BBC’s “A Brief History of Disbelief” The Rise of Atheism

[amicus]

BBC’s “A Brief History of Disbelief” The Rise of Atheism




http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/05/a_brief_history_of_disbelief.html


It was late last night 1am west coast USA time, 9am in Europe, when PBS here in Oregon began a three hour special of the BBC program written and directed by Jonathan Miller.

PBS most likely being politically correct by airing this somewhat controversial program in the dead of night, on Sunday/Monday morning, no less.

I found it a most enjoyable trip into history, took a few pages of brief notes and thought to inquire if any here have seen the video.

It began with a dissertation on the origins of doubt with references to Epicurus, Lucretius and Democritus and then moved on to Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca to round out the Greeks and Romans.

Then on to thoughts of Thomas Hobbes, Emile Zola, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, David Hume and Voltaire and then to the first ever book on Atheism by the Frenchman, Baron D’Holbach with mention given to Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith.

I was particularly pleased with the references to Thomas Paine, “Government in its’ best stage is a necessary evil.” from the “Rights of Man”, and Richard Carlyle, “The Republican”. Even brief references to Percy Byshe Shelly and Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarians and even Ernest Hemingway, “All Thinking Men are Atheists.”

Of course, Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species” Frederich Neitzche and Sigmund Freud, “Psychological Origin of God”

My note taking concluded with the mention of H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley, “Opium of the People” and references to the ‘Anti Theists’ and eventually the Humanists.

Any way, I enjoyed the three hourly programs and thought perhaps others might also.

Amicus

 

[NoJo]

I missed it when they showed it here.

Atheism is still a dirty word politically, conjoring up the spectre of The Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazism. The maverick commentator Christopher Hitchens has been hyping his latest book God Is Not Great here. Although personally I'm not in the mood for antitheist polemic right now, I admire any attempt to destigmatize atheism in the West.

The important job is to bring about the normalization of atheism in the middle east, in Israel and its Arab enemies.

 

[amicus]

I missed it when they showed it here.

Atheism is still a dirty word politically, conjoring up the spectre of The Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazism. The maverick commentator Christopher Hitchens has been hyping his latest book God Is Not Great here. Although personally I'm not in the mood for antitheist polemic right now, I admire any attempt to destigmatize atheism in the West.

The important job is to bring about the normalization of atheism in the middle east, in Israel and its Arab enemies.

~~~

That 'dirty word' aspect was alluded in the program, but somewhat sidestepped by commentary linking reason, rationality and science and logic to the concept of disbelief.

Yes....the last part of your comment was addressed in the last episode of the program by referring to Islam, Muslims, as 'fanatics', and that this needs to run its' course and be confronted world wide.

I still find it difficult to conceive just how many are infected by belief here in the 21st Century.

Thanks...


amicus...

 

[kendo1]

I found it to be a fascinating programme when it was aired here last year.

You colonials must keep up with us olde worlders. I seem to remember a certain amicus berating us for not keeping up with the times...


Glad you enjoyed it, ami.

 

[amicus]

I found it to be a fascinating programme when it was aired here last year.

You colonials must keep up with us olde worlders. I seem to remember a certain amicus berating us for not keeping up with the times...


Glad you enjoyed it, ami.

~~~

Chuckles and harrumph's, seems like the Brit's burned the White House and we had to chase the French up north, the Spanish down south, confine the Irish to Boston, and run the Ruskies out of Alaska, but...no hard feelings, eh?

Yes, I read that the program was aired last year by the BBC but was only made available to the American audience this year through the auspices of Public Broadcasting and funded by the "Humanist" societies.


But yes, it was like being back in college again, referencing all the thinkers of the past, a delightful program.

Thank you...


Amicus...

 

[kendo1]

And sometime soon you'll have a female president.

Europe's beaten you again.

 

[CharleyH]

I missed it when they showed it here.

Atheism is still a dirty word politically, conjoring up the spectre of The Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazism.

The Soviet I get, but actually, Nazism's whole ultimate religious purpose was Christian, therefore I am curious about your statement?

Existentialism is the dirtiest word of all, more so than atheism, I am ... well ... not betting.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=kendo1]And sometime soon you'll have a female president.

Europe's beaten you again. [/QUOTE]

~~~

Hopefully we will never have a female President in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

With a few exceptions, I am not impressed with the record of females in politics at any level. It seems to me, while claiming equality with their male counterparts, females with political power legislate mainly 'feminist' agenda's.

You folks still have Kings and Queens and even a damned Pope fer cryin' out loud, you got no purchase on being first at anything.

ahem...


ami

 

[amicus]

The Soviet I get, but actually, Nazism's whole ultimate religious purpose was Christian, therefore I am curious about your statement?

Existentialism is the dirtiest word of all, more so than atheism, I am ... well ... not betting.

