American Atheist Magazine (Winter 2003-2004)

Jesus And Moses Were Invented

Jesus and )\'loses Were In"ented

by Christopher

ISBN 1-57884-912-8

Stock #5592

IN THE LICHT

Living In The Light Freeing Your Child From The Dark Ages by Anne R. Stone

M. Drew

A late American Atheist scholar shows that Jesus and Moses never existed as historical figures.

124 pp. Paperback.

LIVING

Rearing children as Atheists isn't easy, . but this manual will be invaluable for parents who want their children to grow up with reality-testing skills intact and L'==========-JJ strong immunity to the wiles of supernaturalism.

157 pages, paperback Stock #5588

ISBN 1-57884-908-X $12.00

$8.00 THE ATHEIST'S

an ATHEIST PRIMER

to Modern Materialism

An Atheist Primer by Madalyn O'Hair. This children's book explains what religion and what Atheism are all about. It is a great introduction to Atheism for readers of any age. Grades 2-4. Illustrated. 30 pp. Stapled. ISBN 0-911826-10-9 $6.00

by Philip A. Stahl Materialism is minimalist by definition. Focusing on manifestations of matter, fields, and energy, it excludes distracting and unverified entities such as spirits and souls. Professional Press. xxiv + 250 pp. Paperback. ISBN 1-57087-539-1 Stock #7001

$15.00

CD-ROM from "Bank of Wisdom" FREETHOUGHT AND THE BIBLE 25 volumes on a single CD! With Adobe Acrobat= PDF format, it works on both IBM & Macintosh computers. Includes: The Bible Comically Illustrated (2 vols.), The Bible, by John Remsburg, The Jefferson Bible, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, by T. W. Doane, and much more! Stock #4504

$30.00

To order, please include check (payable to American Atheists) or credit card payment for the price of the books plus shipping and handling ($2.50 for the first title plus $1.00 for each additional title. Send order to: American Atheist Press P.O. Box 5733 Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733 Credit card orders may be faxed to: (908) 276-7402

HANDBOOK

The Altar Boy Chronicles by Tony Pasquarello The hilarious romp of a logical mind trying to grow up Catholic

in Philadelphia's

Little Italy during World War II. 214 pp. Paperback

S I THEGREAT

NFIDEr

Stock #5583

$16.00

The Great Infidels By Robert G. Ingersoll, with foreword by Jon G. Murray Newly reprinted and reformatted, Ingersoll's sketches of the lives of great Freethinkers is one of his most inspiring works. Includes his amusing discussion of the fallacy of informal logic known as the "appeal to the cemetery."

76 pages, paperback Stock #5197

ISBN 0-910309-08-6 $7.00

American Atheist A Journal

of Atheist

News and Thought

Cover Art: Keith McCaffety's polychrome realization of Pannemaker's engraving of Gustave Dore's "The Deluge," one of many illustrations for the 1866 The Holy Bible with Illustrations by Gustave Dare. EDITOR'S DESK A Second Noah's Flood Frank R. Zindler

3

Why I am an Infidel 14 Luther Burbank The genius who developed the Burbank Plum, the Shasta Daisy, and 800 other varieties of fruits, vegetables, and flowers comes out of the closet.

Atheism and Natheism, Part II 30 Tony Pasquarello The author of The Altar Boy Chronicles continues his argument on how to define Atheism.

Burbank Answers Some Questions 16 George E. Macdonald The author of Fifty Years of Freethought publishes Burbank's answers to the religious questionnaire that unleashed a storm of abuse from Christians all over the world.

Tony Pasquarello's "Atheism and Natheism," a Response 35 George Ricker A retired newspaper editor offers his opinion on how to define Atheism.

Luther Burbank, Infidel 18 Edgar Waite A weather report on the storm that broke out on 22 January 1926 when Burbank's infidel views became public knowledge. Luther Burbank Speaks Out 23 Joseph McCabe A famous Atheist journalist and author gives his account of the hurricane that swirled around the Plant Wizard of Santa Rosa.

Disinforming the Faithful 4 Frank R. Zindler The truths of science and objective scholarship are being swamped in a sea of religious disinformation. Can reality survive?

Volume 42, No.1 Parsippany, New Jersey

The Word Is 'Freedom' 41 David M. Fitzpatrick A short story set in our religious future. Don't let Ashcroft see this - he might get ideas! Christmas Eve In Heaven 48 G. W.Foote St. Paul wasn't the only one who could be snatched up into the seventh heaven. Evan an Atheist could do it and just as reliably.

The Deja-Viewing 53 Tony Pasquarello After seeing another good Atheist suffer the indignity of 'a good Christian funeral,' Tony reminds us that he warned us about this back in 1982.

13

Luther Burbank 13 E. Haldeman-Julius The "Plant Wizard" as described in E. Haldeman-Julius'Little Blue Book No. 1020.

Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism, Not an Alternative to It 37 David Eller The author of the forthcoming book Natural Atheism argues that Agnosticism is a method, not a philosophical or religious position.

On Avoiding That last Visit 50 Tony Pasquarello A reprint of an article about the funerary fate of Atheists that made a deep impression on American Atheists' founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

LUTHER BURBANK: INFIDEL GENIUS Introduction Frank R. Zindler

Winter 2003-2004

Burbank the Infidel 26 Joseph Lewis A great Atheist author delivers a eulogy in New York's Central Park at the 1927 tree-planting memorial exercises conducted by the Freethinkers of America in honor of Luther Burbank. Winter 2003-2004

A Physicist's Critique of the Existence of a God 54 Alfred Bahr A German physicist has a new way to prove that gods are impossible.

