The Emergence of Doubt

I am sure similar topic like this have sprung up a few time on the OT forum, but I have never took part in them. However, I know  it has never been made here by judging from the topic titles.

Why have individuals, in the last 200 years, started to doubt on the existence of a divine presence and knowledge. What has changed in the world to have start this trend? There has never been a time when individuals have doubted the existence of god and divinity. There have been many critics, but they still believed in god. It's not worth questioning individuals' doubts. So, I'm asking this question as cultural and societal phenomenon.

My theory is simple. Western society has changed values that have kicked out religious values because life expectancy is longer. Therefore, the majority of the people started thinking about the present. Religious values couldn't help us gain more. As religious values became obsolete, God just became attached to it. He's just a collateral damages. It's not a matter feeling superiority. The Romans thought they were superior then everyone else. It's not a matter of technology and science. Anyone that says that philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were just less smart, I'll be surprised...

Someone could argue that religion, even without these means had achieved in being spread to the far ends of the world. But there is a difference. Now, every source/receiver of information is directly linked to some other source/receiver of information, while religion was being spread from center to the outside. This may seem to schematic and of no relevance, but when you have direct access to a spectrum of information sources, when your choices range very much, you have a wider view of a subject (in this case religion) and by default a more valid opinion can be formed due to this.

Now when it comes to the doubt of a god, all together, then sure some portion of the people who defy the notion of a deity reach that point because they actually hate religion and not that they are deffinite that he/she doesn't exist. On the other hand there is no proof to prove either side, most of the times when two people talk about god, they most like have a completely different idea of what he/she is (I'm adding "she" because there must be some female dieties in the world even nowadays). The confusion being create, does not make me think that we shouldn't have so much choice of information in the first place (since to some confusion is to be avoided).

It is critical that there must be confusion: it means that people are realising some misconceptions they had adopted and are starting to form new, more accurate (mostly) and conventional. Now some cases fall to the state of believing that there is no God, and although this is not proven by facts (how could it be), it is proven (clearly assuming here) by the disproving of religion. Since the conditions set by religion for the existance of a god are falling one by one, so does the whole concept. Since religion initiated the idea of god, then if religion is being proven wrong then god may as well not exist.

Now about the philosophers, I see them as the first wave of people who not actually defied gods (because there was no strict dogma in ancient Greece; the religious-driven atheistic accusations against Socrates were simply a coverage of the real reasons...) but were practcally atheists. But their feat was not to introduce atheism, but to start wondering about things that their deities had little authority in (I don't remember any god for instance out of the greek pantheon who dealt with morality). They studied morality, politics, ethics even biology and chemistry. You would expect people of a religious environment 2500 years ago to stick to the basics of living. But they didn't.

The second wave of people is in our era: and they are the atheists, agnostics, anti-religious etc. They introduce (not so much intentionally) a new way of thinking which purpose is not entirely to be proven ultimately right but to renew the  way of thinking of humanity. It's not like a revolution or something grand to think about. For me it's something unevitable as a prcess of seeking the answers.

Again those are just my thoughts and I hope they were relevant.

it has to do with evolution and other crackpot theories explaining the origin of the universe. furthermore, there have been plenty of Atheists throughout history. atheism as a concept is way older than Christianity, but they really stopped being skeptics for over 1000 years thanks to the work of St. Augustine.

it has to do with evolution and other crackpot theories explaining the origin of the universe. furthermore, there have been plenty of Atheists throughout history. atheism as a concept is way older than Christianity, but they really stopped being skeptics for over 1000 years thanks to the work of St. Augustine.

 

danwallacefan

And I forgot to comment on the TC's view.

It is very possible that many people were enticed to see how their lives would be without the restrictions (moral) of Christianity or other popular religions.

But the fact that some people wanted to free themselves off of the bonds of a religion doesn't mean that they want to go rampant in the streets. Or to justify every little or big mistake they make.

In another (rather crude and a little unfair to religion) analogy: If you are a slave to a master who constantly whips you, your desire to break free does not mean that you want to whip him back orsomething like that.