~~~

Hey Charlie, you and Lauren get a chance to bounce down to Valencia and watch the America's Cup Finals by any chance? Was watching that yesterday and thought of your proximity and had the thought.

Please explain your take on Existentialism, would love to hear it.



amicus

 

[kendo1]

The words 'nest' and 'hornet' spring to mind.

 

[CharleyH]

Hopefully we will never have a female President in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

With a few exceptions, I am not impressed with the record of females in politics at any level. It seems to me, while claiming equality with their male counterparts, females with political power legislate mainly 'feminist' agenda's.

ahem...


ami

I will bet that there's a worse track record for male leaders and loads of male agendas involved. I do not understand your personal anti-human agenda though, Ami (except from a POV of stirring the pot ).

I beg you, PLEASE, to define feminism and the feminist agenda for us dumb asses.

 

[amicus]

I will bet that there's a worse track record for male leaders and loads of male agendas involved. I do not understand your personal anti-human agenda though, Ami (except from a POV of stirring the pot ).

I beg you, PLEASE, to define feminism and the feminist agenda for us dumb asses.

~~~

My, 'personal anti-human agenda'? Moi? Surely you jest?

Not 'stirring the pot' Charlie, just responding to a quip by Kendo, I think it was( ), but you surely seem in a hissy fit and all I did was ask you about Valencia and Existentialism while wondering why you offered no comment of the subject of the thread...the BBC program.

Ah, well...such a pity...(can't recall the proper French phrase, 'Q'elle....sumpin...)

toodles


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

My, 'personal anti-human agenda'? Moi? Surely you jest?

Not 'stirring the pot' Charlie, just responding to a quip by Kendo, I think it was( ), but you surely seem in a hissy fit and all I did was ask you about Valencia and Existentialism while wondering why you offered no comment of the subject of the thread...the BBC program.

Ah, well...such a pity...(can't recall the proper French phrase, 'Q'elle....sumpin...)

toodles


amicus...

I jest and say all things with a smile, love, yet AM interested in, since you brought it up, your definition of feminism and "feminist agenda" Surely we know you enough by now so that it won't be a repeat from three years ago?

 

[amicus]

I jest and say all things with a smile, love, yet AM interested in, since you brought it up, your definition of feminism and "feminist agenda" Surely we know you enough by now so that it won't be a repeat from three years ago?

~~~

That was my first thought upon reading your query concerning feminism, little has changed in the intervening three years, my "Feminist Mistake" is still in play.

Quite simply put, male and female are essentially different at all levels and function best as a 'compliment' to each other, not on an equitable competitive basis.

I also define masculinity as being rational and objective and femininity as being irrational and subjective. Both tempered by the other.

Thus I can easily foresee a rational objective world vision being tempered by feminist influence but I cannot envision an irrational subjective existence tolerating even a whit of objectivity as well evidenced on this site.



amicus

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

That was my first thought upon reading your query concerning feminism, little has changed in the intervening three years, my "Feminist Mistake" is still in play.

Quite simply put, male and female are essentially different at all levels and function best as a 'compliment' to each other, not on an equitable competitive basis.

I also define masculinity as being rational and objective and femininity as being irrational and subjective. Both tempered by the other.



amicus

You are thinking inside a box, here, Ami. Sure, masculine means, from the mere symbolic fact that you can see your penis - objectivity. I ask again, for your definition of feminism, and the feminist agenda you perceive from female politicians.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

[off-topic]

. . . I cannot envision an irrational subjective existence tolerating even a whit of objectivity . . .

While I am completely ignorant of this three-year-old discussion about male-female attributes, in my estimation, Amicus has just described the crux of the present political difficulties besetting those representatives who are still trying to enforce democratic checks and balances on the present administration.

Reality-based facts or logics have no effect upon those operating under a faith-based world-view, whether that faith is religiocentric, or egocentric.

[/off-topic]

 

[amicus]

