atheist or agnostic king during the reformation

That is simply not true. Several of the Founding Fathers weren't even Christians.

They still attributed their right of rebellion to God, though:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
They attributed it to a specifically vague, non-Christian "Creator" -- kept as vague and distant from a defined god as possible while maintaining the idea of some greater and naturally inherent justice for men. The rewrites of the draft specifically crossed out any language more specifically G/god focused.
 
They still attributed their right of rebellion to God, though:

The person I was responding to specifically cited the Constitution. Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution explicitly states that there will be no state religion (First Amendment).
 
Theoretically do you think you could get an overtly Deist King during this period? Someone who profoundly (and publicly) believes in God as the "Supreme Author" or the "Unmoved Mover", but is reticent with respect to Christianity.
 
He'd probably just get removed from power at best, murdered at worst. There's a huge difference between disagreements in whose God or gods are the true ones and disagreements about the complete existance of God.
 
They attributed it to a specifically vague, non-Christian "Creator" -- kept as vague and distant from a defined god as possible while maintaining the idea of some greater and naturally inherent justice for men. The rewrites of the draft specifically crossed out any language more specifically G/god focused.

Yeah, but "Not being a(n orthodox) Christian" isn't at all the same as "Being an atheist or agnostic". Just because the DOI doesn't specifically mention Jesus Christ doesn't make it an atheist document.
 
I'm sure there were many atheist, agnostics and otherwise irreligious people ruling during these times. But keep in mind that religion was more that a conscious choice: I'm not saying that people were forced with pikes to go to church (well, in some places...) but it was seen as an integral part of society, the glue that kept many communities together, and a ritual essential for power. I have no doubt that many were either truly devout or outright atheist as many people today, or many things on the middle, but they kept their personal thoughts behind doors and went to church as a part of the social contract, belief aside. I imagine that was the case with most of society: many peasants and bourgeoise were devout, but having a good reputation with the Church earned many benefits for those who weren't.

Also, as one poster said, atheism was very unpopular not only for "heresy" but because the evidence for God's existance was 'clear' to everyone in those times. The Church held most of the knowledge and philosophy from the time, and everything pointed to God. Atheism was viewed more as nihilism or foolishness rather than a conscious choice.

Another to remember, if this atheist king is supposed to lead to some hypercharged technological development with relativistic starships with dodecahedrons on the side a la Cosmos is the intellectual firmament of Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe. Even Victorian Europe. Pace Reddit and The Oatmeal, the idea that scientific research was a way to "know the mind of God", so to speak, was a widespread belief, and not simply something mouthed for scientists to avoid being burnt at the stake. There's a reason a lot of it was originally called "natural theology," and why even the more radically inclined nobility had no problem being both pious and scientifically literate.

Atheism in the 18th and 19th Century tended to be less of a rational belief and more a social belief signifying one's defiance of the political codes of conduct of the time.
 
Hard to imagine any monarch claiming to be atheist anytime prior to 1850 (even if they were), because he/she would be denying the very justification for royal rule, which has always been claimed to be by divine right.
 
Yeah, but "Not being a(n orthodox) Christian" isn't at all the same as "Being an atheist or agnostic". Just because the DOI doesn't specifically mention Jesus Christ doesn't make it an atheist document.

Well, even in the eighteenth century, atheism was thought of as unthinkable. After all, since the universe is so perfectly ordered, how could it have come about "accidentally"? Such is the Deist argument.
 
Well, even in the eighteenth century, atheism was thought of as unthinkable. After all, since the universe is so perfectly ordered, how could it have come about "accidentally"? Such is the Deist argument.

Which just goes to support the hypothesis that an openly atheist monarch in the 16th century is borderline-ASB.
 

Delta Force

Banned
This could work out if the older meaning of the term atheism is used, where it essentially mean denial of the god(s) of those making the accusation, as opposed to the modern meaning of denial of all gods. Accusations of atheism were levied against many people from the times of Ancient Greece (atheism was one of the charges against Socrates), as well as during the Middle Ages in Europe. To put it in context, Socrates was charged with not worshiping the gods in the pantheon of Athens, while a deist would be accused of atheism because the God of deism is quite differently from the gods of most other religions in being rather hands off.
 
This could work out if the older meaning of the term atheism is used

I don't believe it's being used. Even if it were, however, denying the Christian god while accepting another deity would probably put the king in no better a position than being an atheist (by the modern definition).
 

Delta Force

Banned
I don't believe it's being used. Even if it were, however, denying the Christian god while accepting another deity would probably put the king in no better a position than being an atheist (by the modern definition).

I didn't mean the OP, just that what constituted atheism prior to the 1800s or so was different from the modern meaning of the term. The older meaning could be a heresy if a deist style position is adopted, for example. That would result in less heavy repercussions than with the modern meaning, which would essentially be apostasy.
 
Theoretically do you think you could get an overtly Deist King during this period? Someone who profoundly (and publicly) believes in God as the "Supreme Author" or the "Unmoved Mover", but is reticent with respect to Christianity.

