주 메뉴 열기

사용자:Dmthoth/작업실2

  • 이 문서에는 틀과 본문 보기(문서 자르기)도 포함되어있기 때문에 실질적 내용은 훨씬 더 큽니다.
  1. 일단 출처 교정을 합니다.
  2. 틀을 정비합니다.
  3. 따로 본문을 뺀 문서들을 번역합니다.
  4. 본 문서를 번역합니다.
  5. 한국의 실정을 포함시키는 것을 포함한 전반적인 편집을 거칩니다.
  6. 무신론문서에 덮어 씌웁니다.
  7. 알찬 글에 도전합시다.
  • 참여자 - 이견 토론은 토론에서 합시다.
  1. 토트
  2. 윤성현
  3. Salamander03
  4. 100범


무신론(無神論, 영어: atheism)은 큰 의미에서 의 존재에 대한 신앙을 부정하거나,[1]의 존재 자체를 인정하지 않는 사상이다[2]. 무신론은 신을 비롯한 모든 영적인 존재를 부정하는 것을 골자로 한다.[3] 무신론은 보통 일신교를 포함한 적어도 하나의 신의 존재를 내포하는[4][5] 유신론의 반대 개념이다.[6]

서양에서 무신론을 뜻하는 단어 Atheism은 고대 그리스어, "신이 없는"을 의미하는 ἄθεος (atheos)에서 유례하였다. 18세기 들어 전 세계로 퍼진 자유사상회의주의 그리고 증가하는 종교 범죄들로 인하여, 처음으로 스스로 무신론자임을 자처하는 사람들이 나타나기 시작하였다.[7]그리하여 오늘날, 전 세계 인구의 약 2.3%가 무신론자, 11.9%가 불가지론자인 것으로 조사되었다.[8] 특히 일본에서 64%에서 80%에 달하는 인구가[9] 무신론자이거나 불가지론자, 무교자라고 응하였고,[10] 독일의 잡지 슈피겔의 설문 조사에 따르면 독일인중 45%만이 신의 존재를 믿고 있다고 답했으며, 4분의 1만이 기독교를 믿는다고 조사되었다.[11] 유럽 연합에서 무신론자의 수는 스웨덴 (85%)과 덴마크 (80%), 노르웨이 (60%), 핀란드 (60%) 등의 나라에서 높게 나타난 반면, 몰타폴란드, 루마니아, 키프로스등지에서는 유신론자들의 비율이 절대 다수를 차지하였다.[10] 대한민국에서는 약 30%에서 52%가 무신론자이거나 불가지론자라고 대답하였다.[12]

무신론자들은 경험주의적 실증이 부족한 초자연주의에 대한 회의주의를 가지는 경향이 있다. 보편적인 이론적 해석으로 악의 문제, 계시의 불일치 논증 그리고 무신앙 논증 등을 포함하여 그 어떤 신과 귀신도 믿지 않는다. 무신론의 다른 논증들은 철학에서부터 사회학, 역사학까지 다양하다. 특정 무신론자들은 인본주의[13]이성주의, 자연주의[14]와 같은 세속주의적인인 경향이 있다. 모든 무신론자들은 공통된 특정 이념이나 행동양식을 신봉하지 않는다.[15]

무신론은 대부분 비종교적이고 세속주의적이나,[16] 신을 믿지 않는 종교인 자이나교불교와 같이 일종의 종교적 믿음의 형태 또한 가지고 있다.[17] 힌두교도 무신론을 일정 부분 포함 하지만 종교적인 관점으로 보기엔 힘들다.[18]

어원편집

 
고대 그리스 문자αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12) on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".[19]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods", instead of the earlier meaning of "impious". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[20]

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[21] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[22] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[23]Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[24] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[25]theist in 1662;[26]theism in 1678;[27] and deism in 1682.[28]Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[29]

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[7]Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[30] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[31]

정의와 분류편집

 
A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[32] 초자연적 실체를 무엇에 적용할 것인지, 명시적 배제를 의식해야할 필요성이 있는지 등의 논쟁이 있다. 다른 형태의 무신론들을 수 많은 분류로 구분하려는 시도가 있어왔다.

범위편집

무신론에 대한 정의가 일치하지 않으며 모호한 것은 '영적 존재'와 '신'와 같은 단어의 의미를 일치시키기가 힘들기 때문이다. 수 많은 신앙 체계속의 신적 존재에 대한 믿음은 서로 다른 이념에 대한 믿음을 무신론으로 치부하였다. 가령 고대 로마 사람들은 자신들의 다신교를 믿지 않는 기독교인들을 무신론자라고 비난하였다. 20세기 들어서야 이러한 관점은 유신론이 다른 신앙들을 포함하기 시작하면서 차츰 사라졌다.[31]

원론적으로 무신론은 모든 신적 존재와 영적 존재, 초자연적 존재, 초월적 존재를 부정하는 것이다.[33]

