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.
Christmas is the most malleable of all the holidays. The Fourth of July is celebrating American independence; freedom and rights and American history. Labor Day is a day of rest given in honor of workers. Memorial Day, a day in honor of those who gave their lives defending the US. Thanksgiving, a day to be grateful for our blessings. All of these holidays and the rest are straightforward celebrations of one simple thing. All of them with roots in our country. And the other countries holidays are similarly rooted in a straightforward manner in their country’s history and culture.
At first, Christmas too gives the appearance of a similar simplicity. It is about the birth of Jesus. However, a cursory thought shows this simplicity not to be true. Just look at the emotions attached to the holidays. July 4th, pride and patriotism. Thanksgiving, gratefulness. Memorial Day, a different type of gratefulness and appreciation and so forth.
But Christmas. It includes gratefulness for the birth of Jesus and his saving of humanity from its sins. It also includes peace on earth and goodwill to all. It includes an appreciation for family. It also has no roots in any one country’s history or society. Instead its trappings come from not just one country but from several. At first a religious holiday it has also grown to be a secular one with the same feelings of peace on earth and love for all but without the necessity of belief in God. And to add to it is the capitalist flavor it has now as people are encouraged, required even, to buy gifts to show how much they appreciate loved ones and friends – complete with advertising and sales to make it easy to remember and to spend (although giving gifts to loved one’s pre-dates capitalism, and from different motives. Capitalism just accentuates and magnifies this aspect).
I think a quick look at the history of Christmas helps explain this malleability and highlights why many Christians see it as the most important of holidays. And why many non-Christians agree.
Current status of Christmas
According to Statista 31.6% of those living on earth are Christian.
According to nationsonline.org, there are either “….193, 195, 237, 245, 248, or 253 countries in the world, depending on definition”. The UN recognizes 193 countries and two that have observer status. But however many countries there are, the great majority have a national holiday for Christmas – around 160 of them in fact.
Almost half of those of us living on earth, 45%, celebrate Christmas. That includes not only Christians but atheists such as myself as well as many Muslims. Even those Muslims who live in predominantly Muslim countries who see Jesus as one of the most important prophets. In the US 96% of Christians celebrate Christmas and 81% of those who are not Christian also celebrate Christmas.
There are those Christians who do not celebrate or recognize Christmas; Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and others though. So although very widespread, it is not universal even within Christianity.
Also, there are those who do celebrate Christmas, but not on December 25th. Instead, almost 260 million Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7th.
History
Initially Christmas was not celebrated nor recognized by the church. At first the most important of holidays was Jesus’s death, the day he died for our sins and was then resurrected. In fact, the early church discouraged the celebration of not only Jesus’s birthday but that of all the martyrs, reasoning that their deaths are what was important, not their births.
It wasn’t until 221 that Jesus’s date of birth was determined by Sextus Julianus Africanus to be Dec 25th. As for why this date there are two explanations.
The first and still most common explanation among many is this date was the Christianization of a popular Roman Empire holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. Possibly Saturnalia, but more likely Sol Invictus. This has some support in the fact that “…after December 25 had become widely accepted as the date of Jesus’ birth, Christian writers frequently made the connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son.” Most people, including Christians, go with this today, with some occasionally disparaging it as a move by the early church to gain popularity and followers by taking over a popular Roman holiday.
This explanation though has several issues. At that time the early church was trying to separate and distinguish itself from pagans. To purposely conflate the birth of Jesus with that of a pagan deity would have been inconsistent with Christian practices at the time.
Further, the determination of the date of Jesus’s birth in 221 CE pre-dates the establishment of the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus in 274 CE. And references to Jesus’s birth being in the winter are even earlier than 221 CE. And now that I am writing this it occurs there is another issue with this explanation, something I mentioned earlier. The church discouraged the celebration of birthdays, not only of martyrs but of Jesus. There are also other reasons to question this explanation.
Another recent explanation for the choosing of Dec 25th as Jesus’s birthday, one that is gaining some prominence among many modern scholars, is that this date was determined by determining first when Jesus was conceived. At that time Christians believed that God created the universe during the Spring Equinox. And since light was created on the fourth day, and Jesus was the light to the world, Jesus was thus conceived on March 25th. Nine months later takes us to December 25th, and Jesus’s birth.
