Cult of Reason: Was It Atheistic or Not?

[asianboy]

Firstly, I would like to say that I am interested in this subject because some Christian brought up the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

As you can see, the article listed the cult as being "atheistic". Even thought the article looks quite accurate to me for it has a lot of sources, I still ended up researching it some more. What I find is quite interesting

From: THE FRENCH REVOLUTION A POLITICAL HISTORY 1789-1804
Chapter III THE RELIGIOUS POLICY BEFORE THERMIDOR 9TH, Laws against refractory priests. -- II. Dechristianisation. pg 162 — 163

The "cult of Reason," organised in Paris by the sections, spread through the provinces also, under the auspices of the people's clubs and the deputy-commissioners. Many of the churches were closed, then converted into Temples of Reason; there were "Goddesses of Reason" and anti-Catholic processions. Nearly all the cities appeared to rally to the new worship. In the south-west especially, under the auspices of Dartigoeyte and Cavaignac, the process of dechristianisation was so violent as to cause scandal.

Taken on the whole, this movement, which was almost universally Deistic, not materialistic nor atheistic, seems to have been, in Paris, cheerful and superficial so long as the people took part in it; but pedantic and sterile when embraced by a few men of letters only. The provinces took the matter more seriously. In the de-partments, and especially in the cities, there were serious and sincere attempts to abolish the ancient religion and to establish a rationalistic worship. The Goddesses of Reason were not actresses, as in Paris, but in almost every case, and this the most hostile witnesses do not deny, beautiful and virtuous young girls, belonging to the upper middle classes.

This cult was eagerly adopted in those critical hours of the national defence (at the end of 1793) by the generality of active patriots, by the Jacobins, by the members of the revolutionary committees, by the municipal officers; in short, by the whole militant Revolution.

One must not look to find a different aspect, a different spirit, among the worshippers of Reason, accordingly as they were, for example, Bretons or Pro-vençals. If the festivals of Reason were not everywhere celebrated in the same manner; if the zeal for "de-christianisation" was more violent in Strasburg, for instance, and Auch, than in Chartres or Limoges, it was because from the height of the Strasburg steeple men could see the Austrian outposts; because at Auch the Revolution was threatened by the machinations of the clergy; while at Chartres the enemy was far away, and at Limoges the Revolution had no dangerous adversaries.

The cult of Reason was less a change of the religious conscience of the French than an expedient of patriotic defence against the Catholic clergy. Little by little it became transformed into the worship of the Patrie. The busts of the philosophers in the temples were soon replaced or eclipsed by those of Marat, Chalier, and Le Peletier, who were the personifications, in the popular mind, not of the doctrines of the new cult, but of revolutionary France attacked by reaction. Men finally turned away from the cold image of Reason, to honour above all the trinity of the bleeding martyrs of patriotism.

Not materialistic or atheistic? Now I'm confused. Unfortunately, the person who gave me the quote is not here any more. I tried searching my college library (which has a lot of books on the French Revolution), but each of the books either does not contain any infos about the Cult of Reason or contains only brief and uninformative excerpts about it. Since this forum contains a lot intelligent people, I was hoping that someone could give me the correct answer.

And since I don't like to create multiple topics, I would like to ask another question. Was the Albanian Revolution atheistic? I keep on hearing this claim, but can never find anything to support it in my college library.

[cfmonkey45]

If I'm not mistaken, there was an atheistic movement, but there was also a Deistic movement in France. The Atheists were ultimately overthrown by Robespierre, who disliked both them and Catholics, who in turn disliked both Deists and atheists, who also both disliked Deists and Catholics. So it seems to be an unholy triangle of haters. I'm pretty sure, if memory serves correct, that the Cult of Reason was atheistic, but was replaced by Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being.

The Catholics responded by forming several Catholic and Monarchist leagues, such as the Vendée Uprising. Supposedly, the French Reaction against Catholics in Vendée, namely scorched earth and massacres of peoples regardless of age, political or religious affiliation, or gender, constitute the first modern act of genocide.