암시적 무신론과 명시적 무신론편집

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[34] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[35] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

In Western civilization, the view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[36] There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes."[37] Some proponents of this view claim that the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better, functioning as an "opium of the people". Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."[38]

긍정적 무신론과 부정적 무신론편집

안토니 플루,[39]마이클 마틴[31]과 같은 철학자들은 적극적(강한) 무신론이 명시적으로 신을 부정하는 것으로, 소극적인(약한) 무신론이 모든 비유신론적인 형태를 포함하는 것이라고 대조하였다. 이 분류 작업에 따르면 모든 비유신론적인 사람은 적극적 혹은 소극적 무신론으로 나뉘어진다.[40] '강한 무신론'과 '약한 무신론'의 단어들은 1813년부터 철학적 문학[39]카톨릭 변증론[41]에 등장했던 '적극적 무신론'과 '소극적 무신론' 단어에 비하여 최근에 유례되었다.[42][43] 이 무신론의 경계에 따르면, 무교자들은 소극적 무신론자로 분류된다.

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[31] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[44] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[45] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[46] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[47] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[48] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[49]

'긍정적 무신론'이라는 용어의 다른 용법편집

As mentioned above, the terms negative and positive have been used in philosophical literature in a similar manner to the terms weak and strong. However, the book Positive Atheism by Goparaju Ramachandra Rao, first published in 1972, introduced an alternative use for the phrase.[50] Having grown up in a hierarchical system with a religious basis, Gora called for a secular India and suggested guidelines for a positive atheist philosophy, meaning one that promotes positive values.[51] Positive atheism entails such things as being morally upright, showing an understanding that religious people have reasons to believe, not proselytising or lecturing others about atheism, and defending oneself with truthfulness instead of aiming to 'win' any confrontations with outspoken critics.

Rationale편집

 
"A child of the mob once asked an astronomer who the father was who brought him into this world. The scholar pointed to the sky, and to an old man sitting, and said:
'That one there is your body's father, and that your soul's.'
To which the boy replied:
'What is above of us is of no concern to us, and I'm ashamed to be the child of such an aged man!'
'O what supreme impiety, not to want to recognize your father, and not to think God is your maker!' [52] Emblem illustrating practical atheism and its historical association with immorality, titled "Supreme Impiety: Atheist and Charlatan", from Picta poesis, by Barthélemy Aneau, 1552.

The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism.

Practical atheism편집

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[53] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[54]

Practical atheism can take various forms:

  • Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
  • Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
  • Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
  • Unawareness of the concept of a deity.[55]

Theoretical atheism편집

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms.

Epistemological and ontological arguments편집

Epistemological atheism argues that people cannot know God or determine the existence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God. The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.[53]

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including logical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.[56][57]

Metaphysical arguments편집

One author writes:

"Metaphysical atheism... includes all doctrines that hold to metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute — an explicit denial of God's existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (pantheism, panentheism, deism)."[58]
 
Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:[59] "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"
Logical arguments편집

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice and mercy.[60]

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[61] A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.[62]

Reductionary accounts of religion편집

Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach[63] and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many Buddhists.[64]Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed Voltaire's famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."[65]

Recently, Michel Onfray, who regards himself as part of the tradition of individualist anarchism, has sought to revive this tradition as an argument for atheism, amidst modern schools of philosophy that he feels are cynical and epicurean.[출처 필요]

Alternatives편집

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.[53]

One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[66] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[67]Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.[68]

역사편집

무신론이라는 단어는 16세기 프랑스에서 사용되기 시작되었으나,[21] 그 사상적 기반은 베다 시대와 서양의 고전 시대부터 문헌으로 전해진다.

Early Indic religion편집

Atheistic schools are found in Hinduism and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[69] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy; Samkhya, the oldest philosophical system do not accept God and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[70] The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but asserted that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits.[71] The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Cārvāka School that originated in India around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority of Vedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[72] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[73]

Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[74]

Classical antiquity편집

 
In Plato's Apology, Socrates (pictured) was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods.

Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[75] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[76] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[77]Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order.[78]Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Other pre-Socratic philosophers who probably had atheistic views included Prodicus and Protagoras. In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers Theodorus Cirenaicus[77][79] and Strato of Lampsacus[80] also did not believe gods exist.