Just as I was getting ready to post this blog I saw this blog, History for Atheists, by atheist and skeptic Tim O’Neill. It is a 57 minute long interview Dr. Phillip Nothaft, a Fellow of All Souls Oxford and a historian specializing in astronomy, astrology and calendars in late antiquity, the Middle Ages and early modern Europe. The link to this interview is here and if you are interested in this question it is well worth listening to as it goes into several issues that I have either not mentioned or mentioned very briefly.
In keeping with the death date being important among early Christians, there is no evidence that the early church celebrated Jesus’ birth. In fact, the first recorded celebration of his birth was in 336 CE. It was not until the 9th century that a widespread church liturgy for Jesus’s birth is found. And even then, Good Friday and Easter Sunday were considered much more important.
Many of our Christmas symbols and celebrations did not come from the church though. December 25th, or the immediate days around it, were popular times for other non Christian societies to have celebrations and ceremonies recognizing the end of the long nights and the return of the sun. The Jews with the Festival of lights, the Celts with Balder, the god who was struck down by a mistletoe arrow. The Germans with their Yule festival, and others.
Since Christmas was not rooted in a particular country and, whether Jesus’s birth was purposely put on this date to take advantage of this or not (personally in looking at the reasoning and evidence I think mainly not, although the early church may have taken advantage of that fact), many of the symbols and ways of celebrating Christmas were adapted from celebrations and symbols already in those countries. – the tree, mistletoe, parol etc. It is why there is such a wide variety of celebrations and figures.
Something of interest to note here, Christmas is the most widespread holiday that I know of. It is not tied to any one nation, one people. It is not like the Fourth of July or other nation’s independence days, our or other country’s days of Thanksgiving. Those all have local roots and traditions. However, Christmas comes from outside the nations. This also though shows that it appeals to something basic to our nature, to a need of ours.
This also may explain its malleability. It has assumed many emotional meanings over the years and through its travels. The birth of Christ heralded hope for a fallen humanity. Hope, one of the most important of human needs. Further, this was for all humanity, not just for the Romans or the Jews or the Briton, etc., but for all mankind.
This is also the reason for the other solstice celebrations that I mentioned that were already in existence, renewed hope that day was coming and the night ending. I think it wasn’t just the fact that they were on the same date that caused many pagan influences to enter into how Christians celebrated Christmas, but that their message was also so similar. Hope. The darkness recedes for everyone, and the light comes back for all.
Hope that was not tied to one nation as our Fourth of July is. Hope centered on the individual, all individuals. And it is why it has been celebrated in a secular way too by many, that message of peace on earth and goodwill to all.
Through the years this message was distorted and twisted and ignored by many Christians. I keep wondering what the Jews thought of the Christians who guarded them in the concentration camps when they heard them sing Silent Night.
And of course we have our own way of distorting it too here in America. For too many Christmas is tied to patriotism and America. It is an American holiday along with the good ole fourth of July. Although I haven’t researched this in depth, I don’t know of any other nation on earth that does this.
All holiday’s meanings change over time. Ideas are changed or looked at in new ways, some shades of meanings dropped, others highlighted. They become mixed with other ideals, such as capitalism or the rise of a concern for humanity and become more than just a celebration of Jesus’s birth.
This happens on the individual level too. What a person feels about and how they view Christmas changes. From that of a young child, to an active teenager, to an adult with a growing family. As new family members come into being, and others are lost to moves, to anger, to disputes, and to death. As disease, war, economic hardship takes their toll, how Christmas is viewed and celebrated changes.
For this Christmas I would that we all could keep the hope and share it with those who have none. Something that is oh so simply said, but impossible to do for most on a large scale. How do I give hope to the Palestinians who are being slaughtered? Or hope to the Jews with their well founded fear of random attacks. Or those living in Ukraine? Those suffering from the drug cartels in Mexico and Columbia? Or the many starving and poor across all countries, including the US. To the ill, to those who have lost close family, children, spouses. Who have lost their income, their home and are on the streets.
While none of us are going to be able to give hope to all, or even most, or even to many, we can give hope to some. And not in grand gestures, but in small ones. Giving a couple of dollars to those begging, stopping to help someone with car trouble, holding a door open, listening to those who need an ear. Courtesies and small acts we can do. And far from being meaningless, in many ways they are the most meaningful of all. Because while they are small actions, we, the people who live on this earth and who are not rich and powerful, and do not hold positions of power, we are billions.
Mountains are worn and canyons created mainly by the actions of many l drops of rain and a mild blowing of the wind. Continents move at the same slow speed of our toenails, 0.6 inches a year. Small actions resulting in large changes.
