations

clearly point to the fluctuations in the religious framework of power,

and the challenge of the religious status quo. Hence, the political

side of atheism (which is very integral) cannot be ignored.

Page 25: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

Limitations:

The topic I chose is very vast, and the time given to me was not

enough to go into much deeper analysis than what is presented.

Because of the paucity of time to access the resources available at

my disposal, I could not analyze feminist and anarchist perspectives

on atheism. I also could not find much literature available for atheist

feminism. In the beginning of this research I also wished to probe

whether liberalism is an atheistic philosophy, but time constraints

did not allow me to do so. Also, there were some famous atheists

like Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant in detail whose

perspectives I couldn‘t understand properly, and hence I could not

include them in my analysis. I did include an overview of Kant‘s

basic idea, but I would have loved to probe it further. There was also

a lot of history that I had to skip because it was just so vast that it

required reading much more of literature than what I read given the

time limits.

I also could not include J.S. Mill‘s autobiography, which has some

sound arguments against religion which I could not incorporate in

my research.

Also, it was very tough to decide the limits of depth. I could have

presented some more research on both Marxist atheism and New

Atheism, but could not do so due to time constraints.

Page 26: EVOLUTION OF ATHEISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. History of Atheism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

2. The Date and Atheism of Diagoras of Melos, Leonard Woodbury, Phoenix, Vol.

19, No. 3 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 178-211

3. The God of Thomas Hobbes, Alan Cromartie, The Historical Journal, Vol. 51, No.

4 (Dec., 2008), pp. 857-879

4. Hume's Tacit Atheism, Charles Echelbarger, Religious Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1

(Mar., 1975), pp. 19-35

5. The Role of Atheism in Marxian Philosophy, Russel P. Moroziuk, Studies in Soviet

Thought, Vol. 14, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Dec., 1974), pp. 191-212

6. Nietzsche's Three Phases of Atheism, David Berman, History of Philosophy

Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 273-286

7. New Atheists, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

8. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu

9. Faithless: The politics of new atheism, Steven Kettel, University of Warwick, pp.

61-78, 2013

10. www.wikipedia.com (for basic outlines of all topics)

11. http://marxists.org

12. The god Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Books, 2006

13. God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007

14. The blinding Emerald, Sarah Stroumsa, Journal of the American Oriental

Society 114, no. 2 (1994): 163-85

15. Necessity of Atheism, Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1813, retrieved from

http://infidels.org/library/historical/percy_shelley/necessity_of_atheism.html


Recommended