Closet atheists and agnostics

[Daemon Sophic]

Over the last week I have seen a large number of posts citing famous historical scientists in the defense of religion. Often the poster will cite Blaise Pascal, Darwin, Copernicus, Plato, Galileo, or other such well known intellectual and note that person's history of devotion to a religion (often Christianity), usually as a means to say that science is not the answer and that smarter people then we mere forumites understood the wisdom of being religious.

My thought of the day is that perhaps, just perhaps, many or all of these individuals, given today's freedom of expression (and lack of witch-burning stakes) would have 'come out of the closet' as it were, and admitted that they were in fact agnostic or atheist. Given their environments of religious expectation and resultant religious intolerance, they themselves may not have even realized that their own questioning and thought processes would define them as agnostic or atheist.
Certainly some of these famous thinkers have written long diatribes defending their faith and devotion to God. However, if you are becoming a celebrity for your thoughts in an era where your thoughts can get you killed if they do not conform to the norms of society, then don't you think it would be the smart thing to do to make at least one of your publications a defense of your own "sincere and pius devotion" to your friendly neighborhood religion.

Final related thought: how many famous manly-man, old silver screen heart-throbs, and how many millions of average Joe were actually closetted homosexuals in the 1940s and 1950s? Too (rightly) afraid to do anything but play along with the status quo, even to the point of getting married to women, and fathering children?

Thanks for reading! See ya!

 

[Quetzal]

My thought of the day is that perhaps, just perhaps, many or all of these individuals, given today's freedom of expression (and lack of witch-burning stakes) would have 'come out of the closet' as it were, and admitted that they were in fact agnostic or atheist. Given their environments of religious expectation and resultant religious intolerance, they themselves may not have even realized that their own questioning and thought processes would define them as agnostic or atheist.

Yes! This is my thought, too. Their environment dictated their public beliefs and many that you listed were raised under the guise that we were the center of the Universe (Thank you, Copernicus, for helping us with that). Simply put, they didn't have the same information and data we have now, so they relied on what they thought was common knowledge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My thought of the day is that perhaps, just perhaps, many or all of these individuals, given today's freedom of expression (and lack of witch-burning stakes) would have 'come out of the closet' as it were, and admitted that they were in fact agnostic or atheist.

I'm sure you're right. There would also have been the fear of their work not being taken seriously if they challenged the status quo.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Over the last week I have seen a large number of posts citing famous historical scientists in the defense of religion. Often the poster will cite Blaise Pascal, Darwin, Copernicus, Plato, Galileo, or other such well known intellectual and note that person's history of devotion to a religion (often Christianity), usually as a means to say that science is not the answer and that smarter people then we mere forumites understood the wisdom of being religious.

My thought of the day is that perhaps, just perhaps, many or all of these individuals, given today's freedom of expression (and lack of witch-burning stakes) would have 'come out of the closet' as it were, and admitted that they were in fact agnostic or atheist. Given their environments of religious expectation and resultant religious intolerance, they themselves may not have even realized that their own questioning and thought processes would define them as agnostic or atheist.
Certainly some of these famous thinkers have written long diatribes defending their faith and devotion to God. However, if you are becoming a celebrity for your thoughts in an era where your thoughts can get you killed if they do not conform to the norms of society, then don't you think it would be the smart thing to do to make at least one of your publications a defense of your own "sincere and pius devotion" to your friendly neighborhood religion.

Final related thought: how many famous manly-man, old silver screen heart-throbs, and how many millions of average Joe were actually closetted homosexuals in the 1940s and 1950s? Too (rightly) afraid to do anything but play along with the status quo, even to the point of getting married to women, and fathering children?

Thanks for reading! See ya!

Do you find it hard to believe these men were religious? If so, why? I suppose we naturally think our position to be the most intellectual, and therefore we are inclined to believe all the great thinkers of history must have secretly agreed with us.

Isaac Newton is a good example of a scientist who really was religious, because his devoted religious views were actually heretical and it was much better for his reputation to agree with the Church than go on some non-Trinitarian rave, not to mention his foray into the book of Revelation trying to unravel all of its mysteries. Not to mention Georges LeMaitre, who discovered the big bang, was a Catholic priest, and lived in the early 20th century when a lot of thinkers were coming round to atheism.

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm sure you're right. There would also have been the fear of their work not being taken seriously if they challenged the status quo.

You're sure? Why?

 

[Quintessence]

While an interesting thing to think about, like @Sultan Of Swing, I think we need to be very careful about projecting things onto other people.

I would think it better to recognize that amazing people are cut from many cloths.