That is why Christmas, with all its changes, and all its flaws and problems, is still around and celebrated so widely.
Due to a combination of being very busy this week and being lazy this weekend, I am not yet ready with the blog I am currently working on. However, instead of leaving a blank Monday I decided to repost one of my earlier blogs. In fact, it is the one that has had the most views on my site. First posted on May 23, 2012 here it is again. Enjoy.
I came across some interesting news today. It seems that in some caves located in the deserts of northern Israel they have found a hitherto unknown section of Genesis, one that has apparently been lost and forgotten about for almost 2,000 years (there are cryptic references to it in some of the writings of Christians and Jews up to around 100 CE, but then all mention of it stops). This section, consisting of probably three or four chapters, is not intact and there are obviously pieces missing, but what is there provides a whole new insight about the Bible and God.
Below is the translation of the first of the two sections from the lost chapters of Genesis that were found.
“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD took Satan aside and said to him, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth in it.”
Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered the problem of Adam and Eve? They have been banished from Eden and yet still are in danger of sinning further. They are not following my commandment to be fruitful and increase in number; to fill the earth and subdue it. Instead, they work and talk, talk and work, but do not do that which will increase their numbers as I have commanded. “
Satan answered the LORD, “Yes LORD, I have considered the failings of your creations, Adam and Eve. I have discovered why they do not procreate as you have commanded.”
Then the LORD said to Satan, “Then tell me why before I smite them and you again.”
Satan bowed to the LORD and answered him, “Because they are afraid O LORD. When you banished them from Eden you told the woman that you will make her pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor she will give birth to children. And you told the man that because he listened to his wife and ate fruit from the tree about which you commanded him, “You must not eat from it,” that the ground would be cursed and that only through painful toil will he eat food from it. That the land will produce thorns and thistles for him and that he will eat the plants of the field only by the sweat of his brow. Now Eve is afraid to become with child and Adam is loath toil in more fields in order to feed more mouths.”
The LORD bowed his head in thought and then asked Satan, “Have you considered this problem Satan?”
“Yes my LORD,” answered Satan. “Whilst in the Garden when there were no cares or fears and all came easy to them the fact that sex brought as much pleasure as drinking a warm glass of milk, to be engaged in only on nights when one or the other could not sleep was of no moment.
But now, oh LORD, the milk has curdled.”
The LORD nodded and said, “Have you considered the solution then to this vexing problem Satan?”
Satan bowed and answered, “I have my LORD. With your permission I will increase the size of the woman’s breast so that instead of being but slightly noticed hills upon a prairie field they shall rise up like majestic mountains and thus attract the gaze and desire of Adam.
For Adam, I will increase the size of his member so that instead of rattling around like a thin stick in a cooking pot it shall provide a pleasurable sense of fullness for the woman so that the Eve will no longer be able to ignore it’s presence as before.
For both, I shall make the experience of love a thing to remember, an event of fireworks and blissful earthquakes; an act that they will enjoy so much that they will engage in it again and again and never consider the consequences. Their own natures will help with that given how easily they were persuaded to eat of the apple. “
The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, everything that you need to accomplish this deed is now in your power. Go and do so, but no more than this.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”
Now that is the end of the first fragment found of this long missing section. There was one more fragment found though which I post below:
“After the LORD had said these things to Michael, he turned to Satan and said, “I am angry with you and your works. Now that you have increased the size the Adam’s member and Eve’s breasts, now that you have increased the size of the pleasure that they know when intimate together; because of all that you have done they have wondered into new sins and know it not. Now I will have to teach the man and woman that most of their newly discovered pleasures are also sinful and will result in my wrath if continued.
The man now not only loves his wife but spends many hours playing with his member on his own and wasting his seed. Or spends it in other openings of Eve not meant for procreation. And Eve, she not only goes joyfully into her husband’s arms but also into the arms of goats, dogs, and other creatures not her husband.
I foresee that as they procreate and fill the earth that both will know not only each other but each of them will know each of their sons and daughters, their grandsons and granddaughters, their great-grandsons, and great-grand daughters and so on down all the years of their lives!”
“LORD”, said Satan, “I only did as you asked so….”
And that is, unfortunately, all we have. The rest of the chapter is missing. As I said earlier I think though what we do have sheds some light on the Bible and its meaning.
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.
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.
“This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come….”
