I just realized that it has been a bit over a year since I last did a Forgotten Atheists blog. Well past time for another one, my fifth.
“Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.”
Who was the first explicit atheist in history? That is a more challenging question than many assume. After all, many who were called atheists were, instead, believers but believers who believed differently than most. And then there are the many who were not totally atheist, but instead, semi-atheist. Or those whose ideas about the universe easily lead to an atheistic view but who never chose to go that far and were, instead, agnostic. Early examples of atheists that many promote are like this – Epicurus, Lucretius, etc. They did not deny that God or Gods existed. Only that they did not work in the affairs of humans and the world and so could be ignored.
For the purposes of this blog, and in order to discuss this forgotten atheist, I am looking at who the first person was who explicitly said, under their own name and not a pseudonym, that God did not exist and argued against his or her or their existence. A person for whom this was a main message. In which case, I give you Matthias Knutzen (1646 to sometime after 1674), founder of the Conscientiarians, as being the first modern form of atheist.
Consider these testimonials. In 1677 the German theologian Tobias Pfanner said that Knutzen’s work surpassed the infamy of all the enemies of religion known until then. In 1697 Pierre Bayle included Knutzen in his Dictionanaire hisotirque et critique. In 1789 Thomas Mortimer’s “Students Pocket Dictionary of Universal History had this about Knutzen, “The only person on record who openly professed and taught atheism.”
Matthias Knutzen was born sometime in 1646 in Oldenswort, Germany, near the river Elder. His parents were Berend Knutzen, an organist in Oldenswort, and Berend’s wife Elisabeth. While still very young he lost both of his parents and was sent to live with his uncle, also an organist, in Konigsberg.
There is no man who, faced with the passages reported in Knutzen’s letter, will fail to judge for himself that all these objections are utterly weak, and that this man became an atheist from the corruption of his heart, and not because of the lights of his mind
From “Entretiens sur divers sujets d’historie et de religion” by Mathurin Veyssiere del la Croze in 1711
Matthias enrolled at the University of Konigsberg in 1664 and in 1668 studied theology at the Lutheran seminary at the University of Copenhagen. Although it does not appear he actually graduated. During this time he earned money as a private tutor and in 1673 became a village schoolteacher and auxiliary Protestant preacher in the Kremper Marsch.
Also in 1673 he was dismissed from this position due to him criticizing the religious authorities during his sermons. In 1674 he went to Rome and from there to Jena, distributing handwritten atheistic pamphlets. After Jena, records fail.
If you now think you will convince me and my co-religionists with your Bible, we’ll no more accept it as a judge than a Jew would the New Testament. We Conscientarians believe nothing unless established by science or reason, not of only one (who might be insane), but of many; not that of small children, but that of grown men, in harmony with our joint conscience.
From “A Conversation Between a Chaplain, Named Dr. Heinrich Brummer, and an Educated Pattern-Printer”, by Matthias Knutzen.
Where and when and how he died is unknown. There is a story that he died in an Italian monastery. Given his actions and beliefs, this would seem to be a strange place for his last days. Which is why many think this may have been put about in order to discredit him. And possibly the Catholic Church.
Regardless of when and how he died, he was the culmination of thousand of years of skepticism and incipient atheism within Greek and Roman thought. In addition, he was also informed and influenced by heretical Christian thought such as Socinianism (the belief God is unitary, not a trinity; that Jesus was human and did not pre-exist, and that God could not predict that actions of people with free will).
As can be seen, detailed information about the life of Matthias Knutzen is scarce. He did not marry (which may not be all that surprising given his views on marriage, see quote below). He did not have known children. However, he did leave behind three written works, the aforementioned pamphlets that he distributed in several German cities:
Epistola amica ad amicum: Letter for a Friend to a Friend.
Gesprach zwischen einem Gastgeber und drei Gasten ungleicher Religion; Conversation between a Host and three Guest of different Religions.
Gesrpach zwischen einem Felprediger names Dr. Heinrich Brummern und einem lateinischen Musterschreiber: Conversation between an Army Chaplain called Dr. Heinrich Brummern and a Latin Pattern-Writer.
With these writings he proclaimed what he called the conscience people – Conscientarians. Knutzen claimed that there were followers in Hamburg, Jena, Paris, Amsterdam, and Rome. However, it is most likely he their numbers were smaller than he claimed.
This man, after completing his studies in Konigsberg, in Prussia, decided to travel the world, and set himself up as a new apostle of atheism…..he sought to establish under the name of the Sect of the Conscientarians, that is, men who would profess in all things to follow the laws of conscience and reason only. However, this wretch denied the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the authority of Holy Scripture, as if, with the loss of these truths, the least trace of conscience could remain in man.
From Entretiens sur divers sujets d’historie et de religion” by Mathurin Veyssiere del la Croze in 1711
As for what he taught and advocated, he did not believe that God, the devil or immortal souls existed. He not only believed they did not exist, he publicly argued that they did not while also pointing out the Bible’s many contradictions to show that it was not a trustworthy source of morals or knowledge.
He also argued that since there are no such immortal and divine beings and with the Bible having proven itself untrustworthy by its many contradictions, then reason and conscience should be the guidelines for human behavior. Religious authority is not only not necessary but should be dispensed with. As should secular authorities.
First, there is neither a God nor a devil; secondly, magistrates arc not to be valued, churches are to be despised, and priests rejected; thirdly, instead of magistrates and priests, we have learning and reason, which, joined with conscience, teach us to live honestly, to hurt no man, and to give every one his due; fourthly, matrimony does not differ from fornication; fifthly, there is but one life, which is this, after which there are neither rewards nor punishments; the holy Scripture is inconsistent with itself.
Letter to Rome from Matthia Knutznen
“Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.”
Knutzen in Amicus Amicis Amica!
As can be seen in this last quote of his, in addition to being an atheist he was a proto anarchist.
For Knutzen, the most important and guiding rule was: “Live honestly, do not harm anybody and give everybody what they deserve.”
Not bad words to live by, not bad at all for an immoral atheist. One who was willing to disturb the status quo under his own name.
Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down. Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs. And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning.
Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights. I did so once using history to show why. This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US.
China
Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious. It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion. It is an atheist state. Which is exactly the point. It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists. While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular. However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not.
What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist. Secular actually comes in three types. However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view. Even atheism. And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular. Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection. There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others. And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.
China though is not a secular government. It officially describes itself as being atheist. And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists. And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted. And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck.
Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed. However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored.
The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.” They also have to pledge loyalty to the state.
They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups, reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions. They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions.
So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated. Limits are applied to speech and to associations. All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.
One point of interest here. Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions. Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood. And can only adopt a child if they are single.
India
India is officially a secular state. It says so in its Constitution. However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions. Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes. Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation.
An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions. And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand. This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall. These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.
This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one. And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this. It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits. As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple.
Israel
Israel is not a secular state. It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel. It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is. The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum. And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored. Including some Jewish groups.
However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China. But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.
Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible.
Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy. Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision. Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed? Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote? Or do they do a massive deportation? None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza.
The United States
I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.
“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”
There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality. That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.
Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”. Worse case, they are persecuted. Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited. Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps.
When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc.