Page 1

American Atheist Volume 42 Number

Membership Application for American Atheists Inc. 1

EDITOR / MANAGING EDITOR Frank R. Zindler ASSOCIATE EDITOR Ann E. Zindler CONTRIBUTING EDITOR Conrad F. Goeringer BUSINESS MANAGER Ellen Johnson The American Atheist is published by American Atheist Press four times a year, in December, March, June, and September. Printed in the USA, © 2004 by American Atheist Press. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. ISSN: 0332-4310. Mailing address: P.O. Box 5733 Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733. Voice:908-276-7300 FAX: 908-276-7402. E-mail: [email protected] For information on electronic access to American Atheist Press publications, consult: http://www.atheists.org ftp.atheists.orgJpub/ The World-Wide-Web edition of American Atheist can be accessed at: http://www.americanatheist.org American Atheist is indexed in Alternative Press Index. Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-spaced, and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Documents may be submitted on computer disk also, but print copies should be included with disks. A copy of American Atheist Writers' Guidelines is available upon request. The editor assumes no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts. American Atheist Press publishes a variety of Atheist, Agnostic, and Freethought material. A catalog is available for $1.00.

Subscriptions to the American Atheist magazine are $20 for four issues ($25 outside the U.S.). Gift subscriptions are $16 for four issues ($21 outside the U.S.). The library and institutional discount is 50 percent. Sustaining subscriptions are $50 for 4 issues

Page 2

Lastname:

_

Firstname:

_

Address:

_

__________________________________

E-mail

_

City/State/Zip:

_

This is to certify that I am in agreement with the aims, purposes, and the definitions given by American Atheists inside the front cover. I consider: myself to be an A-theist (i.e., non-theist), and I have, therefore, a particular interest in the separation of state and church and the efforts of American Atheists Inc. on behalf of that principle. Signature

Date:

_

Signature

Date:

_

Both dues and contributions are to a tax-exempt organization and may be deducted on income tax returns, subject to applicable laws. (This application must be dated and signed by the applicant to be accepted.) Memberships are non-refundable. Membership in American Atheists Inc. includes a free subscription to the American Atheist Newsletter and all the other rights and privileges of membership. Please indicate your choice of membership dues:

o o

o o o

o

Individual, $35/year, $70/2years, $45/year International. CouplelFamily, $60/year, $70/year Internat. (Please give all names below).

Distinguished Citizen (Age 65 or over), $25/year, $35/year International (Photocopy of ID required). Student, $25/year, $35/year International. (Photocopy of ID required). Wall Builder, $150/year. Life Membership, $1,500.

Upon your acceptance into membership, you will receive a handsome membership card and your initial copy of the American Atheist Newsletter. You will be notified of all national and regional meetings and activities, and you will receive the special members' codes with which to benefit from discounts offered from businesses participating as American Atheists Savings Partners. The

American Atheist, a quarterly

journal,

is available

separately

for

$20.00 per year, $25.00 International.

o

Sign me up for a one-year subscription

to the

American Atheist.

American Atheists Inc., P.O. Box 5733 Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733 Telephone: (908) 276-7300 • FAX: (908) 276-7402 E-mail: [email protected] Winter

2003-2004

American Atheist

Editor's Desk

merican civilization is awash in a flood of disinformation a flood that, like the biblical flood of Noah, threatens to engulf most of the world. Some of the disinformation is political. In this category we might place the disinformation that led many to expect that the Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators; the daily dispatches that portray Israel as always on the good side in 'the war on terrorism,' and the arguments employed to perpetuate the economic and social isolation of Cuba. Most political disinformation, however, does not threaten to engulf the rest of the world. Mainly Americans are being deceived, although infection does sometimes spread to our closest allies. Political disinformation tends to be local, with each nation having its own - to be used for its own purposes. Rarely does it threaten to become pandemic. There is another form of disinformation, however, that is much more pernicious and has the potential to go global, even though at the moment it is largely limited to the United States and the Muslim world. This is the type of disinformation that is created for religious purposes and to advance the political ambitions of major investors in the superstition market. Religious disinformation is more dangerous than ordinary political disinformation due to the fact that it becomes the energizing catalyst for political reactions of above-ordinary scope and power. For example, the political and military repercussions of the Islamic disinformation cranked out by the Ayatollah Khomeini have only grown louder and more forceful as they have flowed into other nations and continents.

A

Frank R. Zindler Parsippany,

New Jersey

The gravity of our situation can easily be gauged by a simple measurement. Take up a copy of the Yellow Pages for your area. Count the number of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other entities that have religious tax exemptions. Then count the number of schools and colleges, subtracting from the total all that are obviously religious in purpose. Consider the remainder to be the number of places where objective scholarship and learning may be possible. Add the number of religious schools to the number of churches to find the number of places that exist for the purpose of impeding or annihilating the learning that might take place in the secular schools. These are the "fountains of the deep" (to extend the biblical image) from which the surging flood of falsehood emanates in your neighborhood. If you still own a radio, turn it on and completely scan the AM and FM bands, counting the number of stations that are completely religious, partially religious, or nominally secular. Caution! Even if you don't live in the Deep South, this exercise may unleash a seizure of deep depression if you are at all bipolar. If you are not yet catatonic, consult your local edition of TV Guide. Tally the percentage of programming time devoted to religious vs. secular programs. This is actually much harder to do than the radio survey, because religious disinformation permeates the supposedly secular channels and programs to an astonishing extent. The Discovery Channel and History Channel may be giving serious consideration to Noah's Flood, the resurrection of Jesus, or the Shroud of Turin. CNN Headline News may be devoting three days to reporting how the Catholic Church determines which miracles are genuine. The religious broadcast media are the Winter

2003-2004

"windows of heaven" from which a downpour of disinformation threatens to snuff out the last lamps from which the light of learning yet shines. In the western world, it is only America which staggers due to the dementia caused by religious disinformation for the moment. Even before America's recent surge in imperial ambitions, however, we had been exporting our delusions to markets in other parts of the world. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, a plague of creationists and other missionaries flooded into its remnant republics, and creationists captured the educational system of Turkey. We soon shall be expanding our 'Faith-Based Programs' to include international affairs. Will the presently sane citizens of our client or captive nations be able to withstand the fantastic force of the fantasies with which we shall envelop them? Believing is much easier than thinking - hence believers have always and everywhere greatly outnumbered thinkers. Will anyone still be willing to study geology and genetics if they are told that reading just the first eight chapters of Genesis is more efficacious? The hard-won truths of science and historical research are being swallowed up and lost in a surging sea of superstition and revisionist propaganda. Atheists, Humanists, and rationalists of all denominations must stem this rising tide. We must preserve the legacy of learning we have inherited from the illustrious thinkers of the past - many of them infidels who suffered privation or even death for the cause of truth. How this is to be done is not clear, but we dare not reject the challenge. The first Dark Age lasted nearly a thousand years. The darkness that is about to fall could last even longer.

