Foto de l'autor
3+ obres 61 Membres 1 crítiques

Sobre l'autor

Gavin Hyman is Lecturer in Religious Studies at Lancaster University. He is the author of The Predicament of Postmodern Theology (2001) and contributed to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006).

Sèrie

Obres de Gavin Hyman

Obres associades

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007) — Col·laborador — 243 exemplars

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Nom normalitzat
Hyman, Gavin
Gènere
male

Membres

Ressenyes

I will start out by saying that that I have been an atheist for more than forty years. Gavin Hyman notes that "it is also to be expected that such 'seeker' will find themselves exploring the writings of or articulate, popular, and persuasive evangelists whether for atheism and religion or atheism [...] But what is conspicuous about all these publications and debates on atheism is a certain lack of nuance [...]" Hyman says that "Atheism is commonly defined as 'the belief (or conviction) that God does not exist." The reader will get a lot more nuance and subtlety from looking up atheism in Wikipedia, especially if one follows the links. Atheism has also been defined as being without a set of beliefs about gods, which would also seem more appropriate to me for a book about ideas rather than people. (This would make agnostics atheists, but it would also make a number of them angry to be told that, so I don't.) There are a variations among ideas of atheists, strong versus weak, and agnostic atheists, who will agree that the case cannot be proven either way, but, unlike agnostics, are of the opinion that there are not gods. There are related groups, which one may or may not call atheists, such as apatheists who don't definitely state that there are or are not gods, but who simply don't think it's important, or igtheists who believe that theological terms are so vague that there can be no meaningful discussion. In his book, The World of Christopher Marlowe, David Riggs, argues that the combination of religious upheavals, and the use of the vernacular began to discredit religious belief, and in 1540, Sir John Cheke coined the use of the word "'Atheists' to describe people who do not 'care whether there be a God or no [...].'" Here again is the broader definition of atheism.

Hyman says, "It will not be the explicit purpose of this book to present a case for or against atheism." Perhaps, but it sees to me that he makes it perfectly clear that he is against atheism; it is fair to describe atheism as "negative," but seeing that as a fault ignores the context of it as arising among a diverse group in as a minority persuasion. This may explain why Susan Jacoby prefers the broader term "free-thinkers," and Daniel Dennett and others have encouraged using the term "Brights," at least for some atheists. (Dennett has argued that if the religious, not surprisingly, think that derogates them, they can call themselves the "Supers" from Supernaturals.) Parasitic, however, is a rather loaded, negative term. I also sometimes get the feeling that Hyman spits at the term "modernity."

This is largely a discussion of the history of theological and philosophical ideas about the Christian god. Hyman prefers to ignore pre-Christian atheist philosophers. I am not certain how important this is since it involves a rather narrow and not frequently read slice of scholars, rather than a history of atheism per se, although he sometimes broadens his argument to a more general discussion. While is it difficult to learn about the common people, since they leave fewer written records, it must always be kept in mind that the elite do not necessarily represent them. While their ideas may filter even to members of society who never read them, particularly the rise of science, or at least to popular writers who are more widely read, are they really why people become atheists? There are other factors at work in society. Hyman makes a case, but I'm not entirely convinced that the authors that he cites are a fair sampling of even all philosophers and theologians. He does not consider Bertrand Russell, who is important to the thinking of modern atheists. Were there really no theologians arguing prior to say, 1400, that the Bible, or some of it, should be taken literally? Hyman ties atheism to modernity, and the concept of God as a being rather than transcendent and beyond human categories. He argues that this is the god that most atheists rebel against.

I reject the God of the the "four omnis,". i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I am convinced that no such god exists. Hyman argues that transcendence takes the bite out of the problem of evil. I think that atheism does, which is one reason that I find it satisfying. I have no interest in a transcendent and ineffable deity, (remember free will), which is one reason that I call attention to the broader definition of atheism. Hyman argues that transcendence means that God cannot intervene to prevent evils like the Holocaust, but in that case God also should not be praised for the happy events in our lives. Some people who at least align with atheists will not declare that no deity exists, rather that they don't believe that he/she/it/they does, and/or are not interested in the question. I won't assert that no other deity exists, here we may get into a problem of definitions, although I don't believe it. Rather, I am not interested enough to put the amount of effort that I put into considering the "god of the four omnis" into really thinking about it. This may be great fun for scholars, but not a hobby that I am interested in pursuing.

Hyman seems to think that Thomas Aquinas is the greatest Christian theologian, crafting the most persuasive arguments, whether such a god exists or not, and it is the falling away from his arguments that has led to atheism (and presumably related terms.) I also think that it really also ought to be mentioned that having the separation of church and state, or a least the delegalization of the persecution of heretics, and other non-believers should be mentioned, as also decriminalizing not attending a church. These legal steps did not put an immediate end to social sanctions against such people, but they did make it a lot safer. We know that many people died, were fined, expelled, or otherwise suffered for being open about their beliefs, but there is no way of knowing how many "went along to get along," especially when their beliefs were negative, in the sense that atheism is. Someone like Martin Luther may regard himself as finding and teaching others a better way to achieve salvation, but someone who doesn't believe in heaven or hell doesn't expect to improve their afterlife by being burned at stake.

Another thing which has influenced me is simply the knowledge of other religions. Arguments for one way of seeing things may be weakened that other people can make equally good arguments for another way of seeing them that are different by still wise and insightful. At very least, even if one conceded that there had to be a creator, his/her/its/their identity would still need to be established. I suppose that it is difficult for theists to believe that anyone could acknowledge the possibility of a deity, or some other superhuman power, however unlikely, and yet not care. Observing the world, I can not think that there is one worth worshiping. As the famous Epicurian paradox, says, if God is not willing to prevent evil, why call him good, and if unable to prevent evil, why call him “god”? (Epicurus was one of the pre-Christian philosophers that Hyman prefers to ignore.)

For these reasons, it is difficult for me to make sense of the arguments about how the Bible is not to be taken literally, but interpreted. All theologians and philosophers do not come to the same conclusions. If people are going to presume, as Christians have for most of their history, that misinterpretations warrant killing people, or make the difference between eternal paradise or torment, what is the basis for deciding the truth? In my experience, Christians of all stripes take literally what they like, ignore what they don't, and produce word salads to dismiss what they don't want to hear, or what they are certain God really meant to say. Interpreters often speak of reconciling scripture with the great truths of Christianity, but where have those truths come from, if not from scripture, what are they?

A blogger on Patheos once asked why atheists read the Bible like Fundamentalists instead of less literally, like more liberal Christians. Two of the most common answers were that we consider many Fundamentalists to be a problem for us - most liberal Christians are not attempting to abolish the First Amendment or destroy the separation of church and state. The other was that we have no idea what liberal Christians believe, particularly as a group - one commenter described trying to have a discussion with them is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. There has to be a lengthy discussion of definitions before there can be any discussion of beliefs.

Hyman thinks that the end of modernity may put an end to atheism. If he is sticking strictly to philosophy, it might, but not, I think, in a general way, considering other things that went into creating it, and the difficulty of knowing what the general population thought in the past.

Someone who wants a history of atheists and atheism would do better to try Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, and S. T. Joshi's The Unbelievers, and Annie Laurie Gaylor's Women without Superstition : "No Gods - No Masters". They are different enough to make reading all three worthwhile.
… (més)
 
Marcat
PuddinTame | Feb 8, 2022 |

Potser també t'agrada

Autors associats

Estadístiques

Obres
3
També de
1
Membres
61
Popularitat
#274,234
Valoració
4.0
Ressenyes
1
ISBN
10

Gràfics i taules