The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws. It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious
People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation – police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor. It is not a big deal. However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs. The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink.
As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog. My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”. I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I have always liked this quote, even though I have not read much of Emerson. None in fact since I graduated high school almost 50 years ago. However, during those 50 years my views of what a “foolish consistency” consists of has changed. Or more accurately it has been expanded.
For Emerson a foolish consistency meant that past beliefs should not limit you and prevent you from changing views. Even more importantly, such consistencies can trap you into living within past limits and structures instead of enjoying and growing into the present. A foolish consistency limits both individuals and societies. “Because it has always been done that way” is a fatal attitude in regard to progress.
This is something I totally agree with. However, I believe that this does not go far enough in regard to understanding what a foolish consistency is. Or, rather, that it ignores other aspects of foolish.
“But fundamentalism is not just a conviction that one’s sacred text is complete and true, but also a demand that we all believe and act consistently with that text. Camus recognized that this demand for radical consistency is shared by other forms of extremism.”
This consistency is why creationists deny the evidence for evolution, why climate change deniers deny the evidence for climate change. Why trump supporters ignore the evidence of his corruption and for the fact that the elections were honest and accurate. In other words, a consistent belief held and acted upon no matter what creates extremism. Which for Camus, interestingly enough, included Marxism.
For myself, I have, over the years, been moving from the belief that all of my beliefs have to be rational, all of them have to have consistent standards of evidence and reasons for holding, to thinking that there are other good reasons for believing something true. While holding consistent beliefs based on rational thought is overall a good thing, it is not always good. And definitely not necessary. And, I think, like Camus, holding consistent and non -contradictory beliefs is impossible to do.
We hold beliefs for many reasons. Humans, unlike Vulcans, are primarily creatures of emotion and feelings first. Reason and logic come in second. And because of that reason and logic should, as Hume said, both “…be the slave of the passions.” Not just are, but ought to be.
This is seen in matters both small and large. What foods I like is not a rational decision. Nor is who I find attractive, or interesting. For that matter, the way we live our lives. Most atheists I know live their lives as if it has meaning or purpose of some sort – either small or large. That there is a reason to continue on living, even when life itself becomes filled with pain and suffering. That there is a reason to risk their health, their livelihood, their life for causes and people. They believe this even though there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe. It just is. The same by the way holds true for theists, just in a different form.
For myself, I also believe that even all my beliefs about reality don’t have to be consistent with reason and logic and evidence. I am coming to the belief that if a person believes something solely due to the fact that it comforts them, that it provides them some strength or support, then, even if that belief has no evidence for it, or even if it has some evidence against it that would seem to make it greatly improbable, that is still a valid reason for holding a belief as being true.
As with all things there are limits to these sorts of beliefs (one being not forcing others to believe the same, but that is a limit many beliefs have, even rational ones). But, having limits on such doesn’t negate the fact that such beliefs are valid, even if not universally shared. In fact, I think a foolish consistency on the reason for holding beliefs can lead to personal unhappiness. And, possibly, extremism.
I am not sure if Camus would have gone as far as I have on this. It has been over 20 years and probably closer to 30 since I last read anything of his. But I think he might at least be sympathetic to such a view. Especially in light of his remarks in a speech to the monks of a Dominican monastery, as reported in the blog:
“Camus’s remarks to the monks are disarming. He begins with two important disclaimers: “I shall never start from the supposition that Christian faith is illusory, but merely from the fact that I cannot accept it.” And: “I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all” (3). Camus goes on to make but a single point: that if he would ask anything of the Christian community, it would be that they would speak clearly against injustice, and not with the cowardly evasions that the Church adopted in response to Nazism.”
And this is the bottom line of all beliefs in my mind. Why they are held, while important, is of lesser importance in most cases than the question of whether they support justice and humanity. With that I can work with anyone no matter what their beliefs or why they hold them. Without that, then no belief, no matter how rational or how much evidence it has for it, I cannot.
Humans are not rational beings. This is true even for those of us who value reason and logic and evidence. Scientists, philosophers, lawyers, plumbers, priests and ministers and rabbis and mullahs, accountants, engineers, and on and on. If you are human you are not, at your core, a rational being. You may have learned how to be rational in some areas of your life, perhaps even many. But it is not your go to knee jerk response. By the way let me say that this is neither a bad thing nor a good thing. It just is. At times it is good. At other times, not so good.
I had this truth of our non-rational nature brought home to me in a discussion with a group that largely expounds the value of reason and logic, my fellow atheists. Atheists, like every other human group, due to our own motivations that can run “deeper than reason” (“The Varieties of Atheism” by David Newheiser, page 8), can find ourselves prone to certain wrong beliefs.
My most recent experience verifying the truth of this is with two beliefs that are popular among some (although I do not think most) atheists. The first is the belief that a man named Jesus whose life and teachings were the basis for the creation of Christianity did not actually exist and was really nothing more than the concoction, either deliberately or unconsciously, of a particular society at a particular time. In other words, Jesus was totally fictional. Related to this is a second belief that Nazareth either did not exist or was not inhabited during Jesus’s time. They believed this despite the fact that the vast majority of historians and biblical scholars say the evidence strongly supports the claim that a man named Jesus existed. And that Nazareth was inhabited during his time.
To be clear here, what these historians and scholars are saying is that evidence strongly supports that Jesus existed. He was a man who was an itinerant, likely illiterate, preacher who was charismatic and had unique teachings that touched lives. He was likely an apocalyptic preacher too. This preacher was found to be a threat to the Romans, as many thousands were, and was crucified and died. End of his physical story. But though dead his life and teachings were remembered and then added to so that eventually Jesus Christ came into being. He, a man, was the kernel at the core of the myth.
So, even though there is no claim that Jesus actually did miracles, that Jesus raised the dead, that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus died and was resurrected and, instead, that he was merely a man (exceptional, but still man), many Atheists object and deny this evidence.
Now I am not going to go over why the great majority of historians believe the evidence that Jesus existed is very strong and do not doubt that the man indeed did exist. Or that Nazareth was inhabited during the time of Jesus. Instead, I am going to discuss the form of arguments being used to defend the idea that Jesus did not exist and show how they mirror the arguments used by young earth creationists against evolution, climate change deniers, those who claim the 2020 elections were stolen, flat earthers, etc. In fact, you usually will find variants of these sorts of arguments used by all of those defending irrational beliefs. Which should not be surprising given that if evidence and reason do not support your position then you almost have to go with something else.
Impugning the motives of these historians and scholars. When I pointed out that these historians’ personal religious views covered a wide range – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist – and yet they all agreed that Jesus as a man did exist, the responses I often received back was that historians could not be trusted on this due to them needing a paycheck and a career. This is a very common argument I have seen used by climate change deniers and young earth creationists in regards to scientists.
Ignore and deny. Often this is accompanied by moving on to another point they feel favors them. As an example, they would ignore the fact that I provided archaeological evidence for Nazareth being populated during Jesus’s time and, instead, added more and more “evidence” of another nature that the person thought proved Nazareth was not.