Page 3

DISINFORMING THE FAITHFUL By Frank R. Zindler dis.in.for-ma.rion n. deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations -Webster's New World Dictionary of American English Third College Edition hroughout the course of the twentieth century, human knowledge increased at an astounding, explosive pace. Newtonian physics gave way to relativity and quantum mechanics. The very concept of causality itself had to be rethought in the face of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and Kurt Godel shook the foundations of mathematics and logic. As Darwin's theory of natural selection found confirmation in the blossoming of the science of genetics, a veritable flood of fossil discoveries filled in most of the gaps in the evolutionary history of tetrapods, birds, whales, humans, and many other types of organisms. The sequencing of genes and genomes made it possible to refine our understanding of the evolutionary interrelations of microbes as well as those of the plants and animals of ordinary human experience. Chimpanzees were found to be 98.5% human. The conclusion that we live in an unplanned, insentient universe became ineluctable.

T

Formerly a professor of biology and geology in the State University of New York system, for many years Frank R. Zindler has worked as a linguist and analyst of chemical literature for a scientific society in Ohio. Since the 1995 murder of Robin MurrayO'Hair, he has served as editor of American Atheist Press. Page 4

Discoveries in biochemistry, physiology,and medicine transformed biology from a collector's hobby into a scientific discipline that by the end of the century came incredibly close to understanding the nature of life itself. They changed medicine from a mysterious profession that could be seriously challenged by the mumbo-jumbo of Christian Science practitioners into a branch of science that understands the biological basis of infectious diseases, the biochemical and genetic bases of cancer, and the neurophysiological underpinnings of mental illness. The human mind began to explain itself to itself. During the same century, human achievements became more and more impressive as the knowledge gained from pure research found practical applications. Our species went bodily from Kitty Hawk to the moon and vicariously journeyed to other planets even sending a probe outside the boundaries of the solar system into interstellar space. The discovery of antibiotics and improved vaccines, the development of sophisticated imaging and diagnostic systems, and the refinement of surgical equipment and techniques transformed medicine into a life-saving science without equal in the history of humanity. The average life expectancy of Americans after 1900 increased by more than thirty years, climbing to 77.2 years in 2001. The increase is nearly the entire life span of the composer Franz Schubert, who died at the age of 31! Gods have ruled only the unknown ever since the evolution of language created names for them. Gods have never been needed in spheres of human activity where knowledge was sufficient to make accurate predictions of the future state of the system in question. Of course, at the dawn of civilization ignoWinter 2003·2004

ranee was the norm and gods and goddesses of all kinds never had to look for work. They had to heat the sun, send the rain, hurl lightning bolts, sprout seeds, ripen fruit, and form each fetus in the womb. Steadily but surely, however, the advance of science and other fields of human knowledge shrank the domain of the unknown to ever smaller dimensions. As answers were found for more and more questions to which the answer formerly had been "God," the gods of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions were sent into the ranks of the unemployed. Today, there is nothing worth mentioning left for gods to do. Even church steeples are protected by Benjamin Franklin, and storm gods are out of work because of meteorology. A Paradox Arises During the second half of the twentieth century, as knowledge of reality was growing, a paradox was developing in America. As mainline religions were shrinking and relinquishing ground to science, the most ignorant and primitive forms of religion not only were surviving, they were actually thriving. Disinformed fundamentalisms of every type were gaining in power and threatening to inaugurate a new Dark Age. Snake handlers, Pentecostalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Mormons, Latinate Catholics, Scientologists, and faith-healing fakirs in alligator-skin boots were taking control of the superstition industry - the biggest business in the history of civilization. The paradox was stunning: the technology of the twentieth century CE was being used to propagate the scientific misunderstanding of the twentieth century BCE. American Atheist