Maybe people are fed up with religion or at least the way religion is being projected by its mediums (priests, Evangelists, conservative parents). Mind you that religion has never evolved in the last centuries and what ever changes were made were forced by governments allover the world. But that again is a matter of if Christianity and its dogma is the innerrant and infallible word of god (through the Bible) and whether something already perfect (?) should change.

And atheism does not equal complete defiance of religious teachings. Religion has been very beneficial in early civilizations. Even when you are a rebellious atheist (and not one who knows what it actually means) you can't overlook the importance of some religious rules which automatically have become social rules: do not kill, do not steal. The fact that murders, robberies, rapes are now seem to be happening more frequently is not a matter of atheism appearing in later years. I think the major factor is over-population, and political changes which happened as early as the Dark Ages (before that they weren't considered bad because you had no choice but to accept them). And they seem to be happening more frequently because of the information we have access to as I said in the first post. You just "witness" more murders, more robberies, more attrocities.

it has to do with evolution and other crackpot theories explaining the origin of the universe. furthermore, there have been plenty of Atheists throughout history. atheism as a concept is way older than Christianity, but they really stopped being skeptics for over 1000 years thanks to the work of St. Augustine.

 

danwallacefan

In all honesty couldn't we take your first sentence there and apply it to every known religion.  Just substitute explaining origin of the universe, for why are we here if need be.

I'm going to try and comment to what people have said.

@ Teenaged:
You've mentioned the advancement of technology as spreading more knowledge that allowed people to make "a more valid opinion". The world has never been shut out ever since European reconnected Europe with Africa and Asia. Long distant trade is an important factor in human culture. That's been the case in the ancient civilization of the Egypt, The Indus River Valley and Mesopotamia. Later, Once the printing press got created everyone could have written works at a cheaper cost. Therefore, I can say that's a valid reason. Anyone could have written a book against deity.

The second point you made was about how confusion made people irreligious and therefore doubters. There has been plenty of philosophers who have tackled theological problems. They could just read some Aquinas. Although, you aren't giving me a timeline. I don't know if you are talking about the far past or just still the last 50 years or something. At any rate, you are agreeing partly with what I said, God became part of the collateral damage when we rejected religion as a whole.

Thirdly, of course the philosopher didn't just stick to basic living. They are lovers of wisdom. They want to know truth. A few Greek philosopher were seemingly atheist. Trying to find the ultimate of the world in something that wasn't a deity. However, morality was the method to become closer to the gods. That's why you should fellow the good life.

@btaylor:
The burning of the stake was a cover for different means. It just became crazy anyways. Religion at that moment was an excuse.

@dan:
Are you sure you aren't adding paganism in that?

I'm now going to make a small point touching a bit on what you guys said. I think that because we are mostly obliged for Christians to learn stuff at Sunday school, we don't have any care for it. Religion works better when you want to know things. As result, we come to dislike it. Furthermore, because we don't study philosophy we can't know god with anything else except scripture, which we came to dislike.

I'm going to try and comment to what people have said.

@ Teenaged:
You've mentioned the advancement of technology as spreading more knowledge that allowed people to make "a more valid opinion". The world has never been shut out ever since European reconnected Europe with Africa and Asia. Long distant trade is an important factor in human culture. That's been the case in the ancient civilization of the Egypt, The Indus River Valley and Mesopotamia. Later, Once the printing press got created everyone could have written works at a cheaper cost. Therefore, I can say that's a valid reason. Anyone could have written a book against deity.

The second point you made was about how confusion made people irreligious and therefore doubters. There has been plenty of philosophers who have tackled theological problems. They could just read some Aquinas. Although, you aren't giving me a timeline. I don't know if you are talking about the far past or just still the last 50 years or something. At any rate, you are agreeing partly with what I said, God became part of the collateral damage when we rejected religion as a whole.

Thirdly, of course the philosopher didn't just stick to basic living. They are lovers of wisdom. They want to know truth. A few Greek philosopher were seemingly atheist. Trying to find the ultimate of the world in something that wasn't a deity. However, morality was the method to become closer to the gods. That's why you should fellow the good life.

lancelot200

Are you telling me that slow sea transportation, or other means available then, are equal to fast cars, trains, metros or communication means like the telephone, the television and the internet? I think not. Most of those things (except for the train) didn't exist 100 years ago.  Although sometime in the Middle Ages printing got invented, do you think it immediately became the main way to write books? Even then most books where hand-written and scarce. And in no way can it be compared to the radio, the SMS's you send with your mobile phone or the conversation we are allowed to have now, or the MSN instant meesaging. Or the worldwide circulation of magazines and newspapers, then it is the electronic version of all these: MSN information front page, online broadcasting of news, the Youtube and many others to count. I believe that the speed and the availability of information 100 years ago compared to now, is 1/1000.

