Active Users:1086 Time:15/11/2024 02:06:47 AM
You're right and wrong. Dan Send a noteboard - 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
Also: good post. Hee.

I think generally speaking you're quite correct in your points about Iconoclasm in the Judeo-Christian tradition prefiguring many of the most prominent contemporary atheist arguments, and it's interesting to see just how prominent and widespread they are in the bible. A girlfriend in a college told me that she thought Abraham was the first Philosopher in positing a one supreme god as a ground of being(s), and I find very little to dispute in that statement, and in yours, except for one point. The notion of "first" and in your case "earliest" examples are not exactly correct.


Anyway, I think you're pretty correct in your statements, but the thing is a lot of similar bursts of both 1) iconoclasm and) ontology happened around the same time, between 600-400 BCE. Certain scholars call this the inception of the "Axial Age". I'll cite two examples in the Indian and Greek traditions.

Indian

As far as I can tell (not very far), the bible was composed between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. This also, incidentally, is the exact same time period given for the life of Siddhartha Gautama and the inception of Buddhism. Hinduism (some parts? there's some question as to how unified it is) is in fact theistic religion in a lot of ways, furnishing proofs and analyses of their own Prime Mover that they identify as Ishvara. Buddhism is mainly remembered as attacking the notions of karma, reincarnation, and caste, but it also dealt a massive blow the overarching theism present in the typical Hindu religion. The result was a number of schools of Indian philosophy reacting directly against typical buddhist atheist arguments for the next 800 years or so. The Nyaya and Vaisheka schools stand out most particularly, both giving interesting proofs for a prime mover of sorts.

It's also worth noting that even prior to Buddhism, around 700-600 BCE, the Upanishads were written and the Vedanta school of Hindu Philosophy was established. The latter tradition tended to search for a unified (or dual for some schools) ground for all beings, with heavy emphasis on consciousness. These traditions are where the Atman is Brahman sayings come from. I'd think such a thing qualifies as iconoclastic, and ontological.


Greek Philosophy


The second and perhaps more relevant case is that of the Ancient Greek tradition of Philosophy. Socrates was born in 469 and died in 399 BCE. But actually more interesting philosophers for our purposes are what nowadays called the PreSocratic Philosophers. The most prominent one relevant to this discussion is a man named Xenophanes of Colophon, who was born around 540 BC and and lived to almost a hundred, reputedly. His best known verses were attacks on the typical Homeric theology of personal polytheism, which he thought nonsense: "But mortals suppose that gods are born, wear their own clothes, and have a voice and body. Ethiopians say their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired." It was fairly revolutionary, and it carried all the way to Socrates', who in Plato's Apology, was executed for atheism for arguing against this received view of the Gods.

Ontology is also very present in the Presocratic philosophers. Xenophon was reputed to be a Spinoza-like Monist, however that's less well-documented I think. His most prominent student, though, was Parmenides of Elea, who was the first Greek to explicitly single out "το ον" or "Being". He posited that Being was One and Unchanging, and Nothingness quite impossible. He also was the first to explicitly make reference to the distinction between Truth and Illusion, or the way of truth and the way of appearance. The earliest Ontological statement, though, if I recall correctly (and this is according to Heidegger, so) is from Anaximander, who posited Void as the substratum and origin of all things, which "must return to the void according to justice" or something like that.

Anyway, we see two almost exactly parallel traditions of both iconoclasm and ontology, which is good evidence for something like the Axial age. Undoubtedly they eventually cross-pollinated each other, but I don't know really quite how much. It's definitely unclear what came first. In fact, my guess is that the thoughts had been around for some time and it simply took a while to get them written down. One mediary between the Jewish monotheism and the Greeks could in fact be the Egyptians, and I'm sure that Xenophanes was influenced by them. I'm not sure how to fit Akhenaton into things, but he's certainly, certainly a fascinating contemporary (or predecessor? Need to read a bit more) to the Jewish tradition.

Anyway, that's all for now. Please forgive the inevitable typing errors and lack of citations or full quotes. I haven't been able to refine this with a computer proper. Anyone who's more interested in anything or wants quotes I will discuss happily until you are tired of it!





Atheisms best most enduring arguments ironically have their earliest expression in the Hebrew Tanakh, whence they were the basis for both Byzantine iconoclasm and Islams Hadith prohibiting images of living things. Biblical writers scathingly condemn pagan worship of fabricated idols without motion, speech or action, instead asserting a Creator of materials and craftsmen alike. In the same vein, biblical scribes repeatedly repudiate then popular notions of divinity limited to local power, arguing any genuine deity must have equal power in all places. It is thus easy to view contemporary atheism as the most developed form of rejecting gods made in mans image, which has an ancient and proud pedigree in Western civilization all the way back to the Abrahamic religions founding scriptures.