Outspokenly? Hard.
As others said, there may have been actual rulers during the Renaissance that held similar ideas. While we do no seem to have evidence about actually atheist ones, there is at least some indication that non-Christian philosophical Deism was an option, like the fact that that sort of ideas actually circulated at the time (as opposed to atheism in the narrow sense, which, while not entirely non-existent, was largely seen as plain idiotic).
However:
1) that sort of train thought would be likely viewed by most as tantamount to atheism anyway: it envisions a sole God, but not a personal one (who has love, will, and historical agency), which is quite the whole point of the Abrahamic tradition.
2) as far as rulers go, it's not _God_, per se, that offered legitimacy. it was organized religion, that is, the church. A ruler might well have believed in God as an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, and discussed it with his/her close courtiers, but he needed the people upholding God as a personal entity who cares for the people to support the state in essential tasks. In this sense, a ruler publicly denying the basic and socially accepted view of the Christian God would have been asking for trouble, even while professing that God existed in some sense.
 
Outspokenly? Hard.
As others said, there may have been actual rulers during the Renaissance that held similar ideas. While we do no seem to have evidence about actually atheist ones, there is at least some indication that non-Christian philosophical Deism was an option, like the fact that that sort of ideas actually circulated at the time (as opposed to atheism in the narrow sense, which, while not entirely non-existent, was largely seen as plain idiotic).
However:
1) that sort of train thought would be likely viewed by most as tantamount to atheism anyway: it envisions a sole God, but not a personal one (who has love, will, and historical agency), which is quite the whole point of the Abrahamic tradition.
2) as far as rulers go, it's not _God_, per se, that offered legitimacy. it was organized religion, that is, the church. A ruler might well have believed in God as an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, and discussed it with his/her close courtiers, but he needed the people upholding God as a personal entity who cares for the people to support the state in essential tasks. In this sense, a ruler publicly denying the basic and socially accepted view of the Christian God would have been asking for trouble, even while professing that God existed in some sense.

Those two conceptions aren't exclusive, you know. Just try reading some Aquinas.
 
This could work out if the older meaning of the term atheism is used, where it essentially mean denial of the god(s) of those making the accusation, as opposed to the modern meaning of denial of all gods. Accusations of atheism were levied against many people from the times of Ancient Greece (atheism was one of the charges against Socrates), as well as during the Middle Ages in Europe. To put it in context, Socrates was charged with not worshiping the gods in the pantheon of Athens, while a deist would be accused of atheism because the God of deism is quite differently from the gods of most other religions in being rather hands off.

Well, if we go with the ancient definition of atheism, any Christian would count. In which case, OP fulfilled. :p
 
Outspokenly? Hard.
As others said, there may have been actual rulers during the Renaissance that held similar ideas. While we do no seem to have evidence about actually atheist ones, there is at least some indication that non-Christian philosophical Deism was an option, like the fact that that sort of ideas actually circulated at the time (as opposed to atheism in the narrow sense, which, while not entirely non-existent, was largely seen as plain idiotic).
However:
1) that sort of train thought would be likely viewed by most as tantamount to atheism anyway: it envisions a sole God, but not a personal one (who has love, will, and historical agency), which is quite the whole point of the Abrahamic tradition.
2) as far as rulers go, it's not _God_, per se, that offered legitimacy. it was organized religion, that is, the church. A ruler might well have believed in God as an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, and discussed it with his/her close courtiers, but he needed the people upholding God as a personal entity who cares for the people to support the state in essential tasks. In this sense, a ruler publicly denying the basic and socially accepted view of the Christian God would have been asking for trouble, even while professing that God existed in some sense.

Thanks. On reflection I think you are right, any ruler in this period is going to have to pay lip service at some point to Christianity if they want to survive politically (if not with their life). Four hundred years later and in some western countries likely Atheist/Agnostic politicians still feel they must pay lip service in order to get votes.
 
Well, if we go with the ancient definition of atheism, any Christian would count. In which case, OP fulfilled. :p

Do you mean "I am an atheist with all other Gods, but I happen to believe in the Christian one". Richard Dawkins often uses this argument and says he just goes one step further.
 
During the Protestant reformation had king declares himself a atheist and agnostic .what happens next would there be a major uprising or war .

"By the Grace of absolutely nothing, Royalface II, King of Szchszpsenia"?
or
"By the Grace of something we can never know for sure, Royalface III, King of Szchszpsenia"?

IMO that would be borderline ASB despite being physically possible, it just goes completely against the whole ideological and spiritual framework the existence of Kings used to be based on.

But yeah, if he did that there would be a major noble revolt and probably a mass uprising of the people, too, and he would be quickly dethroned and replaced with someone who doesn't look insane for the standards of the time.
 
And many of the rest were Deists, meaning that they believed that God had created the world and then let it run on its own. Not exactly mainstream Christianity.

Just to make something clear that's something of a pet peeve of mine, no, 'many of the rest' were not deists. There were several deists amongst the Founders, but not a majority or even truly significant minority. The majority of the Founders were deeply Christian men of one shade or another. This should have no bearing on how we think about our country and the role of religion in our government today, however.
 
Top