The hisÂtoÂry of religion(s) is a fasÂciÂnatÂing subÂject, one that should be covÂered, in my humÂble opinÂion, as an inteÂgral part of every libÂerÂal arts eduÂcaÂtion. But the hisÂtoÂry of atheism—of disbelief—is a subÂject that only emerges pieceÂmeal, in oppoÂsiÂtionÂal conÂtexts, espeÂcialÂly in the wake of recent funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂist uprisÂings in the past decade or so. We covÂered one such hisÂtoÂry recentÂly, the 2004 BBC series AtheÂism: A Rough HisÂtoÂry of DisÂbeÂlief, made by direcÂtor Jonathan Miller and feaÂturÂing such high-proÂfile thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Daniel DenÂnett, Arthur Miller, and physiÂcist Steven WeinÂberg.
Miller’s series origÂiÂnalÂly includÂed much more mateÂrÂiÂal than he could air, and so the BBC agreed to let him proÂduce the outÂtake interÂviews as a sepÂaÂrate proÂgram called The AtheÂism Tapes. It’s a series in six parts, feaÂturÂing interÂviews with EngÂlish philosoÂpher ColÂin McGinn, WeinÂberg, Miller, Dawkins, DenÂnett, and British theÂoloÂgian Denys TurnÂer. At the top, watch Miller’s intro to The AtheÂism Tapes and his interÂview with ColÂin McGinn. It’s an interÂestÂing angle—Miller gets to quiz McGinn on “what it means to be a skepÂtiÂcal EngÂlish philosoÂpher in such a seemÂingÂly reliÂgious counÂtry as the UnitÂed States.” Many readÂers may symÂpaÂthize with McGinn’s difÂfiÂculÂty in comÂmuÂniÂcatÂing his unbeÂlief to those who find the conÂcept totalÂly alien.
DirectÂly above, watch Daniel DenÂnett (after the intro) disÂcuss the relaÂtionÂship between atheÂism and Darwin’s revÂoÂluÂtionÂary theÂoÂry. Miller is a wonÂderÂful interviewer—sympathetic, probÂing, informed, humorÂous, humanÂist. He is the perÂfect perÂson to bring all these figÂures togethÂer and get their varÂiÂous takes on modÂern unbeÂlief, because despite his own proÂfesÂsions, Miller realÂly cares about these big metaÂphysÂiÂcal quesÂtions, and his pasÂsion and curiosÂiÂty are shared by all of his interÂvieÂwees. In the introÂducÂtion to his interÂview with playÂwright Arthur Miller (below), Jonathan Miller makes the provocaÂtive claim that ChrisÂtianÂiÂty believes “there’s someÂthing pecuÂliar about the Jews that makes them pecuÂliarÂly susÂcepÂtiÂble to proÂfane disÂbeÂlief.” Watch Arthur Miller’s response below.
One would hope that all manÂner of people—believers, atheÂists, and the non-committal—would come away from The AtheÂism Tapes with at least a healthy respect for the integriÂty of philoÂsophÂiÂcal and sciÂenÂtifÂic inquiry and doubt. See the full series on YouTube here. Or purÂchase your copy on AmaÂzon here.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
AtheÂism: A Rough HisÂtoÂry of DisÂbeÂlief, with Jonathan Miller
PhilosoÂpher Daniel DenÂnett Presents SevÂen Tools For CritÂiÂcal ThinkÂing
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in WashÂingÂton, DC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
ReliÂgion, it seems to me, is only interÂestÂing, because it is embedÂded in modÂern culÂture and, because it seems to interÂfere with a lot of peoÂples abilÂiÂty to reaÂson about cerÂtain topÂics. So the culÂturÂal and the psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal aspects of it.
Next year I’ll be studyÂing phiÂlosÂoÂphy and as far as I know the hisÂtoÂry of reliÂgion won’t be covÂered durÂing my whole three year bachÂeÂlor. Josh, why do you think that it ought to be apart from the fact that it’s fasÂciÂnatÂing to some?
I think so, Bart, for the reaÂsons you cite. It is an inescapable part of modÂern culÂture. DenÂnett also makes a case for comÂparÂaÂtive reliÂgion classÂes, although I’m not nearÂly as optiÂmistic as he is that they could be conÂsisÂtentÂly taught withÂout harmÂful bias. But I agree with his reaÂsonÂing: peoÂple who are informed about a variÂety of reliÂgions are more likeÂly to be tolÂerÂant of othÂer faiths, to be skepÂtiÂcal of the reliÂgion they’re raised in, and to think critÂiÂcalÂly about reliÂgion in genÂerÂal.