Socrates (c. 471–399 BCE), was accused of impiety (see Euthyphro dilemma) on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[81] Although he disputed the accusation that he was a "complete atheist",[82] saying that he could not be an atheist as he believed in spirits,[83] he was ultimately sentenced to death. Socrates also prays to various gods in Plato's dialogue Phaedrus[84] and says "By Zeus" in the dialogue The Republic.[85]

Euhemerus (c. 330–260 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers, conquerors and founders of the past, and that their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and earlier political structures.[86] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".[87]

Atomic materialist Epicurus (c. 341–270 BCE) disputed many religious doctrines, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity; he considered the soul purely material and mortal. While Epicureanism did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity.[88]

The Roman poet Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE) agreed that, if there were gods, they were unconcerned with humanity and unable to affect the natural world. For this reason, he believed humanity should have no fear of the supernatural. He expounds his Epicurean views of the cosmos, atoms, the soul, mortality, and religion in De rerum natura ("On the nature of things"),[89] which popularized Epicurus' philosophy in Rome.[90]

The Roman philosopher Sextus Empiricus held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs—a form of skepticism known as Pyrrhonism—that nothing was inherently evil, and that ataraxia ("peace of mind") is attainable by withholding one's judgment. His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.[91]

The meaning of "atheist" changed over the course of classical antiquity. The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods.[92] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and Emperor-worship in particular. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius I in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[93]

Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance편집

The espousal of atheistic views was rare in Europe during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (see Medieval Inquisition); metaphysics, religion and theology were the dominant interests.[94] There were, however, movements within this period that forwarded heterodox conceptions of the Christian God, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such as Johannes Scotus Eriugena, David of Dinant, Amalric of Bena, and the Brethren of the Free Spirit maintained Christian viewpoints with pantheistic tendencies. Nicholas of Cusa held to a form of fideism he called docta ignorantia ("learned ignorance"), asserting that God is beyond human categorization, and our knowledge of God is limited to conjecture. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalistic limitation of human knowledge to singular objects, and asserted that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect. Followers of Ockham, such as John of Mirecourt and Nicholas of Autrecourt furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later theologians such as John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther.[94]

The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of freethought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as Leonardo da Vinci sought experimentation as a means of explanation, and opposed arguments from religious authority. Other critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccolò Machiavelli, Bonaventure des Périers, and François Rabelais.[91]

Early modern period편집

The Renaissance and Reformation eras witnessed a resurgence in religious fervor, as evidenced by the proliferation of new religious orders, confraternities, and popular devotions in the Catholic world, and the appearance of increasingly austere Protestant sects such as the Calvinists. This era of interconfessional rivalry permitted an even wider scope of theological and philosophical speculation, much of which would later be used to advance a religiously skeptical world-view.

Criticism of Christianity became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England, where there appears to have been a religious malaise, according to contemporary sources. Some Protestant thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences, while the Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza rejected divine providence in favour of a pantheistic naturalism. By the late 17th century, deism came to be openly espoused by intellectuals such as John Toland. Despite their ridicule of Christianity, many deists held atheism in scorn. The first known atheist who threw off the mantle of deism, bluntly denying the existence of gods, was Jean Meslier, a French priest who lived in the early 18th century.[95] He was followed by other openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach and Jacques-André Naigeon.[96] The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, undermining the metaphysical basis of natural theology.

 
Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1841) would greatly influence philosophers such as Engels, Marx, David Strauss, Nietzsche, and Max Stirner. He considered God to be a human invention and religious activities to be wish-fulfillment. For this he is considered the founding father of modern anthropology of religion.

The French Revolution took atheism and anti-clerical deism outside the salons and into the public sphere. A major goal of the french revolution was a restructuring and subordination of the clergy with respect to the state through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Attempts to enforce it led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clergy from France. The chaotic political events in revolutionary Paris eventually enabled the more radical Jacobins to seize power in 1793, ushering in the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins were deists and introduced the Cult of the Supreme Being as a new French state religion. Some atheists surrounding Jacques Hébert instead sought to establish a Cult of Reason, a form of atheistic pseudo-religion with a goddess personifying reason. Both movements in part contributed to attempts to forcibly de-Christianize France. The Cult of Reason ended after three years when its leadership, including Jacques Hébert was guillotined by the Jacobins. The anti-clerical persecutions ended with the Thermidorian Reaction.

The Napoleonic era institutionalized the secularization of French society, and exported the revolution to northern Italy, in the hopes of creating pliable republics. In the 19th century, atheists contributed to political and social revolution, facilitating the upheavals of 1848, the Risorgimento in Italy, and the growth of an international socialist movement.

In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophers. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.[97]

Late modern period편집

Atheism in the 20th century, particularly in the form of practical atheism, advanced in many societies. Atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, anarchism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism,[98] and the general scientific and rationalist movement.

