Was Steiner an Atheist?

Note these definitions of Atheism. One Two

Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
I seem to recall a claim by you that Steiner was an *atheist* in the 1890's, which would make him a liar when he wrote in his autobiography thirty years later that the spiritual world had been wide open to him since childhood. Someone accustomed to communicate with the souls of the departed cannot be called atheists.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Yes, in my view Steiner oscillated between atheism and a mystical re-affirmation of christianity between the mid-1890's and 1900-1901.
Why would that make him a liar? Atheism means disbelief in god. It does not mean disbelief in the spiritual world. In any case, there is nothing unusual about autobiographies re-interpreting their authors' past; that's part of the point of the whole endeavor.
"Someone accustomed to communicate with the souls of the departed cannot be called atheists."
Why on earth not? Atheists are people who don't believe in god, not people who don't believe in souls or in communication with the dead.

Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
That would still make him a liar, because according to his autobiography, Rudolf Steiner testifies being a Christian and suggests being a reincarnationist in Vienna in his late twenties, thus negating the preposterous theory that Christology and Theosophy was something he adopted more than a decade later:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N63243D77
About the two were gathered professors of the theological faculty, Catholic priests of the very finest scholarship. First among them all was the priest of the Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross, Wilhelm Neumann. Müllner justly esteemed him because of his comprehensive scholarship. He said to me once, when in the absence of Neumann I was speaking with enthusiastic admiration of his broad and comprehensive scholarship: “Yes, indeed, Professor Neumann knows the whole world and three villages besides.” I liked to accompany the learned man when we went away from delle Grazie's at the same time. I had many a conversation with this “ideal” of a scientific man who was at the same time a “true son of his Church.” I would here mention only two of these. One was in regard to the person of Christ. I expressed my view to the effect that Jesus of Nazareth, by reason of supramundane influence, had received the Christ into himself, and that Christ as a spiritual Being has lived in human evolution since the Mystery of Golgotha. This conversation remained deeply imprinted in my mind; ever and again it has arisen in memory. For it was profoundly significant for me. There were really three persons engaged in that discussion: Professor Neumann and I, and a third, unseen person, the personification of Catholic dogmatic theology, visible to spiritual perception as he walked behind the professor, always beckoning with his finger threateningly, and always tapping Professor Neumann on the shoulder as a reminder whenever the subtle logic of the scholar led him too far in agreement with me. It was noteworthy how often the first clause of the latter's sentences would be reversed in the second clause. There I was face to face with the Catholic way of life in one of its best representatives. It was through him that I learned to esteem it, but also to know it through and through.
Another time we discussed the question of repeated earth lives. The professor then listened to me, spoke of all sorts of literature in which something on this subject could be found; he often nodded his head lightly, but had no inclination to enter into the merits of a question which seemed to him very fanciful. So this conversation also became of great import to me. The uncomfortableness with which Neumann felt the answers he did not utter in response to my statements was deeply impressed upon my memory.
- Mein Lebensgang, Chapter VII (GA 28)
No atheist would express his view "to the effect that Jesus of Nazareth, by reason of supramundane influence, had received the Christ into himself, and that Christ as a spiritual Being has lived in human evolution since the Mystery of Golgotha." That's belief in God.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
"No atheist would express his view "to the effect that Jesus of Nazareth, by reason of supramundane influence, had received the Christ into himself, and that Christ as a spiritual Being has lived in human evolution since the Mystery of Golgotha." That's belief in God."
Indeed. Nobody disputes that Steiner believed in god when those words were penned.
[Note the quick sidestep away from the original statement with the phrase "when those words were penned, which was 1924. He's not addressing the objection]

Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
Nice try, but you cannot dodge this one, Peter. What RS wrote in 1924 was that he believed in God in the late 1880's, before he was 30. In the passage I quoted, RS did *not* describe his beliefs of later years (which you are trying to suggest), but of his *younger* formative years.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Tarjei: "The suggestion that RS was ever an atheist is absurd. Higher beings (gods) are part and parcel of the spiritual world and were never hidden from his spiritual vision."
I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all. In any case, if you'd like to persuade me that Steiner was indeed a theist in the latter half of the last decade of the 19th century, I will gladly consider any writings from that period.
[Since theism is not the opposite of atheism, it is not necessary to demonstrate Steiner was a theist in order to prove that he was not an atheist]

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004): "To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
That isn't really what I was getting at, though you do have a good point about my truncated argument from yesterday. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004):
"This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
That was what, 1895?
[It was 1894 - more or less the time period Peter Staudenmaier is claiming Steiner was an atheist]

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004):
"I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Dottie Zold (February 22nd, 2004):
Peter, it isn't that [charges of atheism] is derogatory rather that it isn't the truth. Derogatory is besides the point and not one I would care about. We each hold our own truths and have our own opinions of things, but that does not mean we can make our opinions of another be true against what the other persons truth was. I mean we can try as you obviously are doing with really no success.

