B (21:31)

This episode is brought to you by Amazon. Sometimes the most painful part of getting sick is the getting better part. Waiting on hold for an appointment, sitting in crowded waiting rooms, standing in line at the pharmacy. That's painful. Amazon One Medical and Amazon Pharmacy remove those painful parts of getting better with things like 247 virtual visits and prescriptions delivered to your door thanks to Amazon Pharmacy and Amazon One Medical Health care just got less painful.

A (21:58)

Another famous quote, and possibly his best and most philosophical take is this air, I should explain, becomes wind when it is agitated. What a useful thing to know, right? But remember, Lucretius wasn't an atheist himself, though his views, again, very much resemble it. Now, you've probably heard of a lot of these people before, right? Epicurus, Lucretius, maybe, I don't know. But at the same time that this school of thought was sort of bubbling in Ancient Rome, ancient Greece, the Indians were also having a similar awakening. The same sort of philosophical enlightenment trying to become unbridled from the bondage of some type of strict theistic belief. So I'd like to introduce you to the Charvaka school. This is again around the same time of Diagras, the Trivaka school, also known as the Lokoyata. Lokayata, I don't speak. I don't speak Hindi, but Lokayata, I think is pretty close. This was developing in India. This is a school of philosophy focused on Indian materialism and took a bold and different approach compared to many other Indian traditions of the time. The Charvaka rejected the idea of supernatural forces or gods being responsible for the workings of the world. Instead, they believed that everything could be explained through a natural, straightforward way without relying on divine intervention or gods or mystical explanations or anything like that. They place a strong emphasis on the importance of what can be directly observed and experienced. And this was a very scientific approach for its time. They argued that if you can't see, touch or otherwise directly perceive something, you shouldn't believe it. That if things are outside of your, you know, strict bodily measurements or your senses, that there's no way to really prove it. So for them, knowledge wasn't something you could gain from scriptures or rituals or, you know, what others claimed about the invisible spiritual world. Instead, knowledge had to come from things that you could directly verify with your own senses or from evidence that made logical sense. This approach set the Karvaka school apart from many other Indian philosophies such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which often focused on spirituality, meditation and the idea of the afterlife. The Charvakas rejected the belief in an eternal soul, karma or rebirth, things that are obviously integral to many Indians way of life. As practicing Hindus, the Charvaka said that life is what you see and experience in the here and now. They even questioned the value of religious rituals, calling them a waste of time and resources that benefited priests more than the people they were trying to serve. These ideas have an eerily similar resemblance to the Greek philosophies that were going around on the other side of the world. And we're now starting to see a movement that questions sometimes and even denies the idea of a God or gods. But in some way, this movement becomes a religion in and of itself. Now let's go back to Rome. All right. And let's talk about the Christians that I promised we'd talk about in ancient Rome. The early Christians were labeled as, as atheists. This is when they were being persecuted not only for their belief in a new faith centered on Jesus Christ, but also for rejecting the worship of the pantheon of Roman gods. Roman society was deeply rooted in this polytheistic tradition. They saw religion as integral part to civic life. And what it means to be a Roman citizen. Their politics and culture relied heavily on the traditions and holidays and sacrifices and offerings. And Christians, by refusing to participate in these traditions, disrupted the social order. Interestingly, early Christians again were labeled as atheists, not because they denied the existence of all gods, but because they rejected the Roman gods and polytheism specifically. This label was a way to isolate Christians and paint them as like disruptive outsiders trying to, you know, destroy Roman society. The persecution of Christians in Rome began as early as the mid 1st century A.D. under Emperor Nero, following the Great Fire of Rome, in which Nero was, you know, just dicking around. He scapegoated Christians, accusing them of arson, and subjected them to brutal punishments and executions. One of the most atrocious executions happened when the Romans would just throw them off an 80 foot cliff called the Tarpeian Rock that is still there today. Now, of course, the Christians weren't actually atheists, but in the eyes of the Roman society, they were just that and they were branded as atheists. But it wasn't just in ancient Rome. Throughout Islamic history, debates between religious scholars and