Logical positivism and scientism paved the way for neopositivism, analytical philosophy, structuralism, and naturalism. Neopositivism and analytical philosophy discarded classical rationalism and metaphysics in favor of strict empiricism and epistemological nominalism. Proponents such as Bertrand Russell emphatically rejected belief in God. In his early work, Ludwig Wittgenstein attempted to separate metaphysical and supernatural language from rational discourse. A. J. Ayer asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. Relatedly the applied structuralism of Lévi-Strauss sourced religious language to the human subconscious in denying its transcendental meaning. J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialistic monists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality.[48][99]

The 20th century also saw the political advancement of atheism, spurred on by interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, increased religious freedom for minority religions lasted for a few years, before the policies of Stalinism turned towards repression of religion. The Soviet Union and other communist states promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means.[100]

Other leaders like E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Periyar), a prominent atheist leader of India, fought against Hinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[101] This was highlighted in 1956 when he made the Hindu god Rama wear a garland made of slippers and made antitheistic statements.[102]

In 1966, Time magazine asked "Is God Dead?"[103] in response to the Death of God theological movement, citing the estimation that nearly half of all people in the world lived under an anti-religious power, and millions more in Africa, Asia, and South America seemed to lack knowledge of the Christian God.[104] The following year, the Albanian government under Enver Hoxha announced the closure of all religious institutions in the country, declaring Albania the world's first officially atheist state.[105] These regimes enhanced the negative associations of atheism, especially where anti-communist sentiment was strong in the United States, despite the fact that prominent atheists were anti-communist.[106]

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the number of actively anti-religious regimes has reduced considerably. In 2006, Timothy Shah of the Pew Forum noted "a worldwide trend across all major religious groups, in which God-based and faith-based movements in general are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies."[107] But Gregory S. Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.[108]

인구 통계편집

 
"나는 영혼이나 신 또는 그러한 존재를 믿지 않는다."라고 답변한 유럽 국가 국민들의 비율(2005년)[109]

전 세계 무신론자들의 수를 정확히 통계내는 것은 어려운 일이다. '무신론'은 명확히 정의내리기 어려운 특징과 더불어 '무신론'과 '무교', '무신교' 차이점이 모호하기 때문이다.[110] 가령 힌두교의 무신론자들은 힌두교 신자와 순수 무신론자에 동시에 해당하므로 구분하기 쉽지 않다.[111] 2005년 출판된 브리태니커 백과사전에 의하면, 전 세계 인구 중 11.9%가 무교자이며 약 2.3%가 무신론자라고 한다. 이 통계는 불교와 같이 무신론적 종교를 포함하지 않은 수치이다.[8]

2006년 11월과 12월 파이낸셜 타임즈에서 미국과 다섯 유럽 국가들을 상대로 무신론자에 대한 설문조사를 하였다. 미국이 가장 낮은 6%의 무신론자 비율을 보였고 유럽 국가들에서는 이탈리아(7%), 스페인(11%), 영국(17%), 독일(20%), 프랑스(32%)순으로 높아졌다.[112][113]유럽 연합의 유사한 공식 조사에 따르면 유럽 연합 국가 전체 국민들 중 18%가 신을 믿지 않는다고 나타났다.[114] 조사 내의 다른 연구 결과들에 의하면 무신론자와 불가지론자, 무교자들의 비율이 낮은 국가로는 폴란드와 루마니아, 키프러스가,ref name="Martin2007b">Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T, 편집. 《The Cambridge companion to atheism》. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 51쪽. ISBN 0-521-84270-0. </ref> 높은 국가로는 스웨덴(85%)과 덴마크(80%), 노르웨이(72%), 핀란드(60%)순으로 나타났다.[10] 오스트레일리아 연방 통계국 또한 비슷한 조사를 하였는데, 19%가 무신론자가 포함된 무교자라고 응답하였다.[113] 일본에서는 64%에서 65%의 일본인들이 무신론자, 불가지론자, 무교자이다.[10]

 
전 세계 무신론자와 불가지론자의 비율

또한 유럽 연합의 설문 조사 결과는 유럽 시민들중 고학력자일수록 무신론자가 많아진다는 것을 보여준다.[114]. 다른 연구 결과들 또한 학력과 무신론자 비율에 관한 비례적 상관관계를 나타낸다.[115] 과학 논문 잡지 네이처는 1998년 설문조사를 인용하여 미국의 국립과학아카데미 회원 중 인격적인 신이나 사후세계를 믿는다고 응답한 사람은 7.0%에 불과했다고 발표하였다. 반면, 일반 미국 국민들 중 인격적 신을 믿는다는 사람은 85%에 달했다.[116] 같은 해 매사추세츠 공과 대학프랑크 설로웨이캘리포니아 주립 대학교마이클 셔머는 논문을 통해 미국내 '적법한' 성인(박사학위 소지자 12%, 대학교 졸업자 62% 표본)중 64%가 신의 존재를 믿는다는 것을 발표하였으며, 학력과 무신론 여부에 상관관계가 있음을 밝혀내었다.[117] 신앙심과 지적 능력사이의 반비례적 상관관계는 1927년부터 2002년까지 39건의 연구를 통하여 밝혀졌다.[118] 이러한 결과들은 1958년 옥스퍼드 대학교마이클 아가일교수의 통계적 메타 분석을 통하여 널리 받아들여졌다. 그는 미국내 학교 및 대학교 학생들의 지적능력과 신앙과의 반비례적 상관관계에 대한 7건의 연구를 분석하였다. 분석가들은 반비례적 상관관계를 명백하게 밝혀내었다. 그러나 종교적 관념에 영향을 미치는 가정 환경이나 사회적 지위같은 다른 인과관계를 함께 고려하지는 않았다.[119]

무신론과 종교 그리고 도덕성편집

 
불교는 조물주가 없는 이유로 주로 무신론적 종교로 분류된다.