Presenting false “facts”, incomplete “facts”, or twisted “facts”. For example, one said that the gospel of Mark does not call Jesus a Nazarene. While technically correct in that Mark did not call Jesus a Nazarene, Mark in the first chapter does state that Jesus came from Nazareth. Or a different person pointing out that Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, ignoring that most towns in that area were not mentioned in the Old Testament. Towns were mentioned only if something or someone of importance came from that town. In Nazareth nothing important happened until Jesus was born there. So, no mention.
Not providing sources when asked. Often/usually I was told that I should be able to find it on my own. Again, a tactic common among young earth creationists and climate change deniers.
Requiring unrealistic standards of proof. For example, them pointing out that Roman records during Jesus’s life do not mention him. If the historians claimed that the Jesus who was a miracle worker with many thousands of followers and who rose from the dead and called himself the Son of God, then possibly they might have a point. However, that is not what the historians are saying. They are saying that Jesus was an illiterate, itinerant apocalyptic preacher. Why would the authorities notice him? They had them by the scores in Palestine and crucified many of them. It was a routine day in Palestine. This is as wrong an expectation as that of the young earth creationist who shouts out that if evolution happened then why are there still apes! Most illiterate poor people are not mentioned at the time. Or ever for that matter.
And finally, the one that really blew my mind a bit. I am used to occasionally being called a Christian. But I think this was the first time that someone had said that some atheists are engaged in Christian apologetics. I was told that Bart Ehrmann was a Christian apologist. That the atheist historian I referenced was one too. And that I too am a Christian apologist, even though I have been an atheist for 49 years and have it documented on my blog going back to 2009.
The irrationality of this latter claim, that I and other atheists are Christian apologists for believing and arguing that Jesus exists is made clear when you consider that the Christian religions consists of believing not only that Jesus was a man but that he was also God, is eternal, and died for our sins so that we too can have life after death and that this three in one man performed miracles and raised the dead. If you deny these aspects of Jesus then you are not a Christian apologist and no Christians would consider you a Christian. Even though you agree that a man named Jesus whose words and teachings became the basis of Christianity existed.
Acknowledging that there is a man who, by the way, was extremely unlikely to have ever claimed any sort of divinity, and who, though charismatic and with teachings that inspired people, did not perform miracles of any sort and who died, thoroughly and eternally died, after being crucified in no way supports that fundamental basis of Christian belief. It, in fact undermines it, totally and completely. To say that just acknowledging this reality is Christian apologetics is akin to saying that since I believe Muhammad existed then I must be a Muslim apologist, or since I believed that Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism then I must be a Buddhist apologist, and so on.
As for why people hold these beliefs against both reasons and evidence, I would imagine there is no one reason, but a varied assortment the specifics of which depend on the person and belief. I am not going to explore this in detail here, but let me mention one that that I do know of from past experiences and conversations.
I found in my discussion with young earth creationists that their belief that the earth is young is one of their greatest and most important beliefs. Likely because it is part of their religious belief in a literal Bible, a belief that provides comfort and makes sense of an often senseless world. And gives hope. This provides a great deal of emotional motivation to protect that belief and means that all other information and evidence and reasoning is not as important and has to be made to either fit into the young earth idea or explained away, no matter how irrational the reasoning needed to do so. After all, when all other alternatives have been eliminated then the one left, no matter how outrageous, has to be true.
The equivalent of this for some atheists is a belief that not only does God not exist but that Christianity is evil and a lie. This is likely sparked by their own experiences with both religion and Christianity and so has a powerful emotional component. Such a belief shapes their view and understanding of the world, as the young earth does for the creationist, or the political fear of a big government to many climate change deniers. All new information, reasoning, and facts have to be worked around that fundamental belief in some way, shape, fashion or form.
Now, these are not the only motivations or reasons. As I said, there are many. But it gives an idea as to what I think is often going on in these conversations. It is not our learned reason but, instead, our core irrational side, our emotions.
In regard to the blog on this subject, evidence and reason show that a man named Jesus existed. He was born and raised in Nazareth. His teachings and words were the spark that created Christianity. However, he was not God. He did not perform miracles. He did not believe he was God, or the Messiah in the sense it is meant today, and probably not then either. That is not Christian apologetics. It is just reality. One that is distasteful to most Christians and that they would strongly and fervently disagree with. A distaste that some atheists also share, although for different reasons.
Atheists, like all humans, hold irrational beliefs, some of whom will strongly defend them despite their irrationality. In this case, arguing fervently that Jesus did not exist at all, despite the evidence. Even more interesting is how they use the same tactics of young earth creationists and climate change deniers to justify this wrong belief. Thus, showing that they too are merely human, an inherently irrational creature who has learned to reason but cannot always (nor should they) hold all their beliefs rationally.
I have seen some Christians claim that without Christianity science would not have arisen and be possible. I have seen similar claims made by some atheists on the part of science and atheism. Since I have already written about the flaws with the claim that Christianity was needed for science (“On Christianity Being Essential for Science”) I plan to now discuss the flaws in the other.
Let me start by saying that correlation is not causation. In this case I do not think that atheism was necessary for the rise of science. Nor was science necessary for atheism. Instead there were two separate processes going on at the same time that created each.
However, let me just inject here that I am well aware of the issues specific religious beliefs and institutions have created for science and scientists over the years. However, that is not the question here. The question is that did a rise in skepticism in regards to religious beliefs, a rise in atheism, spark science. The answer as shown by history is that it did not, that atheism and science largely developed separately. And truthfully, are still separate even today.
Science
Science was created and furthered until very recently by people who were religious, and was often funded by religious institutions. Its earliest roots lie in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and had significant contributions from China and India. None of which had any significant atheistic or materialistic movements (and possibly none at all, especially not in the modern sense). Greeks too by and large believe in God or gods and set their inquiries within this context. For example, Aristotle, widely considered to be the first true scientist, believed in a God who “imbues all things with order and purpose, both of which can be discovered and point to his (or its) divine existence” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Significant contributions from then came from Muslims such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Ibn al-Haytham as well as others. The creation of Medieval Universities, although initially created to promote religious thought, quickly came to provide invaluable aid in exploring and disseminating knowledge and science during Medieval Times. Galileo was a Catholic with conventional beliefs in regards to religion. Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican. Newton, although not a conventional Christian in that he did not believe in the Trinity, but he did believe in God.
In fact, well into modern times, and even today, there are prominent and important scientists who are believers. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest as well as a theoretical physicist came up with the Big Bang theory. Mendel known for his work on genetics was a friar and abbot. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Greek Orthodox believer was instrumental in developing the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory to account for genetics. Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Gerty Theresa Radnitz (third woman to win a Nobel Prize in science), Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Godel, and many others were also believers in God.
In fact, for most of its history science has been conducted and furthered by believers and religious institutions. In fact, a great many of these scientists and proto scientists were actually motivated in their scientific endeavors by their religious beliefs. Not what I would expect to see if atheism or skepticism about God were one of the primary forces in the development of science.
In other words, in the words of Edis in his paper “Atheism and the Rise of Science”, “Distrust in faith did not motivate the emerging science”.
Atheism
I ended the part on science with a quote from Edis. Let me start the one on atheism with a quote from his article too: “What little there was in the way of science did not much influence existing pockets of doubt.”
In other words, atheism grew mainly due to developments within philosophy, and also out of moral concerns. In Europe it grew out of skepticism of many aspects of the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, and moral God. It did not grow out of scientific knowledge but, instead, out of philosophical and moral skepticism.