skeptics or atheists were integral to the intellectual vibrancy of societies such as those in Baghdad, Cordoba and Cairo, key hubs of Islamic scholarship. During the medieval period, scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, one of the founders of Islamic jurisprudence, and Imam Shafiyya, known for his contributions to Islamic law, frequently engaged in theological debates with individuals who questioned the existence of God. Imam Abu Hanifa, in one infamous debate, humiliated an atheist by comparing him to a madman, saying, would you believe a ship builds itself? Then why would you claim the world does? Oh, I mean, I could see that. Especially back in the day when you don't have YouTube and stuff, you don't get to see debates all the time. That's probably a banger. These discussions often took place in a climate of philosophical inquiry, where Islamic scholars utilized reason, logic and scriptural evidence to address the challenges posed by skeptics. Specifically, in Surah Al Jathia 45, 24, it is stated that the atheists say, quote, there is nothing beyond our worldly life. We die, others are born, and nothing destroys us. But the passage of time. Imam Al Shafi once said, don't love the one who doesn't love Allah. If they can leave Allah, they will leave you. Honestly, a great point. Honestly, a great point. I, I know some people that don't love Allah. They don't love God. If you don't love God, if you don't love the person that created you, how can you love me? You know what I mean? How can you rock with your boy when things get hard and right? I look you. You hear it. Sometimes you hear some, some. Some Muslim stuff, and you're like, yo, am I secretly a Muslim this whole time? Additionally, during the Islamic golden age, thinkers influenced by Greek philosophy, such as. And look, I don't speak Arabic. These names are kind of hard. Can we get them up on the screen so that you guys can understand what I'm trying to say here? Al Farabi, Avicenna and Averios Ibn Rushed, I think is what his actual names, a Varos might be like his. That might be like his, you know, rap name or something. These guys explored themes relating to metaphysics and existence a lot of times pushing the boundaries of orthodox Islamic thought. While many of these scholars upheld a theistic worldview, their engagement with philosophy occasionally attracted accusations of heresy or atheism. Damn. In modern times, the existence of atheistic thought in predominantly Islamic societies continues. But it is much more private than in other societies, because in many Islamic countries, if you are outright atheistic or deny the belief in Allah, you can get thrown into an atheist jail. Now let's go back to medieval times. Not the dinner theater show, but the actual period in history. The open acceptance of atheistic views was rare in Europe, and atheism was very uncommon. Even a dangerous doctrine to hold. The accusation of atheism was regularly used as a way of attacking one's political or religious enemies, and the repercussions were severe. Like calling someone gay or something today, you know, that was. That was the original gay. Like, you just in the 90s, be like, that guy's gay, and then it would be a whole thing. Or like McCarthyism, call him a communist. It is funny that you look back and calling someone a communist and that, that was like an issue. Now you just. This is where I got my coffee from. Like some communist that works at a corner store here in New York City, just questioning the validity or the nature of God's creation was seen as punishable, which is what makes the people I'm about to tell you about so crazy, out of their mind. Let me tell you about Giordano Bruno. That's a delicious name. My gosh, it's so pasta to kids. Giordano Bruno. At just 17, he joined the Dominican order, also known as the Order of Preachers, a Roman Catholic religious order founded by Saint Dominic de Guzman in 1216. The Dominican Order be a hard one to join. Dominicans are wild. Bruno's thirst for Knowledge led him to question established beliefs. He became fascinated with the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus, which is crazy idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. Jury's still out on it, but a lot of people believe it. Bruno took it a step further. He proposed that God existed within everything and that the universe is infinite and filled with countless worlds, each potentially inhabited by intelligent beings. Whoa. For a priest back in the day, that is an insane thing to say. These ideas, along with his rejection of key Catholic doctrines like the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, led to his condemnation. As you can imagine, such ideas didn't really vibe with the time. Bruno's views led him to Flee Naples in 1576 to escape charges of heresy. Traveled across Europe, going through France, England, Germany, backpacking, basically teaching and sharing his thoughts. But despite his travels and efforts to spread his ideas, trouble was never far behind. In 1592, he was arrested by the Inquisition in Venice. The trial that followed was supposedly lengthy and brutal, and for years, Bruno faced