스스로를 무신론자로 인식하는 사람들은 주로 무교적 성향을 띤다. 그러나 주요 종교의 몇몇 분파 또한 교리를 통하여 인격적이거나 창조력을 지닌 신의 존재를 배재한다.[120] 근래에는 무신론적이고 인본주의적인 유대인[121][122]나 무신론적인 기독교인[123][124][125]과 같은 공공연한 무신론자 신자들을 몇몇 종교들이 사역하기도 한다.

긍정적 무신론은 특정 신에 대한 명확한 신앙을 포함하지 않지만, 모든 영적 존재에 대한 불신을 의미하는 것은 아니다. 그렇기 때문에 몇몇 무신론자들은 도덕적 보편주의인본주의의 범위 안에 존재하며, 모든 인류와 도덕적 허무주의에 일관적으로 적용되는 영적 존재를 믿기도 한다.[126]

Although it is a philosophical truism, encapsulated in Plato's Euthyphro dilemma that the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary, the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate.[127][128][129] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[130]

Philosophers Susan Neiman[131] and Julian Baggini[132] (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselves — to be able to discern, for example, that "thou shalt steal" is immoral even if one's religion instructs it — and that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.[133] The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favour of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa, but also noted that the same tendency seems to be true of supposedly dispassionate and objective philosophers.[134] Cohen extends this argument in more detail in Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao in the case of the Koran which he sees as having had a generally unfortunate role in preserving medieval social codes through changes in secular society.[135]

Nonetheless, atheists such as Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[136] Indeed, religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves other, more ultimate interests[137]) have been correlated with authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[138] This argument—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials—has been used in response to claims of the supposed beneficial effects of belief in religion.[139] There are also ethical systems that are simply nonreligious, or not dependent upon religions, including utilitarianism, human rights, virtue ethics, social contract, and Kantian ethics.