Using myself as an example, I became an atheist not because of science but due to my reading of the Bible, specifically Moses and the Pharoah, and moral questions about what I was reading. This was followed by becoming aware of the different philosophical problems involved in an all powerful and knowing God who was also moral and believed in free will.
The only role science played was later, when I looked to see if there was any evidence or need for a God that would be strong enough to overcome these moral and philosophical problems. As you might have guessed, there weren’t.
Yes, there are many reasons why people become atheists. Some are due to scientific knowledge contradicting a person’s religious beliefs. However, historically, that was not true. The history between atheism and science was more akin to my own personal one – independent and then linked up relatively late.
Link Up
The link up of the two started during the Enlightenment and then took off in the late 19th century as the developments of philosophy and that of science caused both to become increasingly independent of religious institutions. And with the development of methodological naturalism as being firmly a part of modern science, atheists could fully embrace science as a reason to doubt. Although, as I have mentioned, today many scientist are still believers.
Although in this regards, something that Enid said in his article gave me pause, and is something that I have to consider.
“Figuring out quantum mechanics changed our concept of science. Similarly, methods of doing science are also constantly subject to criticism and revision…After all, what methods will be successful depends on the nature of the world under investigation – if reading tea leaves produced reliable information, scientists would have to include tea leaves in their equipment. Methods are not prior philosophical constraints setting limits on science but part of what we learn about the world.”
In other words, methodological naturalism is purely a pragmatic position, not a philosophical one. It is why so many scientists, include leading ones, can be both a good scientist and strongly religious. It is also a cautionary tale to atheists that yes, this is leaning our way for now. But there is much more unknown about the universe than known, and that is subject to future change on the part of science. Science will and does work just fine without atheism.
Just a few thoughts about various aspects of atheism that I don’t really have enough to say to make any of these a full blog – or at least don’t have the energy to do so.
Is Atheism a religion. Many atheists get upset at atheism being called a religion. They quite rightly point out that it has no dogma, no rituals, no established rites. However, they are still wrong in saying it is not a religion. It is a religion in the same way that Theism is, a belief about whether a god exists or not.
Theism does not have any dogma, no rituals, no established rites. It is just the belief that there is a god of some sort. Atheism and theism are two sides of the same religious belief. It is the absolute broadest category when looking at religion. From there the comparison goes to Catholicism vs Secular Humanism, or Alawite Muslims vs Humanistic Jews.
And yes, while not as well organized or structured as most theistic belief systems, atheism does have its own divisions and groupings.
Atheism and Morality. One of those divisions in atheism is the source of morality. Some atheists believe that no standards for right and wrong actually exist. Others that they are based solely upon society or are entirely situational. Others believe that here is an objective basis for morality but that is it not God based or supernatural and, instead, arises from what we are. My own belief is the last one – derived from what we are.
Atheism and Spirituality This can be another source of division within atheism. While all atheists agree that there is no omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent personal being, what constitutes atheism can become a bit more murky after that.
Many reject all forms of superstition and supernatural beings. Even the idea of spirituality. Some atheists though are more open to such things. Especially spirituality, with spirituality being the idea that while God or gods do not exist there is a nebulous higher consciousness that does. Most atheists do not believe in a higher consciousness, but many do.
Along with this some atheists enjoy going to church and the rites of a particular religious belief. Humanist Jews is one such example. Some Christian ones are the same. Another source of division.
For myself, I am sympathetic to the spiritual atheists, and depending upon how spiritual is actually defined, might include myself among them. Although not if it is defined solely as a belief in a higher consciousness. In regard to attending religious services, was never much for that even when I was a Christian much less now.
Atheism as cure for all that is wrong in the world. I have seen some atheists claim that if it weren’t for religion the world would be much better off. That atheism by itself would make the world better. Not paradise, but better. However, I think this thinking flawed.
First, it underestimates the good done by religion throughout the millennia. In fact, I believe that overall religion has done a great deal more good than bad.
Second, more importantly, it underestimates the amount of evil that can be done under atheism. Much of atheism’s seemingly benign history lies in it rarely having access to the power of the state. However, in the few times the government has embraced the belief that there is no God, evil things have and continue to happen.
The French Revolution and the Cult or Reason. The Khmer Rouge. The USSR. And today’s communist China. You will find religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution, and massive deaths under each. This despite their embrace of atheism. Just like the greatest damage done in the name of religion has been done when religion and state were merged.
So, no, I’m not optimistic that atheism would be a panacea for the world’s ills. And it could actually make things worse. That is not to say it will, only that claiming it will only improve the world is too optimistic and ignores too much history.
Atheism has no comfort for our coming death, for righting wrongs. Atheism has no good comfort to give for a life after death for most. Except, maybe, for those who are in deep suffering or believed in Hell. Atheism offers only dissolution. And no, the idea that my wife’s atoms and molecules will continue on for eternity is no comfort. My wife was not atoms and molecules. She was a very specific arrangement of such, and that arrangement is now gone. Sorry, at least for me, there is no comfort in atheism.
Although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent an atheist from believing in a life after death. Just one that exists without a God. Some atheists do believe this. For myself, I do not yet. But I really hope I am wrong. But, even if so, I do not see how that could wind up righting the many injustices and wrongs all of us suffer to varying degrees in life.
And those are my few random thoughts about atheism. Enjoy!
I was lying in bed the other morning, remembering. I do that much more often now since I lost Dindy, my wife of 42 years, 17 months ago. I was going through memories of our life together – our pets, our homes, our work, being with our children and then grandchildren, as well as our parents and other family, our vacations, and on and on. I noticed that while I had many good memories that I treasure and want to keep till I too go, I had a much, much greater amount of blank. So much empty space between one memory and the next. So many probable good memories of the person I loved the most and who was and remains an essential part of me, gone forever.
After an emotional moment, or two, I started thinking about our own identity. A large part of our identity consists of our memories. What does it mean that not only mine, but most (I assume) identities rest on so much blank space?
The answer I came to is one I have used when asked about meaning for an atheist in regards to dying. How does an atheist deal with the idea that when they die their life will have had no meaning, have had no impact once all of those who knew them are gone too? How can meaning be found in something fleeting and transitory.
The answer is that even though the memory is forgotten, that forgotten moment shaped things and impacted people, even if only in small ways. Each small tap of a sculptor’s mallet helped shape the stone into a statue even though most are forgotten. And despite the moment being forgotten, that impact stays behind and is passed on, usually unknowingly. This is true on both a personal and an objective level.
Our forgotten memories still shape us – what we like and dislike, our propensity to be moody or chipper or quick to anger or quick to cringe. They still shape and support our identity. It is why even those memories we no longer remember are so important. I know that my time together with Dindy has made me a better person than I would have been otherwise, even if I cannot remember most of our time together, cannot remember all the good moments, meaningful moments, hard moments.
So too with the world. How we live, how we interact with the world….let me change that word world. Very, very few individuals interact with the whole world. In fact, no one does. They interact with parts of it, usually very small parts of it. World sounds so grandiose and sets up expectations of major actions, events, changes. Irrational and unrealistic expectations. And unnecessary ones.