 

[Quetzal]

While an interesting thing to think about, like @Sultan Of Swing, I think we need to be very careful about projecting things onto other people.

I would think it better to recognize that amazing people are cut from many cloths.

Sure, but it is fun to talk about. No matter where the discussion goes, it doesn't make their work any more or less important.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would think it better to recognize that amazing people are cut from many cloths.

The truest of any statement made in the thread so far. And a good reason not to hold anyone up as the poster-child for any belief or non-belief.

I many times feel that by the time someone's turned to pointing out celebrities of any ilk to "support" their arguments, they are (even if unwittingly) conveying a pretty substantial form of desperation.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

While an interesting thing to think about, like @Sultan Of Swing, I think we need to be very careful about projecting things onto other people.

I would think it better to recognize that amazing people are cut from many cloths.

The truest of any statement made in the thread so far. And a good reason not to hold anyone up as the poster-child for any belief or non-belief.

I many times feel that by the time someone's turned to pointing out celebrities of any ilk to "support" their arguments, they are (even if unwittingly) conveying a pretty substantial form of desperation.

I quote both of these for their wisdom.
I do not doubt that some scientists throughout history were truly devout in their beliefs. My own father is a devout Episcopalian scientist.

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

Actually, I consider his wager to be nearly the ultimate expression of agnosticism. He is effectively saying, "Hey, you know what? There's absolutely no way anyone can possibly know if God exists or not, so what the hey! Why not go to church and take a chance on getting some of that promised eternal happiness and/or avoid eternal damnation? If it really exists."
In fact Pascal's Wager is the crux of my OP, and is exactly what I am talking about. A scientist says that it is wiser to just fake looking like you are devout so as to avoid punishment (on Earth or in heaven).

I do fully believe that many of the noted scientists whether they were religious or not, still held to even an early notion of what we consider science today. As such the core of their intellect was set to examine evidence and look for proof, rather than gobble up whole all of the fire and brimstone pap that was spewed at the congregations from church pulpits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you find it hard to believe these men were religious? If so, why? I suppose we naturally think our position to be the most intellectual, and therefore we are inclined to believe all the great thinkers of history must have secretly agreed with us.

It's also worth considering that in cultures and eras where apostasy was a capital crime (or when clergy had the best access to education), atheists and agnostics would have more likely to have been closeted. This raises the odds that any given historical scientist or thinker was a non-believer.

Isaac Newton is a good example of a scientist who really was religious, because his devoted religious views were actually heretical and it was much better for his reputation to agree with the Church than go on some non-Trinitarian rave, not to mention his foray into the book of Revelation trying to unravel all of its mysteries.

Yeah - it puzzles me when modern Christians point to Newton's religious beliefs as some sort of support for their own. When it comes to the Trinitarian god that they believe in, Newton probably sat somewhere around Richard Dawkins (or beyond) in terms of his opinion on THAT god.

Not to mention Georges LeMaitre, who discovered the big bang, was a Catholic priest, and lived in the early 20th century when a lot of thinkers were coming round to atheism.

The presence of outliers doesn't negate the idea of an overall trend.

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

Indeed. Pascal's Wager is the sort of argument that only someone already convinced of theism would find compelling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you find it hard to believe these men were religious?

That is not the OP's claim. Instead, he asks whether a significant number of them were not "closet" atheists and agnostics, or would be if the religious and ideological climate of their cultures so much as allowed them to consider the idea without fearing for their security.

It is very difficult to believe atheism became significantly more common in recent decades and centuries for any other reason beyond lack of certain scientific discoveries and lack of proper social acceptance.

(...)

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

Special case. The Wager is all but impossible to consider in any serious way. My money is on it being a prank.

 

[columbus]

Special case. The Wager is all but impossible to consider in any serious way. My money is on it being a prank.

I disagree. I think that The Wager is misrepresented in the modern world. The culture is just too different in a post-Enlightnment, post Humanism world.
It was not really "Go to church and pretend to believe. God is a schmuck who can easily be fooled."
It was more like "Live your life as though Divine Rules are real. Avoid the 7 deadly sins. Associate with people who do as well. Live a righteous life and THIS life will be better, plus you have a chance at Heaven. How can you lose!"
At least, that's how the Catholic nuns I learned about it taught it.
Tom

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It's also worth considering that in cultures and eras where apostasy was a capital crime (or when clergy had the best access to education), atheists and agnostics would have more likely to have been closeted. This raises the odds that any given historical scientist or thinker was a non-believer.

I suppose, but really it's fruitless speculation.

Yeah - it puzzles me when modern Christians point to Newton's religious beliefs as some sort of support for their own. When it comes to the Trinitarian god that they believe in, Newton probably sat somewhere around Richard Dawkins (or beyond) in terms of his opinion on THAT god.

