Irreligious society before modern times

Before modern times was there ever a society in which the vast majority of its population didn't practise any religion? I mean an atheist irreligious society without any belief system that could be seen as religion or religious thought.

If not, could one have developed before OTL or ATL modern times?
 
I am not aware of any ancient societies where the majority of people were atheist, but there certainly have been atheist philosophies that attained some degree of success, for a period of several centuries.

One example is the Carvaka system within Hinduism, which held the following beliefs that we know of:

No life after death, when you die, that's it.
All things happen due to their own nature, and not due to the actions of any god.
Religion is invented by humans, with no divine inspiration.

The Carvaka philosophy apparently originated in the 6th century BC, about the same time as the early Greek philosophers flourished. (Was there contact or communication between them? Some of what is known about their tenets sounds remarkably similar in both groups -- i.e Protagoras, who said "Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, of things that are not that they are not." and "As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist.") It did not completely die out until about the 15th century AD.
 
I am not aware of any ancient societies where the majority of people were atheist, but there certainly have been atheist philosophies that attained some degree of success, for a period of several centuries.

One example is the Carvaka system within Hinduism, which held the following beliefs that we know of:

No life after death, when you die, that's it.
All things happen due to their own nature, and not due to the actions of any god.
Religion is invented by humans, with no divine inspiration.

The Carvaka philosophy apparently originated in the 6th century BC, about the same time as the early Greek philosophers flourished. (Was there contact or communication between them? Some of what is known about their tenets sounds remarkably similar in both groups -- i.e Protagoras, who said "Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, of things that are not that they are not." and "As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist.") It did not completely die out until about the 15th century AD.

Not disputing your info at all, but having such a philosophy within Hinduism seems self-contradictory, as the tenant of re-incarnation (and thus, SOME form of after-life) is at the core of the religion.
 
Not disputing your info at all, but having such a philosophy within Hinduism seems self-contradictory, as the tenant of re-incarnation (and thus, SOME form of after-life) is at the core of the religion.

Cavarka isn't considered one of the six orthodox branches of Hinduism by many for this reason. However, athiesm is considered a valid position in Hinduism, it's adherents follow Hinduism as a way of life rather than as a faith.
 
It's quite possible in a scenario where the Greeks become predominant, as for awhile the ancient Greek religion was actually more proto-sicence than religion, as it initially did'nt have an afterlife, atleast for Humans, rather teaching that when you die that's it, and really, and the roles of the gods were more to explain why things they did'nt understand happened, like where lightning came from and such.
 
Cavarka isn't considered one of the six orthodox branches of Hinduism by many for this reason. However, athiesm is considered a valid position in Hinduism, it's adherents follow Hinduism as a way of life rather than as a faith.

Hinduism is a rather complex religion. While the main branches are monopolytheistic (yes, that term actually exists), some branches are solely monotheistic or polytheistic. Others, such as the Cavarka, are atheistic. Finally, some get really complicated and are panentheistic, pantheistic, monistic, agnostic, or gnostic. In essence, Hinduism is an all-absorbing culture rather than a traditional Western-style religion. That's why it's possible to talk of Indian Muslims and Buddhists and Jains as being part of a Hindu culture. In fact, before it was outlawed, many Indian Muslims took part in and believed in and enforced the caste system.
 
OK, this is a very complicated question. First of all, atheist and irreligious is not the same thing. Both come in a wide variety of flavours. And the question of what "practising" a religion ultimately includes is also quite difficult to parse.

As to the historical question, I do not think that by a strict interpretation of "religion" such a society ever existed, or exists now. Strict atheism seems to have been a minority position at all times. I suspect it's something to do with the human psyche. But depending on where you want to draw the line between a religious and an irreligious society, a number of societies in the past very likely had as little individual religiousness as modernity does. Take the Hellenistic and Roman world. Or take medieval China. Of course in both cases the question is where religiousness "ends". I think it is perfectly justifiable to regard sacrifices to the Ancestors and incense burned before the Great Sages as a matter of family ties and professional courtesy rather than religiousness, and in much the same way, you could be a dendrophore of Minerva and a member of a compital college without being a believer in any sense a Christian would consider valid.

Aside from the Hindu variety and Greek philosophy (Lucretius was popular enough in medieval Europe to concern church authorities), there is some interesting evidence of popular atheism in Viking society and in medieval Europe. The problem is that these were never majority positions.
 
In fact, before it was outlawed, many Indian Muslims took part in and believed in and enforced the caste system.

Same thing with the Syrian Christians of Kerala- they fit very nicely into the local caste structure. The upper caste nobles had a bit of a problem because they couldn't collect revenues from the low caste peasants without being rendered impure. The Syrian Christians were seen as an upper caste and thus conveniently could act as tax farmers, collecting revenue from the peasantry and paying annual sums to the nobles for this privilege since the revenue the nobles received from the Christians wasn't seen as impure.
 
Same thing with the Syrian Christians of Kerala- they fit very nicely into the local caste structure. The upper caste nobles had a bit of a problem because they couldn't collect revenues from the low caste peasants without being rendered impure. The Syrian Christians were seen as an upper caste and thus conveniently could act as tax farmers, collecting revenue from the peasantry and paying annual sums to the nobles for this privilege since the revenue the nobles received from the Christians wasn't seen as impure.

Wouldn't this make the christians impure?
Or was it just that they didn't care and it didn't have any actual ill effects?
 
Wouldn't this make the christians impure?
Or was it just that they didn't care and it didn't have any actual ill effects?

The Christians weren't bound by the purity rules. Essentially they acted as useful third parties in terms of the local religious context. However it was specifically the Syrian Christians who were seen in this way- the Roman Catholics were (and in some cases still are) seen as being of a lower social class.
 

Maur

Banned
Before modern times was there ever a society in which the vast majority of its population didn't practise any religion? I mean an atheist irreligious society without any belief system that could be seen as religion or religious thought.

If not, could one have developed before OTL or ATL modern times?
That's hard because one function of ancient religion (that modern one pretty much relinquished to science) is to explain natural phenomena. And since humans are naturally curious about it, they are bound to come up with some weird explanations that include anthropomorphic forces at work. Ergo, you got religion that's pretty much unavoidable.

That said, anything else is optional - the nature of these forces, whatever morality comes into play, direct consequences for humans, etc.
 
What do you mean? They still had the traditional Egyptian religion, plus the Cults of Serapis and Isis, and the Ptolemies followed the traditional Greek religion.

Well, this is where the question of what counts as religious comes into play. Obviously, Hellenistic Egypt had religious practice in shedloads. But then again, future historians are unlikely to classify as irreligious a society that poured such resources into the celebration of Christmas as modern Western Europe does. The question how much the subjects of the Ptolemies believed is certainly interesting, given the fashionable views of Hellenistic pop philosophy.
 
Top