What do you make of Tim O'Neil's "History for Atheists"?

[Tammuz]

THE GREAT MYTHS

History for Atheists’ “Great Myths” series is a collection of longer articles that addresses the most persistent and widespread myths about history that tend to be used by anti-theist activists. This is an ongoing project, so the list below will be added to as the series continues, with new additions made about every two to three months. Future additions will include:

- Hypatia of Alexandria’s murder and the claim she was a martyr for science and learning
- The claim that the medieval Church retarded the development of technology and that the Middle Ages was a technically stagnant period as a result
- Several articles on the Galileo Affair and its historical, political and cultural contexts and how a caricature of Galileo’s story has come to predominate in popular culture
- Articles on the relationship between the Nazi regime and the Papacy and the Christian churches responses to the Holocaust
- The claim that Soviet and other twentieth century Communist regimes’ oppression had nothing to do with atheism

The author has articles about some of what he considers to be "the great myths":

The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth

The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism

The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science

The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicea and the Bible

The Great Myths 5: The Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria

The Great Myths 6: Copernicus’ Deathbed Publication

The Great Myths 7: “Hitler’s Pope”?

What to make of all of this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

At first glance it strikes me as revisionism and apologetics.

 

[blastula]

I've come across his stuff for awhile and I think he's credible and usually right. He's not a historian, but he cites them or primary sources.

 

[abaddon]

The article on why Giordano Bruno was not a martyred scientist but was a neoplatonic mystic with little interest in empiricism rings true to what I had read about him.

I think it's important to rethink atheist talking points and make sure the facts are straight. So I applaud this effort.

 

[Lion IRC]

About the author;
"As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should..."

 

[Tim ONeill]

I'm glad some people have found my site useful. Though there are a couple of odd comments here:

At first glance it strikes me as revisionism and apologetics.

My articles present the current consensus positions of modern professional historians. That is the exact opposite of "revisionism". And "apologism" for what, exactly? Accurate history, perhaps? Checking your facts? Not relying on popular cliches and Hollywood for your knowledge of history?

About the author;
"As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should..."

I have no idea what this truncated semi-quote is supposed to be saying. What I said was:

"As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should do all they can to put emotion, wishful thinking and ideology aside when examining any subject and that they should acquaint themselves as thoroughly as possible with the relevant scholarship and take account of any consensus of experts in any field before taking a position."

That seems pretty reasonable to me. You disagree? And why did you chop off most of the sentence? Very odd ...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A lot of the points Tim ONeill makes are indeed old and well documented more or less by sober historians. Avoiding debunked claims by atheists is always a good idea because many theists will jump on any such error and use that to deny anything else that particular atheist has to say. Though a few of these things have a few twists and turns, history is often messy and complex. Bruno did indeed speculate there could be other planets with life, which ticked off the orthodox Catholics, but it was really a minor point in the final scheme of things that lead to Bruno's execution. Galileo did offer to let the orthodox Catholics who opposed him see with their own eyes the heavens in his telescope, and some notably refused the offer. And went on in some cases to make up ridiculous claims to deny what Galileo's telescope revealed, such as the moon was not a perfect sphere. And of course, the silliness of the flood of Noah myth and creationism's glaring errors does no stop the more foolish claims of many theists. Or make them think.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Bruno did indeed speculate there could be other planets with life, which ticked off the orthodox Catholics, but it was really a minor point in the final scheme of things that lead to Bruno's execution.

It actually wasn't that minor, though it was only one of a number of "heretical" ideas that got him burned. The key points that get ignored are (i) he got that idea from a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, Nicholas of Cusa, so it was not that it was some inherently terrible idea, it was more how he combined it with the rest of his kooky mystical cosmology and (ii) it was not a scientific conception of multiple worlds, but a purely speculative and metaphysical one.

Galileo did offer to let the orthodox Catholics who opposed him see with their own eyes the heavens in his telescope, and some notably refused the offer.

