A Short History of Atheism

by Gavin Hyman

The last few years have seen a remarkable surge of popular interest in the topic of atheism. Books about atheism by writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have figured prominently in bestseller lists and have attracted widespread discussion in the media. The ubiquity of public debates about atheism, especially in conscious opposition to the perceived social threat posed by faith and religion, has been startling. However, as Gavin Hyman points out, despite their prevalence and popularity, what often characterises these debates is a lack of nuance and sophistication. They can be shrill, ignorant of the historical complexity of debates about belief, and tend to lapse into caricature. What is needed is a clear and well informed presentation of how atheistic ideas originated and developed, in order to illuminate their contemporary relevance and application. That task is what the author undertakes here. Exploring the rise of atheism as an explicit philosophical position (notably in the work of Denis Diderot), Hyman traces its development in the later ideas of Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.
Drawing also on the work of contemporary scholars like Amos Funkenstein and Michael J Buckley, the author shows that, since in recent theology the concept of God which atheists negate is changing, the triumph of its advocates may not be quite as unequivocal as Hitchens and Dawkins would have us believe.

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, History, Atheism

234 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Jonathan]

I picked this book up at a local library as I've been meaning to read a history of atheism for a while now. I was hoping for exactly that, a history of atheism, however after reading the introduction and flicking through the book, it looks as if a more accurate title might have been 'A Theist's Rebuttal of Atheism'. In itself this might not have been a problem, however I've found the introduction infuriating for several reasons.

Take for instance this quote from the introduction:
"If modernity creates the conditions for the possibility of atheism, and if modernity also gives rise to a specifically modern rendering of theism, then it is to be expected that atheism would constitute and define itself as the rejection of this distinctively modern God. If, as I have suggested, theism mutates into something quite new and different at the advent of modernity, then it follows that it is this conception of God that modern atheism finds to be incredible and unsustainable."

This is a strange way to attack atheism. In effect the author is saying that modern Western atheists have only rejected a modern Christian concept of God and therefore they are not true atheists because they haven't criticised every concept of God or gods that have been posited. I don't see why the atheist has to consider every form of theism before he can consider himself a 'true' atheist. He simply does not believe.

Hyman seems to put a lot of emphasis on the notion that to be defined as an atheist there need to be theists, and that atheists therefore appear to be in a paradoxical position of defining themselves in terms of something that they believe doesn't exist. For example, the quote in the introduction: "...atheism defines itself in terms of that which it takes to be denying." I don't really see that a university lecturer could be confused with this so I can only assume that he's being disingenuous. After all the situation is simple: In a world where the majority of people believe in X, the minority will be labelled as those that don't believe in X., i.e. defined in term of that which they do not believe. Wouldn't a Christian living in a Muslim country be called an infidel, or unbeliever? - defined in terms of that which they do not believe.

Another quote from the introduction: "Does atheism arise as the denial of a particular conception of God? If so, what then becomes of the status of atheism in relation to alternative conceptions of God?"

I think the author is being deliberately confusing here, surely someone who denies a specific concept of God or gods only to choose another concept of God or gods is just switching sects or religions. That person is not an atheist as an atheist doesn't believe in any god. Because most atheists are Western they therefore attack the Western concept of Christianity, but this is mainly for convenience as the Western reader will have some knowledge and experience of that particular version of theism. If the Western atheist attacked pagan gods, Hindu gods or a medieval Christian concept of God then the modern Western theist may well agree with the criticism and then add that that's because their modern theistic outlook is the correct one. The Western atheist has therefore got nowhere, if he wishes to continue then he should attack the modern Western Christian version of theism.

It seems that the author believes that because atheists have to spend so much time talking about religion that this somehow ties them to religion. Unfortunately this is partially true, although most atheists do not spend much time thinking about religion at all. It is usually only when it is brought up by theists that it is even considered. The theist should try to imagine what it would be like living in a world where everyone, except them, believe in unicorns. People would talk about how great they are, where they saw them etc. You may ask for proof as you've never seen one but all you'll get in reply are more stories and experiences. You may even be present when they see them, even though you still cannot see them yourself. But if you persist in not believing in them, but instead trust in your own senses and experiences then you may be ridiculed by the believers, possibly victimised. Whatever happens, you may find yourself talking about unicorns for a good portion of your life even though you do not believe in them.

I've started to read the first chapter but this may be a book that I abandon.

Chapter One is an interesting, though brief summary explaining how atheism developed in the west. This is what I initially thought the whole book was going to be about.

In Chapter Two Hyman explains how reasoning about God developed from Aquinas through to Descartes and Kant and then through to the modern day. Studies in epistemology ended with philosophers doubting their own existence. Poor philosophers!

Chapter Three. He makes the distinction between Aquinas who believed that we could 'know' that God exists but we didn't know the form he took. Whereas Descartes et al. know what form he takes (a sort of superhuman form) but do not 'know' that He exists and therefore try to prove that God exists.