같이 보기편집

주석편집

  1. Theism is used here in its most general sense, that is belief in one or more deities. This would then define atheism as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, regardless of whether the further conclusion is drawn that deities do not exist.
    • Nielsen, Kai (2009). 《Atheism》. 2009년 8월 23일에 확인함. Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)... 
    • Edwards, Paul (1967). 《Atheism》. Vol. 1. Collier-MacMillan. 175쪽. On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion. 
  2. Rowe, William L. (1998). Edward Craig, 편집. 《Atheism》. 
  3. religioustolerance.org's short article on Definitions of the term "Atheism" suggests that there is no consensus on the definition of the term. Simon Blackburn summarizes the situation in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none". Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions.
    • Runes, Dagobert D.(editor). 《Dictionary of Philosophy》. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. 2010년 2월 1일에 확인함. (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought  |id=에 templatestyles stripmarker가 있음(위치 1) (도움말) - entry by Vergilius Ferm
  4. Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
  5. “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary”. 2010년 4월 23일에 확인함. 
  6. “Definitions: Atheism”. Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama. 2010년 4월 23일에 확인함. 
  7. Karen, Armstrong. 《A History of God》. London: Vintage. ISBN 0-09-927367-5.  |id=에 templatestyles stripmarker가 있음(위치 1) (도움말) 인용 오류: 잘못된 <ref> 태그; "KArmstrong"이 다른 콘텐츠로 여러 번 정의되었습니다
  8. “Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005”. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. 2007년 4월 15일에 확인함. 
    • 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
    • 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
  9. http://www.thomsontimes.com/Facts_About_Japan.html
  10. Phil, Zuckerman. Martin, Michael T, 편집. 《The Cambridge companion to atheism》. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 56쪽. ISBN 0-521-84270-0.  |id=에 templatestyles stripmarker가 있음(위치 1) (도움말) 인용 오류: 잘못된 <ref> 태그; "Martin2007"이 다른 콘텐츠로 여러 번 정의되었습니다
  11. http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_114.html
  12. Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).
  13. Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (1995). "Humanism". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p 376. ISBN 0-19-866132-0
  14. Fales, Evan. "Naturalism and Physicalism", in Martin 2007, 122–131쪽
  15. Baggini 2003, 3–4쪽
  16. Cline, Austin (2005). “Buddhism and Atheism”. about.com. 2006년 10월 21일에 확인함. 
  17. Kedar, Nath Tiwari (1997). 《Comparative Religion》. Motilal Banarsidass. 50쪽. ISBN 8120802934. 
  18. Chakravarti, Sitansu (1991). 《Hinduism, a way of life》. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 71쪽. ISBN 9788120808997. 
  19. The word αθεοι—in any of its forms—appears nowhere else in the Septuagint or the New Testament. Robertson, A.T. (1960) [1932]. 〈Ephesians: Chapter 2〉. 《Word Pictures in the New Testament》. Broadman Press. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in Ro 1:18–32. 
  20. Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition")). 《Atheism in Pagan Antiquity》. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. 
  21. Rendered as Athisme: Golding, Arthur; Philip Sidney (1587). 《Mornay's Woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists, and other infidels》. London. xx. 310쪽. Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes.  Translation of De la verite de la religion chrestienne (1581).
  22. "http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014052 atheist". 《옥스퍼드 영어 사전》. 옥스퍼드 대학교 출판부. 제 2판 1989.
  23. Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). 《The Psalmes of David and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries》. Ep. Ded. 3쪽. The Atheistes which say..there is no God.  Translated from French.
  24. Hanmer, Meredith (1577). 《The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius》. London. 63쪽. OCLC 55193813. The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men. 
  25. Burton, Robert (1621). 《The Anatomy of Melancholy》. III. iv. II. i쪽. Cosen-germans to these men are many of our great Philosophers and Deists. 
  26. Martin, Edward (1662). 〈Five Letters〉. 《His opinion concerning the difference between the Church of England and Geneva [etc.]》. London. 45쪽. To have said my office..twice a day..among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason, Puritanes [etc.]. 
  27. "Secondly, that nothing out of nothing, in the sense of the atheistic objectors, viz. that nothing, which once was not, could by any power whatsoever be brought into being, is absolutely false; and that, if it were true, it would make no more against theism than it does against atheism.." Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Chapter V Section II p.73
  28. Dryden, John (1682). 《Religio laici, or A laymans faith, a poem》. London. Preface쪽. OCLC 11081103. ...namely, that Deism, or the principles of natural worship, are only the faint remnants or dying flames of revealed religion in the posterity of Noah... 
  29. The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier, irregular formation, atheonism, dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words athean and atheal are dated to 1611 and 1612 respectively. prep. by J. A. Simpson ... (1989). 《The Oxford English Dictionary》 Seco판. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-861186-2. 
  30. In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. Britannica (1911). “Atheonism”. 《Encyclopædia Britannica》 11판. 
  31. Martin, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-521-84270-0.
  32. "Atheism". 《Encyclopedia Britannica》. 1911. 2007년 6월 7일에 확인함. 
  33. Britannica (1992). “Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs”. 《Encyclopædia Britannica》 15판 1: 666. 0852294735. 2006년 10월 27일에 확인함. 
  34. d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). 《Good Sense》. 2006년 10월 27일에 확인함. 
  35. Smith 1979, 14쪽.
  36. Cudworth, Ralph (1678). 《The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated》. 
  37. See, for instance, “Atheists call for church head to retract slur”. 1996년 9월 3일. 2008년 7월 2일에 확인함. 
  38. Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). “Atheism and Society”. 2007년 1월 10일에 확인함. 
  39. Flew, Antony. "The Presumption of Atheism". The Presumption of Atheism and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976. pp 14ff.