Wait. No. This is not an atheistic Dickensian take on the Christmas Carol. There are no spirits or ghosts in this story other than those residing in the author’s own mind. There is no miser, no life spent in self-created misery, miraculously transformed in one night. Although now that I look and reflect on these words, there was a miraculous day – which is to say a statistically very unlikely event – that occurred at the beginning that transformed a life of alone to a wonderful life of two. And then there was one night, 44 years and almost three months later, that emptied that miracle and transformed it.
This is also no tale of redemption and a joyful changing of ways. This is, instead, a tale of a purely irrational emotion that illustrates many things. One is the fact that all humans are primarily emotional creatures with logic and reason tagging along behind. Although, like the Dickens story, this is a story of hope too, although of a strange sort of hope.
But the story is true and to my mind something wonderful will be coming from it. Or so I hope.
Dec 13, 2021. That was the day my wife, Dindy, died. Age 62.
Although she had been ill and knew that she would likely have a much shorter life, we thought she still had several more years ahead of her. And going into the hospital that Friday we thought she would be leaving it to come back home again. We were wrong.
Dec 1, 2022. The day that something happened. Something mundane and common to most, including me, most of the time. But not at that moment.
Dindy was my greatest friend, my love and lover, my support. And my example. We agreed on most everything – except styles of couches and some food choices – and had not had a strong argument since our mid-thirties.
Both she and I were loners. We did not care for get togethers, nor parties. Other than close family and those for our children when they were young, we never held a party at our home. We did not go out with friends. We preferred each other’s company and home, with an occasional trip to a musical theater, movie, or vacation trip.
With her gone now I had no close friends, especially not where I lived as we had only moved here six years before. Family was good, but not close. Besides which, we had both been a complete unit by ourselves and enjoyed being at home alone. The latter part – the home and alone, I did not want to give up even though the home was very empty now.
March 29, 2022, the first anniversary without her.
September 18, 2022. Her first birthday without her.
October 29, 2022. Her memorial service, held near Halloween as that was her favorite holiday.
Thanksgiving 2021. The first without her. And the first one in years without trip to a rented cabin in a state or national park woods within Texas or OK, with our daughter and our grandchildren.
And now Christmas was approaching. The second without her. And, even worse, the first anniversary of her death just before it. While I had never been what I would say was good after her death, over the late spring and summer months I had reached a more livable level of emptiness, one with fewer punctures of tears and breakdowns. However, during that streak of events from September to December 1 felt the emptiness rising and I was living a life of almost continual depression even when I laughed and joked and talked and worked with others.
On December 1, 2022 I woke up as usual at 6:20. I had an upper respiratory infection and skipped my morning exercises. After breakfast, reading the news on line, doing my journal entry addressed to Dindy, I started up work. Due to renovations going on at the building I worked at I was working out of the home. I had a meeting though at 10 am across town, and so dressed up and left at 9:35. One minute later I saw a small kitten huddled in almost on the exact middle of the narrow road. I slowed when I drove by her and saw that her nose was covered in blood. But she moved her head and looked at me as I drove slowly on by. I had an important meeting to go to that could not be put off to another day. Or at least not easily. But my emotions were saying check on the kitten. As was Dindy.
Dindy loved animals and was always picking up strays. During our years she came across and rescued several animals from the streets – ducks, hamsters, dogs, and kittens. Some died, but when they died they did so knowing some human did care about them. Most of the others we found homes for. And same stayed with us.
Dindy was also the type to do what was right, almost instinctively and reflexively in ways both small and large. She provided first aid to some who were hurt in the tornado that hit Fort Worth several years ago. Dindy was one of the people who pulled over when a car flipped on the highway, and helped some others pull the driver from the car before it caught fire. She would help out a friend in need or a worker with a problem even when it wasn’t her department.
My instincts were the same as hers. However, my resolve, at least not my immediate resolve, was not always as great. I worried and dithered on what was the right thing to do, and the cost of doing so. I will say that I almost always did the right thing, but there are times when I missed doing them in small ways that I would do differently now.
By the time I reached the third house down I turned the car around and went back to the kitten.
After getting out to look at her, during which she scooted under my car, I determined that she was not in danger of immediately dying and could move. I carefully and slowly drove the car over and past her and back home, got a box and some towels to line it with, made a call to my meeting and told them I was going to be 30 minutes late and then went to pick up the kitten, placing her in the box and taking her with me to my meeting. She stayed in the car during the meeting.
My way home took me by our vet and, after calling them, I dropped her off there to be checked on.