The reality is that our interactions are more limited – family and friends, co-workers, local politics, local charities, helping or ignoring a stranger in need, providing a bright moment to a child, or to an animal. Those moments add up to shape the part of the world that is around us. That part that we interact with and see most closely. And those impacts, although not remembered, are carried on by those people to impact others. That blankness helped to shape their personality, their identity, their beliefs, their actions. Which in turn continues on, spreading in ripples outward through both geography and time.
Yes, the changes may be minimal. Or may consist of nothing more than reinforcing something good, or bad, already being done. So? It is an effect; it is an impact. And it lasts.
We make too much of grand changes and impacts, of world-shaking moments and people. However, over time, it is these small actions, the forgotten memories, these blanks, that actually shape and maintain the world. This can’t help be anything but true. Billions of us make small impacts. Only a few make world changing ones. Those billions add up, like grains of sand on a beach. And even those world changing ones are brought about by the millions of preceding small blanks that have shaped people and events. Including that of the person making a large impact.
Yes, when the human race or its successors, if any, finally die out then those changes that we were a part of will no longer exist. Again, so? Too much is made of the idea that things have to be eternal to be important. Is the laugh of a child, the bloom of a rose, the touch of a lover any less sweet and important even though all are transitory? Is my time with Dindy any less important for having been too short?
So, though I wish I could recall more memories of Dindy, and greatly regret the blankness of my life, and even more strongly wish that I was still creating new ones of both memories and blankness, I am grateful for the blanks too. Because those moments were an important part of shaping me into the person I am now and while not totally satisfied with myself – not even close- I do like who I am and am grateful for being me.
The correct answer to the above cartoon is that we are both. Both our spaces and our lines define us – who we are, what we are. This not so deep insight can be thought of in many ways, but I want to look at it in terms of forming beliefs and the role of reason and emotion in such forming. Both reason and emotions define us, define our lives and our living. One without the other is like trying to identify with just the lines in the cartoon, or with the spaces only. Either is wrong and will leave an incomplete understanding. And possibly an incomplete life.
Of course that brings up the question of whether reason is the lines and emotions the spaces or is it vice versa. To my mind reason is the lines and emotions the spaces. The lines provide an outline. But the emotions fill and shape that outline. To milk this analogy for all its worth, and then some, a life of reason only, in which reason alone decides everything, would be a flat line – boring and lifeless, devoid of meaning.
Many believe that reason should be the final decider on what we believe, on what we like, on all our opinions and thoughts. Emotions should only be one piece of datum in the use of rationality and evidence to do the actual deciding.
I disagree.
Reason provides the boundaries, but those boundaries are often set by other considerations. In other words, there are times when emotions such as love, hope, urges, faith and such should take the drivers seat in determining what we believe, what we think, with reason taking a back seat in such decisions.
Reason and evidence should not always, or even mostly, be the sole basis for defining your beliefs and values. In fact, there are times, and many of them, when such should not be the deciding factor. When reason and evidence should be overruled even. Let’s start with a look at a more minor belief and work up to a major one for examples of what I am talking about: what foods you like to eat.
What foods you like are based upon emotions, not reason. One does not sit down and gather evidence and then make an informed, rational decision on what foods you like. Otherwise, cheesecake, nachos, fries and bacon cheeseburgers would not be some of my favorite foods and asparagus, broccoli, and all sorts of fish among my least favorite foods (almost hated actually). After all, it is irrational to like what is not healthy for you, and to dislike what is. And yet my choice of food is often irrational.
Now, what I choose to eat can be influence by rational thought and evidence. For example, two checkups ago I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic. Because of this I changed some of my eating habits and increased my exercise routine. However, I still eat those foods I mentioned, and more, that is unhealthy for me. Just a bit less than before and added a bit more greenery into my diet as well as more fruits. I lost some weight and have been exercising consistently for two and a half years. All my check ups since that first have shown me to no longer be pre-diabetic.
The rational thing for me to have done upon receiving this diagnosis though would have been for me to totally revamp my diet and eating instead of only slightly modifying them. After all, it would probably benefit me in the future. But that is rather the point. I chose not to because I found not doing so of value to me. Rationality is my lines defining how much. The spaces that define those lines though are largely non- rational choices and beliefs. The rationality and evidence defines the limits, the emotions and irrational the shape.
Other examples would be things such as what do you find more attractive in potential spouses in regard to appearances (blond or brunette dark, skinny, tall, short, etc.), do you like snow and winter or heat and summer more, etc. At first, if a boss or colleague backstabs you at work, or a friend betrays you you do not rationally decide what to do. Your first reaction is an emotional one. Rationality comes in when deciding how to act upon that emotion – whether to deny it and ignore, to confront, or any other of a myriad of responses. And even then, you emotions will work with your reasoning to decide which is the best course of action for you – as I did in my eating. Your emotions play a major role in the shape that the rational considerations will draw. Your motivation then is not rational belief, but emotions.
Of course, this is not the same as holding a more significant belief without evidence and reason. In fact, it is not even the same as saying that nachos are a healthy food. However, it does indicate that there is more of importance to our lives than living it totally rationally, totally by evidence. And that those areas are equally as, and possibly more, important than rational evidence based beliefs.
And that is good. It is necessary. Many decisions should be based on something other than rational thinking. And despite such lack of rational basis, they can be equally valid beliefs.
I can hear many say that irrational beliefs are dangerous ones. For example, the belief that the election was stolen. Or that vaccines are dangerous, or prayer should take the place of medicine. So, yes, irrational beliefs can be very dangerous. But not always though. That is the mistake many make. For example, whether I prefer sunny and warm, or cold and snow, or who I find attractive are not. And in regards to the more major beliefs reason does provide the lines, the areas beyond which irrational beliefs can become dangerous.
To my mind an irrational belief is not dangerous and can be accepted as a valid reason for believing something if it meets the following conditions:
There is no clear, overwhelming evidence showing it to be wrong (although there can be exceptions to this one which I will mention in an example later)
It does not lead to destructive outcomes.
The person holding the belief recognizes its irrationality.
The person holding the belief does not proselytize, due to recognizing it is an irrational belief based on emotion, specifically their emotion.
So, how does this play out in real life? Two examples.
First example, several years ago I was very involved in on line groups where creationists and those who recognized the evidence for evolution got together and talked. Well, usually argued (it was fun). During this time, I met one young earth creationist who met those guidelines (not in those groups, but elsewhere).
This person firmly and absolutely believed in young earth creationism. However, he also recognized that the evidence firmly supported on old earth, an old universe and evolution. Because of this he agreed that in science courses evolution and not creationism should be taught. He did not try to convince others of a young earth or of creationism because there was no evidence and he recognized it was by his faith alone that he believed. He also believed that someday science would turn up the evidence showing this to be true, but until that time it should teach evolution.
I have a great deal of respect for this person and, while I think it wrong, his basis for this belief is valid. He does not quite meet the first criteria I outlined above, that of being no overwhelming and clear evidence contradicting it, but he met the others so strongly that I was fine with this. This is a valid reason for believing something – faith.
In his case, he did not try to proselytize. It did no harm, he strongly argued that schools should continue to teach evolution in science classes.
