Atheist Perspectives - The History and Suppression of Atheism

The History and Suppression of Atheism

and its Suppression by  Punishment : Social Pressure : and  Censorship through Education, Language, Elitism & the media

 

by A Shaw

That so few people are conversant with the long history of atheism, and the arguments against religion, in a country in which there is universal education from the age of five, is a testament to the extent and success of those who have worked so tirelessly to suppress it.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Atheism is something new. The reality is that there has always been non-belief but, until now, the power of the Churches has been able to suppress its expression in other than closely confined circles. Now, with the Internet revolution, it is at least possible for everyone to consider the history of atheism.)

Much of the material in Jonathan Miller's 'A Rough History of Disbelief' Television Series is from the sources referenced here.

The History

The earliest documented references to Atheist thought go back to the great thinkers of Greece, Rome, and before them to the first mathematicians and ‘scientists’ of Egypt and Babylonia. The philosophers of the Ionian culture were described as having a standard of living that ‘was too obviously the product of human energy, resource, and initiative, for it to acknowledge any great debt to the Gods.’ [1]Although the Pythagoreans did not entirely reject mysticism, they introduced a rational element into the beliefs of the day. The Pythagoreans were criticised for their search for facts. The search for truth was seen as a distrust of religious norms, and throughout the confusion of theories, some more preposterous than others, there can be seen the search for a release from the set religious ideas that had gone before.

The introduction to James Thrower’s ‘A Short History of Western Atheism’ (RPA) [2] says: "Atheism and Agnosticism are often presented as brief isolated flourishings of something wholly exceptional." Thrower himself shows that at some particular moments in history, atheism has expressed itself in opposition to, and therefore in relation to the prevailing religious thought. But in the long term, atheism has shown itself as a continuous stream of thought inevitably emerging and re-emerging as an important and independent approach to the world. Absolute Atheism is naturalistic and speculative.

Aristotle, who was not atheistic in the full modern sense, recognised the emerging differences between those who described the world in terms of myth and legend and the multiple gods of the old religions, and those who were beginning to see the world in terms of natural forces, which could not only be explained in scientific terms but could even be predicted by recognising the natural signs. This notion they learnt from the astrological studies and predictions of the Egyptians. These were among the first documented inklings that the world was ordered by natural law and not some divine plan. He is credited with advancing rational philosophy. His ideas were an inspiration to later thinkers of the Middle Ages in Britain.

The Greek philosophers, while not being atheist or even agnostic in the modern sense, laid the foundations of secular thought by first discarding the idea of mythical gods who personified natural events. They pointed out that people described their gods as being like themselves (Xenophanes), and decided that the heavenly bodies were natural objects. (Anaxagoras). The next step in the process was the proposition that there was a ‘single primary substance of being’ initially suggested as ‘air’, and further, that this was associated with mind, ‘The stuff of life’ by Anaximenes. The primary importance of mind and thinking was being recognised rather than the supremacy of belief. These philosophers were the first to challenge the notions of gods and religions of their day, and it was a risky business. For their trouble they were often accused of ‘impiety’ and risked banishment from Athens.

The first stirrings of atheism were against the literal belief that natural phenomena were caused by the Gods of ancient Greece, ideas like those inherited from pagan and pantheistic religions. The traditional religious view was that the Gods had a hand in all human affairs and needed to be worshipped, adored, pleaded with, and placated with animal and human sacrifices — a pattern that could also be seen in other religions on other continents such as South and Central American civilisations, Inca, Maya, and Aztec.

The 16th century was one of unrivalled un-belief (relatively) and alienation, spiritual and temporal, brought about by the excesses of the Inquisition on the Continent, the oppressive nature of the Church in demanding increased tithes, the upsurge of conflict between the Roman and Protestant Churches, and their mutual persecution, and the fanaticism of the Puritans in Britain.

A further step in the change in thinking about religion was exemplified in the Renaissance humanism of Erasmus in the 16th century. These humanists drew their inspiration first from the Greek sceptics and Stoics and particularly from the writings of Sextus Empiricus, "last and greatest of the thinkers in the sceptical tradition." But this was not humanism in the modern sense, and certainly not atheistic or even agnostic. It was more a re-think of the different religions, the authoritarian versus the ‘liberal’, and the orthodox versus the ‘nonconformist’. It saw the separation of ‘reason’ and ‘faith’, which drove a permanent wedge between theology and philosophy.

In 18th- and 19th-century Europe came an upsurge in the study of religion from a scientific, rational, sociological perspective. This was no longer simply theological, philosophical study by the religious to confirm the "revealed" views. Kant, Comte, Hegel, Durkheim, Weber, and Marx studied religion as a sociological and political phenomenon, and in various ways tried to explain its place and raison d’etre, but did not explain the existence of ‘religious experience’. Only with the 20th-century development of the Neurosciences did it become possible to locate the focus of such ‘experience’ within the brain, and explain its nature as a function of brain chemistry and electromagnetic activity, described and interpreted in the only language available, that of religion. [3]

Marx, Darwin, and Piaget contributed to the understanding of the evolutionary process, of the development of rational and  scientific thought. They described in their different ways the processes by which human beings move through stages, towards true understanding. They have evolved; through the evolution of the species, the society, and the self, and every human being is a product of this process of evolution. In his detailed explanation of these ideas in his Internet site ‘ontogeny phylogeny' [4] on the origin of religion, Jon Squire poses the question, "if we are in the rational age, why are there still religions?" and gives August Comte’s view that "it would be a mistake to expect a new social order, any more than a new intellectual order, to emerge smoothly from the death throes of an old", and goes on to say "As the new state becomes fully functional with the evolving scientific rational age, the faculties of objectivity and understanding of interrelationships will slowly become apparent. The modern evolving secular society is just the beginning of Piaget’s final formal operation stage, the ‘Age of Reason’, the new religion."