On 12/3/2022, the vet called to tell me that she was doing well. Some head trauma which was why she was bleeding from the nose. But she was able to move on her own just fine, drink water, meow and look around. In other words, no bone or brain damage that they could tell. She still had some leakage from the nose, but not much. She was not eating independently though and was having to be fed through a dropper.. She was also dehydrated and they were keeping her fluids up. They told me that a couple of more days she should be able to go to her new home. But they want to keep her until she started actually eating food on her own.
This was when I decided her name was Fendy, in recognition of Dindy. The F stands for either “For” or “From” as I go back and forth which one it is. As for why “endy’ instead of “indy”? Had I spelled her name Findy too many people would mispronounce it Find y instead of the more correct pronunciation. So, consider it a phonetic equivalent.
Monday 12/12/2022. The day I picked up Fendy to bring home. Due to me being out of town during the weekend visiting family and did not wanting to have the 8 week old kitten left alone in the house with her four footed siblings – the felines: Kitty Pup, Chibi, and Balrog, the canines: Balboa and Ollie – and wanting to make sure that she was eating well and had no further issue she stayed at the vet for 10 days.
She is now hiding in the guest room. The initial greet went well with both of the 60 lb dogs – they were excited and pleased to see her. And went as expected with her new feline brethren – hissing. But give it time and they will all come round. For now, I am letting Fendy get used to being with me and the house, and for all sides to get to know each other through the crack under the guest room door.
I suspect and expect that the Fendy will fit in fine. But no, I don’t expect this kitten to make things better as far as filling the heavy emptiness I carry around now. She could make things worse even. But just the way it happened, the fact that it happened, and how I responded to it lifted me up. And gave me hope.
I will say though that after I had fought and worked through my insecurities about taking on a kitten, about being late for a meeting, and stopped to pick up the kitten I felt better. Even happy. I felt a connection with Dindy again, almost like a presence.
And even if this period of feeling better, of feeling connected, of feeling almost good again was only a momentary thing, what of it? After all, all we have are moments. We live in moments. Our lives from birth to death is nothing more than the collection of moments. The past and future, while important, are only seasonings to the moment you are living in. And if we can add another good moment to our collection of moments called life, I call it good.
Let me reiterate that I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a God, nor a life after death. However, more importantly, I am also human and as such have come to also believe that reason and logic and evidence should not determine the course of all of our lives, nor all of our beliefs. Emotion and need have their equally, often more, important part to play. And though I continue to rationally believe that there is no life after death, I find my hope that I am wrong on this also convincing.
I have seen many Christians argue that the United States is a Christian Nation, founded upon Christian values and thought. They usually claim that democracy and the idea of human rights is due to Christian thought and values, that without Christianity democracy and the idea of human rights would not have existed. Or, at the very least, been very much more limited in scope.
However, this claim faces many severe problems showing it is not true. Or, at best, just a very small bit of the truth.
The first problem is the 10 Commandments. In fact, the First Commandment of this integral part of both Jewish and Christian religions creates a severe problem with this claim.
“3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20: 3 – 5.
Contrast that First Commandment with the United States Constitution’s First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments is in direct conflict with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Of you should now look at how this First Commandment has played out in history you come across the Second problem with this claim of Christianity being the foundation and cause of the United States Constitution and Democracy. None of the early Jewish states allowed for freedom of conscience. Instead, these states often harshly punished those who believed in a pagan religion. The Christian countries that followed them also followed their examples and understanding of the First Commandment. The countries of Christian Europe outlawed blasphemy, heretics and other religions (including Jews of course, often greatly limiting the free speech, free press, and free assembly of those who did not believe rightly. And, like the Jewish states before them, they too often killed those who believed differently, even and especially other sects of Christians. For that matter, in most of Colonial America this persecution of those who believed different was just as true on our shores as on European shores, and the earlier Middle Eastern shores.
You find this same lack of all the human rights we take for granted today in our day – freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. – until very recent times, the late 18th century.
Yes, there were precursors of some of these rights to be found in the Bible. For that matter, such precursors of some of these rights can be found just as strongly in many sources other than the Bible: the Law Code of Hammurabi, the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great, the Qur’an, the Analects, the Hindu Vedas, some of the Incan and Aztec codes of conduct, the Iroquois nation and more.
But none of them included the complete package. Many of them had limits on these rights that we do not recognize today in regards to people and places. And very, very few of these were applied to entire governments rather than individuals.