Ummm, no. That's a myth. Firstly, the people who resisted the implications of his discoveries were Aristotelian professors, not clergy. The Jesuits and the Papal astronomers actually embraced his new method, made their own telescopes and checked his observations and then celebrated his discoveries by giving him an honorary degree. It was his academic peers who resisted most, but not because they were "orthodox Catholics", but because he was defying centuries of Greek natural philosophy. No-one refused to look through his telescope. Galileo’s friend Paolo Gualdo, who was a professor of Aristotle at the University of Padua, was not convinced by the blurry images seen in these early instruments and said they gave him a headache - which shows he did look through his friend's telescope. Galileo made a joke when his he heard of the death of of Guilio Libri, another Aristotelian this time at the University of Pisa, that “never having wanted to see [the moons of Jupiter] on Earth, perhaps he’ll see them on the way to heaven?” This may be as close as we get to anyone possibly actually refusing to observe Galileo's discovery, though even here it's hard to tell.

And went on in some cases to make up ridiculous claims to deny what Galileo's telescope revealed, such as the moon was not a perfect sphere.

Yes, but - again - that was trying to preserve Aristotelian cosmology, not religious orthodoxy. That resistance tells us about the conservatism of long-established scientific ideas, but tells us nothing much about religion. As I've already noted, the religious thinkers of the time embraced his discoveries quite quickly and celebrated them when they had verified them. It was the academic establishment which resisted.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The fact that Galileo offered to demonstrate that his telescoped showed what he claimed to some orthodox Catholics who refused to take him up on the offer came from Galileo himself who related that in a letter to a sympathetic friend of his.

From Wikipedia

My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?
Letter to Johannes Kepler (1610), as quoted in The Crime of Galileo (1955) by Giorgio De Santillana

And the ridiculous claims about the moon were made and passed for thinking by the theologians, who had made Aristotle part of the foundations of their theology. Not something that is by any means dead. Witness the blog and writings of Ed Feser, Orthodox Catholic apologist extraordinaire. Their theology held the moon was a perfect sphere, which it is not, again, amply demonstrated by examining the moon with a telescope. Which Galileo did. Their bigotry over rode the observable facts in their mind.

In smashing uncritical errors, one should tread carefully lest we carelessly overstate our case.

 

[Tim ONeill]

The fact that Galileo offered to demonstrate that his telescoped showed what he claimed to some orthodox Catholics who refused to take him up on the offer came from Galileo himself who related that in a letter to a sympathetic friend of his.

Unfortunately Santillana didn't bother to footnote that quote. I and others have made searches on the collected letters of Galileo and found it nowhere. And all other attempts to find this alleged letter lead back to ... Santillana's book. This is the problem with relying on Wiki rather than having a good grasp of the relevant material. That aside, what I said was the myth was the idea that the Catholic clergy refused to do so. As I said, they actually embraced the new technology while conservative academics like Gualdo and Libri were still rejecting it.

And the ridiculous claims about the moon were made and passed for thinking by the theologians, who had made Aristotle part of the foundations of their theology.

The objections made by the academics in question - none of whom were theologians - were based on arguments from physics and optics. The only people who took part in the discussion around Galileo's new telescopic discoveries who were theologians were the Jesuits like Christopher Clavius, Christoph Grienberger, Paolo Lembo and Odo van Malecote. And they did what a proper rationalist should do - recreated the relevant equipment, repeated the observations and confirmed his findings. It was not the clergy who rejected his discoveries and the people who did so did not do so because of theology.

In smashing uncritical errors, one should tread carefully lest we carelessly overstate our case.

I'm pretty sure where I'm treading. I'd politely suggest trying to lecture people who have studied this stuff for decades on the basis of a quick Google of Wiki is not the wisest course of action.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm glad some people have found my site useful. Though there are a couple of odd comments here:

For what it's worth, I gave Tammuz a +rep and thanks for the thread and links to your site.
I already knew of your work from other fora. You've been around the atheosphere for a long time and although you don't want praise from someone like me, you seem like a heavy hitter and you've got my respect.

About the author;
"As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should..."

I have no idea what this truncated semi-quote is supposed to be saying.

Those four words - rationalist, believe & people should - caught my eye because I'm not used to seeing them so close together and coming from a self professed rationalist. It's like when the atheist uses the term "confident". (From the Latin con fide (with faith.)

What I said was:
"As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should do all they can to put emotion, wishful thinking and ideology aside when examining any subject and that they should acquaint themselves as thoroughly as possible with the relevant scholarship and take account of any consensus of experts in any field before taking a position."

I agree 100%
But folks tell me I have no right to make ought statements based on my (strong) personal belief that something is...blah blah blah.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yep. I usually agree with my own personal beliefs too.
And I actually think that consensus is not tantamount to an argumentum ad populam.
There's a lot of consensus that a Higher Being exists.