relentless questioning from inquisitors who wanted him to recant his beliefs. He had multiple opportunities to save himself, but he famously declared that he could not abandon the truth for fear of death. On January 20th, in the year 1600, after a trial that lasted nearly seven years, Giordano Bruno was sentenced to death for heresy. On February 17th of that year, he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo di Fiori. But here's where it gets interesting. While Bruno died for his ideas, those ideas did not die with him. You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea. His vision of an infinite universe and cosmic pluralism laid important groundwork for later thinkers, such as Galileo and even Isaac Newton. I mean, that's crazy. It's a little dumb to die for atheism, you know what I mean? Like, because there's no one waiting for you. Like, if you die for. For God, whatever your religious tradition is, it's like, yeah, I'm going to die, and then I'm immediately going to go see the. The entity, the being that I died for. But to die for atheism is just like, what's the point? Hey, there's nothing when we die. All right, well, I'm gonna kill you if you say that again. And it's like, why would you want to go to nothing? Like, just be like, I was just joking. I was actually lying about all that. Right? It just seems crazy. You get burned to the stake for just believing in nothing. It's like, believe in nothing if you want, but to die for it just seems dumb. I don't know. Am I crazy for that? I wouldn't. I wouldn't die for that. Now let's talk about the first atheistic work. Like the first one that was like, hey, this is different than the Greek and Roman guys. Because this is a guy that's just like, hey, there's nothing else. This is it. All right? And this is Jean Meslier. This is 100 years after we make it to the early 1700s. And this is a friend of ours living in a small French town nestled in the hills of Ardennes. To the villagers, Messier was the picture of a devoted priest. He baptized their children, blessed their marriages, comforted them in times of grief, diddled their kids. Every Sunday he would stand at the pulpit preaching about God's love and promise of salvation. Stayed there for 40 years doing nothing but good in the eyes of the people. This guy was just the man. Everyone loved him. But beneath all of this, Jean was holding a dark secret. For four decades, he lived a double life. That's right. During the day, he led Catholic church service, comforting the villagers with talks about God's love and promise of eternal life. But at night, alone in his study, he wrote some harsh criticisms of the very beliefs that he preached. 1729, news spread through the village that Father Meslier had passed away. Everyone was heartbroken, so sad. Went to his funeral and his belongings were being sorted when a shocking discovery was made. A 600 page manuscript was found in his home. And it wasn't just any document. It wasn't just, you know, Game of Thrones or something. It wasn't just a random little book he had. This was a comprehensive takedown of organized religion, particularly Christianity, in a full on defense of atheism. Meslier's idea were so radical for this time that his work had been kept secret for decades. It wasn't until 1761 that that a French philosopher known as Francois Marie Arut, you might know him as voltaire, published like 10 or 15% of the actual manuscripts. And it wasn't another hundred years after that, in 1864, that we got the complete versions of his writings, titled A Memoir of Thought and Sentiments of Jean Meslier. He wasn't content with just rejecting God, this guy, Father Meslier, he went further, arguing that one, religion was a tool used by the powerful to exploit the poor. Which again goes back to the political aspect of earlier ideas in Greece. Two, the existence of evil in the world was so incompatible with the idea of a benevolent God, again, this is the problem of evil that we talked about before. Why would a God whose whole basis on being kind and loving allow atrocities to happen in the world? And three, morality doesn't require a belief in a deity. This point parallels Prodicus and other naturalistic materialistic ways of philosophy like Epicureanism, that morality can be found through the natural and understanding humanity and doesn't necessarily need to be divinely ordained. Now you might be thinking, surely there were atheists before Messier. And you'd be right, sure. Diagram of Milos is often called the first atheist, but Messier is unique because he was the first one to leave behind a comprehensive, detailed critique of religion and a clear expression of atheism in Western culture. And the fact that he himself was a priest makes the whole idea of him being an atheist even crazier. I mean, here I just even have a couple quotes from his manuscript that go like this quote. How I suffered when I had to preach to you those pious lies that I detested in my heart. What remorse your credulity caused me. A thousand times I was on the point of breaking out publicly and opening your eyes. But a fear stronger than myself held me back and forced me to keep silence