For Albania, here's a copy-paste from Wikipedia's article on the Socialist People's Republic of Albania:

In 1967, the authorities conducted a violent campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania, claiming that religion had divided the Albanian nation and kept it mired in backwardness. Student agitators combed the countryside, forcing Albanians to quit practicing their faith. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions had been closed or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and workshops by year's end. A special decree abrogated the charters by which the country's main religious communities had operated. The campaign culminated in an announcement that Albania had become the world's first atheistic state, a feat touted as one of Enver Hoxha's greatest achievements.

If I'm also not mistaken, Albania was declared the world's first entirely atheistic state in the 1960s. Time Magazine ran an article titled "Is God Dead?" in reference to how about half of the world's population now lay under Anti-theistic regimes, and Albania was referenced there, IIRC.


Moreover, what the Albanians did was not necessarily out of character with what most Communist regimes did. Around 80% of the Orthodox Clergy in Russia were imprisoned or killed, and large numbers of churches were closed down or demolished, even some cultural landmarks like Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, which was meant to be replaced by an ugly neo-Gothic Soviet Administrative skyscraper but instead remained an open pit until the 1960s when it was converted into a massive swimming pool.

[SigniferOne]

The Cult of Reason seems to have been jointly shared by the atheists and the deists. The deists were unwilling to let go of the First Cause, even if they killed or persecuted all Christian manifestations of religion, and the atheists were happy to go along for the sake of compromise. Of course it helped that it was called the Cult of Reason, so they could worship their own particular idol as well, namely themselves.

[justicar5]

The Cult of Reason seems to have been jointly shared by the atheists and the deists. The deists were unwilling to let go of the First Cause, even if they killed or persecuted all Christian manifestations of religion, and the atheists were happy to go along for the sake of compromise. Of course it helped that it was called the Cult of Reason, so they could worship their own particular idol as well, namely themselves.

unlike the Abrahamic cults who have always worshipped at the altar of blood, hate and bigotry Mind you they do hold the record for the most people killed by an ideology I guess, so the cult masters must be proud of that.

[SigniferOne]

unlike the Abrahamic cults who have always worshipped at the altar of blood, hate and bigotry Mind you they do hold the record for the most people killed by an ideology I guess, so the cult masters must be proud of that.

I recommend learning history.

[justicar5]

I recommend learning history.

I return the favour look at all the people killed, the nations wiped of the planet for having the audacity to not fall down on there knees to which ever band of cultists was stealing all there treasures and land in the name of the prince of peace/religon of peace/chosen race. It is a trubute to human nature that some people did good while believing the vitriolic malevolence in those texts.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I return the favour look at all the people killed, the nations wiped of the planet for having the audacity to not fall down on there knees to which ever band of cultists was stealing all there treasures and land in the name of the prince of peace/religon of peace/chosen race. It is a trubute to human nature that some people did good while believing the hate in those texts.

That is, failing perfectly to acknowledge that the ideologies which have killed a spectacular number of people recently have all been secular, if not wholly atheistic.

[SigniferOne]

I return the favour look at all the people killed, the nations wiped of the planet for having the audacity to not fall down on there knees to which ever band of cultists was stealing all there treasures and land in the name of the prince of peace/religon of peace/chosen race. It is a trubute to human nature that some people did good while believing the hate in those texts.

A half of Western Christianity did not ask falling down on their knees for any cultists, took noone's treasures, but you would like to ignore all actual facts of history, including that, and including the 100 million people killed by atheists in just the last hundred years. Face it, your argument is morally bankrupt, which is why I recommend going back to the textbooks instead of making vapid proclamations in the future, that have no basis and no rational substance.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

The Cult of Reason seems to have been jointly shared by the atheists and the deists. The deists were unwilling to let go of the First Cause, even if they killed or persecuted all Christian manifestations of religion, and the atheists were happy to go along for the sake of compromise. Of course it helped that it was called the Cult of Reason, so they could worship their own particular idol as well, namely themselves.

Silly Siggy, not all Atheists worship themselves. That's just the Ayn Rand type, most of us worship teh lulz. The religious on the other hand, worship porn and the giant penis in the sky.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

All these people who have worshiped a "rational" ethic and a "rational" morality based on pure voluntarism as an alternative for the morality of the Old Regime could only be puzzled when the situation went out of control really fast and people did not turn out as enlightened or reasonable as they would think.