  40. Cline, Austin (2006). “Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?”. about.com. 2006년 10월 21일에 확인함. 
  41. Maritain, Jacques (1949년 7월). “On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism”. 《The Review of Politics》 11 (3): 267–280. doi:10.1017/S0034670500044168. 
  42. Stevens, Robert (1813). 《Sermons on our duty towards God, our neighbour, and ourselves》 4판. London: Self published. 10–11쪽. OCLC 26059549. 2009년 9월 1일에 확인함. 
  43. Bishop Burnet (1813). 〈Discourse of the Pastoral Care〉. 《The young minister's companion: or, A collection of valuable and scarce treatises on the pastoral office...》. Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong. 166쪽. OCLC 7381237. 2009년 9월 1일에 확인함. 
  44. Kenny, Anthony (2006). 〈Why I Am Not an Atheist〉. 《What I believe》. Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8971-0. The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed. 
  45. “Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven”. Irish Times. 2009년 8월 19일에 확인함. 
  46. Baggini 2003, 30–34쪽. "Who seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement."
  47. Baggini 2003, 22쪽. "A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."
  48. Smart, J.C.C. (2004년 3월 9일). “Atheism and Agnosticism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. 
  49. Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Books: 2006, p. 50. (ISBN 0-618-68000-4)
  50. Rao, Goparaju (1972). 《Positive Atheism》. Vijayawada, India: Atheist Centre, Patamata, Vijayawada, India. 
  51. Walker, Cliff. “The Philosophy of Positive Atheism”. 2008년 11월 19일에 확인함. 
  52. Translation of Latin text from "Summa impietas" (1552), Picta poesis, by Barthélemy Aneau. Glasgow University Emblem Website. Retrieved on 2007-03-26.
  53. Zdybicka 2005, 20쪽.
  54. Schafersman, Steven D. "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry". Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise. Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas. February 1997. Revised May 2007. Retrieved on 2007-APR-09.
  55. Zdybicka 2005, 21쪽.
  56. Drange, Theodore M. (1998). "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels, Secular Web Library. Retrieved on 2007-APR-07.
  57. Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, Truth and Logic. Dover. pp. 115–116. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H. H. Price".
  58. {{Zdybicka, 2005. [1]. p=19}}.
  59. David Hume. 《Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion》. Project Gutenberg (e-text). 
  60. Various authors. "Logical Arguments for Atheism". Internet Infidels, The Secular Web Library. Retrieved on 2007-APR-09.
  61. Drange, Theodore M. (1996). "The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief". Internet Infidels, Secular Web Library. Retrieved 2007-04-18.
  62. V.A. Gunasekara, “The Buddhist Attitude to God.”. 2008년 1월 2일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서.  In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha."
  63. Feuerbach, Ludwig (1841) The Essence of Christianity
  64. Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press, 1974. Pages 51–52.
  65. Bakunin, Michael (1916). “God and the State”. New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. 
  66. Gleeson, David (2006). “Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism”. American Chronicle. 2006년 10월 21일에 확인함. 
  67. Smith 1979, 275쪽. "Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy."
  68. Pascal, Blaise (1669). Pensées, II: "The Misery of Man Without God".
  69. Pandian (1996). 《India, that is, sidd》. Allied Publishers. 64쪽. ISBN 9788170235613. 
  70. Dasgupta, Surendranath (1992). 《A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1》. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 258쪽. ISBN 9788120804128. 
  71. Tripathi (2001). 《Psycho-Religious Studies of Man, Mind and Nature》. Global Vision Publishing House. 81쪽. ISBN 9788187746041. 
  72. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. (Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227–249. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.
  73. Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 55.
  74. Joshi, L.R. (1966). “A New Interpretation of Indian Atheism”. 《Philosophy East and West》 16 (3/4): 189–206. doi:10.2307/1397540. 
  75. Baggini 2003, 73–74쪽. "Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment."
  76. Solmsen, Friedrich (1942). Plato's Theology. Cornell University Press. p 25.
  77. ...nullos esse omnino Diagoras et Theodorus Cirenaicus... Cicero, Marcus Tullius: De natura deorum. Comments and English text by Richard D. McKirahan. Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College, 1997, page 3. ISBN 0-929524-89-6
  78. "religion, study of". (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on April 2, 2007.
  79. Diogenes Laërtius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, ii
  80. Cicero, Lucullus, 121. in Reale, G., A History of Ancient Philosophy. SUNY Press. (1985).
  81. “Atheism”. 《The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition》. Columbia University Press. 2005. 2006년 11월 4일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. 
  82. Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Nicholas D. Smith (2004). 《Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates》. Routledge. 112쪽. ISBN 0415156815.  In particular, he argues that the claim he is a complete atheist contradicts the other part of the indictment, that he introduced "new divinities".
  83. Apology
  84. The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1
  85. The Republic
  86. Fragments of Euhemerus' work in Ennius' Latin translation have been preserved in Patristic writings (e.g. by Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea), which all rely on earlier fragments in Diodorus 5,41–46 & 6.1. Testimonies, especially in the context of polemical criticism, are found e.g. in Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus 8.
  87. Plutarch, Moralia—Isis and Osiris 23
  88. BBC. “Ethics and Religion—Atheism”. bbc.co.uk. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. 
  89. On the Nature of Things by Lucretius - 프로젝트 구텐베르크 Book I, "Substance is Eternal". Translated by W.E. Leonard. 1997. Retrieved on 2007-APR-12.
  90. Julius Caesar (100–44 BCE), who leaned considerably toward Epicureanism, also rejected the idea of an afterlife, which e.g. lead to his plea against the death sentence during the trial against Catiline, where he spoke out against the Stoicist Cato (cf. Sallust, The War With Catiline, Caesar's speech: 51.29 & Cato's reply: 52.13).
