Topics Religion

Question I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist philosopher. Did all the ancient Greek philosophical big guns believe in gods, for example? More recently I know Hume published his atheist stuff anonymously for fear of reprisal and recrimination but before him the Elizabethan playwrights Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd were "accused" of atheism so it was nothing new. So how far does it go back, especially as articulated by philosophers? Thanks in advance for your answers.

Accepted:
December 1, 2008

Comments

The charge of atheism was levelled against countless philosophers over the centuries: but, historically, it usually signified nothing more than a criticism of the established state religion and/or a heretical view on the nature of God/gods, and not a flat denial that there was any existent being answering to that name at all. For instance, among ancient philosophers, Epicurus and the other classical atomists were widely regarded as atheistic: but they really weren't. They did postulate the existence of gods. It was just that their so-called gods were material beings, living serene lives off in outer space, who didn't create the universe or, frankly, do much of anything at all, and who had absolutely no interest in mundane affairs, and consequently weren't fit objects for our religious devotion. Later on, Spinoza's contemporaries generally tended to regard him as an atheist, as did those of Hobbes, and Hume, not to mention Bruno, Vanini, Toland, and many others. But most of these figures insisted on the existence of God. Even Hume, although he might have been less emphatic about it than the others, did at least concede that much. Their concern was more with the question of what this being was like, not whether it existed at all. Spinoza's 'God', for instance, was characterised as a non-supernatural being, who possessed neither wisdom nor will nor providential benevolence, who was not a fit object for our worship (although, curiously, was a fit object for our love), and who was not really distinct from the universe at all. The common attitude at the time (and a charge that Spinoza himself strenuously resisted) was that a being like that simply wasn't worthy of the name 'God' at all; and, if Spinoza wasn't postulating any other God besides that one, then he wasn't really postulating any God at all. I'm not really familiar with the nature of the charge made against Marlowe or Kyd, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to this one, falling into the grey area between atheism in the strict sense and simple heresy.

I dare say that there probably were a handful of crackpots over the centuries, who did go further by declaring explicitly that there was no God of any kind at all. But few of these actually left a written record of their opinions; and, perhaps more importantly, few arrived at this conclusion via a path of genuinely philosophical investigation (as opposed to a malicious will to outrage, or just straightforward lunacy). The earliest figure that I know of, who was not only an atheist in the truest sense of the term, but who also built a complete philosophical system around this doctrine, was a Frenchman by the name of Jean Meslier (1664-1729).

Meslier was a priest (of all things!), who lived a completely ordinary life in a tiny French village, doing his duties in the local church. Only then, when he died, they discovered a colossal manuscript among his papers, of a book he'd been writing and revising for many years. The full title of this book sums up its contents pretty well: Memoir of thoughts and sentiments of Jean Meslier, priest of Etrépigny and Balaives, on some of the errors and deceits in the conduct and the government of men, wherein are to be seen clear and evident demonstrations of the vanity and the falsity of all divinities and all the religions of the world, to be addressed to his parishioners after his death, and to serve them and all like them with a testimony of the truth. This book definitely does qualify as a genuinely philosophical treatise, discussing cutting-edge doctrines and arguments from Fénélon, Malebranche and others along the way, and championed in its turn (albeit only in a grossly bowdlerised version) by Voltaire. And, in the course of it, Meslier not only develops and argues for a materialist metaphysics that is explicitly atheistic in the fullest possible sense, but also develops, in conjunction with this, a communist political philosophy! Half a century before d'Holbach (who is sometimes regarded as the first truly atheistic philosopher of the Enlightenment), and a century and a half before Marx! Unfortunately, Meslier's Memoir (also known as his Testament) has never been translated into English -- which is a real pity, as it is just so exquisitely quotable -- but here is my own rough-and-ready, unpolished rendering of its most famous passage:

"Ah! my dear friends, if you well knew the vanity and the foolishness of the errors in which you are kept under the pretext of religion, and if you knew how unjustly and how disgracefully the authority is abused which has been usurped over you, under the pretext of governing you, you would certainly have nothing but contempt for everything that you have been made to adore and respect, and you would have only hatred and indignation for all of those who have abused you and who govern you so badly and treat you so disgracefully. This reminds me of a wish that was once made by a man who had neither knowledge nor education, but who, according to appearances, did not lack the good sense to judge soundly of all the detestable abuses and all the detestable tyrannies that I am here criticising. It appeared, through his wish and through his way of expressing his thoughts, that he saw far enough and sufficiently penetrated into this detestable mystery of iniquity of which I have just spoken, since he well recognised its authors and its fomenters. He hoped that all the great men of the world, and all of the nobility, should be hanged and strangled with the guts of the priests. This expression will not fail to appear rude, vulgar and shocking, but you have to admit: it is frank and artless. It is concise, but it is expressive, since it expresses in few words everything that people of that sort deserve." (Foreword, chapter two).