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
"I kind of "feel" that I understand how someone can "believe" in the existence of a spiritual world, but not in the existence of a "god" per se. Who are the philosophers or spiritual thinkers who expound on this?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Atheism is definitely not my area of expertise, but I know a couple of Buddhist atheists, to choose one example. But there are lots of other examples. Here's a quick quote from a superb study of the influence of Nietzsche, perhaps the best-known atheist of Steiner's era (interestingly, the following passage comes right after a quote from Steiner himself, the bit from the autobiography about seeing Nietzsche's soul): "The various cults and surrogate faiths of the time were linked to a widespread perception that the age was particularly empty, materialistic, and despiritualized. Many defined their projects as directly Nietzschean in nature, responses to the famous proclamation that God was dead. These post-Christian Nietzschean faiths have been labeled "religious atheism," "secular polytheism," and "pan-cosmic religion without transcendence." However one defines them, they abounded in number and demonstrated an adaptability to a range of divergent political and cultural tendencies."
(Steve Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, p. 215)

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004):
Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner. Rudolf Steiner was a spiritual teacher as I'm sure you know. To develop one's character he recommended that the student practice the Six Subsidiary Exercises. You can find this in the book, Guidance in Esoteric Training. By way of explanation one of the exercises is accompanied by an apocryphal story. In this story, Christ is walking with his disciples along a dusty road. Along the side of the road, the disciples find a wolf in an advanced state of decay. The disciples turn away in disgust. Christ approaches the animal and says to the disciples, "Look at his beautiful teeth!" Steiner used this approach when thinking about ideas and people. He tried to find what was pertinent, relevant, and truthful in the spirit of the other. In Nietzsche's case he saw him to be a Fighter for Freedom in the sense of the Philosophy of Freedom. Both of these books are important in understanding Rudolf Steiner. Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views. To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing. The same goes for Haeckel. Rudolf Steiner saw in Haeckel -- and in Darwin for that matter -- an important proponent of the idea of evolution. His contemplation of Haeckel gave birth to his book, An Outline of Esoteric Science. In his book the Philosophy of Freedom, the idea emerges that one must even "think away" the idea of a creator in order to become completely free in one's thinking. A human being, in order to be free, must approach the idea of God without compulsion. This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist. From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon. (You are also a master of rhetoric, especially when translating and interpreting others words.) It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded. I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner. If one uses the aforementioned discipline to evaluate his words then he is quite consistent in what he says. When speaking of natural science, he supports and praises certain aspects and is critical of others, and so on.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
"What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al."

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
In arguing about translations, you are quite adamant that a narrow dictionary translation be the only one considered. Yet the standard definition of atheism is precisely the one you are now requiring that we bend. You argument here gets rather slippery. Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument ("Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, he admired atheists..."). Then comes the phrase 'display atheist tendencies'. Even if his writings 'display atheist tendencies' this tells us nothing about his personal beliefs. And Nietzsche has many admirers among the clergy.

[After I posted 8 definitions of "Atheism"]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Yet the standard definition of atheism is precisely the one you are now requiring that we bend."
No, no. Really, you can keep whatever definition of atheism seems proper to you. I have no interest in challenging it. I plead guilty to using the term "atheism" improperly according to your definition, and that of any dictionary that says it involves spirits and such. What I meant by the term was quite simply the opposite of theism.
[That is, Peter Staudenmaier has his own dictionary. He's not bending the standard definition of Atheism, he is merely - bending the standard definition of atheism without admitting it.]
"You argument here gets rather slippery."
I didn't really present an argument, did I? I just replied to Tarjei's post, which then occasioned a flood of angry emails about lying and all sorts of other irrelevancies. I never got around to offering much in the way of actual argument about why I think Steiner doubted the existence of god in the late 1890's.
[The simplified world of Peter Staudenmaier - he didn't actually make the claim that has now been proven wrong]
"Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument"
But there is no guilt involved in disbelieving in god! How on earth could that constitute a guilt-by-association argument?
[How does a guilt-by-association argument become a judgement of guiltyness? I said that defining Steiner's atheism by his admiration for atheists is a guilt-by-association argument.]
"Even if his writings 'display atheist tendencies' this tells us nothing about his personal beliefs."
It doesn't? In that case, I wasn't talking about his personal beliefs, I was talking about his writings. I can't even remember them anymore -- I am much less interested in this question than you and Tarjei and Dottie are -- but I think they're in Methodische Grundlagen der Anthroposophie. I do not think that Steiner expressed doubt about god's existence in PoF, which was published in 1894.
[Redefine the argument again - I wasn't actually talking about what you disproved, I was talking about something else, actually.]