Now confusion was not the cause of making them irreligious. The confusion is more like the "brewing" process of information and the change of ideas. It's merely the proceedure, not the cause.  Even if there were some people who attacked religion maybe 500 years ago (and philosophers all the time through 1 AD till now) every process takes time. We cannot possibly believe that once a "trend" starts it immediately spreads all over. And especially in those times when I stated before the sources of information where not as accessible as they are now and religion was held in great respect/fear.

I'm almost confident that Socrates did not become a philosopher and did not study morality, so as to be related to deity. If you had read his works you would see how he emhasises on societal principles ONLY for the wellfare of the city-state and the happiness and prosperity of the citizens collectively; not to appease the gods. Ithink Socrates was well aware of the nature of humans and I don't think he targeted in getting close to a god (remember that the morality of the ancient Greek gods themselves was equal or inferior to the morality of the humans now - incest, cheating, lust etc)

I think the bolded text is somewhat wrong - at least for me. Better say it like this: Trying to find the ultimate of the world... and THEN they figured it wasn't a deity. Although, don't misunderstand me, I am not an atheist, I'm an anti-religious agnostic, so I do not reject the idea of a god.

The problem with scripture is how one chooses to read it. My opinion is that the Bible is either an allegory for the most part or completely false. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people who populated the earth? Do you believe that the world was created in 6-literal days?

Now the point in allegory is not to undermine the importance of such a book. I mean, the point in bringing in the notion of the Bible being an allegory is not to bash it or to say it is a fairy-tale. It is very understandable that people 2000+ years ago were keen on reading stories, myths and legends. So the Bible had to (justifiably in my opinion) follow the trend in order to be understood. Now whether or not this allegory contains truths of an upper being who talked to mortal men, that is an issue that no one can prove. The one thing which is certain to me, is that, even if God might have spoken to people and they were assigned to right His words, they (deliberately or not; I think by default thinking)  inserted their own views on the matter. How else can you explain the inferior position of women (I do not accept the definition of "different roles"), the hate expressed in the OT of followers of other religions? The mere fact that the character of the imagery of God changed between the Old T and the New T is proof that religion shifts according to what people need at the time. That's why I stress that religion (including scripture that support it like the Bible) is man-made, as is the imagery of God himself.

Since it is man-made, it is subjective to faults and errors which are not detected from the begining. Just because the level of literacy in the modern era has increased dramaticaly (due to the reasons I mention in other posts), people start to find more errors in it, which should not be taken as errors in favour of those who find them, if you know what I mean.

@Teenaged:
I just don't think that communication technology would be the cause of doubt. Sure. Land and Sea trade were slower, but it didn't less influence societies. What I'm trying to say is that someone could have spread a movement against divinity, but that wasn't the case.

Aristotle stuff spread pretty fast. :P

I have read some Socrates. I'm talking Intro to Western Philosophy. That's kinda why I made this thead. My teacher asked that to us. When we were talking about Boethius. I can't argue that Socrates emphasis morality, since that wasn't his goal. Plato talked about forms which were divine. Aristotles was the one promoting morality for becoming closer to the devine life.

That's more accuratly put.

@Teenaged:
I just don't think that communication technology would be the cause of doubt. Sure. Land and Sea trade were slower, but it didn't less influence societies. What I'm trying to say is that someone could have spread a movement against divinity, but that wasn't the case.

Aristotle stuff spread pretty fast. :P

I have read some Socrates. I'm talking Intro to Western Philosophy. That's kinda why I made this thead. My teacher asked that to us. When we were talking about Boethius. I can't argue that Socrates emphasis morality, since that wasn't his goal. Plato talked about forms which were divine. Aristotles was the one promoting morality for becoming closer to the devine life.

