Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Or, How the philosophy of Epicureanism founded the modern world.It is a common assumption amongst believers on this site that Christianity preceded atheism in Western culture and that modern secularism is just a curious anomaly in the long tradition of that culture. In this post I am going to argue that, on the contrary, not only did atheism precede Christianity, but that there is a direct link between the atheistic philosophy of Epicurus and the birth of modern secularism.(The title of this post, of course, was penned by that self-confessed Epicurean, Thomas Jefferson: From the Letter to William Short.)A summary of EpicureanismEpicurus lived between 341 and 240 BCE, about a generation after Aristotle. He was the founder of a school of philosphy that was distinguished by the following beliefs:1. That the universe consists of atoms falling through a void, and that all things result from random swerves and collisions of those atoms;2. That the universe was not created by the gods, and that the gods play no part in human affairs;3. That knowledge is gained through the senses, rather than solely through the operation of reason;4. That virtues are not an end in themselves, but are considered good because they are a means to achieving happiness or the avoidance of pain. (Epicurean ethics is a utilitarian ethics)In these beliefs we can see the origins of three of the main features of modern secular humanism, i.e. Empiricism, Physical Naturalism and Utilitarian Ethics.Roman EpicureanismStoicism and Epicureanism were the two predominant philosophies in pre-Christian Rome, and one of the great works of Latin literature, Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (On The Nature of Things), was effectively a hymn to Epicurean philosophy. After the adoption of Christianity, Epicureanism, for obvious reasons, was repressed.Modern EpicureanismBoth Nietsche and Marx were influenced by Epicureanism, but the most interesting influence from my point of view is that on the Western liberal tradition. Consider this quote from the Wikipedia article on Epicurus:

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Is there anybody there?I'd like to be put into Comparative Religion, if that's alright by you

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Thank you, I will Yes, I know, but if the gods don't create the universe and don't have anything to do with it, there's no practical difference between this deistic position and atheism. From my reading of history, it seems that people take up a deistic position when explicit atheism would be considered antagonistic to the prevailing religious culture. It allows them to make their philosophical point without worrying that they're going to end up on a bonfire.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Is self-interest wrong? Is your self-interest wrong? I certainly don't think mine is. The difference between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian state is not that the rulers are better people in the former than in the latter, but that in a liberal democracy we tie their hands behind their backs so that they can't rob and murder us so easily.Do you have an alternative form of government in mind?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

No. You're falling into the trap of generalisation. Is there really no difference between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian state? Are the power relationships between government and governed just the same in Britain compared to Belarus, say, or in Switzerland compared to Saudi Arabia?You sound very cynical about human nature and society. Do you think the world could be different than it is? And do you believe it should be?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

As much as I'd like to, I don't think I could advance Chinese or Indian philosophers as evidence of a long history of atheism in the Western tradition.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible