Scan barcode
A review by jdglasgow
Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World by Tim Whitmarsh
3.0
My wife has become as voracious a reader as I am and was recently selecting books to check out from the library. She opted to skip one on her “Want to Read” list because she found out it was nonfiction and she believes she dislikes nonfiction. I told her she likely didn’t, because a lot of nonfiction isn’t what you typically think of—not musty, academic, documentary-style tomes but exciting stories with narratives of their own. I was thinking of the highs of some of the nonfiction I’ve read in the past year: Cheryl Strayed’s WILD, Susan Orlean’s THE LIBRARY BOOK, and Sasha Sagan’s FOR SMALL CREATURES SUCH AS WE, which is what led me to Tim Whitmarsh’s book as Sagan included it in a list of recommendations at the end of her own book.
BATTLING THE GODS *is* what you likely think of when you imagine a nonfiction book. It’s ostensibly written for a lay audience, but it’s incredibly dry; it’s a history lesson first and foremost, reciting a list of facts and names and dates and, yes, making an argument about the role atheism played in the ancient world (specifically Greece). That mode of writing means it’s not exactly a page-turner, but I do appreciate the topic—it satisfies the reason I sought the book out to begin with. Whitmarsh is unquestionably learned, and there is certainly intrigue in the way he extrapolates from incomplete data to show the breadth of atheist leanings even in a culture not inclined to preserve those beliefs.
In fact, there is seemingly a wealth of anti-theistic or explicitly atheist arguments advanced by Greece’s great thinkers but Whitmarsh tells us the majority of scholars tend to interpret these writings as merely rhetorical, whereas he puts forth the bold argument: “What if they’re not?” He also argues that politics—by which I mean the high-profile execution of Socrates for impiety—likely caused others to be circumspect in how forthright they were willing to be about their nonbelief. He tells us that other historians think of the classical philosophers as pure academics, untouched by bias or beholden to public opprobrium, whereas he argues that to see the extent of atheism in Ancient Greece one must sometimes read between the lines at what is implied rather than said outright. It all seems very persuasive, though of course I am not an Ancient Greek scholar and therefore feel inclined to believe Whitmarsh, who presents as an authority.
So there is some interesting theory contained within the book, and I must admit the suggestion that atheism has been around since antiquity—championed by some of history’s greatest scholars and more long-lasting than Christianity (whose adherents often argue for it by pointing to its perseverance, never mind that Christianity gained its foothold largely through imperialism rather than reasoned debate)—is a heartening perspective, as an atheist reader. But the succession of names and dates is frequently hard to follow and seems repetitive at times. In parts of the book, too, the thread seems to get lost a bit as Whitmarsh focuses in on ancient Grecian culture and history more broadly, though this is understandable as it is clearly his specialty (he cites to himself on more than one occasion in the endnotes).
So, in the end I generally liked the book. It was mostly true to its premise and contained some compelling arguments. On the other hand, its educational tone and dry recitation of information made reading the book a bit of a bore in places. I’ve split the difference with three stars. That feels appropriate to me.
BATTLING THE GODS *is* what you likely think of when you imagine a nonfiction book. It’s ostensibly written for a lay audience, but it’s incredibly dry; it’s a history lesson first and foremost, reciting a list of facts and names and dates and, yes, making an argument about the role atheism played in the ancient world (specifically Greece). That mode of writing means it’s not exactly a page-turner, but I do appreciate the topic—it satisfies the reason I sought the book out to begin with. Whitmarsh is unquestionably learned, and there is certainly intrigue in the way he extrapolates from incomplete data to show the breadth of atheist leanings even in a culture not inclined to preserve those beliefs.
In fact, there is seemingly a wealth of anti-theistic or explicitly atheist arguments advanced by Greece’s great thinkers but Whitmarsh tells us the majority of scholars tend to interpret these writings as merely rhetorical, whereas he puts forth the bold argument: “What if they’re not?” He also argues that politics—by which I mean the high-profile execution of Socrates for impiety—likely caused others to be circumspect in how forthright they were willing to be about their nonbelief. He tells us that other historians think of the classical philosophers as pure academics, untouched by bias or beholden to public opprobrium, whereas he argues that to see the extent of atheism in Ancient Greece one must sometimes read between the lines at what is implied rather than said outright. It all seems very persuasive, though of course I am not an Ancient Greek scholar and therefore feel inclined to believe Whitmarsh, who presents as an authority.
So there is some interesting theory contained within the book, and I must admit the suggestion that atheism has been around since antiquity—championed by some of history’s greatest scholars and more long-lasting than Christianity (whose adherents often argue for it by pointing to its perseverance, never mind that Christianity gained its foothold largely through imperialism rather than reasoned debate)—is a heartening perspective, as an atheist reader. But the succession of names and dates is frequently hard to follow and seems repetitive at times. In parts of the book, too, the thread seems to get lost a bit as Whitmarsh focuses in on ancient Grecian culture and history more broadly, though this is understandable as it is clearly his specialty (he cites to himself on more than one occasion in the endnotes).
So, in the end I generally liked the book. It was mostly true to its premise and contained some compelling arguments. On the other hand, its educational tone and dry recitation of information made reading the book a bit of a bore in places. I’ve split the difference with three stars. That feels appropriate to me.