‘The Necessity of Atheism’ by P. B. Shelley, published in 1811, for which he was expelled from University College Oxford, was described by Percy Vaughan as "almost the first publication in England in which atheism is openly advanced"; and in an article on the Early Shelley Pamphlets, Percy Vaughan said -"up to the time of Shelley’s youthful challenge, only one English author, so far as I can discover, had ventured to adopt, as expressing his opinion, a word (atheism) which had previously been used merely as a term of abuse" and referred to a letter by William Hammon (a pseudonym of William Turner, a surgeon in Liverpool [5]).

The 18th and 19th centuries were a period during which a widening circle of intellectual opinion in Europe talked, wrote, and published articles and pamphlets on atheism, secularism, and naturalism (humanism) — Diderot, Voltaire, Buffon, T. H. Huxley, Tyndall, Carlisle, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, J. S. Mill, Matthew Arnold and G. W. Foote amongst the most well known. By the end of the 20th century, the number of atheists was rising, with figures in all walks of life willing to declare their non-belief and even challenge the Church; including professors and scholars, scientists and philosophers, educationalists and professionals, artists and entertainers, now too numerous to mention. In addition, the established Churches are suffering a slow decline in membership that for the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches is reaching near freefall in some countries. However if they have been complacent, there is no reason to think that they will not fight back with the skills that they have honed to perfection  in the past.

The apparent preponderance of men in the history is partly because of the exclusion of women from higher education and academe and participation within the intellectual elites, their supposed role in  domesticity, and their exclusion by men, wherever possible from public life and political activism. But also because women activists were pilloried and derided, and their activism not given credence or prominence.

However, despite their handicaps and the abuse they suffered, over the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries,   women were among the most prominent promoters of freethought. And campaigned tirelessly  in all the progressive movements, for the abolition of slavery, women's rights - to own property, vote, become educated and take a full part in public life - against flogging and ill treatment of criminals,  children's rights and political campaigns on health and education. and in the peace movement.

These women were denied publication in many cases, and suffered person attack, not only for their freethinking, but for being women activists. They were enormously courageous in public speaking and political activism. Their contribution is only now being recognised by the publication of the work of more than 50 British and American women freethinkers, by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and A.L Gaylor's book Women Without Superstition."No Gods, No Masters" [7]It includes some of the most clearly argued writing against the church and its socially reactionary and often downright cruel attitudes.

So what happened to these flowerings of free thought from the great thinkers and scholars of Greece and Rome? We see continuous if limited challenges to religious thought from the few courageous exponents of non-belief in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the thinkers, poets and writers of the 18th and 19th centuries. A register of the most influential philosophers, reformers and scientists of the last 500 years, would be rich in sceptics, humanists, and atheists: Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Auguste Comte; Isaiah Berlin, Bertrand Russell and J. P. Sartre. So, why is atheism not better represented in popular culture?

Suppression

Suppression of atheism has been systematic since the first expressions of doubt about religion. The ways have been many and together they have been very effective until now. Punishment, social pressure, academic elitism, control of the means of expression and language in the media, publishing, and publicity have all been used to prevent the dissemination of atheist and secularist views.

Suppression has also been achieved through political policy and attitudes, directly through the law, by fear of electoral disadvantage or campaigns by the Churches, and by deliberate disinformation aimed at associating atheism with left wing totalitarianism. Propaganda in all its forms has been used by the religions to prevent any challenge to its authority and power.

In modern times writers, artists have their work censored, and politicians live under death  threats from fundamentalist religionists, if they oppose the cruel and repressive doctrines and practices of the religions. Writers such as Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin live under threat of death from Muslim Fatwa, Rushdie for his book ‘Satanic Verses’ and Nasrin for views on women’s rights, health care, and religion. A Somali-born Dutch woman politician Ayaan Hirshi Ali lives in fear after receiving hate mail for calling Islam a ‘backward religion’. An Internet inquiry will show how many other politicians in Europe are threatened, and in 2002 & 2004 Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were murdered for their outspoken views on Islam, Christianity is less backward now, but in the past was no less brutal in its suppression of criticism and opposition

Academic elitism has worked in combination with other forms of suppression. Educational Elitism was and still was the result of the ownership and control of education by Christianity (in Britain and other Christian countries) and its effects are still with us in many areas of education, publishing and the media, it is deeply embedded in our culture. It is only now thanks to the Internet that atheists are able to express their views uncensored and undistorted, though many still feel the need to keep their identities hidden behind pseudonyms - particularly women. Social pressure is still a major reason why many humanists, and even atheists and secularists, are shy of arguing their case against the tide of religion for fear of offending employers, voters, ‘society’, friends and family, so ingrained are the attitudes and mores of religion. Worst of all, in one form or another, cruel and sadistic punishments  were used to prevent and deter opposition to the Church and make an example of anyone who dared to dissent. Prejudice and discrimination against atheists, women and homosexuals still exists in Britain, though often in more subtle forms.

Religions point to the universality of belief in religion as confirmation of its universal truth, and they are right in that from the earliest days humans  had the imagination to make up stories and believe in superstitions, which naturally took the form of imaginary ‘beings’ in their own image. Gods in the form of people, inhabited this parallel fantasy world, made up to explain events and express their wishful thinking. Julian Jeynes proposes the idea that this was the breakdown of earlier 'thinking' that was more automatic response to auditory hallucinations. Voices that told them what to do rather than the independence of modern patterns of thought. Relics of this 'bicameral mind' can he sees be seen in schizophrenia and Hypnosis[6].

Punishment

But what is not fully recognised is the extent to which atheist thought date from great thinkers of pre-Socratic Greece and through the centuries to the present day, the expression of dissident thought and free expression was brutally suppressed by cruel punishments, exile and death. Any deviation from the doctrines of the dominant religions was suppressed by the systematic persecution of ‘heretics’ and ‘heathens’, ‘apostates’ and ‘infidels’ and anyone else who disagreed with Church teaching.