You are thinking inside a box, here, Ami. Sure, masculine means, from the mere symbolic fact that you can see your penis - objectivity. I ask again, for your definition of feminism, and the feminist agenda you perceive from female politicians.

~~~

Ah, Charlie, you just won't let it go, will you?

Way back in the late 70's and early 80's during my 'talk radio' stint, I, with a little help, took a survey of all votes cast in the Congress of the United States and in the State Legislature of Oregon on, 'social issues' specifically and all issues being voted on in general.

Women tended, by overwhelming majorities, to support, 'social' legislation, that of replacing individual responsibilities with government programs in areas such as health care, child care, time off for maternal obligations, on site day care, Women, Infant & Children (WIC) programs, food stamps, aid to dependent children, a thousand other 'Headstart' type programs that empower women by the use of government edict.

On a wider, broader scale of issues, women tend to favor control of alcohol, tobacco products and firearms by heavy majorities. They are also more passive in international affairs, favoring isolationism and non intervention in foreign affairs,, but voting heavily for charitable participation in such things as the United Nations, World Health Organization, gifts of food and medical supplies for third world nations.

There are exceptions of course, Charlie, but the numbers don't lie, women in politics tend to reflect a passive, submissive feminine point of view, and tend to legislate in that manner, which becomes a clearly identifiable 'agenda' to answer both your questions.

There are those who think a feminist agenda would be the greatest thing that could ever happen in politics, in the world in general; I disagree, vehemently.

Women are inherently internal by nature, pensive and retrospective, nurturing and cautious, which are all good things, viewed as a compliment to the outgoing, future seeking masculinity that is basically aggressive by nature.

Now...I suspect that you already know all of this; no great epiphany here, just a summation of knowledge and experience that you and many others are well aware of.

There are many things in the nature of existence, reality, that I am not pleased with, mortality for example, and disease and infirmity for another. I am not exactly pleased at the continuing battle of the sexes, but then evolution did not consult me in the process of creation.

I would like to see, on this site, if no where else, an honest appreciation for the masculine and the feminine aspects of our nature without the competitive bitchiness of women who are unhappy they were born female.

Well, 'here's lookin' atcha, kid'; "whistle if you need me, you know how to 'whistle', right? Just put your lips together and blow..." Bumphrey Hogart.

ahem




Amicus

 

[Pure]

ami states his observations of women and politics:

Women tended, by overwhelming majorities, to support, 'social' legislation, that of replacing individual responsibilities with government programs in areas such as health care, child care, time off for maternal obligations, on site day care, Women, Infant & Children (WIC) programs, food stamps, aid to dependent children, a thousand other 'Headstart' type programs that empower women by the use of government edict.

On a wider, broader scale of issues, women tend to favor control of alcohol, tobacco products and firearms by heavy majorities. They are also more passive in international affairs, favoring isolationism and non intervention in foreign affairs,, but voting heavily for charitable participation in such things as the United Nations, World Health Organization, gifts of food and medical supplies for third world nations.

I think this is correct in large part, except for the part about 'passive in international affairs.' Women have voted for 'war' and 'war candidates', e.g. Hitler quite often.

Since women do favor social supports for health, daycare, and childrearing, and these are already in place in most of the advanced countries [britain, france, sweden, etc.], I can only conclude that US women's position is in advance of US men's.

Only if one accepts ami's ideal, lean war-machine state (a kind of Sparta), now spending a billion a week, marching into Iraq, etc. and de-funding social programs which could run for a year on that billion ( e.g. sending the poor to the churches, 19th century style), do women' positions seem odd. Ami, the "old time values atheist" has lately been entirely comfortable under the tent with other 'keep 'em in the kitchen' types like GWB, Rush, Dobson, etc.

 

[Pure]

the atheists of old criticized lots of things besides the God concept and religion. these 'free thinkers' held all up to scrutiny from wars, to monogamy, to family structure itself.

i see nothing of 'free thought' in ami, save that 'tic' about how evil government and governement programs are. but since that's copied from Ayn Rand, it's hardly a sign of independent thought.

can anyone think of a single issue to which ami, the self said atheist, has applied an original pov? something, perhaps a bit out of line with the Republican National Committee. Ayn Rand, perhaps, was worthy of note, as a atheist confronting other issues with occasional originality--e.g. the justification of adultery. Regarding her 'atheist' clones, esp. of ami's type, the world would be just fine if they had never left their pews.

 

[amicus]

[off-topic]


While I am completely ignorant of this three-year-old discussion about male-female attributes, in my estimation, Amicus has just described the crux of the present political difficulties besetting those representatives who are still trying to enforce democratic checks and balances on the present administration.

Reality-based facts or logics have no effect upon those operating under a faith-based world-view, whether that faith is religiocentric, or egocentric.

[/off-topic]

~~~

Well, new blood on the forum; welcome Lone_Quixote, I am often called 'Quixotic' in my efforts here.

Bush bashing aside, I hated the Clinton's as much as most hate the Bush's, but I think you err in attributing a 'faith-based world-view', to the White House, as religion has been part and parcel of this government since its inception.

Secular Humanism has failed to provide a moral foundation to replace religious morality, which is another discussion, and people still cling to old beliefs for a variety of reasons.