It's not that puzzling, any religious belief is good enough to educate someone who is beyond convinced that any intelligent person can't possibly be anything other than atheist.

The presence of outliers doesn't negate the idea of an overall trend.

What trend?

Indeed. Pascal's Wager is the sort of argument that only someone already convinced of theism would find compelling.

I wouldn't contest that.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That is not the OP's claim. Instead, he asks whether a significant number of them were not "closet" atheists and agnostics, or would be if the religious and ideological climate of their cultures so much as allowed them to consider the idea without fearing for their security.

It is very difficult to believe atheism became significantly more common in recent decades and centuries for any other reason beyond lack of certain scientific discoveries and lack of proper social acceptance.

Speculation profiteth little.

Special case. The Wager is all but impossible to consider in any serious way. My money is on it being a prank.

I am also a bit perplexed by that one, maybe if I spoke to Pascal in person he would school me and show how the Wager is the greatest argument on the planet.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

What trend?

As one increases in education level, particularly in the 'hard' sciences, like biology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry; then there is a distinct statistical likelihood that one will more readily lean towards agnosticism or atheism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...201401/more-knowledge-less-belief-in-religion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675

Again, citing one is irrelevant, but as a statistical generality the trend does hold.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

As one increases in education level, particularly in the 'hard' sciences, like biology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry; then there is a distinct statistical likelihood that one will more readily lean towards agnosticism or atheism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...201401/more-knowledge-less-belief-in-religion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675

Again, citing one is irrelevant, but as a statistical generality the trend does hold.

Why hasn't it gotten to me yet? Why do I always have to be the anomaly?

 

[Sapiens]

Over the last week I have seen a large number of posts citing famous historical scientists in the defense of religion. Often the poster will cite Blaise Pascal, Darwin, Copernicus, Plato, Galileo, or other such well known intellectual and note that person's history of devotion to a religion (often Christianity), usually as a means to say that science is not the answer and that smarter people then we mere forumites understood the wisdom of being religious.

My thought of the day is that perhaps, just perhaps, many or all of these individuals, given today's freedom of expression (and lack of witch-burning stakes) would have 'come out of the closet' as it were, and admitted that they were in fact agnostic or atheist. Given their environments of religious expectation and resultant religious intolerance, they themselves may not have even realized that their own questioning and thought processes would define them as agnostic or atheist.
Certainly some of these famous thinkers have written long diatribes defending their faith and devotion to God. However, if you are becoming a celebrity for your thoughts in an era where your thoughts can get you killed if they do not conform to the norms of society, then don't you think it would be the smart thing to do to make at least one of your publications a defense of your own "sincere and pius devotion" to your friendly neighborhood religion.

Final related thought: how many famous manly-man, old silver screen heart-throbs, and how many millions of average Joe were actually closetted homosexuals in the 1940s and 1950s? Too (rightly) afraid to do anything but play along with the status quo, even to the point of getting married to women, and fathering children?

Thanks for reading! See ya!

I've never seen Darwin cited in that fashion, except the lie about his deathbed conversion. Pascal I suspect was being honest, but his "wager" is so obvious to a nonbeliever, and so convenient, that I find it suspicious ... a way to profess belief while denying faith at the same time.

But this is true of many, especially among the American founding fathers. Church back then was as much a secular social function as it was a religious one and it was easy to closet behind a deist "god" of nature.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I am also a bit perplexed by that one, maybe if I spoke to Pascal in person he would school me and show how the Wager is the greatest argument on the planet.

Well then like all great jokes...its all in the execution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

I think Pascal's wager was a bit from a very sophisticated stand-up comedy routing.
(His audience would've known that there unlimited choices, not just 2.)
St Thomas Aquinas is one of my favorite comics.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you find it hard to believe these men were religious? If so, why? I suppose we naturally think our position to be the most intellectual, and therefore we are inclined to believe all the great thinkers of history must have secretly agreed with us.

Isaac Newton is a good example of a scientist who really was religious, because his devoted religious views were actually heretical and it was much better for his reputation to agree with the Church than go on some non-Trinitarian rave, not to mention his foray into the book of Revelation trying to unravel all of its mysteries. Not to mention Georges LeMaitre, who discovered the big bang, was a Catholic priest, and lived in the early 20th century when a lot of thinkers were coming round to atheism.

Oh, and you mention Blaise Pascal yourself. Do you think an atheist would have come up with Pascal's wager? He seemed to be pretty convinced.

I agree with you. Newton believed in religion and was a scientist too. The same is true for so many others.
Regards