4 ms·

> There was no evident tolerance for athiesm, at least as recorded in this kind of history. It took the later rennaisance and reformation for aspects of roman/g

by whakim 5y ago

> There was no evident tolerance for athiesm, at least as recorded in this kind of history. It took the later rennaisance and reformation for aspects of roman/greek atheism to enter the conversation I think it's worth pointing out here that Roman and Greek societies took religion incredibly seriously. Recall that one of the two charges leveled against Socrates was impiety; the Socrates of Plato's Apology goes to great lengths to refute this charge. Or that Cicero explicitly attributes the success of Rome to its successful practice of religion. Atheism basically doesn't exist in the ancient world.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
I understood that was a cynical charge, raised because pretty much any intellectual could be accused of it. He had 'introduced new gods to the city' or some such. Basically by preying on old superstition, his enemies (who probably didn't give a flying whistle) used it to bring him down.
- whakim 5y ago
  It's true that the charges were somewhat cynical in the sense that Socrates could have been charged with the same crimes 10 or 20 years earlier - it wasn't his beliefs that changed, it was the political circumstances. That being said, Plato's Apology makes it clear how seriously Socrates took this charge - proving his own piety was incredibly important.
- watwut 5y ago
  I think it is more that they did not actually cared whether he did the anti-gods thing rather then they would not believe in gods. It was excuse, but not in the "we don't believe this could be done" sense.
ggm 5y ago
Yes I was economical with the truth. I am probably continuing to play fast and loose with what I read, as a dilettante. Other reading I have done recently[0] said the writings of the ancients which didn't directly inform christian thought, were not held in high esteem until quite late in the medieval world. That subsequently they became a source of non-theistically informed moral philosophy doesn't really apply. The point at hand was that a non-theist basis for law and rule wasn't really applicable, And the leaders looked to religion to justify their acts. Did they really care about Arianism or Wanted to destroy the Visigoths over the holy book? I tend to think the more materialistic reasons of territory, lineage and wealth had a lot more to do with it. Other reading I do of trade in the later medieval period strongly suggests a high degree of religious pragmatism before the reformation: People would trade with both the muslim and christian world, promiscuously as it suited them, and the kings would form treaties across the religious divide. To literal truth, "across the religious divide" implies a basis of belief. I personally suspect most lip-service religion is morally athiesm-in-disguise, but I understand this is really my own view. The rise of athiesm in the modern world is the willingness of people to admit to it and I see this as analogous to the rise of visible homosexuality: It would be wrong to assume the underlying rate of homosexual desire in the past was radically different, people just hid it. I think they did the same with athiesm. Reading Marcus Aurelius was about as overt as it got. [0] https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-bookseller-of-florence-9781784742669 https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-bookseller-of-florence-...
- whakim 5y ago
  I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a medievalist, so I won't try to opine too much on the workings of medieval society. That being said, I think the key difference here isn't between a theist/non-theist basis for rule and law, it's a difference between a conception of a god that is transcendental (a la Christianity), and a conception of (a bunch of) ancient Gods that are immanent (i.e. dwelling within the world). The way you interact with a transcendental god who you primarily know about from religious/philosophical texts is fundamentally different from the way you interact with an immanent god that you primarily know about from ritual practice. In the former case, rules and laws come from attempting to carry out the will of the divine as epitomized by philosophy and scripture. In the latter case, rules and laws and decisions (including decisions like going to war!) are made in concert with gods through the practices of ritual and divination. Is this the only input into the way that societies worked in the ancient world? Of course not. But I would argue the same is true of medieval societies - not everything was motivated by religion either.

by whakim 5y ago

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

I understood that was a cynical charge, raised because pretty much any intellectual could be accused of it. He had 'introduced new gods to the city' or some such. Basically by preying on old superstition, his enemies (who probably didn't give a flying whistle) used it to bring him down.

whakim 5y ago
It's true that the charges were somewhat cynical in the sense that Socrates could have been charged with the same crimes 10 or 20 years earlier - it wasn't his beliefs that changed, it was the political circumstances. That being said, Plato's Apology makes it clear how seriously Socrates took this charge - proving his own piety was incredibly important.
watwut 5y ago
I think it is more that they did not actually cared whether he did the anti-gods thing rather then they would not believe in gods. It was excuse, but not in the "we don't believe this could be done" sense.

ggm 5y ago

Yes I was economical with the truth. I am probably continuing to play fast and loose with what I read, as a dilettante. Other reading I have done recently[0] said the writings of the ancients which didn't directly inform christian thought, were not held in high esteem until quite late in the medieval world. That subsequently they became a source of non-theistically informed moral philosophy doesn't really apply. The point at hand was that a non-theist basis for law and rule wasn't really applicable, And the leaders looked to religion to justify their acts. Did they really care about Arianism or Wanted to destroy the Visigoths over the holy book? I tend to think the more materialistic reasons of territory, lineage and wealth had a lot more to do with it. Other reading I do of trade in the later medieval period strongly suggests a high degree of religious pragmatism before the reformation: People would trade with both the muslim and christian world, promiscuously as it suited them, and the kings would form treaties across the religious divide. To literal truth, "across the religious divide" implies a basis of belief. I personally suspect most lip-service religion is morally athiesm-in-disguise, but I understand this is really my own view. The rise of athiesm in the modern world is the willingness of people to admit to it and I see this as analogous to the rise of visible homosexuality: It would be wrong to assume the underlying rate of homosexual desire in the past was radically different, people just hid it. I think they did the same with athiesm. Reading Marcus Aurelius was about as overt as it got. [0] https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-bookseller-of-florence-9781784742669 https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-bookseller-of-florence-...

whakim 5y ago
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a medievalist, so I won't try to opine too much on the workings of medieval society. That being said, I think the key difference here isn't between a theist/non-theist basis for rule and law, it's a difference between a conception of a god that is transcendental (a la Christianity), and a conception of (a bunch of) ancient Gods that are immanent (i.e. dwelling within the world). The way you interact with a transcendental god who you primarily know about from religious/philosophical texts is fundamentally different from the way you interact with an immanent god that you primarily know about from ritual practice. In the former case, rules and laws come from attempting to carry out the will of the divine as epitomized by philosophy and scripture. In the latter case, rules and laws and decisions (including decisions like going to war!) are made in concert with gods through the practices of ritual and divination. Is this the only input into the way that societies worked in the ancient world? Of course not. But I would argue the same is true of medieval societies - not everything was motivated by religion either.