The "cult of reason" must be understood within the greater framework of the whole "Enlightenment", that is, as a source of unrealistic myths and expectations about the nature of society and the "individual" in it.

[Plant]

Enough. Those ideologies were not athiestic or secular motivated. Especially since a main tenant of secular ideology is on freedom of religion.
Certain ideologies has helped in the motivations of mass killings, but they were not secular or athiestic. They were either attached to the ideology, but they are not the motivation.


In any case Diesm is not atheism. Diest beleive in a supreme being. Ergo, they are not Athiests.

It is a remarkable propaganda coup in America that Diests were rewritten as Athiests to such extent in American culture, such was their threat to prevailing Christian ideology.
But the influence of Diests can still be seen today, in those who reject Christianity and other organised sects, just as those that did in the past, but retained their beleifs in a supreme being.

[Strelok]

Enough. Those ideologies were not athiestic or secular motivated. Especially since a main tenant of secular ideology is on freedom of religion.

This.

---
Justicar5 is (mostly) talking about actions performed by people who were inspired by religion in his replies to this thread. People tend to counter with things that were inspired by ideology, and like to mention the fact that they were atheists, but none of that actually establishes a link to atheism. I'm not sure if anyone here was trying to establish that link, so I'm going to act as if it hasn't happened yet.

This seems to be another thread where people are going to try to draw a casual line between an ideology and atheism. You always have to add something along to atheism before you get the desired or undesired bad result. For example: in order for an atheist to persecute religion, you have to add the ideology of antireligion because atheism =/= antireligion. Once you have antireligion you have a potential inspiration from there and it us up to the person on how they will use that inspiration. The casual line to atheism is arbitrary, and you can draw it back to deism as well, and independent polytheistic and pantheistic views for those who use antireligion as something that is against organized religion and not all religion everywhere (antireligion can be anyone of them). Likewise it's weird when people try to draw a casual line between atheism and the ideological hatred of free-enterprise.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

the 30 years war

Fought for political reasons. Only in the start a religiously-motivated brawl.

the crusades

Overrated and overblown, especially by a visibly partial byzantinist and later po-mo historiography. As far as we are concerned, it was nothing but an average military campaign both in its scope and its repercussions, and only became truly demonised among Muslims long after they happened.

In fact, the Crusader States were for most of their history, a secondary threat compared to enemies of the caliber of the Mongols to the Islamic world.

annihilation of the native american populations of the americas

Mostly done for profit & land, and largely a result of uncontrolled factors, like contagious diseases. No such thing as a deliberate "crusade" to wipe out native americans, in fact the Catholic Church set itself explicitly to protect them - against the wishes of the colonisers.

the destruction and genocide of the old testament

Mostly petty brawling about how tiny city states with less than 10k inhabitants were supposedly wiped out. And also brawling about how tiny engagements between less than a 1000 men were won.

I mean, if I wanted something similar to that, I could go no further than the Peloponnesian War. Certainly, far from being a full blown systematic and industrialized genocide.

the taleban

Again, irrelevant. A small group of fanatics with turbans who never accomplished much on their own merits and who rested more on the incompetence and irresponsibility of those who were supposed to be against them.

AQ all abrahamic all foloowing the wishes of the death god, I could go on.

No, you couldn't. In fact, at a cross analysis, all the historiography behind your petty claims crumbles down rather easily. In fact, you're more than not, a victim of pop culture misconceptions.

Enough. Those ideologies were not athiestic or secular motivated. Especially since a main tenant of secular ideology is on freedom of religion.

Actually, there was a deliberate anti-religious element to all secularism. Secularism is not merely "freedom of religion" - the secularism of the Enlightenment sought to replace Religion with newer idols, such as the State, the Economy, "Progress", and so on. As such, it counts as the deliberate levelling down of all religious differences as part of a bigger process of a systematic destruction of the religious psyche among the masses and its own replacement for other forms of control centered around material achievements.

This is witnessed in ideologies like Nationalism or Communism, where religious freedom is "accepted", but at the same time the religious element is effectively erased and replaced with a cult of the state and of economic progress. By all means, religious considerations take a back stand to materialistic concerns, even when they both contradict themselves - and more often than not, where they contradict themselves, religion must either quiet itself or be forcibly shut up.