Second example, Martin Gardner. Martin Gardner was one of the major founders of the moder skeptic movement and many of his books such as “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” are considered classic. A recognized magician and mathematician, writing a column for many years for Scientific American. Most would have thought him an atheist, or at least agnostic, based upon this background. However, he firmly believed in both a God and an afterlife.
Based on the evidence he thought all the religions – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc – were wrong. But due to his faith and need he believed in both a God who created and in a life after death. He freely admitted there was no evidence for either and that his belief was irrational. Possibly even counter to some evidence. He freely admitted that this belief that there has to be somewhere to correct the unfairness of this life, to correct the pain and suffering of this world, and to continue on was based upon things other than reason, other than evidence. It is why he did not try to convince others and proselytize.
I think his belief and reason for it are valid.
As I said earlier, we are more than just reason and evidence. In fact, that more is what most often gives our life meaning and purpose. A sense of justice, a sense of fairness, a sense that there is more, a hope of seeing loved ones, or whatever else. Using that more as a basis for forming beliefs is equally as valid as using reason and evidence. Within the limits I mentioned above. Reason provides the lines; emotions provide the spaces. Both are needed.
At the time I am starting to write this it has been two years and three weeks since I last wrote a blog about a forgotten atheist. High time I did another one then. And instead of starting at the beginning or middle of this remarkable woman’s life, I am going to start with a short newspaper article about the coroner’s verdict in regards to her cause of death.
The vast majority of humankind will not directly greatly impact the world. They will live, die and be forgotten. However, even in small ways we can change the world. That is my thought in reading the letters of my next Forgotten Atheist Olga Jacoby, letters which brought her a few more years of direct remembrance when collected and published as “Words in Pain: Letters on Life and Death”. Even after that book and her letters are forgotten though her influence, like all people no matter religion, creed, race, gender, will still endure.
Olga Jacoby, born Sara Olga Ilke in Germany on August 15, 1874 to Jewish parents, married her cousin John Jacoby on August 29th, 1896, moved to Manchester England with her husband , diagnosed with a terminal illness in 1909, adopted four children (in 1900, 1904, 1907 and 1912), and died on May 6. 1913 by purposely taking a sleeping draught overdose. She was 38.
Olga was very much a Rationalist, a secular Jew, a supporter of the right to die, mother, wife, sister, and friend. The letters collected in the book by which she is remembered today were written from 1909 – 1913, after her terminal diagnosis of a then unknown disease of the heart, possibly rheumatic heart disease. The prognosis for this was almost always fatal. On its way to that point it causes extreme exhaustion, fever, and pain in the joints among other issues. During this time she had four operations and also suffered a heart attack.
Most of these letters were to her very religious doctor, and very close friend, who tried to convince her to find comfort in the Christian faith. There are other letters there too to her cousins, sisters and husband. Although the letters include her blunt and honest thoughts about religions and creeds (she despised them), and its conflicts with science, it also includes her thoughts on how to live, about her children and how best to raise children, about society and political issues of the day, and about how she enjoyed living even while under the death sentence.
While reading her letters I found myself highlighting so much of the text that had I posted all of it you would be reading at least a third of it without needing the book. Because of this, and because she is known through her letters, I decided to quote from just a very few (but still a great many as I like so much of them) of the letters collected in “Words in Pain” , with an occasional comment from me, in order to give just a small taste of this remarkable woman’s thoughts.
“I want to beg of you, once more, to be truthful to me; to treat me as a sensible being, not ‘a weak-minded woman’, which I claim not to be; and just as you would tell your man patient that he had better makes his arrangements to leave (if he asked that question), I want to be told when my time comes. I cannot get my husband to understand this, and I blame both you and him for not having trusted me enough up to now…I am keen that you should see this point, so that another time, in a similar case, you do not err again, meaning well.” Page 6
“Like you I believe in a higher power, but, unlike yours, mine is not a kind fatherly one. It is Nature, who with all its forces, beauties and necessary evils, rules our destinies according to its own irrevocable laws. I can love that power for the beauty it has brought into the world, and admire it for the strength that makes us understand how futile and useless it would be to appeal to it in prayer. But towards a kind and fatherly God, who, being almighty, prefers to leave us in misery, when by his mere wish he could obtain the same end without so much suffering, I feel a great revolt and bitterness. Nature makes us know that it cannot take into individual considerations the atoms we are, and for her I have no blame; no more than I could think of blaming you for having during your walks stepped on and killed many a worm……”
“I think that Nature is striving towards perfection and that each human being has the duty to help towards it by making his life a fit example for others and by awaking ideals which will be more nearly approached by coming generations…The thought that the unfortunate cannot look forward towards a compensation (Heaven) should make us all the more helpful and charitable to them…Religion having for an end the more perfect and moral condition of humanity, I truly think that these ideas are as religious as any dogmatic ones.” Page 3
Apropos of baths, a lady sent her governess to my husband on the beach to say that for her daughter (about 8) she objected to Henry bathing naked. Don’t you call that dirty-minded? I wonder if she will ever take her daughter to the British Museum or picture galleries.” Note, Henry at this time was 4 years old. Page 34
“…they were left to the tender mercy of their old Mother and were allowed to enjoy nearly a full hour of nakedising. It is strange how exhilarating the throwing off of all garments is to them; they jumped about, rolled on beds and the floor and shouted most of the time; every few minutes one of them would be considerate enough to ask whether it was too much noise for me. Charles declared once or twice that he could see by my nose that it was; but I was able to reassure them and enjoyed the fun as much as they did.” Page 81
“if we wish the intercourse of man and woman to become in time the absolutely holy thing I was meant to be, we can best help ty talking o f it freely and purely to the young. While love is thought, and taught, to be sinful, the youth must naturally shrink from mentioning it to his parents; and his parents can have no opportunity of warming him of the danger of mistaking purely physical inclination for love. Love must stand high; the pure will approach it joyfully and openly, and the impure will feel raised through it. No one is then left to find sin (or dare to seek it in the infant.)” Page 83
“Do not let your true nature ever be drowned by conventionalities. Moral teaching by example in a happy home is the best training towards fuller life and understanding which I am beginning again to call religion. Religion is dimmed to most by wicked creeds and dogmas. Morality is dimmed to nearly all by conventions.” Page 40
“I have been wondering…whether I shall ever manage to behave according to the world’s idea of what is correct. My husband agrees that very often, in theory, I am right and the world is wrong, and again I agree with him that as I cannot change the world I should try to change my ideas. This has not yet been done, and here I am, with a perfectly good conscience, neither ashamed nor sorry for what I have done.” Page 104
“I am so tired! Neither you nor anyone else can realise the utter physical weariness I experience at times, which then makes me long for the blissful never -ending rest. I have had a long silent chat with my friends the trees. It is wonderful how interesting they can be; how much they have got to say; to ask. The brown leaf falling in autumn, its work done, its destiny accomplished;: has it suffered during tis decline? Was the green leaf, torn off in early summer by a child’s unconscious cruel hand, not more to be pitied, although it was spared the pain of seeing its strength and freshness go? Will some of their substance penetrate the soil, be absorbed by the root, and once more become part of the beloved tree? Who knows? “ Page 79
“…but I would like you always to remember what a great moral help you have been to me during a most trying time.” Page 6
“Forgive me, Doctor, if I hurt, but I must fight to the last, if only to encourage others; fight all those who would in their partial blindness banish for ever from this world splendid, strength-inspiring human love and glorious hope.’ Page 95
“You are so good to me, Doctor, and the idea of leaving my children in a world where they are likely to meet such men, makes the leaving decidedly easier.” Page 13
“The book has certainly helped me, for I have read it conscientiously for nearly two months. Some of your “Christian thought” has kept me busy for hours really trying to understand, but in the end my “Rationalist thoughts” have always triumphed.”