Chapter Four. I guess that the author believes this to be the pivotal chapter in the book. He starts the chapter by asking whether the 'alien powers of secular philosophy' corrupted the 'authentic theism' and then dismisses Descartes' method because it 'was entirely immanent and God-less, and would thus ultimately lead to conclusions that were likewise immanent and God-less'. I don't agree, but Aquinas' method just says 'we know God exists' which can only lead to the conclusion that....(drum-roll please)....God exists. The rest of the chapter is academic drivel which just reminds me why I stopped reading philosophy and studied physics instead. Surely, the only conclusion that you can come to after reading philosophy is that the existence of God cannot be proved by philosophical meditation. At the end of the chapter, the author again states that modern atheism is only a rejection of this modern form of theism. So the choice is yours: accept a modern, atheistic and scientific philosophy with no God or accept a pure, unquestioned medieval God.

I can't read any further as I'm losing the will to live.
Abandoned.

[Dustin]

Should Christians be atheists? If the proposition of this book is correct, then it’s a resounding: yes! Not only that, but we should be enthusiastic evangelists of atheism.

The book’s central argument is that the rise of modernity (and western philosophy) gave rise to a sort of theism that was previously unheard of. In other words, modernity created a conception of god that hadn’t previously existed. It was a new god, one that people believed, incorrectly, to be the God of Scripture. (Is this modern god also the god of modern, western Christianity and the reason western Christianity is on the decline?)

It’s this “modern god”—being nothing more than a super being, a thing, a projection of man’s reason or epistemology— that atheism rejects. (It’s also a god that Christians should reject.) Moreover, the atheistic objections of this modern god (the problem of biblical history, the challenge of science, and the problem evil and suffering) are questions that have only arisen with the birth of this modern god.

Luckily, Nietzsche has declared that this modern god dead. Good riddance, this god was only an idol. Now, the question is, if modernity dies and gives way to post-modernity, will it also be the resurrection of pre-modernity? One can only hope, for pre-modernity is the God of scripture, the God is who is radically other than creation, and so ontologically different, that we should—and must—return to apophatic theology. In this, Orthodox Christians will rejoice!

[Terese]

Biased and problematic. A very theistic book which largely seems to reject atheistically inclined epistemology and fundamental shifts in theology and philosophy only because it's bad for theism (medieval theism more or less, you know the good days, preferably before the Reformation!). Between the lines you can hear him wax wistfully about the pre-modern concept of God, without raising a single of the rather many and obvious problems with this, why? Because he needs the modern concept to sound like a degeneration, not a development of thought which may not have benefitted that particular brand of theism.

There are some interesting points, but mostly I found it shallow, obfuscating and, as mentioned, far too theistic to be worthwhile. I'm surprised a professor had us read this. Not surprised I bought it cheaply used because it had been taken out of stock.

There must be better books on atheism to read, find them instead.

[Ietrio]

Another unsophisticated mind pushed by an overblown ego to bring more words instead of proof. Gavin Hyman is so intellectually limited that the "history" of atheism would be much better described as "what Hyman heard about atheism".

[Evan]

This is nothing close to a history of atheism. It's a book that claims to be neutral while really being a transparently Thomist apologist work that bizarrely tries to argue that atheists are only against the modern conception of God.

[Adam Brock]

Useful for students of theology. Covers most of the arguments.

[tuareg]

Ateizmin Kısa Tarihi
Gavin Hyman

[İlşad Özkan]

Bir kitabı yarım bırakmak gibi bir huyum pek yoktur ancak bu kitap için bunu yapmak zorunda kaldım, üzgünüm. Zira Hyman'ın çalışması Ateizmin tarihine bir giriş gibi görünse de Hristiyan Avrupa teoloji tarihinde bozuk plak gibi takılı kalıyor ve teoloji tarihine meraklı olanlar dışında kimsenin işine yaramayacak yığınla kuram ve laf salatasıyla okuru oyalıyor, sabrını zorluyor. Ben sabredemedim doğrusu. Pozitif ateizmle ilgili görüşlerini yahut kayda değer görüşleri aktarmasını beklediğim yazar, Hristiyan teolojisinin havuzundan asla çıkamıyor. Yazarın akademik sabrı ve çokça metni incelemesine saygı duyduğumdan 3 yıldız verdim, yoksa 2 yıldızdan fazlasını hak ettiğini düşünmüyorum. Ne yazık ki kitabın Türkiye baskısını yapan Kırmızı Kedi Yayınları daha önce başka kitaplara yaptığı gibi bu kitaba da hak etmediği bir arka kapak yazısı yazarak beni, yani okurları kandırmış. Kitap neredeyse bir vakit kaybı. Belki ileride bir gün çok vaktim olduğunda kaldığım yerden bitiririm ama uzun bir süre bunu yapacağımı sanmıyorum. Yazık, oysa ilgiyle okumaya başlamış ve ilk bölümlerdeki işleyişi bir girizgah sanmıştım, ne ki kitabın tamamı bu girizgah sandığım bölümler gibiymiş...

[Nick Jensen]

Quite the intriguing work! Hyman gives a large spectrum and transformation of religion, so the "short" may not be the operative word. From the beginning of classical thought, to the Renaissance philosophers, Hyman places each on their beliefs of religion, and making sure the themes are well addressed. Who comes first, God or man? Does God hear prayers, or is he distant? Can man understand God, or is he beyond our scope? Did man imagine God, and what are the consequences of this? A very enjoyable read, and one that I'm looking forward to reading again soon!