Certain ideologies has helped in the motivations of mass killings, but they were not secular or athiestic. They were either attached to the ideology, but they are not the motivation.

The fact that some ideologies, like Fascism, did not deliberately act against Religion in their quest for a "New" Man (yet another hallucination and residue from the Enlightenment), does not preclude the fact that they were indifferent to religion, and thus of a secular and materialistic character just as much as deliberately atheistic regimes.

As for Strelok's concerns - I don't know how he claims he hasn't still been able to witness the connection between an ideology and atheism. All he has to do is actually dedicate a few minutes to research on state sponsored efforts to spread atheism in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries; as for other less aggressively anti-religious ideologies, like National-Socialism, it doesn't take half a brain to see that their goals had nothing to do with the establishment of a metaphysical order, but were purely and coarsely imperialistic and materialistic. This classifies them as secular in the book.

[justicar5]

Fought for political reasons. Only in the start a religiously-motivated brawl.



Overrated and overblown, especially by a visibly partial byzantinist and later po-mo historiography. As far as we are concerned, it was nothing but an average military campaign both in its scope and its repercussions, and only became truly demonised among Muslims long after they happened.

In fact, the Crusader States were for most of their history, a secondary threat compared to enemies of the caliber of the Mongols to the Islamic world.



Mostly done for profit & land, and largely a result of uncontrolled factors, like contagious diseases. No such thing as a deliberate "crusade" to wipe out native americans, in fact the Catholic Church set itself explicitly to protect them - against the wishes of the colonisers.



Mostly petty brawling about how tiny city states with less than 10k inhabitants were supposedly wiped out. And also brawling about how tiny engagements between less than a 1000 men were won.

I mean, if I wanted something similar to that, I could go no further than the Peloponnesian War. Certainly, far from being a full blown systematic and industrialized genocide.



Again, irrelevant. A small group of fanatics with turbans who never accomplished much on their own merits and who rested more on the incompetence and irresponsibility of those who were supposed to be against them.



No, you couldn't. In fact, at a cross analysis, all the historiography behind your petty claims crumbles down rather easily. In fact, you're more than not, a victim of pop culture misconceptions.



.

all those things where done in the name of god, all done by reading the genocidal hate in the scriptures and taking them at there word. Or are you going to argue mein kampf wasn't facist next? Doesn't matter what other motives they had, the bbile itself lays out what must be done to a conquered people and that is annihilation apart from the attractive women you want as sex slaves.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."


Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

and ofc christian tolerance of other faiths is against biblical law:

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)



find me a document less moral than that piece of rape manual oh and before you calim that was only the old testement (the one Jesus staed was still the law) we have this chestnut: death to the entire families of liars:

There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren't lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened. (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)

so people who claim that christianity is about peace, when are you commiting suicide as liars (for thats what god demands)? Again I claim, and have provided evidence for the cult of abraham being the least moral influence in the history of the human species, a mental disease that promotes murder as a holy act. If you want to follow the faith I will not even try to stop you, but do not pretend it is any more moral than neo-nazism.

[Strelok]

As for Strelok's concerns - I don't know how he claims he hasn't still been able to witness the connection between an ideology and atheism. All he has to do is actually dedicate a few minutes to research on state sponsored efforts to spread atheism in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.

They promoted the control of religion and then the ultimate persecution of religion with their adherence to the ideology of antireligion. Their goal was to ultimately remove religious beliefs. There is no direct casual line between the non-belief in God and this persecution. You simply require to be lacking in the belief of God(s) and all other religious concepts before you can persecute all religion. They were inspired by ideology and atheism was only a requirement for them to fulfill it in a non-hypocritical sense. You always have to add something to atheism in these cases, and they added ideology.

...as for other less aggressively anti-religious ideologies, like National-Socialism, it doesn't take half a brain to see that their goals had nothing to do with the establishment of a metaphysical order, but were purely and coarsely imperialistic and materialistic. This classifies them as secular in the book.

