In my first post I wrote:
Does your child know about Socrates? As a secularist, he is arguably the most important historical role model you can provide. Three-year-old children around the world learn stories about Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, and Vishnu, so I promise they handle Socrates.
The implication is that Socrates was in somehow a secularist. True, he was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and refusing to recognize the gods of the state, but is the charge of atheism correct? I’ll play the role of the gadfly we explore the question…
To get the ball rolling ~ what definition of atheist shall we use?
The perfect question.
The perfect answer? None.
Atheist is a term thrust upon the debate by the theists. If “I have no reason to assert the existence of a deity” makes me an atheist…. well, I’d prefer to call it rational, non-superstitious, etc.
No… I am not an atheist… YOU are superstitious. YOU are a theist. YOU assert things without evidence. Let’s not worry about what I DO NOT do… let’s talk about what you DO. (Not “you” original poster.
An excellent question which should start and often ends many discussions. I use the term “atheist” in its simplest, literal sense: a lack of belief in god or gods. I do not subscribe to the positive, or “strong”, definition of atheism which asserts knowledge or absolute certitude that there is NOT a god or gods. I know that in recent discourse a lot of people use the term “agnostic” in the sense that I use “atheist” and “atheist” becomes only the strong version. In fact, I hit this brick wall with a student of theology at Duquesne University because a professor had defined the terms thusly. She explained that she does not believe in a god or gods in any form, that her lack of belief is held in confidence and is based upon reason and critical thinking on a foundation of exhaustive study, but that she can not be an “atheist” because certainty requires proof and one can not prove the non-existence of anything.
By that definition, an “atheist” can only be deluded about the nature of proof and agnosticism is the only rational option. I respectfully disagree.
I do not know about Socrates, but by almost any definition of agnosticism, Siddhartha Gautama (known popularly as Buddha) would certainly qualify as an agnostic, contrary to what modern Buddhists might want people to believe. In fact, some modern Buddhists bend over backwards to decline that Buddha actually promoted rationalism. See for example Kalama Sutta (which is attributed to the Buddha) and a then this completely ludicrous to attempt by a Buddhist priest to argue that Buddha was somehow not arguing for rationalism.
To those wondering, here is what the Kalama Sutta says:
So are Buddha and Socrates both agnostics?
I suppose anyone who will admit ignorance and is willing to change his or her mind might be called “agnostic.” I’d call anyone unconvinced of the existence of gods an “atheist,” although this may be a looser definition than others might like to use. It seems to me that Plato’s Socrates qualifies as both. Questions and reasoning are agents of doubt and therefore antithetical to religious enterprises, which all seemed to be based on cultural traditions and authority.
According to I F Stone’s The Trial of Socrates, Socrates was a polytheist like all his contemporaries. His discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma (do the gods approve the good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods approve it?) implies that. (If the first, we don’t need gods, if the second, the gods can be arbitrary).
This is currently a point of difference between Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig, who cheerfully says God’s goodness makes good good, therefore whatever God orders – such as the genocide of the Canaanites – is good. (And Craig believes in “biblical inerrancy” so God DID order it)
Stone also says Socrates was anti-democratic and a snob who taunted the Athenians, and they had good reason to wish him dead – though he does not say his execution was justified. (In the course of his conversation with Euthyphro, about whether it was impious for E to take his father to court, Socrates says that the man E’s father killed was “only a slave”.) Stone also shoots Socrates’ logic full of holes. His interlocuters, as Plato scripts them, were supine.
(Stone taught himself Greek so he could read Plato in in the original and properly gain the full context. I would add the book to Mason’s reading list.)
Thanks for the comment. Now we have a real debate!
Remember, I’m playing the “gadfly” so I’ll continue to question.
Do you agree with Stone? If Socrates was clever and he was a polytheist like all his contemporaries, then why couldn’t he convince his accusers of his beliefs?
(I will definitely add “The Trail of Socrates” to both Mason and my lists. Thanks for the recommendation. BTW, we have started Robert Graves and it is a hoot. I’ll write about it in a few days. Thank you again for joining us here.)
You fall into the trap of dealing with the label of “atheist”… which is thrust upon non-superstitious people by those who ARE theists. It’s an easy way to put us on the defensive and frame every followup discussion on their terms. That’s one thing the religious have learned very well: how to frame a debate.
Throw the word out. Socrates did not assert the existence of things without reason. Period.
I really like this comment. Why are atheists accused of not believing in anything? Case in point, I believe in the wonders of the universe. Is there a positive way we can present our beliefs to the public?
I should state that I am new to “non-belief.” I didn’t loose all my beliefs just because I adopted a scientific view of the world, right?