ers who will stop at nothing to prevent ning in the printing of bibles. their children's discovery of reality. In What Christians Are Reading this catalog one can find 'textbooks' for As an Atheist activist, it is part of all subjects that have been sanitized my job to know what the opponents of against secular-humanist heresies and reason are thinking - or at least what are deemed safe for children of all ages. they are doing that takes the place of Parents who have been able to insulate thinking. Over the years, the best tool I their children from the secular world have found for accomplishing this rather through their elementary-school and onerous task is a book catalog - the . middle-school years can find such useful Christian Book Distributors (CBD) catacurriculum aids as Foundations For log. Often 64 pages long and listing Living: Studies in the Christian thousands of books, tracts, videos, and Worldview - LIFEPAC Elective. The yes indeed - Christian computer softcatalog exhorts them to "Equip your ware, each issue of this catalog keeps high schoolers to respond biblically to . me abreast of how The paradox was stunning: the power is flowing the tough issues that they will encounter after graduation. Offering through the circuits of technology of the twentieth century 'muscular practical instruction on topics such as Christianity.' Best of man's purpose in the world, the CE was being used to propagate the all, titles listed usually Christian family and roles within it, dating and courtship, education, art, scientific misunderstanding of the come with significant and politics, this in-depth series guides discounts, so that tWentieth century BCE. today's young adults to live productive when there are books lives - and shapes them into the that duty forces me to Christian servants and leaders of the television is nearly as hopeless. purchase I soothe my conscience with Preachers, preachers, everywhere: nor future." (Softcover from Alpha Omega, the knowledge that the publishers of the anyone can think! $47.95, sale $44.99.) preposterosities are not getting as much The CBD general catalog has a Although the poll results are susof my money as they would like. great deal of material aimed at the very pect, it appears that a majority of A recent issue of the CBD Catalog young. Besides picture books, there are Americans, despite the explosion of sciwas divided into more than fifty secvideos such as Hermie: A Common entific knowledge in their country, tions, covering Apologetics, Bestsellers, .Caterpillar. "Poor Hermie's feeling very either believe in creationism or at least Bibles, Bibles on CD & Cassette, Bible ordinary - with no splashy stripes, no think that it should be taught along Reference Works, Charismatic Rewith real science in biology classes. cool house like the snail, no supersources, Christian Classics, Christian strength like the ant. But God sees past Across the board, scientific knowledge in Living, Church History, Church America is at an abominably low level. A his plainness - and plans a surprise to Resources, Commentaries, Comparative frightful fraction of Americans do not show Hermie just how special he is! Max Religion & Cults, Contemporary Issues, know that the earth goes around the sun Fiction (an amusing classification since Lucado's heartwarming parable comes to life with stunning 3-D animation and rather than vice-versa. Giordano nearly everything in the catalog would Bruno's murder by the Inquisition has voices by Tim Conway and Don Knotts." be considered fiction by a rationalist!), ($8.99) Kids' Bestsellers, Leadership Resourbeen forgotten along with the facts for which he fought. ces, Marriage Whence comes the scientific ignoEnrichment, Music, rance ofAmerica? Space does not permit Prayer, Preaching & " Equi p your high schoolers to exploration of the myriad ways in which Pastoral Resources, respond biblically to the tough federal and state politics have harmed Prophecy & Spiritual education and impeded scientific discovWarfare, Software, issuesthat they will encounter after ery. To be sure, an Evangelist-in-Chief Spirituality, in the White House can hardly be Theology, Veggie graduation." expected to encourage learning, and Tales, and Videos. Then there are the ''Veggie Tales," reactionary religious justices of the Almost every page gives the toll-free which come in CD-ROM and video forSupreme Court of the United States number or the Web-site URL by which cannot be expected to be respecters of mats. What child would not be thrilled supposed treasures of what passes for truth. But demented governmental offiChristian thought can be ordered. (The by Jonah: A Veggie Family Adventure! ? cials are only symptoms, not the disease ''Your family will have a whale of a time Web-site lists more than 130,000 items itself. The source of infection - no suras they sail the high seas with Jonah to advnce the cause of Christ!) prise here - is without doubt the organand the Veggie 'pirates' and learn about ized superstitions that have seized conSuffer the Little Children important biblical values. A 70-minute trol of the media. While I have already Considering the immeasurable video, 114-page book, iron-on transfer mentioned the baleful condition of the importance of inoculating the young trifold timeline of Jonah's story, and 10 broadcast media, I wish in this essay to life application cards with a magnetic with the virus of religiosity, it is not surfocus mostly on the print medium - the prising that CBD has a separate catalog holder help you practice compassion, medium that had its inauspicious beginfor Christian home-schoolers - believshare God's love, offer second chances, As a result, America and much of the world now is being inundated by a Noah's Flood of disinformation. Truth is being swallowed up and lost in a sea of superstition. For every school that tries to advance human knowledge and learning there are at least a dozen churches, synagogues, or temples that are trying to nullify that understanding. One searches the broadcast media almost in vain to find nonreligious, scientifically sound programming. Radio has been lost as a vehicle of enlightenment, and