The darkest ages being the post-Roman to the 18th century in Europe with the cruel persecutions and torture of the Inquisition, by Catholics on non-Catholics, and between Christians of all sects, Catholics, Protestants and Puritans, as well as Muslims and those of other cultures and beliefs. They inflicted terrible suffering in Britain, Europe, and the ‘New World’ with its brands of virulent cruelty and oppression.

The ruthlessness with which religions defend their position by force if necessary can be seen in their reaction to the first expressions of non-belief. A factor that must have severely curtailed outright opposition to the religious status quo was the punishment that it invited. One such proponent of ‘naturalism’, Anaxagoras, "some few years before the birth of Plato, was banished from Athens" because he held that heavenly bodies were natural objects. The Sun, he said was simply a glowing stone in the sky" This was one of the earliest examples of how the religions forced conformity on thinkers who challenged their ideas and doctrines.

In Europe the Christian Churches suppressed not only atheistic thought, but also any deviation from orthodox doctrine. The Catholic Church and its clerics were universally hated; for their Inquisitorial courts in which heretics were tried for any views that showed that they had any thoughts that did not fit in with Church doctrine; the controlling practices of their religion; and opposition to the iniquitous behaviour of its priests. The Inquisition was infamous for cruel and unjust arraignment of individuals denounced on any pretext, and without any evidence other than the subjective purposes of the accusers.

Percy Bysshe Shelley was punished by expulsion from Oxford University for his publishing of ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ in 1811, and further by the degradation of his reputation and the effect that had on relationships with his family. The publishers of his tract were threatened with prosecution, booksellers threatened and the stocks burned. His ‘Queen Mab’, which contained atheist and anti-Christian material, was prosecuted as blasphemous. No wonder that lesser mortals without his position and confidence did not seek to express their ideas if these challenged the religious establishment.

David Hume suffered the academic punishment of not getting the position he deserved because of his views.

In 2002 Dr Younis Shaikh was convicted of blasphemy, imprisoned, under threat of death in a Pakistan jail for his non-belief and asserting that he was alleged to have defiled Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, by pointing out that the Prophet did not become a Muslim till the age of 40 (i.e. until he received the first message of God), and that the Prophet’s parents were non-Muslims because they died before Islam was proposed by the Prophet. In the UK, several attempts have been made to suppress atheism under the still existing blasphemy laws and people have been threatened with imprisonment for kicking up a fuss in a Church protesting at its homophobia and hypocrisy.

Even  in the early years of the 21st century, laws are being proposed in Britain that will prevent, or make people fearful of, expressing anti religious views, that might offend believers. There is still a blasphemy law in Britain, and ‘incitement to religious hatred’ is being used to apply harsher sentences in disputes. With the rise of Islam in Europe, and the tide of racism in Britain, the suppression of criticism of religion is being pursued with renewed vigour.

This is being done on the pretext that this will exacerbate violence regardless of the fact that there are already laws to prevent threats of personal violence, harassment and intimidation. New laws to outlaw ‘incitement to hatred of religion’ will undoubtedly be used to deter opposition to religion. In September 2002 a man in Britain was accused of ‘abusing religion’ in a fracas in which both parties used strong language. It has been proposed that in the event of conviction this ‘incitement’ can add the possible jail sentence to seven.

If the activities that were being outlawed were ‘sectarian’ there would be a more rational case, given its bloody results. Unfortunately, so ignorant is much of the population on these issues and so lacking in general discussion, that many people do not understand the difference between ‘secular’, ‘secularism’ and ‘sectarianism’. I will return to language as one of the tools of suppression.

In Europe there have been many cases of sectarian violence, particularly where opposition to religion is employed selectively to target ethnic groups by racists. In these early years of the 21st century, individuals such as the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (great-grandson of Vincent’s brother) have been murdered. Although the Dutch Prime Minister declared that there was "no information as to the motive for the killing" Gogh was shot by a Moroccan Muslim wearing traditional dress, who cut van Gogh’s throat and left a letter on his body with verses from the Qu’ran. Theo van Gogh was a know critic of religion, and the ‘sin’ that led to his shooting was that he made a film ‘Submission’ exposing the cruelty and abuse of women under Islam.

These are examples of past punishments, but there is an insidious and deeply ingrained fear of alienating those with power  who hold the dominant religious beliefs.

A more subtle process of preventing the expression of atheism or scepticism is that of social pressure and emotional blackmail. It is not new and many people cannot or will not express disbelief in god and religion or criticise either, because of the effect that would have on personal relationships. If family or friends are believers, it is considered impolite or unkind to challenge their ideas, even if invited to discuss the subject. At a more public level, fear of social ostracism has effectively kept the damper on criticism of Church and religion. This may not matter in large suburban or urban areas, but for those who live in small communities where many of the social activities centre on the Church, the effect can be to exclude atheists from many community activities that should have nothing to do with people’s personal beliefs. Others who have employers or managers inclined to religion will not risk the way many religious people behave if their beliefs are challenged. There is, however, a growing use of humour and satire to bring out the absurdity and contradictions of the religious and their beliefs and scriptures. With the Internet comes a new freedom for all atheist and secular humanists to communicate and express their opinions in a way never before possible - but they are still subject to the social pressures to keep quite.

Charles Darwin is a good example of the social pressure that keeps atheism under cover. A man who made one of the most important scientific revelations of the 19th century was severely constrained by the need not to offend the social and scientific establishment of his day, his own professional peers, and his own wife and family. He was not new to this pressure to conform to the Church: his grandfather suffered abuse for his beliefs and was ridiculed and derided by those of his day who could not understand his inspired thinking and scientific work, which paved the way for his grandson’s proof of the process of evolution through natural selection — an explanation that challenged their belief in the biblical stories of creation  of the world by god - in seven days - only ten thousand years ago .