Unfortunately, we can’t prevent the religious using the term ‘atheist’ to label us in the way you describe. However, we can play them at their own game by always referring to them as ‘non-atheists’. It turns the tables and defines THEM as what they are not, and also tacitly establishes atheism as the default state. And it’s fun to do
I’m afraid my confidence may reveal my ignorance, but I have always read Socrates to have been a man who believes in god(s) but is antagonistic to the ROLE that god(s) played in his world, specifically in the state. In other words, I think the charge that he was a secularist was probably accurate in the sense that he thought, and taught, that the state should not be in the business of religion, and vice versa. However, far too much of his writing contains references to god or gods with little sense of irony or deistic ambiguity to conclude that he was atheistic.
Interesting. To speak in simple terms, an agnostic is akin to to those who claim to be religious with out any study or devotion. If anything both form an uneducated opinion, or don’t care to have one. Atheists are more along the lines of the evangelical who seek to spread believes and stand by their books of choice. Both have messages and welcome the opportunity to share.
Theists choose to believe, just as atheists choose not to believe. Based on perceived facts or blind faith, it remains a choice. Neither should be labeled with ignorance.
I am not convinced that interpreting the specific beliefs of Greek philosophers will paint them in a good light, or be very helpful in identifying what they have given us that is useful. For example, democracy was held in very low regard by Plato (and Socrates, their hard to separate) and Aristotle as it was considered a chaotic “mob rule”. Instead, Plato basically proposed a horrific, authoritarian dystopia as his preferred state (not what most secularists have in mind when they hope religion butts out of public policy). The really exciting question asked in The Republic wasn’t; do any of the characters believe a God/s; but, is their any reason to act morally towards one another without one? And that is a question still being battled out by secularists and theists right now.
That makes sense to me ~ identifying the correct question to ask
Woops, I didn’t answer the question.
Guilty.
He probably doubted enough to qualify as agnostic-ish.
Hopefully I don’t get this quote wrong, Penn Jillete was just on Bill Maher’s show. He mentioned two questions and made a common sense reply about the answers.
If you are asked – do you believe there IS a god and you reply “I don’t know” then you are said to be agnostic.
If you are asked do you believe in god, AND you answered “I don’t know” to the previous question, then you are an atheist. You can’t believe in something if you can’t decide if it exists. The logic is simple. The line between the two is not as discrete as once thought.
In my mind there are 6 possibilities:
1) Socrates was a polytheist like all his contemporaries and was wrongly convicted.
2) He was a polytheist, but differed in his beliefs from his contemporaries.
3) He was a polytheist, but had no use for the gods.
4) He was an agnostic regarding the gods and the supernatural.
5) He was a monotheist- you will find plenty about this theory on the Internet.
6) He was an atheist, but what flavor? Is it the same to be a polytheistic atheist vs. a monotheistic atheist. I’m asking…. is it ok for modern day atheists to try to lay claim to Socrates?
Have I missed a possibility?
All this fancy talk to call Socrates an atheist? Claim him if you like, it will have no real Impact on the world. But just so you know the religious call that idol worship.
An absurd remark ~ you’ve missed the objective of Gadfly’s exercise
One of my college courses which I still remember to this day was a dual study of Literature along with history. Literature is sparked by the current surroundings. A persons beliefs are sculpted by the environment that surrounds the person, tabula rasa and such. So, yes, he was guilty, since any questioning of higher power(s) would be sacrilegious. I think too, that Socrates, and atheistic/agnostic philosophers after him had to inject some trace element of deism in whatever they wrote or said since any slight lean away from mythology/theology would mean death. In this case, it did.
The key now is to know that one is atheos (without god). Unfortunately, we still have to use a term for it, since theism is so entrenched on every ones tabula.
The answers is too simple, he obviously considered all options much like gadfly probably has done. What ever conclusion he made was a personal choice. While gifted with a great mind, Socrates impact is more in asking fundamental questions than answering them. He was guilty of curiosity.
Theism is fundamentally based on faith, searching for tangible certified proof seems a bit counterproductive. Ironically, science hasn’t explained the creation of life, only it’s possible evolution.
So faith is needed for science to rule your logic as much as a theist needs his faith.
I strenuously disagree. Questions do not merely serve curiosity (not that there’s anything wrong with mere curiosity); they demonstrate that people generally know much less than they believe or claim. Here is Socrates’ crime.
Faith is often held up like a shield against questions, which are, after all, born in doubt. If an idea is questioned and it offers only “faith” as defense, then the idea is indefensible.
Admitting ignorance, as an honest person does when asked about the origin of life, does not require faith of any kind. Science, as an organized system of asking questions, strictly forbids faith and requires instead continual doubt.
“Teach your tongue to say ‘I don’t know’ and you will progress” -The Talmud
Faith, is not a defense on that we agree. If anything it is an admission of knowing that there is no proof of deity. In the same sense that the “honest” must admitt ignorance so must the religious, the terms are just different.
Some look to religion, some humans look to science for answers to our origins and put faith in logical thinking, believing only the right question needs to be asked. The faith is believing knowledge is obtainable. Ignorance is no defense either. Science has little to offer in the way of answers if it means only to doubt and question.