Parsippany,

New Jersey

Winter

2003-2004

Page 5

ture minds of children that it is hard to and more." ($14.99) The colorful pichas never been easy, and help in the decide what else to note at this point. tures on the box are calculated to be form of books on apologetics has always Shepherding a Child's Heart, by Tedd irresistible to children and Christian been in demand for believers who are Tripp, however, seems sinister enough parents alike. But don't forget the Jonah short in the fantasy department and to describe. "Many parenting books are songs on CD: "Jonah," "Jonah's have to fight a proclivity to think rationbased on hit-or-miss theories steeped in Overboard Sing-Along," and "Pirates ally. Successful apologetics books are secular thinking. This one draws from Boat Load of Fun." Of course, these are written so well that otherwise sane and Pastor Tripp's seasoned experience as a also available on cassette, and we are rational believers are completely taken father-and from God's holy Word! titillated by the promise that a new in by what passes for reasoning and, Jonah movie will be available on after some amount of practice, video and DVD in March! will proceed to try out their A complete biblical 'educaarguments on hapless friends, tion' is available to the child neighbors, school board memChildren will learn that reality whose parents purchase The bers, and even well-educated includes magic and make-believe, Beginners Bible Series and save members of society. $69 by buying the entire set of as well as physics and physiology. videos. "The best-selling In the CBD catalog before Beginners Bible comes to your TV me, pride of place is given to The Case For Christ, written screen! Now your whole family by the apologist Lee Strobel. "If you Grounded in the Bible's divine plan for can share the timeless truths of God's parenting, this guide defines your goals were a journalist, how would you invesWord, because these videos combine as a parent and provides the scriptural tigate the hottest news story in history? charming animation and memorable methods for accomplishing them. Covers songs to bring the Bible to life for all Join award-winning reporter Strobel as infancy through the teen years." One ages. A delightful way to nurture your he probes the life of Jesus Christ. wonders if Pastor Tripp will advise us to kids' faith!" Among the 14 half-hour Interviewing 13 of the country's top stone to death our unruly sons as comvideos that make up the set are ''The Christian scholars, he ferrets out inconmanded in Deut. 21:18-21. Story of Creation," The Story of Noah's testable historical, scientific, and psychiatric evidence to support the claims One last title in this genre: Every Ark," "The Story of Joshua and the Young Man's Battle, by Stephen of Jesus. A unique approach to apologetBattle of Jericho," "The Story of David Arterburn and Fred Stoeker. "From the ics!" In this book you can examine the and Goliath," "The Story of the mockery Strobel makes of my own arguauthors of Every Man's Battle comes a Nativity," "The Story of Jesus and His survival guide for male teens and young Miracles," and "The Story of Easter." ment that Nazareth was uninhabited at adults engaged in a high-stakes struggle the turn of the era and you can specu(Normally retailing for $168.87, the with sexual temptation. Learn how to late about how uniformed a fool I must entire set is yours for just $99.99.) be to write the stuff I write. help these young men implement a pracChildren will learn that reality includes tical, realistic 'battle plan'-exchanging It is perhaps to be expected that magic and make-believe, as well as this catalog does not carry Earl their shame and confusion for a positive, physics and physiology. thriving relationship with Christ." Doherty's Challenging the Verdict: A No child's brain could be considered Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's 'The Aaaachhh! completely washed and properly launIf a Christian 'education' has been Case for Christ'. You'll have to go to amadered, however, without exposure to successful, its graduates will remain zon.com to order this meticulous, pointBibleman videos, DVDs, and action figchildlike and undiscerning forever after by-point refutation of Strobel's apoloures. An absurd caricature of Star Wars, and will provide a market for 'adult edugies. Further to be expected, the catalog the featured Bibleman video is Jesus, cation' products such as A Life God does carry Strobel's The Case for Faith: Our Savior. "Finally, Luxor Spawndroth Rewards - Video Curriculum. Just ''Why does God permit evil? Why do is vanquished once and for all! But just some prayers go unanswered? Why has $69.99, the catalog asserts that "Some when the good citizens of Andersonville questions never seem to go away - such God allowed the church to engage in think it's safe to go out, a new, even brutality and hypocrisy? Tough quesas what will life be like when we step more sinister villain takes his place into eternity? In this 8-part series, 'tions demand convincing answers. Join Primordius Drool. Bibleman's superBruce Wilkinson offers a fresh, biblical award-winning journalist Strobel as he powers are put to the test when he must view of heaven and shows why it's vital once again journeys across the country, convince the townspeople that nobody challenging philosophers, theologians, to serve God wholeheartedly now so you can ultimately save them , except God and ordinary believers to defend their can enjoy the hereafter." I'll bet you can himself]" Probably of more utility for serve God today by sending your faith faith. The evidence he uncovers may parents who want to stunt the intellecsurprise you!" Indeed they will. dollars to the following address ... tual and personal growth of their chilAs upsetting as these books may be dren, however, would be Bibleman to those who are objectively engaged in Apologetics videos such as "Breaking the Bonds of the quest for truth, it is downright repelDisobedience," "Defeating the Shadow of In the culture to which the CBD catlent to learn that the two Strobel books Doubt," and "Shattering the Prince of alog panders, few things are more are available in "Student Editions." "An Pride." important than defending the faith. Of arsenal of truth for your teens on the There are so many books in the course, the more irrational the faith, the frontlines of faith! Biblically sound reaCBD catalog aimed at propagating the greater the defense required. Defending soning and convincing evidence equip faith by imprinting it upon the immafaith against the facts of the real world Page 6

Winter 2003-2004

American Atheist

Defending faith against the facts of the real world has never been easy,and help in the form of books on apologetics has always been in demand for believers who are short in the fantasy department and have to fight a proclivity to think rationally. them to defend their faith and answer challenging skeptics' questions - all in contemporary language." Just $12.99 for the two-volume set. It is hard to overestimate the damage that will be done by the disinformation crammed into this apologetic effort. For many years, one of America's most visible and vocal apologists for biblical inerrancy and evangelical dogmas has been Josh McDowell. CBD carries his three-volume "Apologetics Library," consisting of Handbook of Today's Religione.; The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and A Ready Defense - all for $43.99 ($79.97 list price). "More than ever, Christians must be prepared to defend their faith. Equip yourself with well-reasoned arguments, conclusive evidence, and accurate information about creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Bible, the nature of truth, postmodernism, cults, the occult, non-Christian religions, and much more. Ideal for curious skeptics and onguard believers." Extremely clever volumes all, they are calculated to cause discomfort among unbelievers and misbelievers of all educational levels. Many arguments require careful and detailed research to find the fallacies A good example is his defense of the historicity of Jesus. He asks, "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?" To be sure, this is an old chestnut, but it requires considerable philosophical sophistication to show that it misrepresents the problem and fundamentally misunderstands the methods of science. If there could be such a thing as academic respectability for apologetics and apologists, Norman L. Geisler and his productions would be the most likely to be accorded it. Geisler can be thought of as a philosophically sophisticated Josh McDowell. He can argue about the meaning of meaning, the foundations of scientific knowledge, and the nature of truth. A formidable opponent in debate, he is perhaps the single most important apologist for Atheists and skeptics to understand and refute. Parsippany,

New Jersey

The CBD catalog features the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. "At last, a handy one-volume reference that covers every issue, person, and concept related to the defense of Christianity - and gives you responses to arguments against the faith. Geisler's comprehensive work covers a variety of topics, including the relationship between science and Christianity, philosophical systems, contemporary concerns, and more." Other Geisler titles available are The Battle for God, Christian Apologetics, Christian Ethics, From God to Us, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Unshakable Foundation, and Why I Am a Christian." Geisler has also co-authored with Ron Brooks the perennial best-seller When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. "When skeptics ask questions, believers need to be ready with evidences for their faith. This handbook helps you do that. Geisler ... and Brooks give understandable explanations why belief in Christ and the Bible is reasonable. Their question-andanswer format makes it easy to find what you need, and a glossary of terms helps with unfamiliar words. When skeptics ask ... you need this book!" In the post-9-1-1 world, Islam is on everyone's mind. Evangelical Christians are up to the challenge, however, and the CBD catalog has a number of polemic works aimed at defusing the Islamic bomb. Although they do not name Geisler's co-author (Abdul Saleeb) for Answering Islam, Second Edition, The Crescent in Light of the Cross, they will send it to you for $12.99 plus shipping. ''Understand the most formidable religious challenge to Christianity today! Written by a lifelong Christian and a former Muslim, this theological critique clearly presents the basic doctrines of Islam, offers a Christian response to Muslim beliefs, and argues in support of Christian claims. New preface written in light of 9/11." It will be recalled that waters for the biblical flood came from opened "windows of heaven" and broken-up Winter