All these devout Christian people of the day managed, not by cruelty or oppression but more subtle social pressures, to prevent the mild-mannered family man from challenging their superstitious beliefs in any overt way. It was only in personal correspondence that he confided his sceptical views on the existence of god, and he refused to attend Church with Emma, his beloved wife.

It is rarely mentioned, in all that is written about him, that a hundred and fifty years ago Charles Darwin allied himself with the local ‘squire’, Lord Avebury, in insisting that the village school in Downe, where he lived, should be secular, especially when it depended on government money. Together they prevailed against the local vicar’s demand for more religious content. It is reported that he even paid for some poor children to attend the school. How ironic that now the state requires Christian worship and compulsory religious education in all state schools, including the one in Downe, with the fig leaf of a provision for children to be ‘opted out’! Also ironic is that a sundial on Downe Parish Church is ‘dedicated to his memory’ (in a cunningly placed plaque that might be thought at a glance to apply to the Church!). He lived and worked in Downe but is buried in Westminster Abbey!

Subtle social pressure is also exerted on people accused of wrongdoing. Every court in England assumes that the norm is to swear to tell the truth upon the bible, so that an atheist must therefore declare his atheism in order to ‘affirm’. Given the still prevalent belief that to be godly is to be ‘better’, more honest and truthful, many non-believers do not take the risk of being seen ‘in a bad light’ by jury members at the start of their trials. What possible justification can there be for having a religious oath in a supposedly secular society? Nor is there any justification for starting civic meetings with prayers, or having a national anthem that asks 'God' to save the 'Queen'. (Why would he not, since they support each other, the Queen allegedly reigning by divine right, pledged to defend the faith in God?)

It may not be compulsory now for us either to profess belief or to be burned at the stake, even criticism of religion can be expressed, providing it is done politely not pressed to a conclusion by atheists or secularists, and preferably between clerics; but we still have an established state religion in England, laws that give privileges to religions, and a whole range of issues on which the Churches and religion dominates our society. Regardless of the regular assertions that we live in an irreligious, secular age, the reality at home and abroad is that religion still exerts power and influence over considerable areas of our lives. It blights the lives of individuals and groups, here and around the world, as events in the US, Belfast, Northern England, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, The Middle East, The Balkans and many other countries show only too well. The American ‘war against terrorism’ would be more effective if it were a war against injustice, prejudice and discrimination, and the sectarianism that creates them. The great atheist thinkers’ ideas have not got very far in the many centuries of ‘civilisation’, excluded as they are from national debate.

All the religions have benefited from their ability to recruit people en masse. Like populations divided into political parties, or football teams, or ‘blocks’. While they are fighting each other, playing the game, they lose sight of the overall picture; they become oblivious to what is going on outside these constructs. Does the political party really advance their political aspirations? Does it really matter whether their team is better than the others? Are gods and religions really based on fact or fiction? All that matters is stopping the opposition, and winning.

The third way in which atheist ideas have been suppressed is through language and elitism. In academia, in education, and in the media and the communications industry, elitism has prevented some scholars, intellectuals, teachers and academics from presenting their ideas to the rest of the population. The subtle interplay of class, politics, wealth and religion, and the tools they have at their command, has given them the unique ability to banish a perfectly rational and reasonable view of life from consideration.

Despite overwhelming Christian control, from time to time since the Ancient Greeks and Romans, there have been upsurges in atheist scholarship. There have been small cliques of freethinkers in all ages, freed by their class, wealth and position in the educational elite, who were permitted to flourish, tolerated as long as they did not pose a threat to the established order of the Church. Today, despite there being no free-thought equivalent of the theological colleges and seminaries, the universities have changed. Though huge amounts of public money are still spent on teaching theology, there is a growing interest among philosophers and historians in non-belief perspectives. Within this changing environment, atheists and other dissenters can flourish on an intellectual level, free from theological pressure. This is an important trend in modern thinking and the mass media. But will it result in progress?

Researching much of the detail of this book, I was struck by the feeling that the theological and philosophical discourses of the past seem to have been carried on in a parallel universe! The real basis of superstitious ideas and their import were seemingly invisible and inaudible to the majority of the people whose lives were ruled by the traditions and conventions of religion and Church. It is as though scepticism, rationalism, secularism, and atheism had never existed except as word games for clever men. Women were of course not expected to participate, and with a few notable exceptions such as Mary Wolstencraft could not and did not do so.

--------

The Medieval Church had its list of prohibited books, the early Christians practised book burning, copies of Shelley’s ‘Necessity of atheism’ were burned, Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ was burned. Religious Education in schools promotes religion, it does not challenge it.

There is still an overwhelming preponderance of white men with the means to access education and therefore the intellectual ‘brotherhood’ that enables them to publish or otherwise promote their ideas. Unfortunately for the wider society, these inward-looking elitist cliques, then as now, indulge themselves without any notion that in order for their ideas to benefit the rest of society, they needed to interact with those outside their little circles. It is high time that they relinquish their undue influence over the spread of ideas, and are still conditioned by the religious notion of women's inferiority.

Gradually since the opening up of higher education to women, their presence in academic life has had some effect in widening out the appeal of philosophy, but the structure of education and academe has not changed much, and those capable of wrestling with the subject are an elite few. But the evidence that would help ordinary people to base rational progress, is still ‘locked up’ in theses, tomes and in university libraries.

Professionals, academics, specialists, experts, sit on committees, commissions, and inquiries, gather, study and collate information which is published in reports, designed to inform other professionals, academics and specialists. They are rarely produced in such a way as to make them easily accessible to the general public, and since these same bodies are usually even more strongly influenced by establishment figures, party politicians, and clerics who can be relied on to prevent any proposals for change to the traditional small ‘c’ conservative, and big 'C' Christian agendas.