  91. Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1980). "The History of Freethought and Atheism". An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. New York: Prometheus. Retrieved on 2007-APR-03.
  92.   "Atheism" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
  93. Maycock, A. L. and Ronald Knox (2003). Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism: An Introductory Study. ISBN 0-7661-7290-2.
  94. Zdybicka 2005, 4쪽
  95. Michel Onfray on Jean Meslier on William Paterson University accessed at January 19, 2008
  96. d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). 《The system of nature》. 2007년 10월 31일에 확인함. 
  97. Ray, Matthew Alun (2003). 《Subjectivity and Irreligion: Atheism and Agnosticism in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche》. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 9780754634560. 2007년 4월 12일에 확인함. 
  98. Overall, Christine (2007). 《Feminism and Atheism》. ISBN 9780521842709.  in Martin 2007, 233–246쪽
  99. Zdybicka 2005, 16쪽
  100. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. (2002). 《The Gulag Archipelago》. Harper Perennial Modern Classics. ISBN 0-06-000776-1. 
  101. Michael, S. M. (1999). 〈Dalit Visions of a Just Society〉. S. M. Michael (ed.). 《Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India》. Lynne Rienner Publishers. 31–33쪽. ISBN 1555876978. 
  102. "He who created god was a fool, he who spreads his name is a scoundrel, and he who worships him is a barbarian." Hiorth, Finngeir (1996). "Atheism in South India". International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Humanist News. Retrieved on 2007-05-30
  103. TIME Magazine cover online. 8 Apr 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  104. "Toward a Hidden God". Time Magazine online. 8 Apr 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  105. Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.
  106. Rafford, R.L. (1987). “Atheophobia—an introduction”. 《Religious Humanism》 21 (1): 32–37. 
  107. "Timothy Samuel Shah Explains 'Why God is Winning'." 2006-07-18. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved 2007-04-18.
  108. Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman (2007). “Why the Gods Are Not Winning”. 《Edge》 209. 2007년 5월 16일에 확인함. 
  109. Eurobarometer (2005)
  110. “Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, Section on accuracy of non-Religious Demographic Data”. 2008년 3월 28일에 확인함. 
  111. Huxley, Andrew (2002). 《Religion, law and tradition: comparative studies in religious law》. Routledge. 120쪽. ISBN 9780700716890. 
  112. “Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll”. Financial Times/Harris Interactive. 2006년 12월 20일. 2007년 1월 17일에 확인함. 
  113. “Characteristics of the Population”. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. 2011년 1월 23일에 확인함. 
  114. 《Social values, Science and Technology》 (PDF). Directorate General Research, European Union. 2005. 7–11쪽. 
  115. 인용 오류: <ref> 태그가 잘못되었습니다; Zuckerman라는 이름을 가진 주석에 제공한 텍스트가 없습니다
  116. Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham (1998). “Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God”. 《Nature》 394 (6691): 313. PMID 9690462. doi:10.1038/28478.  Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved on 2006-12-17
  117. Shermer, Michael (1999). 《How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God》. New York: William H Freeman. pp76–79쪽. ISBN 0-7167-3561-X.  |id=에 templatestyles stripmarker가 있음(위치 1) (도움말)
  118. According to Dawkins (2006), p. 103. Dawkins cites Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."
  119. Argyle, Michael (1958). 《Religious Behaviour》. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 93–96쪽. ISBN 0-415-17589-5. 
  120. Winston, Robert (Ed.) (2004). 《Human》. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. 299쪽. ISBN 0-7566-1901-7. Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods. 
  121. “Humanistic Judaism”. BBC. 2006년 7월 20일. 2006년 10월 25일에 확인함. 
  122. Levin, S. (1995년 5월). “Jewish Atheism”. 《New Humanist》 110 (2): 13–15. 
  123. “Christian Atheism”. BBC. 2006년 5월 17일. 2006년 10월 25일에 확인함. 
  124. Altizer, Thomas J. J. (1967). 《The Gospel of Christian Atheism》. London: Collins. 102–103쪽. 2006년 10월 27일에 확인함. 
  125. Lyas, Colin (1970년 1월). “On the Coherence of Christian Atheism”. 《Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy》 45 (171): 1–19. 
  126. Smith 1979, 21–22쪽
  127. Smith 1979, 275쪽. "Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread -or more disastrous in its effects -than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god."
  128. In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Book Eleven: Brother Ivan Fyodorovich, Chapter 4) there is the famous argument that If there is no God, all things are permitted.: "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'"
  129. For Kant, the presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams..." (Critique of Pure Reason, A811).
  130. Baggini 2003, 38쪽
  131. Susan Neiman (2006년 11월 6일). 《Beyond Belief Session 6》 (Conference). Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA: The Science Network. 
  132. Baggini 2003, 40쪽
  133. Baggini 2003, 43쪽
  134. 101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp184-5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.)
  135. Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Cohen, M, Second edition 2008
  136. Harris, Sam (2006a). “The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos”. Free Inquiry. 2006년 10월 29일에 확인함. 
  137. Moreira-almeida, A.; Lotufo Neto, F.; Koenig, H.G. (2006). “Religiousness and mental health: a review”. 《Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria》 28 (3): 242–250. PMID 16924349. 2007년 7월 12일에 확인함. 
  138. See for example: Kahoe, R.D. (June 1977). "Intrinsic Religion and Authoritarianism: A Differentiated Relationship". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 16(2). pp. 179-182. Also see: Altemeyer, Bob and Bruce Hunsberger (1992). "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice". International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2(2). pp. 113-133.
  139. Harris, Sam (2005). “An Atheist Manifesto”. Truthdig. 2006년 10월 29일에 확인함. In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree. 

References편집

Further reading편집

바깥 고리편집

틀:Template group