2003-2004

"fountains of the deep." If disinformation were water, the contributions of Geisler and McDowel to the disinformation flood which has engulfed our civilization would probably be equivalent to the effusions from the fountains of the deep. Creationism Creationists never tire to tell us that their work is scientific and not religious. The developers of 'Scientific Creationism' and more recently 'Intelligent Design' eschew religious language as much as possible and sport a veneer of scientific language and. appearance. The cat is out of the bag, however, thanks to the CBD catalog. On the page headed "Defending the Faith" and "More on Apologetics" we find creationism under all disguises correctly located and identified for what it really is: religious apologetics. The politically important "Focus on the Family Creation Videos" are both available for $15.99 each or for $29.99 together. Titled Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Case for Intelligent Design and Icons of Evolution: Dismantling the Myths, these revisionist views of evolutionary science claim to have the real facts. "How did life originate? Was it from an undirected evolutionary process, or was something - or Someone - else at work? No questions are more important, and these thought-provoking videos offer revolutionary answers. State-of-the-art computer animation and insights from leading scientists provide an in-depth look at Darwin's theory and the powerful new evidence in favor of intelligent design." Apart from professional biologists, it is not likely that very many people will be able to detect the distortions of these disinformative examples of religion in the clothing of science. Intelligent Design 'theory' is represented prominently in the apologetics section of the CBD catalog, and all the usual suspects have been placed in the lineup. Starting with the lawyer Philip E. Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, we are asked ''What's the best way to defeat the misleading claims of Darwinism?" The answer according to the CBD catalog, is "B; developing solid critical-thinking skills... [Johnson's] non-technical discussion of evolutionary naturalism offers sound advice on spotting deceptive arguments, grasping scientific issues, understanding the impact of the Scopes trial, and more. Ideal for teens, Page 7

teachers, pastors, or anybody concerned about the creation/evolution debate." As with earlier creationists, Johnson's lobbyists make an appeal for fairness and open-mindedness - equal time for ID and evolution. Unfortunately, many school board members can't tell the difference between a mind that is 'open' and a mind that is gaping. Other offerings from Johnson are Darwin on Trial, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, The Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwin (video), and The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. It is hard to tell just how many school boards have been taken in by this creationist apologist, but he is a serious threat to science education in the public schools. Michael J. Behe, the biochemist (really!) who almost single-handedly started the intelligent-design (lD) revolution in creationist politics, has for sale Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a book that brings the nineteenth-century arguments about 'design' in nature down to the sub-cellular level. Whereas back then creationists argued that such things as half a wing or half an eye could not even be imagined as adaptive (and thus selectable by natural selection), convincing explanations of organ evolution have forced Behe to retreat down to the cytologicaland biochemical levels to find yet-unexplained conundrums. Blood clotting systems and the flagellar motors of bacteria are now claimed to be "irreducibly complex," and thus evidence of an intelligent designer. Since Behe can't see how these systems could have evolved from other pre-existing systems, his conceit leads him to assert that no one else will ever understand these systems either. It is not surprising that we do not yet know how these systems evolved, even though we are closing in fast on such understanding. These systems are still being mapped at the molecular level and we don't have a full picture of what exactly we have to explain. (For perspective, consider the fact that I myself am older than the science of biochemistry as a separate academic discipline!) We are disputing at the leading edge of science, the boundary line where everything on the other side is unknown and where every newly discovered fact raises new questions of mechanisms and origins. Without a doubt, however, all these discoveries are informed by Darwinian insights and are, one after the other, being explained in evolutionary terms. PageS

Evolutionary theory has great heuristic value; that is, it makes useful predictions and leads to discovery. By contrast, Behe's god is the quintessential 'god of the gaps.' It leads to no discoveries, and as each gap in knowledge is narrowed, the god shrinks proportionally. As each gap is filled, Behe will have to go back to the vanguard of discovery to find a new unanswered question raised by evolutionary scientists. Then, for a time, he will be able to proclaim, "This system is irreducibly complex and can't be explained in evolutionary terms." But Behe will probably still be alive when that problem is solved, and he will have to recycle his claim with yet another newly uncovered conundrum. As a matter of fact, the prestigious journal Nature has just published a discovery that undermines Behe's contention that cilia and flagella are irreducibly complex entities. It has just been discovered that the intraflagellar transport proteins that are needed for growth and maintenance of flagella in the single-celled alga Chlamydomonas, are also needed for normal development of the brain and spinal chord in mice.* While these particular proteins are essential for the functioning of cilia and flagella, they don't need these motor structures to be biologically employed. It can be expected that other flagellar components soon will be found to have a variety of other functions as well. Cilia and flagella will be seen to be jerry-built organelles resulting from the same sort of evolutionary tinkering that is seen everywhere as the hallmark of the blind, undesigning process of natural selection. One of the theoreticians behind Behe is William A. Dembski, whose Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology is on sale for just $11.99. With great affectation of erudition, Dembski claims that there are scientific ways to detect design in objects and systems. Well, so did Archdeacon Paley at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when he first used the nowcliched example of watches pointing to the existence of watchmakers. The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, quite thoroughly has laid this question to rest. Another ID title available is Designer Universe: Intelligent