Right now science and religion are neck and neck on proof. Socrates would agree. It was a crime of the time but his plight of curiosity is uniquely human. Taking a scientific approach to question religion is futile. However, tracing our origins through science isn’t, but it must contain the possibility of deity amongst all of the others. Until proven or disproven. Most scientist like Socrates put faith in logic and reason.
Apologies to the rest of the thread for the tangent.
I’ll repeat my first point: In absolutely no sense does science or logic require faith. Indeed, if you are not actively doubting your conclusions, then you are not doing science. A person may find doubt or a perpetual cycle of question and answer emotionally unsatisfying, but the human experience renders certainty impossible. It is an illusion.
If I claim that DNA forms a double-stranded helix with a radius of 10 angstroms, I do so only because I can point to evidence. Faith is not required and wholly inappropriate to make or believe such a claim. If I claim that Jesus’ death redeems humanity, that Mohammed flew to heaven on a white horse, or that Thor battled frost giants, I do so without any evidence at all. That is to say, there is no link between the religious claim and reality. “Science and Religion are neck and neck on proof.” I don’t see any sense in which this could be true.
Far from being futile, critical analysis of superstition has unshackled the mind of humanity. It is only when we discard unsupported claims that we are able to face reality on its own terms. And this is only possible because of doubt. When told that the Sun goes around the Earth or that demons cause sickness, someone thought to ask “Well, how do you know that?” Here, I think, is the most important question we can ask in any serious field of study.
As for allowing the possibility of gods like those described in religious traditions, it is possible only in the same sense that it is possible kittens tell each other off-color jokes when no one is looking.
Your missing my point, obviously no faith is needed to know 2 + 2= 4. Faith is a choice, on the biggest question in life people make different conclusions based on what ever info they choose. It is unlogical to use science to explain it Because it requires faith. I’m not making the point of the existence of soul or gods. Nor have I mentioned any saviors. Although hope is a reoccurring theme. Taking up science up against religion like a sword to a shield is arrogance. However I have read research on intelligent design despite its lack of scientific depth. I’m not here to convert you. If there is a god, not sure he could. To me it stands to reason that humanity loves religion so we should let them have it in whatever form they so desire. Psychology is the best science when looking at religion.
Look, I love black holes, the multiverse and string theory. I love everything science has given us from insight to technology. But science has no answer to our origin despite all the beautiful theories. Using science to question the existence of gods is quackery. Putting slim odds on the possibility requires faith in logic. Find the missing link? How did it get here? Science should ask that question. See the difference? Im not so fond of the word doubt but I understand your point. As a free thinker, I see you as a little more close minded than a man so willing to admit ignorance. I enjoy discussion if there is a forum better suited?
My point is Socrates possibly considered all options, and that fact alone made him guilty by the day’s standards. Labeling him atheist, theist or polytheist is a moot point.
Was it a moot point to the man who chose to drink the hemlock?
Socrates is notorious for his questions, does that make the point moot. I see him as prideful, the humble profession of ignorance sure includes finger pointing. He had the chance to escape. He believed him self better dead and unafraid of death. I believe he thought his best chance for afterlife was in his teachings. Which also made him guilty, but undeserving of death. Playing dumb is a pallor trick not a philosophy on life.
Wow. All of Socrates was parlor tricks? Nothing valuable? I am curious, who you prefer?
Yes.
I’m surprised that no one is quoting Socrates. He seems to contradict himself. Was this semantics, game playing, or something deeper?
The Socratic Paradox is word play. Phrased to defy logic and speak truth simultaneously. Ignorance doesn’t logically breed intelligence, while it is true you can not learn if you are not willing. If anything it feels like a publicity stunt of ancient proportions. Sure the paradox is elegant, but the approach in modern day comes off like a parlor trick. This doesn’t mean I don’t find him interesting or relevant.
If you are asking what role models I would suggest, I prefer to suggest tangible ones for kids, like parents and teachers. Kids don’t need to emulate the fastest, strongest or smartest people in books or on TV. If they do that alone they lose the human connection that makes us all unique. Socrates can be a vessel which you use to become a role model for your children. He shouldn’t be the role model, because he no more exists today than does Jesus. To assume that Socrates life’s story is a true account, must I believe in the Oracle? I admire Albert Einstein, but he has played no role in my day to day life. Obviously, great minds have shaped our civilization over generations that have influence, but that is beyond my scope of context.
If you must know, I believe in the human condition. We all have it, we might as well agree to get alone. Human connection and shared experience is the only tangible certainty that can be had. Science can’t quantify love, or gauge intentions. Science while vastly important is hardly the final word on life. As part of the human condition, people desire purpose and meaning. In that area, science or Socrates has little more to offer than does religion. I don’t mean to say one is right or one is wrong.
Did any one pick up on the socraticness of my name? it speaks to admitting ignorance, not contradiction.