until my death. Another one quote, I wish that all the great men of the earth and all the nobles were strung up and strangled with the guts of the priests. I mean, dang, this is, that's a lot this guy's. Yeah, I mean that's, that's pretty heavy. Strangled with the guts of. I mean this, that seems too far. Like you can be an atheist and you don't have to hope that all the priests get killed, right? That seems, I know priests and none of them are as, as pissed as this guy. He's hailed by many as the first true atheist in Western history. His courage to question and you know, his commitment to reason and logic and his willingness to, you know, write down his beliefs and critiques and potentially sacrifice his entire reputation makes him a pivotal figure in the history of, of free thought. Now let's go on to a very well known atheist, known as Karl Marx, probably one of the most important figures in the development for atheism in modern times. By the early 20s, Marx had already rejected religion, declaring himself an atheist. But here's the kicker. Marx thought simply denying God's existence was a bit childish. Marx's views on religion were far more nuanced than a simple oh, I don't believe in God. He famously described religion as the opium of the masses. But what did he really mean. First, Marx saw religion as a symptom of social ills, not the cause. It is downriver of all the problems of society in a way to sort of ameliorate people's dissatisfaction with the world that we're in, but still maintaining the status quo. He believed religion provided comfort to the oppressed, but also kept them from addressing their real problems. And lastly, he believed that religion was a tool used by the ruling class to keep the workers in line. Again, very reminiscent of our French priest, Meslier, Marx developed a philosophy called dialectical materialism. In simple terms, he believed that the material world was all that existed. No supernatural forces, no divine plan, just the universe and human society. That's it. This materialist view led Marx to conclude that religion was entirely human made. He argued that humans created God, not the other way around. Once again, much like Prodicus. But here's where it gets interesting. Marx didn't just dismiss religion, he tried to understand its role in society. Again, Marx saw religion as reflecting the economic conditions of society, understanding that religion is a mirror to how society operates. He believed religion would naturally disappear when social and economic inequality was eliminated. And and he recognized that religion could sometimes inspire resistance against oppression. Surprisingly, Marx was critical of the atheist movement of his time. He thought they were missing the point by focusing solely on disproving God's existence. He believed that the real task was to change the social conditions that made religion necessary in the first place. And that brings us up to modern times. As we venture deeper into the 21st century, the landscape of atheism continues to evolve. In recent decades, the religious landscape has undergone a significant transformation with a surge in the number of people identifying as religiously unaffiliated. Referred to as the nuns, so to speak. N O N E s get it? This group has grown from 5% of the US population in the 1970s to some estimates even put it at 30% today that just don't believe in really anything. However, it's crucial to note that not all of the quote nones are atheists. Internationally, this picture is even more intriguing. A study led by Queen's University Belfast revealed that in the uk, atheists now outnumber theists for the first time in history. This could very well be attributed to a brand new emerging form of atheism. This is known as the new Atheists emerging in the 21st century. This is a group of prominent authors and thinkers who have actively promoted atheism and criticized religion. This movement has key figures often referred to as the Four Horsemen. This is Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. The New atheists share several key characteristics. A rejection of the supernatural. They contend that there is no God or divine reality. Emphasis on science and reason. They strongly advocate for empirical science, and they say that is the best basis for understanding reality. And a critique of religion. New atheists argue that religious belief is not only irrational, but also potentially harmful to society. And unlike previous atheist movements, the New atheists actively encourage others to abandon religious beliefs. These guys have, you know, appeared on a ton of different podcasts from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jordan Peterson, Alex O'Connor to Rogan, and they often present the following arguments that religion lacks sufficient evidence that no one has ever monitored or measured God or the divine in any significant way. Religion can foster divisive mentalities and even violence, and science and reason are superior tools for understanding the world. However, this new movement has often faced criticism for oversimplifying complex theological issues, displaying a confrontational tone towards