A sense of community is provided by a system of churches and although I am a militant atheist, I do acknowledge the necessity to let religion die on the vine rather than attempt to eliminate it from all aspects of life.

welcome

amicus

 

[amicus]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/epicurus.html

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
Epicurus Epicurus (341 BC - 270 BC)
Greek philosopher



http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lucretius.html

So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds.
Lucretius

Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are driven by religion.
Lucretius



Year of Birth:
94 BC
Year of Death:
55 BC
Nationality:
Roman
Biography:
Lucretius Biography



http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/democritus.html


Greek
Biography:
Democritus Biography
Find on Amazon:
Democritus




I would rather discover a single causal connection than win the throne of Persia.
Democritus

I would rather discover one true cause than gain the kingdom of Persia.
Democritus




Philosopher Quotes
Category:
Greek Philosopher Quotes
Year of Birth:
460 BC
Year of Death:
370 BC
Nationality:
Greek
Biography:
Democritus Biography


~~~

Sayings from two thousand years ago and more...perhaps there is little new under the sun, Grasshopper?

amicus

 

[Liar]

Reality-based facts or logics have no effect upon those operating under a faith-based world-view, whether that faith is religiocentric, or egocentric.

And that's the crux for atheism. It has only arguments based in logos, observable data and facts. But almost every effective argument to actually nudge peoples' minds in any direction needs a dash of pathos too, a little emotion, a little irrationality, a little passion. And that's hard to conjure up for a negative thesis. "I believe in X" is therefore a much more seductive thing than "I have seen no evidence for X". Whether X is God or the Red Sox, it will always have more passionate supporters than non-supporters.

 

[amicus]

And that's the crux for atheism. It has only arguments based in logos, observable data and facts. But almost every effective argument to actually nudge peoples' minds in any direction needs a dash of pathos too, a little emotion, a little irrationality, a little passion. And that's hard to conjure up for a negative thesis. "I believe in X" is therefore a much more seductive thing than "I have seen no evidence for X". Whether X is God or the Red Sox, it will always have more passionate supporters than non-supporters.

~~~

Since one never knows for certain the gender of one who posts, this may be somewhat misguided, but I am led to query whether there are any men left in existence anywhere besides myself.

For three millennium and more formal thought has been directed at removing, 'pathos, emotion, irrationality and passion from the quest for knowledge and truth.

These are viewed as 'feminine' attributes and while valuable in their own rights, have no place in the lofty world of intellectual integrity.


So, yes, Liar, if you want supporters to be passionate about Paris Hilton or the Red Sox and the Yankees, then at least acknowledge that these are trivial things and do not hold the import of formal thought.

The feminist movement for nearly a century now has been enticing men to be 'more sensitive', more caring, more in tune with the other side of their persona; have they indeed succeeded in completely destroying masculinity, a true emasculation of the gender?

I wonder.


amicus, the naked ape...(Desmond Morris?)

 

[Pure]

Liar said,

And that's the crux for atheism. It has only arguments based in logos, observable data and facts. But almost every effective argument to actually nudge peoples' minds in any direction needs a dash of pathos too, a little emotion, a little irrationality, a little passion. And that's hard to conjure up for a negative thesis. "I believe in X" is therefore a much more seductive thing than "I have seen no evidence for X". Whether X is God or the Red Sox, it will always have more passionate supporters than non-supporters.

Atheists have a number of approaches to dealing with persons of faith, be they of amicus-type [moralistic nominal atheist] or more obviously Xtian. Some are based on facts, some on logic, and some on pathos--e.g. of little babes being swallowed up in red hot lava flows.

I think you miss mentioning a crucial point, liar. Lots of the famous atheists did NOT go around attempting to attract supporters for atheism. Freud wanted people to learn psychoanalysis and apply science to psychopathology. Marx wanted to teach how men might direct social evolution/revolution. Nietzche wanted to undermine a decadent, guilt ridden, rabble dominated world view and modern civilization. He wanted to set up a new philosophy as did, for example, Hobbes. Even Ms Rand, part philosopher, part prophet, mostly novelist, wante to attract people to root for and build a pure capitalist state, by eliminating almost all government.

Lots of these persons, IOW, had bigger fish to fry, as can be seen, with the partial exception of Nietzsche. Followers are attracted to the positive goals and the atheism [or irrelevance of Xtian and Jewish relgion] follows as a matter of course.

Though not all scientist have been or are athests, for the others, it's the draw to scientific naturalism that fires them up, NOT trying to win debates about God or attract atheist followers.

 

[amicus]

As pointed out in the BBC video, the subject of this thread, most 'dis-believers', even until the present time, have had to keep their silence.

The power of the Church and the State kept disbelief at a minimum and many were punished for even questioning church doctrine or church based state politics.

Even today, if you want a career in politics, you must pretend to believe; if you are in science, if you want a lucrative position, either with government or with a private corporation, you must assume a facade of belief.

Thus, basically, everything said in the post above this one is a fabrication intended to further an individual pov.


amicus...