Censorship

Direct and indirect censorship of atheist ideas has been a consistent and widespread practice throughout history. This has been possible because of the power of religions to dominate and control the lives of dissenters through its social organisation as well as the means by which ideas can be discussed and spread. Through the law and government, local and national, Schools and social institutions, and most of all through the ownership and control of education the church as been able to manipulate language itself, print and publishing and in modern time the rest of the electronic media.

I have outlined the history of atheism and its suppression by punishment, social pressure, and elitism; which explains why this body of knowledge from past generations of freethinkers has not been passed down as part of our tradition. A further obstacle has been the role of language.

Language goes hand in hand with the development of thought and ideas. If ideas are suppressed, the language in which they are developed, discussed, and promoted is also retarded. Likewise, if the language is suppressed, then it will be difficult for the ideas to develop and find expression.

It is a primitive idea that if something does not have a name it does not exist, and therefore if you do not give something a name, it will not exist. Therefore, with ideas that you want to suppress, you deny them a name. For example if it is not conceivable to men that some women could hate them, despite the violent treatment some women experience at their hands, and fists, there is no equivalent feminine word for misogyny. Misanthropy is a more general term for hating other people, humanity. There is no female equivalent in English for ‘master’ meaning ‘great teacher’ or ‘guru’. ‘Mistress’ has rather different connotations, as does ‘spinster’ compared to ‘bachelor’. There is no word in the English language for someone who hates or is against religion. Feminists are derided for pointing to the role of language in maintaining sexist attitudes, in order to degrade them and divert attention from the substance of their arguments!

It has never been in the interest of the Church that free thought should gain credence in people’s minds. The ability to express arguments freely and oppose religious doctrines, policies, and practices has been successfully suppressed over the centuries of religious domination. As a result, the language of atheism, humanism and secularism, has never fully developed. Freethinkers, in the modern meaning of non-believers, find this lack of appropriate language a constant irritant, and its poverty inhibits the full expression of the range and depth of free thought.

A considerable problem for non-believers of all kinds is the lack of words with which to discuss their often-differing points of view and nuances of meaning. Atheists and agnostics, humanist and secularists, rationalists and non-believers are constantly diverted by the necessity to define where they stand in relation to each other. In fact, discussion is frequently aborted before it gets on to substantive issues. In addition, the few words available have different meanings to different people, which further add to the confusion, as is the lack of role models with whom to identify.

Atheism, which could be considered the least equivocal label we have, is interpreted by most to mean ‘not believing’ in god, and by some to disbelieving. But to some it does not exclude supporters of religion or ‘spirituality’ divorced from any scriptures, which apply it to Buddhism and Humanistic Judaism or Christian Non-realism (none of which demand belief in an external god). There are also ‘Universalist Unitarianists’ and even some Quakers who would claim their religious beliefs to be ‘internal and individual’, their adherents’ focus on humankind as the source of religious authority. There are also non-believers who think that it is important to keep some religion as a method of social control. These could all be called atheistic religious groups.

Agnosticism is tailor-made for confusion, ranging as it does from those with no belief in god or religion, but who want to keep ‘an open mind’, to those who would like to believe but cannot see any evidence and also want to keep ‘an open mind’. All shades of opinion on existence of god and goodness of religion can be represented under this title. It means little or nothing in itself but forms the basis of many superficial discussions on the subject.

Humanism encompasses a wide range of shades of belief and unbelief, or non-belief in god and religion. From religious humanists who would point to the 16th-century humanism of Erasmus debating the relative liberal characteristics of Christian sects.

There are humanists who, while rejecting belief in the supernatural, subscribe to the view that religion is good. There are others who are atheists, and think religion is a bad thing, but do not like the derogatory connotations that have been put upon the word ‘atheist’, and others who have social or family pressures with which to contend, and they wrestle with the implicit contradictions of this position if they do not recognise their own motivations.

Humanists also claim the added emphasis on humanitarianism, (which infuriates some other non-believers since it implies that they are less humanitarian!). ‘Humanitarianism’ itself is frequently confused with ‘humanism’ so that some humanists think that they are the same and do not realise the importance of humanism’s atheist and secularist roots.

Humanists also claim the added emphasis on humanitarianism, (which infuriates other non-believers since it implies that they are less humanitarian and point to the progressive campaigning of early secularists!) There seems to be some pressure from humanists who see humanism as a substitute for religion, competing in charitable works etc. and working with the religions, which can prevent humanists acting as a pressure group to promote secular humanism

They may be agnostic or atheist but still do not question the religious agenda, maintain religious attitudes and ways of dealing with societal problems. While humanist philosophers wrestle with this range of beliefs and definitions, and seek to reconcile the contradictions, particularly with regard to ‘soft’ religion and ‘hard’ religion, all subscribe to humanism as having some little extra ‘something’ that supposedly differentiates them from atheists, secularists and rationalists. Unfortunately it proves impossible to describe what this ‘extra something’ is, or at least find a definition that they can agree upon.

Secularism is today usually applied to those who do not believe in god and for a variety of reasons demand that the state should be entirely secular — that is, having no connection or bias towards any religious or non-theistic position. But there are also some believers who see the importance of secularism from a sociological or political point of view. No rational, intelligent non-believer thinks that religion should be banned, only that religion, for those who want it, should be practiced by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and Churches, and not in the public domain, and they should certainly not be allowed to exert pressure on those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. For those who want to practice this or any other superstition, it should be a personal matter that should be kept out of politics. Most believe that the Churches should not indoctrinate or take into membership, children, before an age at which they can exercise their own choice.

‘Freethought’ or ‘Freethinker’ is another label that appears to have a multitude of meanings, from freedom to think anything, confusing ‘open mind’ with ‘empty mind’, through any ideas or degrees of atheism, agnosticism etc., to ‘freedom from religion’ or ‘freedom from doctrine’.