* Huangfu, Danwei, Almin Liu, Andrew S. Rakeman, Noel S. Murcia, Lee Niswander, & Kathryn V. Anderson, "Hedgehog signalling in the mouse requires intraflagellar transport proteins," Nature, Vol. 426, 6 Nov. 2003, pp.83-87. Winter 2003-2004

Design and the Existence of God, by Harry L. Poe & Jimmy H. Davis - just in case anyone were in doubt as to where ID 'theory'is intended to lead the public school system. Creationists of all stripes and spots are available in this catalog. There is Kurt Wise's Faith, Form, and TIme: What the Bible Teaches & Science Confirms About Creation & the Age of the Universe. Kurt was a doctoral student under Steve Gould at Harvard, would you believe? Despite his fundamental misunderstanding of science, he passed all his exams (with flying colors, I'm told) and Harvard had no choice but to grant him a Ph.D. Hugh Ross, an old debate opponent of mine, is represented by The Creator and the Cosmos, as well as Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials (with co-authors K. Samples and M. Clark). The founder of modern 'creation science,' Henry Morris, has a catalog entry for his The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Revised and Expanded. Morris, it should be noted, has always refused to debate me, sending his son John to argue Noah's Flood with me in his stead. (Since I have no Ph.D., you see, he has not wanted to dignify my position by bringing it up to his level. A transcript of the debate can be found on the American Atheists Website under the "Bone Pit" button.) Spiritual Warfare It may be that the editors of the CBD catalog are a bit embarrassed to include books about 'spiritual warfare' in their inventory. Nowhere do they explain exactly what spiritual warfare is, nor do they have even one explanatory blurb pushing the twenty-one titles listed under the heading "Spiritual Warfare." Fortunately, I am something of an authority on this subject - due to the fact that last year I debated a Christian college professor whose doctoral dissertation devoted hundreds of pages to the subject. Naturally, I had to read the whole verschluggene treatise before debating the fellow. Like many true Christians, he believes in what may be dubbed 'jinni-geography.' Every particular region of the world, it seems, is being plagued by a specific demon or devil whose job is to stymie the efforts of Christ's salvation army. These all can be defeated, first, by 'discerning the powers' - i.e., learning the name and antisocial American Atheist

Cilia and flagella will be seen to be jerry-built organelles resulting from the same sort of evolutionary tinkering that is seen everywhere as the hallmark of the blind, undesigning process of natural selection. security number of each demon in charge of each region. Then, once the jinnis have been identified, their names can be used magically in prayers and exorcisms. In the darkest days of the Dark Ages, no superstition surpassed this one for silliness, fatuousness, or just plain ignorance. Among the titles offered to legions of clueless Christian soldiers are How to Cast Out Demons, by Doris M. Wagner; What the Bible Says About Spiritual Warfare, by C. Peter Wagner; Strategy of Satan, by Warren E. Wiersbe; Warfare Prayer, by C. Peter Wagner; The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare (Revised and Updated), by Dr. Ed Murphy; Spiritual Warfare, by A. Scott Moreau; Deliverance from Evil Spirits, by Francis MacNutt [how appropriate a name for this authorl}; Unmasking the Jezebel Spirit, by John Paul Jackson; Kingdom Warfare: Prayer, Spiritual Warfare, and the Ministry of Angels, by Jack Hayford; and Preparing for Battle: A Spiritual Warfare Workbook, by Mark 1. Bubeck. These theorists and some of the leaders in George W. Bush's military have been busy of late 'discerning the powers' in Iraq and are believed by many to be doing a far more important job than that done by our troops on the ground. More important even than our air force, these mentally hapless hoplites constitute the spiritual Luftwaffe that our president is counting on to turn the tide in the Near East. Now that Saddam Hussein has been captured, it will be possible for these spiritual intelligence experts to determine for certain which evil spirits have taken possession of the demonized exruler. While rationalists must perforce consider all this to be absurd and ridiculous, they must at the same time realize the grave importance of the fact that many of their disinformed elected officials and military leaders take all this as seriously as body-counts.

Parsippany, New Jersey

Prophecy When Ronald Reagan was yet governor of California, he expressed his belief in the Book of Revelation publicly, indicating that he believed he was living in the 'end times' foretold in that apocalyptic book. When he became president, I lived in constant fear that he might at any minute decide that it was necessary to catalyze the advent of Armageddon. If God wants the world to end in our time how could any God-fearing president act contrary to the divine will? Would that red telephone be in his office if the Good

and the Middle East Crisis-Revised. "Armageddon is closer than we think, believes noted Bible scholar Walvoord! Explaining how biblical prophecies are now being fulfilled in such events as the ArablIsraeli conflict, Walvoord prepares you for the final drama leading to the second coming of Christ. Are you ready? Walvoord offers a plan of salvation so you can be sure." While rationalists must be amusedly skeptical of a prophetic book that has had to be revised, legions of true believers at all levels of our society have taken this book quite seriously and are trying to figure out exactly where they fit into ' this divinely designed scenario. No prophecy section of a truly Christian catalog would be complete without the works of Tim LaHaye, including Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy. "Does apocalyptic literature leave you bleary-eyed? Gain a clear pic-