And their ideology was their inspiration. I don't claim they were inspired by anything other than that, not: religion, antireligion, theism, atheism, secularism or opposition to secularism. You might have had individuals in the movement who might have adhered to any of these, but their motivation lay in their ideology. I'm addressing people who try to establish a causal line to either secularism or atheism here.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

They promoted the control of religion and then the ultimate persecution of religion with their adherence to the ideology of antireligion. Their goal was to ultimately remove religious beliefs. There is no direct casual line between the non-belief in God and this persecution. You simply require to be lacking in the belief of God(s) and all other religious concepts before you can persecute all religion. They were inspired by ideology and atheism was only a requirement for them to fulfill it in a non-hypocritical sense. You always have to add something to atheism in these cases, and they added ideology.

Communism, as I stated, is an exceptional case precisely because it was more extremely anti-religious. Yet at the same time that you proclaim an ideology that has no religious motivation or goal in the mix except to give an occasional poetic twist, you're proclaiming a secular ideology, and thus whenever people are killed because your wonderful ideas need to be spread, the blame must be attributed a priori to secularism because the duality between irreligion and religion in this case is not something you can just close your eyes to. A doctrine is either religious, or secular, and thus for all practical senses agnostic and irreligious.

And their ideology was their inspiration. I don't claim they were inspired by anything other than that, not: religion, antireligion, theism, atheism, secularism or opposition to secularism. You might have had individuals in the movement who might have adhered to any of these, but their motivation lay in their ideology. I'm addressing people who try to establish a causal line to either secularism or atheism here.

Again, see above.

[Strelok]

Communism, as I stated, is an exceptional case precisely because it was more extremely anti-religious. Yet at the same time that you proclaim an ideology that has no religious motivation or goal in the mix except to give an occasional poetic twist, you're proclaiming a secular ideology, and thus whatever people are killed because your wonderful ideas need to be spread must be attributed a priori to secularism because the duality between irreligion and religion in this case is not something you can just close your eyes to.

For something or a person to be secular, they must not be connected with anything religious. Secularism as an ideology that can be multiple things. It can be the stance that governments should exist separately from religion, or additionally the stance that all certain things should be free from religious influence, or that all things/people deserve to be free from religious influence and etc. So it will depend on your use of "secularism" here. What you described that is more set in stone is that the ideologies I mentioned are secular, because of the way that they are not connected with religious matters. I hardly see how you can attribute a priority to being secular, though, for an effect that was not caused or inspired or advocated by being secular. If someone is motivated by ideology that has nothing to do with things against or for religion and is completely disconnected from it, then it is a fundamentally a secular ideology, but since it is not done with an affirmative concern on the concept of BEING secular, then any attempt to draw a casual line between that and the ills that follow from the ideology is diminished. Being secular would just become a label to something that doesn't care or doesn't deal with religious matters. If people have an ideology that does not deal with religion, then that ideology is fundamentally secular, but that does not establish a casual line to being secular, and definitely not secuarlism and the atrocities that the people adhering to an ideology might commit. People who adhere to a secular ideology can they themselves be either secular or non-secular. You don't hold anything to being secular for something that being secular never advocates anyone to do or directly inspires anyone to do. It's like me saying that an ideology that is not concerned with fairies and is used to kill people would establish a priority to the apathy to the concept of fairies. All you have is an ideology that does not deal with religion, the same way it doesn't deal with fairies and the former fact would just label it as secular, but something being secular itself is not going to perpetuate anything, only the actual deals or laws proposed will.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

not all Atheists worship themselves. That's just the Ayn Rand type, most of us worship teh lulz.

The crapload of narcissistic platitudes in modern culture begs to differ. People mostly worship themselves, then the lulz.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

The crapload of narcissistic platitudes in modern culture begs to differ. People mostly worship themselves, then the lulz.

And who exactly does that reflect badly on, the Atheists or the religious majority? Most Atheists I know are utilitarians, so they at least worship teh lulz (and a lot of other things) before themselves. That of course doesn't mean that well known Atheists (like Dawkins) aren't often worshiped by many Atheists.

[justicar5]

The crapload of narcissistic platitudes in modern culture begs to differ. People mostly worship themselves, then the lulz.

better that than the prince of murder.