You disagree? And why did you chop off most of the sentence? Very odd ...

I chopped it off because it wouldn't have mattered what you said thereafter.
"As a rationalist I strongly believe that people should..."
- Take Jesus Christ into their heart
- Oppose abortion
- Disbelieve all hearsay evidence
- Be presuppositional atheists
- Question the nature of reality
- Vote for Donald Trump

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh yeah and you get props for having this in among the many other credits you've received.
https://historyforatheists.com/about-the-author-and-a-faq/

"“Tim O’Neill is a known liar …. an asscrank …. a hack …. a tinfoil hatter …. stupid …. a crypto-Christian, posing as an atheist …. a pseudo-atheist shill for Christian triumphalism [and] delusionally insane.”
– Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, unemployed blogger

 

[Tim ONeill]

For what it's worth, I gave Tammuz a +rep and thanks for the thread and links to your site.
I already knew of your work from other fora. You've been around the atheosphere for a long time and although you don't want praise from someone like me, you seem like a heavy hitter and you've got my respect.

Okay.

Those four words - rationalist, believe & people should - caught my eye because I'm not used to seeing them so close together and coming from a self professed rationalist.

So you've knee-jerked at the use of the word "believe"? Seriously? In that context, all it means is "I think"/"I accept as a broad principle". So where is the problem?

It's like when the atheist uses the term "confident". (From the Latin con fide (with faith.)

No, actually, it's not.

I agree 100%
But folks tell me I have no right to make ought statements based on my (strong) personal belief that something is...blah blah blah.

See above about what "believe" meant in my sentence. Context is important.

Yep. I usually agree with my own personal beliefs too.

I was saying "can you show me how what I said is not reasonable?"

And I actually think that consensus is not tantamount to an argumentum ad populam.

A scholarly consensus of properly qualified expert professionals certainly isn't, no.

There's a lot of consensus that a Higher Being exists.

True. And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

I chopped it off because it wouldn't have mattered what you said thereafter.

Yes, actually it would. Especially if you read the whole sentence properly and didn't fixate on an erroneous (and quite weird) misinterpretation of the simple word "believe". Maybe you should start again and read what I actually said more carefully.

 

[Lion IRC]

So you've knee-jerked at the use of the word "believe"? Seriously? In that context, all it means is "I think"/"I accept as a broad principle". So where is the problem?

Fair enough.
I believe think God exists.

Yep. I usually agree with my own personal beliefs too.

I was saying "can you show me how what I said is not reasonable?"

I thought I already agreed with you?

And I actually think that consensus is not tantamount to an argumentum ad populam.

A scholarly consensus of properly qualified expert professionals certainly isn't, no.

Agreed. Priests are professionals. It's their profession.

There's a lot of consensus that a Higher Being exists.

True. And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

Well that's just because you don't agree with the expert consensus to which I was referring.

I chopped it off because it wouldn't have mattered what you said thereafter.

Yes, actually it would. Especially if you read the whole sentence properly and didn't fixate on an erroneous (and quite weird) misinterpretation of the simple word "believe". Maybe you should start again and read what I actually said more carefully.

Nope. I read it in full the first time.
And I understood it sufficiently to agree with what you wrote.
Where's the problem?

 

[Tim ONeill]

Fair enough.
I believe think God exists.

Where's the problem?

The problem is that conflating any sentence with "I believe" or "I think" with statement of a belief in God, regardless of what comes next, is bonkers. "I think grass is green" and "I think God exists" are not equivalent statements. "I believe we should try to be truthful with ourselves" and "I believe God exists" are also not equivalent statements. Context. And content.

 

[ruby sparks]

THE GREAT MYTHS

History for Atheists’ “Great Myths” series is a collection of longer articles that addresses the most persistent and widespread myths about history that tend to be used by anti-theist activists. This is an ongoing project, so the list below will be added to as the series continues, with new additions made about every two to three months. Future additions will include:

- Hypatia of Alexandria’s murder and the claim she was a martyr for science and learning
- The claim that the medieval Church retarded the development of technology and that the Middle Ages was a technically stagnant period as a result
- Several articles on the Galileo Affair and its historical, political and cultural contexts and how a caricature of Galileo’s story has come to predominate in popular culture
- Articles on the relationship between the Nazi regime and the Papacy and the Christian churches responses to the Holocaust
- The claim that Soviet and other twentieth century Communist regimes’ oppression had nothing to do with atheism

The author has articles about some of what he considers to be "the great myths":

The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth

The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism

The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science

The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicea and the Bible

The Great Myths 5: The Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria

The Great Myths 6: Copernicus’ Deathbed Publication

The Great Myths 7: “Hitler’s Pope”?