“Christian religion has made you what you are. Because you were able to see the right in it, you are none the less to blame for not wishing to improve it where it may be misleading to those who are less able. If you really love religion, work at it, inspire it with what is best in you; don’t be satisfied with having had your share out of a common treasure; help others to it; help it to grow, Doctor; if it does not grow it must decline and perish, and I being to see we have always wanted and can never do without religion.”
“Thank your God (or Nature, if you like) for having given us all these powers to use, but do not say praying did it, for when your wife was at her worst you did not go down on your knew, you wisely applied human help. I hope you don’t mind my saying this, but we do see with such different eyes. You probably feel sorry for me; I certainly do for you. Please do not mix up Rationalists who simply disbelieves in your God and has no ideals of his own.” Page 113.
“Do you realise that you are talking to a dying woman? Your creed, all creeds, I drive joyfully into a corner, and would be happy to be able to help in driving them entirely out of the universe. But you, my friend, you must stand by your cause and fight your best, or have the courage to acknowledge defeat.” Page 72
“I am so glad you will ask your clergyman friend to help in answering my questions, for your replies have always been most unsatisfactory; you simply state facts but never explain….” Page 62
“Except with my husband I never felt so absolutely confident towards anyone, and our friendship…is to me kind of lighthouse to which I look up often so as to keep my bearing.” Page 59
“I must go on fighting as long as I live; I can’t help it, Doctor, and I love to have you as my opponent, if only for the pleasure it is to shake hands afterwards.” Page 59
“I was greatly amused by my boy explaining to me and his little sister that even should I die they would not lose me, as they would take my skeleton to keep in a corner of their nursery.”
“If there were no more ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ children, but just children only, one of the greatest evils of this world would be removed.”
“I think that I am even helping Jack to bear my loss more easily, and Charles has got quite sensible about it. His instructions for afterwards are: don’t’ keep thinking: I have lost my Mamma; say Daddie lost his wife, May and Henry their Mamma, I must help them all. That is how I understand rational education and rational religion. I have grown quite a fighter for that cause, and am pelting dear good , much -enduring (Doctor) with incessant letters on the subject of the religion of humanity.” Page 86
“Don’t bring up your child to be selfish, and let him early understand that he lives not only for a narrow circle of parents and friends, but for humanity. We are bringing up our children with no creed at all, just teaching them to be kind, unselfish, and willing to sacrifice sometimes a pleasure for the sake of others.” Page 88
“I would be glad if you could hit on a few more suitable mottoes: I have two more to make for Charles, and intend on working another set of seven for Henry; not that I would expect him to act on them just yet, but I like the idea of leaving them behind to be given to him on his tenth birthday.” Page 97
“I myself am a Rationalist, and going well to the roots of my religion I have found it so great and strong, able to give such true, beneficial, rational help and comfort to others, as well as to myself, that my mind could conceive no greater nor my heart desire a nobler.” Page 11
“Religion, love of humanity and desire for progress, for a happiness in which we ourselves will have no share – that only the great master, Life, can teach.” Page 73
“Man must live for men, there lies the meaning of life. To work with all our might is prayer, to achieve a difficult end is happiness.” Page 94
“I dare not spoil for anyone the beauty of the world; smile I must to give to others some of the joy I have found. No one has the right to absorb sun and happiness without being willing to radiate it again; and radiate we do even if unconsciously, just like the moon brightens the dark night.” Page 78
“The natural desire for immortality which we all probably possess in one form or another, is centered in my hope that through not having allowed myself to be a coward now I have set a little more courage in the world and that my husband, my children, and maybe some friends, may find a minute of comfort in an hour of need by remembering a word I have said or a thought I have acted on.” Pg 12
“And I prayed, prayed for him, to my God, prayed with full faith in my power to leave behind the shine of a little light so that his fire (which I hope to have carefully prepared – with a few chips for ventilation and draught) may in time be kindled by it, to burn with steady , always increasing life, and in turn warm colder hearts.” Page 71
“Very often lately my severe, striving, ideal Mother has been with me, my warm hearted jolly Father has come to cheer me; my brother {how had committed suicide before Olga married}…Here they all are, faithful souls, cheering me, urging me on, in this my hardest struggle.”
“I know for certain that he will never remember me (all biographies I have read lately seem to take a sardonic delight in rubbing the fact well into my mind) I feel for him even more love than before, and I hope that the atmosphere of all that love will remain as a pleasant, warmth-and -sun-promising hazy feeling, developing his childish memories. And perhaps some day he will understand, and listen with pleasure equal to your yesterday to the pretty saying that ‘As God could not be everywhere he made Mother.” Page 97
“We Rationalist aim at making of our children and of ourselves, of all children and every one, strong, brave patriots (not of England, France or Japan, but patriots of the world), men and women able not merely to fight bravely at the intoxicating sound of trumpets and drums, but always ready to act bravely in cold blood at the gentlest beckoning of conscience, patriots unweary in their continuous effort to keep well up in sight of all heir banners, which Meredith inscribes with these beautiful words: ‘ The dream of the blossom of Good”. Page 104
“More and more to me this simplest of thoughts seems right: live, live keenly, live fully; make ample use of every power that has been given us to use, to use for the good end. Blind yourself to nothing; look straight at sadness, loss, evil; but at the same time look with such intense delight at all that is good and noble that quite naturally the heart’s longing will be to help the glory to triumph, and that to have been a strong fighter in that cause will appear the only end worth achieving.” Page 67
“When I am gone at last, I claim this promise from you, as token that all my hard trying to explain my ideas to you has not been quite useless. Be sad a little (I hope you will), but do not worry because you could not keep me alive any longer. Follow my religion, and be happy in knowing you have done your best. Follow our religion, by leaving in other hands what does not lie in ours to decide. Follow yours, it if gratifies you to think we may meet again.” Page 84
Olga was a woman who, in the end, took her own life. But only when she no longer had joy in it, and, this is an important and, only when she no longer had the strength to help others. She often lost her joy in living through the years suffering under this illness, but still felt an obligation and responsibility to help family and friends, and the strength to continue to do so. And in doing so rediscovered joy again and again. Until the end when all her strength was gone and with it the possibility of joy again. After her death her husband, John, gathered her letters as she had requested and initially published them for family. Soon afterwards due to the number of people asking for the book he eventually did a wider publishing of her letters.
And so we are blessed by the thoughts of an important atheist. One who showed that small, forgotten actions and words can have lasting effects. Olga Jacoby deserves to be remembered for just a bit longer.
In her letter she had this wish for her funeral:
“My wish to be laid in my coffin with my eyes well open shall be a last protest against old creeds, old customs, old lies.”
I hope this wish was carried out. It would be fitting for this forgotten atheist.