Daniel Hindes (February 25th, 2004):
You appear to have misunderstood what "guilt-by-association" means. I am not implying that there is anything "guilty" about being an atheist, I am saying that your argument is attempting to establish Steiner's atheism by associating it with his admiration of atheists. I propose that this does not follow logically. A shorthand way of saying this is calling it a "guilt-by-association" argument. Perhaps you are less well-read than you apper. A person who writes as well as you do ought to know this.

Tarjei Straume (February 25th 2004):
This is very interesting. The roles could so easily have been reversed here. From what I've seen in the past, PS is a master of syntax and metaphors and grammar and all that, and the most sophisticated and quaint expressions and jargons are familiar to him. If PS had used the "guilt-by-association argument" phrase himself and Daniel had honestly misunderstood, he would probably have been advised to take English classes. That's the way PS plays his word-and-mind games.

Patrick Evans (February 25th, 2004):
Although I wish to communicate with you regarding Steiner's views on evolving cultures, allow me to comment on your response to my previous post. I commented that you are a master at rhetoric. In your response you gave me two sentences that support my claim. The sentences are as follows:
"What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself." And;
"...but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion."
It seems that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say? I did not suggest that you were being "wildly outrageous" or that your notions were "a priori preposterous". As for Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner being "the best-known atheists ever", well I don't know about that either! This is the very type of habit I've also noticed with Dan Dugan and -- I'm afraid -- with you. I find when I read both of you that the meanings of words are often shifted away from the intended meanings of the authors. It is a kind of reasoning that is warned against in high school debate classes. I don't know why you resorted to hyperbole with me, but it looks like you are assuming that I think that you are being "wildly outrageous" or "a priori preposterous". In other posts to this list you are at pains to infer that you do not make assumptions but carefully read from the texts with the authors have said.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 25th, 2004):
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
"I did not suggest that you were being "wildly outrageous" or that your notions were "a priori preposterous"."
How do you read Dottie's and Tarjei's initial responses to my post? It seemed to me that they were saying exactly that.
[On the other hand, Patrick said "I" and not "nobody". What Dottie and Tarjei said are irrelevant to the claim Patrick was making]
"I find when I read both of you that the meanings of words are often shifted away from the intended meanings of the authors."
Unless you have personal access to an author, it is frequently a mistake to think that you know what their intended meaning was.
[The logical implications of this are interesting. How does Staudenmaier then claim to know what Steiner intended? Or does that not matter? It is all about how you can present the texts.]
"It is a kind of reasoning that is warned against in high school debate classes."
Sorry, I didn't take debate classes.
[Indeed, or the argumentation would far more direct, without all the sneaky misquotations.]
"I don't know why you resorted to hyperbole with me, but it looks like you are assuming that I think that you are being "wildly outrageous" or "a priori preposterous"."
It wasn't a reference to you. You asked me about my earlier exchange on the topic, where I had mentioned Nietzsche originally. That is what the "outrageous" comment referred to: I brought up Nietzsche not as some sort of 'proof' that RS was also an atheist, but to counter the claim (which did not come from you, but from other listmates) that the very idea that RS might possibly have had atheist leanings was absurd. If you think I misconstrued what others were saying, please say so.
[Willfully misinterpreting your own words, so you come out smelling like roses.]
"In other posts to this list you are at pains to infer that you do not make assumptions but carefully read from the texts with the authors have said."
I don't think it's possible to read a text without making at least some assumptions about it. In any case, I apologize for sounding like I was attributing these views to you personally.
[If assumptions are inevitible, the questions arises as to how they are formed. But don't think you will ever achieve a discussion of this with Peter Staudenmaier]