What to make of all of this?

Thanks for posting. Much good and interesting reading there.

My general impression (only having read a small amount so far) is that a lot of the 'myths' may not fully be myths, although they may contain inaccuracies and overstatements and simplifications that it is good to see corrected and deconstructed.

I guess there is a risk of going too far. Most of these things are not simple black or white issues, but nuanced shades of grey.

I do fully agree that what is called 'new/angry atheism' sometimes distorts certain matters and demonises religion in ways that are not entirely or sometimes even largely reasonable. That is to say that I think they fall below the rational standards we might hope for.

Finally, it occurred to me to wonder if there is a verb form of 'bunk' that is relevant here (ie not as in to bunk up with someone in a bed) and I couldn't find one (cursory search only) so I'm wondering where the term debunk originated? From the noun bunkum? Probably.

 

[Tim ONeill]

My general impression (only having read a small amount so far) is that a lot of the 'myths' may not fully be myths, although they may contain inaccuracies and overstatements and simplifications that it is good to see corrected and deconstructed.

I guess there is a risk of going too far. Most of these things are not simple black or white issues, but nuanced shades of grey.

Either the Medieval Church taught the earth was flat or it didn't. It didn't. Myth.
Either Christmas was based on a Mithraic festival or it wasn't. It wasn't. Myth.
Either Bruno was executed over scientific ideas or he wasn't. He wasn't. Myth.
Either Constantine created the canon of the Bible or he didn't. He didn't. Myth.
Either Christians burned down the Great Library or they didn't. They didn't. Myth.
Either Copernicus delayed publication of his ideas until he was close to death to avoid persecution by the Church or he didn't. He didn't. Myth.
Either Pius XII was pro-Nazi or he wasn't. He wasn't. Myth.

These are all perfectly black and white.

 

[ruby sparks]

Either Pius XII was pro-Nazi or he wasn't. He wasn't. Myth.

These are all perfectly black and white.

That is the only one I have read (most of) so far, and I would say that it is not a black and white issue.

More to the point, asking if one person, albeit the titular head of an organisation, was pro or anti, is in some ways not a complete question or necessarily the most relevant one in any case, in terms of addressing the general issue of the church as a whole. Even if he himself was, hypothetically, 100% anti, how much would it elucidate?

And where does passivity lie? Somewhere between pro and anti? As an analogy, I'm sure the RCC was, and its popes were, anti-child abuse. But did they actively do much about it? No.

I am no expert on these matters, but I recall reading a history of the Spanish Civil War (Anthony Beevor's book) for example, and my eyebrows raised a few times at the material on RCC responses to fascism, in both Spain and Italy, as I (vaguely) recall (it was some time ago that I read it). And we all know something of the relationship between Germany, Spain and Italy during those times.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Either Pius XII was pro-Nazi or he wasn't. He wasn't. Myth.

These are all perfectly black and white.

That is the only one I have read (most of) so far, and I would say that it is not a black and white issue.

Whether he was pro-Nazi or not IS black and white. He was not.

More to the point, asserting that one person, albeit the titular head of an organisation, was pro or anti, is in some ways not a complete or most relevant question, in terms of addressing the general issue of the church as a whole. Even if he himself was, hypothetically, 100% anti, how much does it elucidate?

It elucidates that those who claim he was pro-Nazi when he was not are dead wrong. You seem to be noting that, in showing that they are wrong, I show that the situation was complex, his actions and those of others were driven by many different factors and that he and they were not always consistent. If so, then good. The whole point of my articles is to show that history is not simple and doesn't conform to neat fairy tale structures. But the myth there IS a myth - Pius XII was anti-Nazi and was not "Hitler's Pope".

 

[ruby sparks]

Whether he was pro-Nazi or not IS black and white. He was not.

I disagree. And in any case..........there may be an element of that which is missing the point.

I belatedly edited my previous post, possibly while you were writing.