Many, perhaps most, people believe that religion and religious beliefs are dangerous things, often a threat to liberty and even life. Most disagree on which religious belief though is the threat – atheism, Islam, Christianity, etc. – and believe that their particular religious view is the exception. I slightly disagree with most though. I think any and every religious view, including my own, atheism, can become dangerous. It depends greatly on the circumstances surrounding that religious belief. The circumstance that most often, usually in fact, make a religion dangerous occurs when a government supports one particular religious view over all others. Then religion, any religion becomes a very dangerous thing.
This was brought home to me again by two particular news items. The first item is a new Pew Poll finding that “Religiously unaffiliated people face harassment in a growing number of countries”. The other is the recent flare up of in hostilities between Israel and the Palestinian people, which has religion as one of its biggest root causes. More specifically, a particular religion tied to, identified with, and supported by a government.
Unlike many atheists I do not view religious belief not supported by a government as being more dangerous than other beliefs. In other words, it can and often does cause problems on an individual level, and even across a society. But the damage is more limited and often transitory. Then there is the fact that religious beliefs are also often beneficial. What matters more than the fact that it is religious is what particular type of religious belief it is in those cases.
However, when a government supports one religious view over another then religion becomes very dangerous indeed. It doesn’t matter the religion, only that a government and a particular religious belief is merged.
When a government explicitly supports and identifies as atheist you get the USSR and its actions against Christians, or China and its actions against Muslims and Christians.
When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Buddhist you get Burma and its actions against Muslims.
When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Muslim you get Saudi Arabia and its actions against Christians.
When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Protestant Christian you get Ireland against Catholics.
Many more examples could be found all through history.
The reason for this is twofold. First a person’s religious belief, which includes how best to live a moral life and their and their loved ones fate after they die, is of high importance to most people in the world. Witness the fact that even when a particular religious belief is persecuted people continue to hold that religious belief – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhists, Atheists – even though it may lead to fines, imprisonment, or even death (both with and without torture beforehand).
The second fold is that we need government. Governments are a necessity for a given group’s survival. In fact, government is necessary for the survival of our species overall. Which means they have a great deal of power over its citizens.
Separate each can do a great deal of good (and harm too). Combine them though and only bad things result (with one possible exception, although I think that a more fragile one than most realize).
The reason for this is If a government identifies itself with a particular religious belief then there is usually favoritism in government policies and actions to that group. Which creates a sense of unfairness among the citizens who are not so favored. Further, such inequalities on such an important personal issue can increase creates friction and conflict leading, often, to greater inequalities. Causing those who hold different beliefs to becoming in effect, second class citizens.
What’s more, it becomes much easier to label those who are not members of that particular religious group to be viewed with suspicion and identified as enemies of the government. Censorship, purges, discrimination, unequal justice, and persecution are the normal fruits of the mixing of the two, religion and government.
You can see this some in many modern countries who identify as Christian today: Argentina, England, Denmark, etc. This unfairness is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that their governing documents explicitly protect all religious beliefs and usually make exceptions to some religious requirements for those who doe not believe the same – for example, in some of these countries the tax money that goes to the favored church can, for those who are not member of that church,, go into the general fund instead. It is ameliorated much more by the fact that they are often very secular societies. However, it still exists and can cause friction. If you look at the Pew Report you will find that two countries that have increased levels of harassment of the religiously unaffiliated are Ireland and Iceland.
However, Israel is an example of a country where this is going very wrong – and a possible object lesson for those other countries who have protections for freedom of religion in the constitution but still support a particular church.
Israel was created for a particular people of a particular religious belief – Jews. Because of this it had a strong bias for those who are Jewish (especially the more conservative Orthodox groups) over other religious beliefs. It was created to be an expressly Jewish state.
It was also created to be a democracy. One respecting the rights of all its citizens. Those two ideals conflict.
Even though it has written protections for all believers no matter their belief in its Basic Laws, they have also enacted laws and changes that make it even more biased in favor of Jews. In fact, given its identity as a Jewish State it almost has to. Taken from the 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom, and the Jewish Virtual Library:
The state of Israel recognizes a limited number of religions with others having to apply for State recognition –the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox and the United Churches Council of Israel (an umbrella organization of Protestant churches in Israel) are currently pending approval.
Marriage and divorce are the exclusive jurisdiction of religious courts applying Jewish law whether the those involved are Jewish or not.
There is a Ministry of Religious Affairs
Religious education is financed out of state funds.
All of these and more is problematic, especially as the Israeli government becomes more conservative and religious and insisting upon a closer and closer identification with Judaism, especially of the Orthodox variety. For example, their passage in 2018 of the Nation State Law that declared “the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People”, and in which the national flag of Israel is confirmed to be the Star of David, the national symbol of Israel the menorah, and the national anthem to be this:
As long as within our hearts
The Jewish soul sings,
As long as forward to the East
To Zion, looks the eye –
Our hope is not yet lost,
It is two thousand years old,
To be a free people in our land
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.”
Now, imagine if you are a non-observant Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist citizen of Israel. Already you are marked as different and not truly an Isreali, or, at best, second class. This is far from a theoretical possibility, it is a daily reality.
The US State Department report on Human Rights in Israel, while properly noting that it is much better in regards to human rights than the neighboring countries, noted several serious issues: institutional discrimination of the Arab citizens of Israel as well non-Orthodox Jews. Other human rights reports point out that Israel’s Palestinian Bedouin citizens who live in so called “unrecognized” village in the Negev suffer home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally, this despite the fact that these villages existed before the creation of the state of Israel. Or on lands which Israel gave to its Bedouin Citizens. And of course, there is the unlawful transfer of Jews settlers to occupied territory, and the taking away of those lands from the Arabs. This is occurring in the city of Jerusalem too.
Then there is the fact that Israel, if it wants to retain its Jewish identity, cannot absorb too many Muslims or other religions into its country as full citizens without losing that identity.
Interesting and relevant fact here is that Israel does not have a Constitution as most countries do. Instead they have a series of Basic Laws. Netanyahu explained why this was when he said “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides.”
What happens then when the majority of citizens though are no longer Jews? Or, more importantly, Orthodox Jews?
This is why the question of the Palestinians is so intractable. It is made worse by the fact that, due to the religious beliefs of the conservatives who now control the government, the land the Palestinians are living on now, should be Israel’s too. And so they continue to go further in occupying land the Palestinians live on and forcing them off. And because they are a Jewish State they cannot declare the occupied territory as being Israel and all its people citizens without getting rid of the Palestinians. Otherwise, their democracy would wind up doing in their Jewish State. So, instead, their Jewish state is doing in democracy and rights for all of those who are not their particular type of Jew.
And that is why the joining of religion and government is dangerous.
This is also one reason why I like the United State Constitution – in addition to protecting the rights of all even against the will of the majority, it also explicitly separates religion from government. Because of their long history of violence due to the unification of religion and state, the European countries have developed a more secular society that has put protections in place despite retaining an allegiance to a particular religious group. Should that secular change though, those governments could go the way of Israel.
The US with its more religious society still often provides better protections because of its secular government. Which is why those of us who live in the United States need to be pushing back very hard on those who want to change this, and who have made some inroads in doing so. Religion plus government is dangerous.
Bad Atheist 