Given the central role played by religion in early-modern Britain, it is perhaps surprising that historians have not always paid close attention to the shifting and nuanced subtleties of terms used in religious controversies. In this collection particular attention is focussed upon two of the most contentious of these terms: ’atheism’ and ’deism’, terms that have shaped significant parts of the scholarship on the Enlightenment. This volume argues that in the seventeenth and eighteenth century atheism and deism involved fine distinctions that have not always been preserved by later scholars. The original deployment and usage of these terms were often more complicated than much of the historical scholarship suggests. Indeed, in much of the literature static definitions are often taken for granted, resulting in depictions of the past constructed upon anachronistic assumptions. Offering reassessments of the historical figures most associated with ’atheism’ and ’deism’ in early modern Britain, this collection opens the subject up for debate and shows how the new historiography of deism changes our understanding of heterodox religious identities in Britain from 1650 to 1800. It problematises the older view that individuals were atheist or deists in a straightforward sense and instead explores the plurality and flexibility of religious identities during this period. Drawing on the most recent scholarship, the volume enriches the debate about heterodoxy, offering new perspectives on a range of prominent figures and providing an overview of major changes in the field.

"Which is right, atheism or organised religion? Answer: Neither. What's wrong with atheism? The intolerant radical 'New Atheists' of today champion the theory of evolution by natural selection, which may help to explain small changes and variations in living things but can't explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life -- because natural selection needs life to kick-start it into action. No life, no natural selection! Does organised religion do any better? Not at all. It simply has too much baggage. Why does evil exist in the world? And why are the good not rewarded and the wicked punished? Organised religion has no answer except to kick these problems upstairs into the afterlife, of which there is no evidence whatsoever. What then of the claims of religious truth? Most of the claims made for Jesus are demonstrably false. Creed religions like Christianity and Islam believe that they alone hold the key to truth and salvation. But communal religions like Hinduism, Japanese Shinto and the religions of the ancient world tend to be more tolerant. Orthodox Judaism, starting out as a communal religion, has now adopted certain features of a creed religion and become more intolerant. But more tolerant than either radical atheism or any organised religion is deism. Unlike conventional religions, which are based on belief in a personal god, deism believes in an impersonal God who does not get involved in the day-to-day affairs of the world"--Back cover.

Presents history of deism, scepticism and atheism from the 18th to 20th centuries.

In this wide-ranging collection of articles, essays, and speeches, George H. Smith analyzes atheism and its relevance to society today. The featured essay in this volume provides a full analysis of Ayn Rand''s unique contribution to atheism, explaining how her objectivist metaphysics and laissez-faire economic principles rested on a purely godless worldview. Several chapters address the evolution of atheism; arguments in favor of religious toleration; the efforts of early Church fathers to discredit Roman polytheism and how these arguments can be used with equal force against later Christian descriptions of God; and a survey of the contributions to freethought made by the deists of the 18th and 19th centuries. With incisive logic and considerable wit, Smith ties atheism to reason and argues that reason itself can be a moral virtue. In one penetrating chapter, Smith salutes three Christian theorists who he believes embody the spirit of reason: Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, and John Locke. This is followed by a philosophical drubbing of his "least favorite Christians" - St. Paul, St. Augustine, and John Calvin. In subsequent chapters, Smith examines religion and education; addresses the 20th century fundamentalist revival; offers suggestions on how to debate atheism with religious believers; critiques "new religions," including pop therapy, est, and tranactional analysis; and provides a comprehensive bibliographic essay on the literature of freethought.