Rationalists may consider themselves religious or non-religious, but with a strong leaning to rational consideration that militates against belief in the supernatural or superstitious. Unfortunately, many religionists do not think that their beliefs are irrational.

The only position that has no label is that of those who are against religion.

The language we have, such as it is, in which to express and discuss atheism is impoverished and inadequate. Little language has been established in which free thought can counter superstition in general and religion in particular. Most of the language we have at our disposal is language that has already been used and ‘appropriated’ by the religions. The words used to describe the emotional and philosophical aspects of human thinking and experience, have taken on religious connotations through use e.g. ‘spirituality’, ‘devotion’, ‘adoration’, ‘idolised’ etc. This was the case from the earliest departure of thought from the religions and gods of ancient times.

The paucity of religion-free language puts atheists at a considerable disadvantage in being able to explain their views, especially in relation to their basic philosophical ideas. This may change as the understanding of brain function grows and the language of psychology and neurophysiology come into the everyday language, but the current jargon of this branch of science is alien to most people and will take a lot of understanding before it is assimilated into common usage. Perhaps if there had been the language with which to describe the early scientific ‘naturalism’ from the start, in terms other than the traditional language with its existing religious connotations (‘naturalism’, ‘spiritual’, ‘soul’), their thought might well have progressed further, and faster, earlier. As it is, the religionists were able to interpret these atheistic arguments and views, not as a challenge to religious belief, but as an explanation of it, and confirmation of god/s and his/her/its ‘divine’ process.

This enabled them to divert these incipient atheistic ideas, by explaining nature and science as part of ‘God’s plan’ and mode of action. They used it to develop a more sophisticated rationalisation of religion and god as symbolic rather than physical; an argument we recognise today, and an area of thought into which religion can retreat when challenged, as the more fundamental beliefs become impossible to sustain.

Today creationists oppose the scientific work of Darwin in describing evolution by natural selection. They try to confuse the argument by interpreting his ‘theory’ not as a fully worked out and demonstrated process, but ‘theory’ as a theoretical idea still to be proved. Fundamentalists do so on the grounds that it must be wrong because they believe that God made the world, literally, in six days, about 10,000 years ago, as described in Genesis. Mainstream Christians have decided that evolution is not incompatible with their notion that God created the world, but he did it by creating evolution. A perfect rationalisation that cannot be faulted by reason or logic to those who believe in god!

There is constant verbal and written reinforcement of our civilisation’s supposed debt to religion in general and Christianity in particular in our language, on our media and in our public life. Only the number of Shakespearean quotations and references come anywhere near those from the Bible, in our culture. It permeates our whole society. It has a word, a saying, a homily, a story, and a lesson for every situation, every thought, and every event. Our media, entertainment, poetry and drama, news, comment and current affairs lazily use and re-use these linguistic and dramatic icons, with never a question mark as to their actual veracity. Religious statements are automatically assumed to be true. Religion is embedded in our thinking and language — blatant or subtle, overt or covert, ever present.

The Media

Print and Publishing

Christianity in the west has developed more subtle methods of censoring dissident voices. In addition to maintaining its traditional domination of the language, it still exerts control over the means of publicising ideas, through print, radio, and television, and through elitism. This is similar in many respects to the ways in which control over women has been updated. Modern Christian societies have found that there are more sophisticated ways of keeping women unseen and unheard than making them wear a burka!

Controlling language is part of the repertoire of censorship. Control of printing, publishing, promotion, and distribution effectively controls ideas. During the last century radio and television, which could have been used to spread ideas and open up discussion has, to a great extent, been kept muzzled by those who want to maintain the status quo and deny the general public the information on which to base meaningful participation in decision-making in society. Religion and politics have both sought to keep the media for the promotion of their own ideas. Not confident in their beliefs to stand against opposition they seek to stifle dissenting views and argument. This has not been entirely successful for politics, or at least party politics, but Christianity has managed to keep its almost exclusive control of the media, and prevented atheistic ideas from being represented. There have been courageous printing houses, but they are one part of a chain of distributors, publicists and outlets, any of which can block the process. There are few public sales outlets for humanist or secularist journals. In the past, the censorship would have been overt, now it is covert and subtle. Without mass sales the distributors will not handle journals, yet without public availability and promotion enough sales will not be generated! Therefore, the few journals there are remain small and not part of mainstream publishing.

Media and Publicity

The Church has an ever-present profile in Britain today due to their privileged position. Almost every village, however small, has at least one Church, and often a chapel and meeting hall as well, (subsidised to the extent that they do not have to pay rates and taxes like secular buildings such as Village Halls). They may not all be staffed full time, but there they are, a constant reminder, with a knot of promoters, a paid activist on call, and public notice board to proclaim their ‘message’. In addition, they make use of ‘community’ activities for their PR by hiring out their halls more cheaply than organisations that are not tax exempt.

They influence secular, community  activities directly or indirectly, and even run them in some cases, which enables them to further promote themselves within the community. Their network of contacts ensures them the ear of the press and local radio, and the consequent regular publicity gives opportunities for self-promotion. This gives them further opportunities to be represented on other community organisations through their boards of governors and trustees and committees. And today in urban areas their new buildings and dedicated parking resulting with land deals is a further hike in their advantaged position.

Press, Publishing and the Internet

Newspapers dedicate many column inches specifically for the promotion of religious views, and they would no doubt justify this by saying that the rest of the paper is secular. But this reveals that they do not appreciate the difference between secular and secularist or atheist. They do not have equivalent dedicated columns for those who specifically disagree with the religious version of events or ideas. The specifically atheist, secularist and secular humanist point of view is rarely given space.