In an infamous case, the prophet Elijah is depicted challenging the priests of Baal to a "miracle-off:" Both sides would build an altar, fill it with sacrifices and pray for fire from heaven to consume it; the god who answered would be recognized as divine and the other rejected, with his priests summarily executed for blasphemy. The text relates that while the Baalites made increasingly frantic but ever fruitless pleas heavenward, Elijah sarcastically mocked them by telling them to pray louder, in case Baal was asleep, or on vacation, or "indisposed." Afterward, the narrative states he uttered his own prayer, immediately answered by fire from the sky consuming the sacrifice (and altar, and water that had been dumped on the sacrifice until it filled a surrounding trench; biblical scribes had no truck with equivocation. :P) The better known deuterocanonical story of Bel and the Dragon is similar: The Babylonian king is said to affirm Bel as a god because its food and drink offerings are consumed daily; the prophet Daniel then demonstrates Bel does nothing of the sort, but is only a dead statue.

The dynamic recurs throughout the Old and New Testaments (in the first chapter of Romans, Paul reiterates it with his customary rigor and harshness) and is thus integral to the Western world, yet similarly significant and seminal Eastern examples are hard to find. Iconoclasm as such is not only common but sometimes pathological in the West and Mid-East (the latter is more truly Western than Eastern in the modern era, despite widely professed hatred for the West.) Again, the eponymous Orthodox case may be the most pivotal historical example, but Islam has its own, made notorious by the recent controversy over drawings of Mohammed.

In the Americas and Western Europe such fanaticism seems incomprehensible, but that mainly reflects a more recent tradition of pagan symbolism in those areas than in the Mid-East that first assaulted it. Incorporating pagan deities as Catholic saints rather than attacking them as idols was vital to Christianitys spread throughout both Western Europe and the New World, so iconoclasm has less orthodoxy. The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism makes more sense on that basis. The Roman Catholic Church would have been naturally reluctant to surrender a missionary tool indispensable in Early Medieval northern and western Europe. Yet what made it appealing in the West (pagan polytheism) was already largely absent Asia Minor, so the value was not only minor, but offensive, as an accomodation of paganism. It is certainly easy to imagine the same fervor and absolutism atheism affirms, on grounds of the same negative evidence, growing into similar fanaticism.

One sidebar: The Pentateuchs "I am 'I AM'" is also a strikingly advanced ontological statement for its era. It always interests me to see the bible present counter-arguments to atheism hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they would receive any response except, "wait... you're saying there are people who do not believe in ANY god?! :confused:" For ignorant primitives there is a lot of rather sophisticated "modern" thought in those old texts. On the other hand, some philosopher I read somewhere claimed there is nothing new under the sun. :P Note: NOT trying to proselytize; just thought it might make an interesting discussion.
Reply to message
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West? - 10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM 1293 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM* - 10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM 356 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not? - 10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM 523 Views
If the divine made men... - 10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM 518 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine. - 10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM 534 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed. - 10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM 553 Views
Thanks? It is all Dans fault, really. - 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM 821 Views
But you do comparable things all the time! - 10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM 747 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable - 10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM 632 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have. - 11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM 599 Views
... and apparently it was a waste of time - 11/03/2012 03:27:04 AM 539 Views
Perhaps he just missed it in all my spam? - 11/03/2012 04:59:31 AM 610 Views
Basically what Isaac said. *NM* - 10/03/2012 07:22:07 PM 307 Views
who? *NM* - 11/03/2012 12:00:13 AM 287 Views
Me - 11/03/2012 03:31:51 AM 565 Views
You're right and wrong. - 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM 944 Views
Re: You're right and wrong. - 11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM 851 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged - 11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM 852 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world. - 11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM 650 Views
Yeah, that's very true. - 11/03/2012 03:27:09 PM 744 Views
My Buddhist readings are definitely Tibet-focused. - 11/03/2012 04:00:17 PM 795 Views
Duplicate post *NM* - 11/03/2012 03:28:58 PM 374 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"? - 10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM 721 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism. - 11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM 644 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM 715 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship. - 11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM 732 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM 596 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did. - 11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM 674 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM 748 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal. - 11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM 819 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου. - 11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM 780 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next? - 12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM 686 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp. - 12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM 594 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself. - 13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM 728 Views
I'm not telling you to; God is. - 13/03/2012 12:35:45 AM 511 Views
Or can only you use that sort of specious logic? *NM* - 13/03/2012 03:50:20 PM 262 Views
And re: particular bullshit - 11/03/2012 02:33:15 PM 704 Views
Re: And re: particular bullshit - 13/03/2012 12:07:42 AM 610 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong. - 12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM 898 Views

Reply to Message