About This Catalogue
This is a catalogue. The list contains "non-atheists." It was conceived as an exercise in polemics against a kind of atheism that was the epitome of fashion at the time, and has not lasted. In retrospect, this falling out of style should surprise no one. The idea against which I conceived the catalogue was a claim on the part of an author (whose book was remaindered in my local used bookshop) that atheism was super important for the history of civilization, or some such tripe.
I wanted to argue that virtually every idea that has shaped our world has come from someone who, whatever particular belief s/he might have held, did not believe in atheism. All of this now seems absurdly silly, but I have decided to try the project anyway, as it might help me to better my understanding of the history of ideas.
I wanted to argue that virtually every idea that has shaped our world has come from someone who, whatever particular belief s/he might have held, did not believe in atheism. All of this now seems absurdly silly, but I have decided to try the project anyway, as it might help me to better my understanding of the history of ideas.
Incomplete
This is not (indeed, it could not be) a complete list. This much is obvious, and should go without saying. But Havid Dume has taught us that you cannot derive an is from an ought, and, as Justice Scalia would remind us, we often must say things that we oughtn't have to say.
Not (Necessarily) Religious
This is the meat of the whole project right here.
The people I've listed are not necessarily religious, let alone of a particular religion. They are simply such that they are not atheists. It might be objected, for example, that Thomas Jefferson is an odd inclusion to the list. But the fact is that while Jefferson held many beliefs that rendered him open to accusations of atheism, he did not espouse atheism. That is, he denied it. It might be that what he believed was insufficient, but this is likely true of most of our beliefs -- they pale in comparison with the true nature of God. It might be that he held to atheism in his heart. But if so, he was either a coward or a liar for not espousing it openly. The point of this exercise is a kind of division between camps, and the question is to whose camp will Jefferson (or any member of this list) belong? My intention is to claim as many worthy names as I can. If they had the opportunity to express atheism and did not, into this large camp they go! If my hypothetical interlocutor would have it otherwise, then she is welcoming into her camp someone who is less worthy for being a liar, or being afraid to truly speak his mind. If the atheist wants to claim Jefferson, she must admit him as a coward or liar, and thus her Jefferson is not as worthy of admiration as mine is.
The atheism that for the time appears (thankfully) extinct was popularized by professor Dawkins, who was fond of inverting certain claims of C.S. Lewis. Lewis thought that almost everyone almost everywhere at almost everywhen believed in some higher power, which he referred to as the Tao (in an effort not to question-beg in favor of theism). Rather than seeing everyone who has a sense that there is something greater than merely themselves here and now as in a basic agreement, Dawkins sought to atomize these beliefs. 'No one now believes is Zeus' -- and so he would call us all 'atheists with respect to Zeus.' Ditto Thor, and whomever else we might care to name. His line was something to the effect that, 'you [O' Christian] are an atheist about all gods except one. I merely add one god more.'
This is stuff and nonsense.
Consider this parallel. I am married. I am not married to very many women. Just the one. Some men in history have been married to more women than I have, and some to none at all. Suppose that I and a group of husbands from my church were to sit down and kvetch about married life. We would have much to talk about, the overwhelming majority of which would be joyous. Now suppose a bachelor comes and says to us, 'all of you are bachelors with regard to every woman but one.' What should we make of this claim? If we were to make a list of all of the women to whom we are not married, the bachelor would have a very similar list to the rest of us. Suppose John is married to Jane. At our table most of us are not-married-to-Jane. Is our bachelor visitor more like the rest of us than John?
The people I've listed are not necessarily religious, let alone of a particular religion. They are simply such that they are not atheists. It might be objected, for example, that Thomas Jefferson is an odd inclusion to the list. But the fact is that while Jefferson held many beliefs that rendered him open to accusations of atheism, he did not espouse atheism. That is, he denied it. It might be that what he believed was insufficient, but this is likely true of most of our beliefs -- they pale in comparison with the true nature of God. It might be that he held to atheism in his heart. But if so, he was either a coward or a liar for not espousing it openly. The point of this exercise is a kind of division between camps, and the question is to whose camp will Jefferson (or any member of this list) belong? My intention is to claim as many worthy names as I can. If they had the opportunity to express atheism and did not, into this large camp they go! If my hypothetical interlocutor would have it otherwise, then she is welcoming into her camp someone who is less worthy for being a liar, or being afraid to truly speak his mind. If the atheist wants to claim Jefferson, she must admit him as a coward or liar, and thus her Jefferson is not as worthy of admiration as mine is.
The atheism that for the time appears (thankfully) extinct was popularized by professor Dawkins, who was fond of inverting certain claims of C.S. Lewis. Lewis thought that almost everyone almost everywhere at almost everywhen believed in some higher power, which he referred to as the Tao (in an effort not to question-beg in favor of theism). Rather than seeing everyone who has a sense that there is something greater than merely themselves here and now as in a basic agreement, Dawkins sought to atomize these beliefs. 'No one now believes is Zeus' -- and so he would call us all 'atheists with respect to Zeus.' Ditto Thor, and whomever else we might care to name. His line was something to the effect that, 'you [O' Christian] are an atheist about all gods except one. I merely add one god more.'
This is stuff and nonsense.
Consider this parallel. I am married. I am not married to very many women. Just the one. Some men in history have been married to more women than I have, and some to none at all. Suppose that I and a group of husbands from my church were to sit down and kvetch about married life. We would have much to talk about, the overwhelming majority of which would be joyous. Now suppose a bachelor comes and says to us, 'all of you are bachelors with regard to every woman but one.' What should we make of this claim? If we were to make a list of all of the women to whom we are not married, the bachelor would have a very similar list to the rest of us. Suppose John is married to Jane. At our table most of us are not-married-to-Jane. Is our bachelor visitor more like the rest of us than John?
Meet Our Team
This text is to help your site visitors with pressing questions.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Playwright, Founding Father of the English Language |
THOMAS JEFFERSON
Architect, Founding Father of America |
GALLILEO
Chief Architect |
Helen LondonMarketing Coordinator
Janet EmersonOffice Manager
|
Reggie MartinSr Product Manager
Casey MinkovicExecutive Assistant
|