But that is human rights. What about the idea and form of our government? Democracy? Perhaps they had a Christian origin.
Again, there is the problem of history for this claim. Both the Popular Democracy and the Republican form of Democracy, were originally pagan institutions. Yes, there are passages in both the New Testament that talk about the equality of all people before God. Yet, again, this was before God and was about individuals. The ancient Jewish state was not democratic, and nor were the early Christian nations of Europe.
So, no. Christian values and ideals were not the foundation of the creation of the United States government and its Constitution. Yes, there were some ideas and beliefs within it that were conducive with many of the right, and with the idea of democracy. However, you will find those same ideas expressed in other religions, and often much earlier than in Christianity and Judaism.
Another fact that creates problems for this claim is the fact that you not find discussions or mentions of the Bible and Christianity in the records of the Constitutional Convention as our founders hammered out our founding document. You do find a great deal of discussion of and references to the writings of Locke and Rousseau, Greek and Roman democracies, the Venetian Republic and so forth. But not the Bible. Not Christianity.
In fact, still another problem with this idea of a Christian origin for the Constitution is that after the Constitution was published before it was ratified by the people of the United States, there was a great deal of criticism of it not including at least a general reference to Christianity, or at least to God. Despite the challenges involved in the Constitution’s passage, none of the writers of it seriously considered changing it in order to make it’s passage more assured.
So, this claim fails the test of historical fact. However, that does not mean Christianity does not contain elements within itself that can lend themselves to democracy and rights.
The thing about being a condominium of either 66 books (Protestant Bible) or 73 books (Roman Catholic Bible), or 81 books (Ethiopic Bible) is that there are materials in there for several directions and views, often conflicting ones. Some of the ideas within these varied books are easier to see and use than others, but they are all still there, ideas waiting for just the right collision with new thoughts and views to come to fruition.
Among these ideas within the Bible and Christianity there are some that can and were used to support the ideals of democracy and rights and freedoms for all, not just the majority or the powerful minority. The first is, of course, Jesus’s words: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21., as well as verses discussing all men being equal before God, and the Golden Rule.
This is one reason why the first person to advocate for a total and complete separation of church and state was not Locke or Rousseau, but was, instead, an Enlightenment era Calvinist theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America, John Williams. His arguments included not only the items mentioned above, but also the fallibility of man. No man, and hence no man-made institution, no matter whether divinely inspired or not, is perfect. Not only can they be wrong but will be wrong at times and on some issues. And if wrong in areas such as salvation the consequences would be severe – eternal damnation for those forced to believe.
Because of this Roger Williams argued and believed that religion and state should be totally separate. The state should neither help nor hinder religion, nor should the church influence the state. In fact, he held to a stricter standard than is held today on this issue. And showed he believed it when he founded Rhode Island with this being one of its bedrock principles, and held to them even in regards to a religious group he despised, the Quakers. His book, “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience” is considered by many to be a classic defense of the right of freedom of conscience.
So, yes, Christianity did help in promoting some of the values and ideas in our modern democracies and in our current view of human rights. But, they did not create them. They were not foundational in the creation of the United States Constitution. And some variation of them would have come about even if Christianity had never existed.
But wait. There is one other possible meaning that those who claim Christianity was responsible for the founding of this nation, and that without Christianity human rights and this country would never have come about. This involves a more basic claim than democracy and rights. A claim about the whole concept of right and wrong, of morality. I have seen some Christians argue that without Christianity the morality and respect for all individuals that is needed for a democracy would never have come about.
And yet, this too has severe problems with historical fact. Mainly the same ones mentioned above. you find democracies arising first in non – Jewish and non- Christian cultures and nations. The same with respect for individuals and morality. Morals and the idea of right and wrong, as well as the idea of an orderly universe pre-date both Christianity and Judaism, and is present in cultures all across the world.
Let me end this with a challenge for those who still believe Christianity was responsible for the creation of the United States Constitution and of the rights protected therein. Here is a list of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly.
Freedom to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, and double jeopardy.
Right of accused to a speedy and public trial.
Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
Freedom form excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishments.
Please find me the relevant Bible passages as well as the history of how these have been manifested throughout history in ancient Israel and Christian Europe before the 18th century. As well, do a search for those rights you think are in the Bible and in the history of Christian nations to see if they were also present in other non- Christian nations, in other religions, and if they pre-dated Christianity.
I think such an exercise will make it very clear indeed how little support there is for this claim.
Bad Atheist 