That's more accuratly put.

lancelot200

About Socrates: He didn't explicitely emphasise on morality, but he was keen on "correcting" people. And he did promote the sense of right and wrong even before his death: He accepted his death sentence and did not escape as his friends insisted he did because he thought that escaping would break the laws of Athens and that would not be a good example and it would damage the strength of the laws.

About Plato: Plato "deified" notions such as philosophy, and just talked about the divine and perfect "notions" of things. Nothing related to actual gods really. Even if he mentioned gods, I think he would have done it because he knew of the strangth of religion. Besides I don't agree with Plato on his views of the perfect society (he even banned art forms like painting!).

Aristotle: I wish I had the book in front of me but as far as I remember he was very keen in making definitions of notions, in a very scientific way and never related the necessity of good will for instance to gods. And Aristotle's stuff was ineed spread in Christianity too, but were shifted in meaning and were freely interpretated in order to serve the already existing dogma which was affected by the then current way of life.

Communication as a promoting doubt. Understood.

I don't even know how we got to talking about specific philosophers anymore. :lol:
About Socrates: Pretty much

About Plato: Gods are included in the devine. He doesn't need to be specific about it. That's right arts are bad!!!

About Aristotle: Again. It's not about God, but a divine life, a good life. The Christians simply took his principle of the Unmoved mover which makes sense and called it God. It's not a big change.   

Communication as a promoting doubt. Understood.

I don't even know how we got to talking about specific philosophers anymore. :lol:
About Socrates: Pretty much

About Plato: Gods are included in the devine. He doesn't need to be specific about it. That's right arts are bad!!!

About Aristotle: Again. It's not about God, but a divine life, a good life. The Christians simply took his principle of the Unmoved mover which makes sense and called it God. It's not a big change.   

lancelot200

When I argue with you about gods referred to by philosophers I just do it because I believe that those philosophers were realists and very aware of the human nature and I don't think they would have ever used the divine as a measure of morality. In fact I doubt Aristotle ever used the word divine or something related to that word in his Ethics. Domatron may know more about this but he is not here lately. :x

EDIT: Not that the Christians used Aristotle as their primary source of info but they sure used it to validify their own...

Contradicting theories is what I say.  The Bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, and that humans were created out of dust by God's will.  Evolution says that the Earth was created over 4 billion years ago and the humans evolved from single-celled creatures into the complex beings we are today.

You have to take your side.  You can take the Bible's side, or science's side.  And once you take science's side over the Bible on one idea, then you question everything else.

Personally I think it has to do with the promotion of free thought.  Before, God was an accepted thing and any "heretics" were quickly silenced.  But as this became more and more socially unacceptable, more and more vocal opponents to the church appeared and people started to question previously iron-clad believes.

Some scientfic discoveries falt out contradict traditional interpretations of religious scripture -- which has disillusioned a lot of people, whilst others are not willing to accept new-found interpretations of religous texts that manage to dodge these issues.

Also, general levles of education are much higher, and thus people are generall more critical thinkers.

@ Teenaged:
Thomas Hobbes was a realist. The Greeks are more idealists. At any rate, that's a debate for another thread. Plato has talked about what is divine, since the Realm of the Forms is divine. Divine in the scence that it is changeless. Friendship starts with physical beauty, but need virtue to be maintained and ascend toward the divine good.

I can't debate the validity of Holy Scripture as something that is truthworthy. I know nothing of it. I could use Aquinas' argument about the validity of it, though.

It does seems that the doubt emerged from the failure of belief in religious instututions. That's the core argument of everyone. However, are we abandoning something we know to be really good (God) for something that is lesser? That is impossible to resolve. Doubt appears to be connected to religion and not a failure on God's part. :P

Some scientfic discoveries falt out contradict traditional interpretations of religious scripture -- which has disillusioned a lot of people, whilst others are not willing to accept new-found interpretations of religous texts that manage to dodge these issues.

Also, general levles of education are much higher, and thus people are generall more critical thinkers.

MetalGear_Ninty

MetalGear_Ninty, while one of my main points was that we do not have as much free time for religious or philosophy studies I think your on to something on the higher levels of education.  My step-son and I had this discussion last night and I guessed the average 13 year old today has a more overall level of education than most adults 1500 years ago, which would lead many of us to learn and question old "myths".