In the propaganda stakes, the religions win hands down. This reflects the traditional suppression of free thought, the emphasis by the Churches on propaganda, and the resources with which to carry it through. The tactics of the Church have been to largely exclude non-belief from the English language and dialogue. This has been achieved by centuries of oppression of individual freethinkers, by social exclusion, psychological pressure, and even physical cruelty in some cases.

The Publishing Industry

In the UK there are, according to the 2002 edition of The Writer’s Handbook, 39 publishing houses specialising in ‘politics’, while 48 are devoted to the production of religious material; and while there are listed 7 magazines devoted to politics, 11 are devoted to religion, none in general circulation devoted to humanism//rationalism, etc. This compares with another 96 publishers of general fiction and the largest number, who specialise in children’ books. This is the natural consequence of the historical domination of learning and scholarship by religion. As well as having the legacy of Christian domination of print in general, they have the resources to print and publish their own material, and the infrastructure for distribution through schools and Churches and the chain of Christian bookshops around the country.

The ‘ism’ of free thought usually does not exist as a category separate from religion, which again reflects how successful the religions have been in suppressing atheism, and thus mitigating any effect these non-theistic stances may have had in undermining religion’s superstitious beliefs through the application of reason.

Look for sources of information or discussion of atheism, rationalism, agnosticism, humanism, secularism or free thought and you will most likely find them under ‘religion’ or ‘lifestyle’. A trawl through the religious material will find snippets of information on ‘free thought.’ ‘Humanism’ is most likely to take you to Erasmus and the religious humanists of the past, or ‘humanities’. Go to a library, or look in The Writer’s Handbook or any other such categorisation for the ‘isms’ of free thought and you will not find a section in which they are together. If you find them at all, they will be tucked in with other subjects.

Today the free thought movement is in a catch-22 situation with regard to publication and publicity. The reason given for the free-thought publications not being listed is that they are too small, and of course they are small, because even if they struggle to publish they are not listed.

This tradition is followed now on the Internet, the ‘isms’ of free thought have no place of their own, but are lumped in with religion, philosophy or lifestyle. Newsgroups, forums, and other such listings have no category specifically for free thought, so they have to make do within listings, groups, or titles with which they may have only the most tenuous connections. No wonder there is no clear idea, among many members of the general public, of the differences between humanism, humanitarianism, humanities, and humourists!

Apart from this affecting the ease with which people can access the range of free-thought opinion and discussion, there is the problem of confusing those who do find the ‘isms’ of non-belief, since the categorisation could well give the impression that humanism, for instance, is a form of religion! This is a problem for the individuals concerned, as well as the organisations, who have continually to explain why, when they are neither a religion nor principally a philosophy, how they may be so categorised. Further, if humanist organisations are not explicit, they are constantly in danger of recruiting into membership people whose views are not atheist or secular, which weakens still further the impact of the organisation as a forum for secular humanism.

While the religions have their well-worked-out publicity, publishing, language and public recognition, with their believers at all levels in community infrastructure and organisations, the free thought movement wrestles with yet more confusion at every turn. While the Churches also have the armies of clerics, priests, ministers, theologians, in Churches and in education: people paid specifically to promote the religions, the free thought movement is but a loose organisation of people who have to do their best to promote their ideas in their spare time. These people work without the premises, money, or advertising opportunities available to the thousands of Churches without the advantages of community infrastructure or state support.

Despite this, people are giving up Christianity, as never before, due, I believe, to more secular education and the improved welfare services in developed countries and the spectacle of religion in action on the television..

Radio and Television

Nowhere is the bias towards religion more pronounced than on BBC radio. On television it is less overtly so probably because of the competition from commercial broadcasters, who are well aware that religious programmes are not popular. Religious themes and stories are integrated into mainstream programming, news and current events, magazine programmes, soaps, literature and drama, music and personal stories.

In 2004 Jonathan Miller’s three-hour series Brief History of Disbelief, on the history of atheism was put out on BBC4 rather than one of the terrestrial BBC channels where it could be seen by the wider audience. Its quality and influence and a certain amount of adverse publicisty,  led to its eventual showing on BBC2..

The BBC shamelessly exploits its monopoly position, as Britain’s only public service broadcaster, to promote religion. It has its own religious broadcasting department, more recently renamed (as a token to hide its overt religious purpose) the ‘Religion and Ethics’ Department. It puts on many hours of religious programming a week, which includes regular daily services, daily prayers and thoughts, and hours of dedicated programming on Sundays, as well as individual programmes or series dedicated to religious views or topics throughout the week. All this in addition to the regular inclusion of the promotion of religious ideas, which are integrated into general programming and which go unchallenged and unbalanced by any critique.

Along with many people who have not given much thought to the matter, neither the BBC managers and governors nor the head of its R&E department appear to understand the difference between ‘secular’ and ‘secularist’ when it comes to its own activities. Its public service charter requires the BBC to be fair and balanced in its reporting and programming, and on most subjects other than high-level international propaganda, and one or two sexual taboos, it seems to accept that when one view is promoted, the contrary views should also be aired. In local and national politics, art, literature, fashion etc., a programme or topic usually gives the pros and cons, or alternatively, when an opinion is put, it is balanced with a programme promoting a contrary opinion at another time.

Almost the only subject on which the BBC refuses to fulfill this obligation to fairness and balance, is on religion — religion in general and Christianity in particular. The reason given is that ‘everything that is not promoting religion is secular’, and, by this definition, there is obviously much material that has no religious content, which is of course true. But what they appear to misunderstand, deliberately or accidentally, is that that is not the argument. The opposite of a programme promoting religion, is one that counters it or gives a different, non-religious, view. Programmes that either promote a religion, or a non-religious — humanist or atheist — view are sectarian, and if any programme is put on promoting religion, then equal time should be given to those who promote a specifically non-religious stance. If religionists are to be allowed to demean those who do not believe, then those who think religion is a bad thing should also be allowed to say so. Currently, religionists are allowed to attack atheism and promote their religions, but atheists are not allowed to criticise religion, or given equivalent air time to explain their ideas or challenge religious dogma or prejudices.