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
It seems that every definition of atheism that is longer than 10 words includes some variant of a disbelief in spirits of any kind:
"The denial of the existence of any god or supernatural being."
"Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the
"denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence"."
"denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence"
I should note the point made in Britannica, that atheism is not just the opposite of theism.
Now you are perfectly within your rights to have a personal definition of atheism that includes a belief in the supernatural but (somehow) not in any divinity or God. However, I feel that you owe it to your readers to clarify that when you speak of atheism, you do not mean what is commonly understood by the term. Much of what you write leads me to believe that you are someone
who values clarity and precision in writing (at least, you demand it of others), so I'm sure you will agree that such a clarification is necessary. In the future, should I read something of yours that refers to Steiner's 'atheism' without clarifying that you mean something different with this
term than is commonly understood, I should feel that it was somewhat disingenuous.

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
Quoteing Mr. Staudenmaier: "I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all. In any case, if you'd like to persuade me that Steiner was indeed a theist in the latter half of the last decade of the 19th century, I will gladly consider any writings from that period."
Daniel:
In the common understanding, atheism is not just the opposite of theism. So proving Steiner a theist is not necessary to show that he was not an atheist. You yourself have agreed that Steiner was not an atheist when you agree that he believed in a spiritual world. Only, you have an understanding of the term that is at variance with the common understanding of 'atheism'. If atheism means whatever you want it to, then it can of course apply to whomever you wish it to apply to.

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
It seems that every definition of atheism that is longer than 10 words includes some variant of a disbelief in spirits of any kind:
"The denial of the existence of any god or supernatural being."
"Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the
"denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence"."
"denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence"
I should note the point made in Britannica, that atheism is not just the opposite of theism.
Now you are perfectly within your rights to have a personal definition of atheism that includes a belief in the supernatural but (somehow) not in any divinity or God. However, I feel that you owe it to your readers to clarify that when you speak of atheism, you do not mean what is commonly understood by the term. Much of what you write leads me to believe that you are someone
who values clarity and precision in writing (at least, you demand it of others), so I'm sure you will agree that such a clarification is necessary. In the future, should I read something of yours that refers to Steiner's 'atheism' without clarifying that you mean something different with this
term than is commonly understood, I should feel that it was somewhat disingenuous.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"I should note the point made in Britannica, that atheism is not just the opposite of theism."
But that is exactly what I meant by it: the opposite of theism.
[What the problem with having a personal dictionary? Who cares what the rest of the world understands the term as?]
I have no idea whether this is how the term is "commonly understood".
[That is a promising statement. How many other words are bent like this? Racism? anti-Semitism?]
I really don't spend much time thinking about the topic.
[But that won't stop him arguing it like an expert (see above).]
"However, I feel that you owe it to your readers to clarify that when you speak of atheism, you do not mean what is commonly understood by the term."
What readers? I didn't introduce this topic, Tarjei did. I made it abundantly clear, over a series of several posts, that in my view atheism simply means disbelief in god, nothing more and nothing less. I think I said so roughly half a dozen times. If any reader of that exchange managed to get the impression that I think atheism means anything other than disbelief in god, I don't see what I might be able to do to make my stance clearer. If you have any suggestions along those lines, I will gladly entertain them.
[Notice how much difficuly Peter Staudenmaier has ceeding any point, no matter how trivial. Little wonder, then, that he won't budge on anything that would in the least bit damage his central arguments against Steiner.]

Daniel Hindes (February 24th, 2004):
I have sent not less than six definitions of the term "atheism". One writer wrote at length about how "atheism" is more than anti-theism; it is a negation of all supersensible or spiritual beings. I am pointing out that your definition goes against every other definition of more than 10 words. If you profess ignorance as to how a term is used, I suggest you either look it up or stop using it entirely.
My reference to your "readers" is forwared looking. You will be writing on the subject in the future. I am attempting to help you ensure the clarity of your future writing. You have stated that your purpose in coming here is to have your opinions examined, so that you might learn. Well, here is an opportunity.

Dottie Zold (February 24th, 2004):
Again we have your 'view' of a thing that does not add up to the common understanding of a thing. And you obviously have not made it abundantly clear. And on the critics list you did the same thing. These people and my self are thinking that because of your great intellectual skill you are very clear about definitions and so forth. And actually you are not. It is all your own person view that lines up with your own personal world view outlook.