I think you will find that to be Jonathan Miller doing the interÂviewÂing, I don’t know who Arthur Miller is.
SorÂry, obviÂousÂly don’t know what I am talkÂing about.
As an AtheÂist I believe in empiriÂcism. When I wish to observe belief in God, the only place I can do so is in othÂer peoÂple’s beliefs. I then look for patÂterns. What I find is anthroÂpoÂmorÂphism. EarÂly reliÂgions give a human perÂsonÂalÂiÂty to nearÂly every object or area of exisÂtence. With increased obserÂvaÂtion of the nature and its mateÂrÂiÂal nature this anthroÂpoÂmorÂphism has been conÂstantÂly retreatÂing till it only exists as a vague, abstract human perÂsonÂalÂiÂty to the entire uniÂverse. AtheÂists take the final step and totalÂly elimÂiÂnate anthroÂpoÂmorÂphism from our underÂstandÂing. The next quesÂtion is to underÂstand why humans have a psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal tenÂdenÂcy to indulge in anthroÂpoÂmorÂphism. I have been unable to use empiriÂcism to develÂop underÂstandÂing of this quesÂtion and have had to rely on a less reliÂable, posÂsiÂble ratioÂnal explaÂnaÂtion. When our conÂsciousÂness comes into exisÂtence, we are being cared for by mature humans, usuÂalÂly our parÂents. From the beginÂning of our conÂsciousÂness we are conÂdiÂtioned to believe there is a human perÂsonÂalÂiÂty, or perÂsonÂalÂiÂties, takÂing care of us. Part of develÂopÂing our intelÂlect is to overÂcome our impulse to indulge in conÂdiÂtioned, anthroÂpoÂmorÂphic reaÂsonÂing as we become increasÂingÂly aware of the mateÂrÂiÂal nature of the uniÂverse.
I admired my proÂfesÂsors belief in empiriÂcism; neat, tidy, preÂdictable. But empiriÂcism is often devoid of the very subÂstance of humanÂiÂty; our heart. And it is only at the heart levÂel that God can be expeÂriÂenced. IntelÂlecÂtuÂal acuÂity is irrelÂeÂvant withÂout the capacÂiÂty to embrace this truth.
I admired my proÂfesÂsors belief in empiriÂcism; neat, tidy, preÂdictable. But empiriÂcism is often devoid of the very subÂstance of humanÂiÂty; our heart. And it is only at the heart levÂel that God can be expeÂriÂenced. IntelÂlecÂtuÂal acuÂity is irrelÂeÂvant withÂout the capacÂiÂty to embrace this truth.
Even though I am an AtheÂist, I admire the teachÂings of Christ since I find a strong patÂtern of empiriÂcism in his teachÂings. Most ideÂalÂists like to project onto the world how they think things should be. We would all like to see every child offered the opporÂtuÂniÂty for a good eduÂcaÂtion. If the ideÂal isn’t reflectÂed in outÂcomes, the ideÂalÂist gets angry and shakes his fist at the world. If stuÂdents don’t valÂue the eduÂcaÂtion they are offered and abuse those proÂvidÂing them, ideÂalÂists unfairÂly bash teachÂers. Jesus said “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they tramÂple them, and turn on you, and rend you.” Jesus must have been an empiriÂcist who observed human behavÂiour and was willÂing to abanÂdon ideals when obserÂvaÂtion showed them to be invalid. There are numerÂous examÂples where you can find eviÂdence of empiriÂcism in the bible. I disÂagree with your belief empiriÂcism is devoid of heart. Jesus took pity on those offerÂing pearls and being abused by swine. His pity was deepÂer since he would not sacÂriÂfice virÂtuÂous peoÂple in the name of invalid ideals. Dear inspired, look for carÂing, deep empiriÂcism in the bible. My love of empiriÂcism origÂiÂnatÂed in the bible, not in uniÂverÂsiÂty.
I admired my proÂfesÂsors belief in empiriÂcism; neat, tidy, preÂdictable. But empiriÂcism is often devoid of the very subÂstance of humanÂiÂty; our heart. And it is only at the heart levÂel that God can be expeÂriÂenced. IntelÂlecÂtuÂal acuÂity is irrelÂeÂvant withÂout the capacÂiÂty to embrace this truth.