Was it safe to be openly skeptical before the end of the Renaissance?

[Gregory_Olson]

Were atheists historically persecuted in the West most of the time or only on occasion, and how do you know?

 

[JurisPrudens]

Were atheists historically persecuted in the West most of the time or only on occasion, and how do you know?

It was not safe. The exact consequence depended on the country. Under weak governments, yu were unlikely to severely punished for this, besides excommunication. Under strong goveernments, it could lead to death penalty.

Frederick II was a sceptic, although not a self-professed one. It was enough for everyne to consider him the enemy of the Church and for his excommunication, in the state of which he died.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Define “the Renaissance”. The time line stretches to about 400 years and multiple areas

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Were atheists historically persecuted in the West most of the time or only on occasion, and how do you know?

Being atheist was not punishable in and of itself, but I believe that actively promoting atheism was. This is because in “Christian” nations such as Spain or France, faith was seen as necessary for the proper function of society, and any attempts to undermine faith were taken as attacks on the state. As a result, people who did so were not actually tried on religious grounds, but rather on grounds more comparable to sedition or inciting civil unrest. I do not believe that the Church has ever actively persecuted a person for being atheist, or even for promoting atheism, as we’ve always maintained that freedom of religion (or lack thereof) is a necessary good.

This is not to say that atheists have not been harmed by the believers around them. I’m sure there are many instances where a person was actively persecuted by his community for his atheistic tendencies. I don’t know of any offhand, but I’d be very surprised if it had never happened. In reality though, atheism is a very young philosophy. There have been atheists throughout history in all ages, but atheism as we see it today is an historical oddity.

(Note, this is only discussing Christendom. I believe that merely being an atheist is punishable under Sharia Law, and promoting atheism is definitely punishable.)

 

[Mintaka]

It was a good deal safer to be an atheist or agnostic than to be a heretic. People would think you were not particularly trustworthy, because you couldn’t swear oaths or fear Hell; but if you weren’t out preaching godlessness or performing criminal acts, you would just be an interesting pastoral problem.

Remember that every medieval university,and the bishop schools before that, practiced disputation as a means of learning. One of the commonest questions discussed was “Does God exist?” A lot of students went through an atheist period during their studies., so Father Bob was going to associate the village atheist with his own crazy student days and be sympathetic.

 

[JurisPrudens]

It was a good deal safer to be an atheist or agnostic than to be a heretic. People would think you were not particularly trustworthy, because you couldn’t swear oaths or fear Hell; but if you weren’t out preaching godlessness or performing criminal acts, you would just be an interesting pastoral problem.

Remember that every medieval university,and the bishop schools before that, practiced disputation as a means of learning. One of the commonest questions discussed was “Does God exist?” A lot of students went through an atheist period during their studies., so Father Bob was going to associate the village atheist with his own crazy student days and be sympathetic.

You are wrong. Atheism is an apostasy. If it was open, not concealed, it was a crime. It was considered way worse than heresy.

The disputations in the universities, whatever line they took, could never go against the Church teaching. “Does God exist?” was an issue to debate on, to find new argument for God’s existence. No one was ever allowed to really doubt the God’s existence.

 

[ahs]

You are wrong. Atheism is an apostasy. If it was open, not concealed, it was a crime. It was considered way worse than heresy.

Well, yes, rejecting the faith outright is worse than obstinately doubting a part of it. But I don’t see (historically speaking) where it was “way worse”, at least to any degree in the Church that an atheist would care about. From what I am seeing so far, the only punishment from the Church was excommunication and, for a period of time in Spain(?) a refusal of forgiveness to apostates.
It appears that in Rome, the civil authorities would deny apostates the right to testify in court and to inherit/transfer property. Leading someone else to apostacize was punishable with death for a time [as a matter of civil law, not Church law].
Of course, I am only speaking in terms of the Church. I’m not sure how Islam or other religions handle apostates.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=930

 

[JurisPrudens]

Well, yes, rejecting the faith outright is worse than obstinately doubting a part of it. But I don’t see (historically speaking) where it was “way worse”, at least to any degree in the Church that an atheist would care about. From what I am seeing so far, the only punishment from the Church was excommunication and, for a period of time in Spain(?) a refusal of forgiveness to apostates.
It appears that in Rome, the civil authorities would deny apostates the right to testify in court and to inherit/transfer property. Leading someone else to apostacize was punishable with death for a time [as a matter of civil law, not Church law].
Of course, I am only speaking in terms of the Church. I’m not sure how Islam or other religions handle apostates.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=930

The Church could impose excommunication, but to lift it one often had to undergo humiliating public repentance, sometimes - flogging. I cannot provide the reference now, but I am sure about this. And if You were excommunicated, back then it often meant You were “vitandus”. Moreover, all more or less strong governments provided secular punishments for obstinate excommunicates. And for public apostasy (like, converting into another religion), You might be burned.

 

[ahs]

The Church could impose excommunication, but to lift it one often had to undergo humiliating public repentance, sometimes - flogging. I cannot provide the reference now, but I am sure about this.

It sure would be nice if you could provide a reference for it. I would like to learn more about this, but want to be sure that I am getting trustworthy information.

And if You were excommunicated, back then it often meant You were “vitandus”. Moreover, all more or less strong governments provided secular punishments for obstinate excommunicates. And for public apostasy (like, converting into another religion), You might be burned.

Yes, it seems the civil authorities were rather harsh in the old days. Nowadays, they could not care less, it seems.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Thanks to all responders! I asked because someone asked me on another website:

quora.com/Can-science-and-religion-converge/answer/Asheesh-Gupta-6/comment/18483181

With a little help from Google I think I was able to get the question pretty well answered in the end.