religious believers and kind of dismissing or, you know, kind of, I guess, discouraging the, the belief in God in any capacity. And again, focus focusing primarily on western religions, you know, particularly Christianity and Islam, but not necessarily looking at, you know, Shintoism or Hinduism as we see in India. And the initial fervor of the new atheist movement has somewhat subsided. Its impact on public discourse about religion and atheism remains significant regardless, though, the movement helped popularize atheistic ideas and sparked ongoing debates about the role of religion in society and will continue, continue to expand, I imagine, probably for a long time. I think atheism is probably on the rise. I think more people are believing in it. I think more people are just like, yeah, I just don't, I just don't have any evidence for God. I think the idea of science is permeated into all aspects of American culture and people kind of want evidence, they want facts. It's difficult to believe in anything. I think a lot of people are. I, I think agnosticism is also probably on the rise too. I think people are just kind of in two camps. Like, I don't really know, you know, I think that's probably going to be the largest camp in the next, like 10 years. Like, maybe. I think, I think there's gonna be a big maybe crowd because I think people want to believe in some type of higher being, some type of deity. I think people are compelled sort of naturally by cosmological arguments, fine tuning arguments, contingency arguments, as they're known in philosophy to say, well, where did all this come from? Why does any of this exist in the first place? Why is there anything at all? Why does anything have to exist? Could there be nothing? Like, truly nothing? I think these kinds of questions are perplexing for most people that are considering the divine or even their religious standing in any capacity. So all that to say, I kind of hope more people are just open minded, you know, to theism in general, to just look around and be like, all right, what is all this for? You don't have to necessarily subscribe to any religious backing or belief system inherently, because that might be a big commitment, but just kind of questioning like, okay, why? Why are humans here? Where do we come from? And where are we going? Is this all there really is? Right? It's just these are the questions that keep me up at night. I think about planets and I'm just like, why are there all these other planets? Like, why does any of this exist? It just wigs me out. And I find that religion is a. A helpful tool for kind of unpacking or parsing it or at least not deliberating on these questions all the time. So as we look at the history of atheism, one thing's pretty clear. Atheism didn't start out as just some simple disbelief. It wasn't just a bunch of people being like, oh, God's not real. Started as a question one, why does evil exist? That's a big one that I think all religious people have to have an answer for. Why does God permit evil? Is God not wholly good? In which case that is a potential answer. Or does God permit evil for some other reason? Perhaps to promote the free will of humankind? And secondly, where is God? What is this divine hiddenness? If there is a paternalistic type being that wants to convene with the creation, why is it not around? I have a kid. Some of you probably have kids. You love your kids so much, you want to be with them all the time. You want to see what they're doing, you want to see them grow, you want to have a sort of fundamental and intrinsic role in their development. It would make no sense for you to not be present in your child's life. So why does it feel as though God is so distant? This is known as divine hiddenness. And again, is another burden that I think all believers and theists have to have a comprehensive understanding and answer for. Maybe that's a topic for a different video. Throughout history, the question has had dire consequences. Where did we come from? Are we just matter floating around, exploding off of rocks? Or is there some type of unmoved mover that put all this into motion? Although not everyone we covered may explicitly be acclaimed atheists, most definitely they played a role in the development of atheistic philosophy. What do you all think? I'm curious. Are you an atheist right now? What is the thing that is preventing you from jumping the gap and believing the big old God? Or are you a religious person that's kind of unsatisfied with the answers of religion and looking towards a materialistic worldview and just kind of accepting like hey, maybe this is all there is and I should have fun while I'm here and try to do my best. Maybe an epicurean ideal of existence. Curious to know what you think. As always, this has been religion camp. I appreciate you guys tuning in and listening to the most interesting and controversial history of all beliefs. Again, not just the divine, but even the atheistic in general. We'll be back with more episodes. Don't worry. Every Sunday you can find me here sitting in this tent just chatting. Just a one way phone call me to you. I'll see you next time. Peace be with.