Criticism of religion does inevitably surface, but rarely, and there is always someone on tap to defend it. It is only allowed if done in the mildest terms, and between clerics of different religions, between individual clerics, or between competing sects of a religion, hardly ever directly between the religious and the non-religious.

Thought for the Day

The BBC flagship morning talk-radio programme ‘Today’ has within it a religious slot, reserved for wise words from a religious perspective, produced by the R&E department. This daily mini-sermon is like the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ Vicar’s "sardine can of life . . . always that little bit in the corner" that you can’t get at, which is the cue for the religious plug or homily. The BBC and its R&E department take advantage of the BBC’s privileged position to use this slot to shamelessly promote a raft of people simply because they put views with a religious, and mostly Christian, plug. It acts as a PR department for the religions by deliberately and consistently creating public figures from a group of people for no reason other than their adherence to a particular religious doctrine.

These people are mostly people who already have ample opportunity to express their religious convictions and influence events and policy and in many cases are employees of the Church, paid to promote their religion: bishops in their pulpits, radio and television and the House of Lords: journalists who have regular print columns dedicated to them and their views: theologians, lay preachers, and others well known and made well known simply for their religious views.

The topics on BBC’s ‘Thought for the Day’ are either political or ethical or overtly religious. In the case of the first two, there is no reason why those who believe in god as opposed to those who do not believe in god should have a privileged right to state their opinions. If they are overtly for religion, those who are overtly against religion should balance them. And the speakers should never be allowed to deride those who do not agree with them without them being given a right of reply. Religious people do not have a monopoly of wisdom on politics, ethics, or religion, and their thinking is frequently distorted by their beliefs. There are many more interesting and relevant sources of opinion on many topics that need to be heard, but professional journalists and a few chosen celebrities who are given a disproportionate amount of opportunity to promote their religious beliefs squeeze these out.

Advertising is specifically banned on the BBC, yet the purpose of the religious output of the BBC is to advertise religion. They will not acknowledge that there are people who find this biased programming offensive, objectionable, and unacceptable. Paid for by the whole population, it is intolerable that the BBC should use its position in British life to promote such a blatantly partisan view on such a fundamental matter.

In the past, learned men, scholar-philosophers, writers, and poets published their ideas, and presented them to each other. Women were largely excluded from these activities, and if they were active their efforts were not recognised or acknowledged. Now they have been joined by a host of other disciplines, sciences, psychologists, and sociologists etc. who study and write up the results of their work for peer review in their professional journals. And perhaps the tradition of elitism and sexism is the clue to why this subject has remained a fringe interest among intellectuals rather than being used to inform the wider debate on the issues. Men in academic institutions, their clubs and societies, entertaining each other, taking part in intellectual play, are slow in helping a population struggling to emerge out of the darkness of superstition and sectarianism. This can be seen today in the continuing elitist filtering used to prevent atheists, secularists and humanists from expressing their thoughts through the media, education and politics. Intellectuals have always been credited with leading the debate, challenging the ‘out of date’, being in the vanguard of change, but it seems more likely that too many only speak up (or get reported) when the clamour of discontent by the general public against prevailing opinion and practice gathers pace. The established order prevails until there is a demand for change, when it becomes expedient.

There is a demand now for a new way of thinking. The scales are falling from the people’s eyes as they become aware of the role of religion in conflict and politics, and they are looking for alternatives. How is the media responding whilst still in the grip of the religious tradition? Slowly, hesitantly it seems. Until the advent of the Internet, there has been no mechanism by which the non-specialist or non-academic can easily access information, available in an understandable form: information they need in order to make their own challenges; and even now, when they can and do try to use it, they are ignored or excluded by the gatekeepers of the conventional media and the inherent elitism of the social structure. This extends into the means of communication, print and electronic media.

This resistance to change extends into most of the traditional outlets for communication that are still necessary, and will continue be necessary at some level into the future. Print, radio, and television will have to change, but they are still fighting a rearguard action, by trying to resist the Internet, rather than embrace it and become a complementary part of it. The reason for this is that the conventional media is controllable and as yet the Internet is not. For those who have had such widespread influence — owners, elites, and professionals — the idea of losing it is frightful.

In the field of exposing and clarifying the many areas in which atheist, secularist, and humanist opinion matter, we cannot afford to exclude them just because the exponents are not ‘professional’ writers and do not conform to the disciplines of academe or the narrow editorial policies of print outlets. Anyone with a valid point of view within the law should be allowed the space to put their views unhindered by sexist, elitist, or personal preferences or the prejudices of editors. It has been proved in the electronic media that ‘amateurs’ can express themselves perfectly adequately.

Nor is elitism and control by Gatekeepers confined to the secular press. The Secularist press is little better. For instance, the use of pseudonyms has been an accepted and respected way for writers to free them from prejudiced and personal or professional attack, and ad hominem argument that distracts from the content of their writings. Women in particular are reluctant to expose themselves to the ingrained current of sexism that interferes with their ability to have their ideas and writing considered on and equal footing with those of men. Research has shown that women are much more likely to resort to the use of pseudonyms than men, and more likely to want to write under a gender-neutral name. For an editor to refuse publication to material written under a pseudonym is unacceptable because it indicates that they do not understand the importance of anonymity to some forms of free expression, that is most likely to prevent women from writing public polemics.

Now, as the academics and those who are in positions of control of the means of communication are not big enough to see that they must open the channels to the many who aspire to translate the scholarship and rhetoric into a form that is relevant to everyday life. This applies not only to this subject but also to all the fields of study, research, and independent thought.

Only now, at the beginning of the 21st century, with easy access to information through the Internet and commercial television, is there an upsurge of interest in history and philosophy among the general population.