@ Teenaged:
Thomas Hobbes was a realist. The Greeks are more idealists. At any rate, that's a debate for another thread. Plato has talked about what is divine, since the Realm of the Forms is divine. Divine in the scence that it is changeless. Friendship starts with physical beauty, but need virtue to be maintained and ascend toward the divine good.

I can't debate the validity of Holy Scripture as something that is truthworthy. I know nothing of it. I could use Aquinas' argument about the validity of it, though.

It does seems that the doubt emerged from the failure of belief in religious instututions. That's the core argument of everyone. However, are we abandoning something we know to be really good (God) for something that is lesser? That is impossible to resolve. Doubt appears to be connected to religion and not a failure on God's part. :P

lancelot200

But again people most likely reject the idea of god as is presented by modern religions. It is also noted (if you see posts of other members here) that Atheists try to maintain the a level of quality in their lives without the constant reminder of a god. That doesn't mean they exchange something good (god) -as I said before we don't know what god may be and we can't possibly trust the scripture 100%- with something lesser. Is living a fair life without god lesser than living a fair life with god? That depends on how much someone needs to feel the presence of a god -which in turn makes the decision if its lesser or greater a totally subjective issue-, or if someone has the answers as to why god does exist -which is impossible in this life.

How can we know that god is something really good? Isn't indeed god an imagery we created to comfort ourselves and that makes him look and sound good? Then god isn't good, he is just imagined as good. But again "good" in what principles? In principles of a society 2000 years old? If people 2000 years ago where at that point imaginative enough as to guess that god wants women to stay at home, shouldn't we feel free to imagine god differently since we know the errors? Shouldn't we trust ourselves so as first to doubt religion and then find a more plausible imagery of god?

And I will agree with you in the part that the failure of religion should only lead to redefinition of god and not the utter doubt, but I believe that this happens because the popularity of Christianity has made people think of god only the way Chr. shows Him. So since their imagination is narrowed, by doubting the only dominant interpretation of god, they might think that there is no other interpretation to think of, and thus god doesn't necessarily exist. I wish I could put this into words more effectively and I hope you understand what I mean.

But even in the extreme case of atheism , if we see it as an experiment people put themselves through (testing whether there could be life without god in our minds), I think it works. Thinking of a god is no longer so necessary as it used to be as answers are given by other fields like science, biology, chemistry etc. Morality is based now on societal principles and governmental laws. Religion is no longer the government of man-kind. Because at one point religion compensated for the lack of all the previously mentioned fields of knowledge - it simultaneously gave answers about life, death, morality, behavior, laws. Now all of these things have been defined by more accurate sources in my opinion.

EDIT: And sorry for the endless ranting which sometimes referrs to nothing you said, I just felt the need to express those things.

And I really hope my long posts don't discourage others to post. And if I made any speculation about atheism that isn't correct, feel free to correct me guys. It's just my thoughts, nothing more.Teenaged

Of course not, this is a thought union, fire away.  Your doing a great job IMO.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And I really hope my long posts don't discourage others to post. And if I made any speculation about atheism that isn't correct, feel free to correct me guys. It's just my thoughts, nothing more.btaylor2404

Of course not, this is a thought union, fire away.  Your doing a great job IMO.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And I really hope my long posts don't discourage others to post. And if I made any speculation about atheism that isn't correct, feel free to correct me guys. It's just my thoughts, nothing more.Teenaged

Of course not, this is a thought union, fire away.  Your doing a great job IMO.

Sometimes it takes a bit.  There are about 3 or 4 topics on the board I still haven't gotten to, and plan to.

What do you mean "there has never been a time when individuals have doubted the existence of god"? That's ludicrous. Even the Psalms talk of non-believers, and that was 3000+ years ago . . . .

There has always been doubt, and there have always been people who reject God. It's nothing new. ;)

What do you mean "there has never been a time when individuals have doubted the existence of god"? That's ludicrous. Even the Psalms talk of non-believers, and that was 3000+ years ago . . . .

There has always been doubt, and there have always been people who reject God. It's nothing new. ;)

Lansdowne5

*Ticker tape rains down*

Hooray.  We agree on something..................even if we get there by different routes ;)