More important even than our air force, these mentally hapless hoplites constitute the spiritual Luftwaffe that our president is counting on to turn the tide in the Near East. Lord hadn't planned it? Would Armageddon become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If any Bible-believing Christian is sitting in the Oval Office, will Armageddon become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Reagan was the darling of reactionary Christians everywhere, and his belief in the importance of biblical prophecy greatly amplified an already loud clamor emanating from true believers who claimed that everything happening in our world was predicted by the ancient authors of their sacred books. This prophetic chorus has continued to grow in volume up to the present day, and it is now the opinion of a considerable number of very high officials in Washington. In the case of the president himself, it is hazardous to try to separate public pretense from private profession. He does appear genuinely to believe that he has been chosen by the god of his Bible to invade Iraq and depose its demonic leader. Where might he (or the spiritual powers behind his throne) have gotten such ideas? Possible answers can be found in the CBD catalog. Consider Dr. John Walvoord's best-selling Armageddon, Oil Winter 2003-2004

ture of Bible prophecy with this astonishing visual guide! Features stimulating text; over 50 dynamic color charts; timelines to clarify end-times chronology; and a 6-panel foldout panoramic view of God's plan for the ages. The result of decades of research and study by two prophecy experts." Also available are LaHaye's Are We Living in the End Times?; The Complete Bible Prophecy Chart; The Merciful God of Prophecy; The Rapture: Who Will Face the Tribulation?; and Understanding Bible Prophecy for Yourself Keys to Unlocking the End Times. Once again, rationalists may laugh at the whole concept of prophecy, with its fundamental assumption that Yahweh or Jesus wasn't really speaking to the people the Bible says he was addressing but rather was talking to people who would live thousands of years later in lands yet unimagined. It is no laughing matter, however, to consider the danger inherent in a world whose leaders and lobbyists not only actually believe such nonsense but think, moreover, that the future is not going to be the logical result of actions we have taken in the past and present, but Page 9

rather was all planned out by a presciObesity is rampant in America, as I scientific writings of men who would be entific society that wouldn't have had am painfully aware from my own solimplacable enemies of science if they the faintest idea of what to do with "a 6diering in the 'Battle of the Bulge.' were alive today. I suspect Dr. Colbert panel foldout panoramic view of God's Practically everyone today is overweight has reaped a healthy harvest from the plan for the ages." Belief that the future - or thinks so. Is this a challenge for sale of these best-selling books. His of human society not only has been Bible Man's accountant or what? Who investment in Christian credulity and determined by causes outside human can forget that Moses wrote that "Allthe ignorance must be returning tidy earnfat is the LORD's"[Lev 3:16] ? Any entercontrol but is unalterable by human ings for him. actions is noxious. It It would appear can only foster societal that Dr. Colbert is a paralysis. No true mere novice compared Elmer Gantry can show you that Lev 3: 16 to Carole Lewis in the believer can be expected to do the slightest of cashing in on does not just apply to the fat of sacrificial ani- art thing to prevent a realChristian credulity and world Armageddon mals. Jehovah wants fat as well, and you gullibility. She has crehence my alarm years ated an astonishing really shouldn't ignore his kinky desires. ago during the Reagan money-making scheme regime. Of all the disthe equal to which will information leaked to be hard to find - even prising Elmer Gantry can show you that credulous American governmental in the CBD catalog. She is selling not that verse does not just apply to the fat 'intelligence' personnel by all the varijust a book; she is selling a plan: First of sacrificial animals. Jehovah wants ous insurgent theocracies now contendPlace: The Original Bible-Based Weight your fat as well, and you really shouldn't Loss Plan. "Here's a weight-loss proing for control of this land of ours, none ignore his kinky desires. Besides, Jesus gram that's about gaining ... a lifeis as pernicious as the notion that the agrees with his dad completely on this changing relationship with God! Bible can foretell the future without the issue, as you can find out by reading a Participants in the 13-week program folneed of science or rational actions of any popular book by Don Colbert, M.D. low a fitness and Bible study plan that kind. For just $16.99 you can own What includes regular meetings, prayer, Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Scripture reading and memorization, Dieting and Health, Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, healthy eating, accountability, fellowWith Key to the Scriptures ship, and exercise. Learn to be victoriand Living Longer. "Does Scripture teach us how to live and eat? Based on ous over old eating habits and commit For many decades, American medical and' historical research, this your spirit, heart, mind, and body to Atheists has been arguing before state health specialist say yes! Dr. Colbert God." legislatures and in its various periodishows you why those foods Jesus ate are The catalog cheerfully assures its cals that religion can be dangerous to ideal for 21st-century living-and why readers "Here's everything you need to one's health. We have focused, of course, those he avoided continue to pose health start a First Place group: Group Starter on the most dangerous cults such as risks. Discover a comprehensive nutriKit $149.99 [$119.99 for CBD cusChristian Science, the Faith Assembly, tomers], Member Kit $79.99 [$63.99]." tion plan that incorporates Bible-based and other groups that eschew scientific "Everything," apparently, is more eating. " For just $15.99 more you can medicine in favor of "treatment by get Colbert's The What Would Jesus Eat than just the Group Starter Kit and the prayer alone." Our polemic has been Member Kit. You're not going to get on Cookbook. Another $14.99 (unless you directed mostly at the religious 'healing' want it on audiocassette or CD) will get this diet for just $183.98. Oh, no: there of children, many of whom have died of you Colbert's Toxic Relief. "Dr. Colbert's are the "Books in the series" that you prayer over-dose during the last thirty will need: proven 30-day fasting and detoxification years. Alas, this horrific form of child program will help cleanse your system, abuse continues to be legal in most Eating Healthy, Eating Right: A restore your vitality, shed toxic fat, and states of the union, thanks to the lobbyComplete 16-week Meal Planner to Help reclaim your health." ing expertise of the Christian Science You Lose Weight, Scott Wilson, E.E.E., Of course, it cannot be assumed Church. A.A.C. & Jody Wilkinson, M.D., M.S. that everything in these books will be It must be admitted that killing $18.99 [$13.99]. [For some reason, the silly or ill-advised. I have not had the kids with prayer is not a widespread meal planner is for 16 weeks even time to obtain these books, and I am practice in mainstream American though the program is only 13 weeks.] willing to grant that they may be reaChristianity, but I remain cynical as to sonable rehashes of common medical the reasons for this apparent benignity. First Place: The Original Bible-Based wisdom on the subject of health and Perhaps it is due to the simple fact that Weight Loss Plan, Carole Lewis with nutrition. My gripe is that where these Terry Whalin, $18.99 [$13.99]. there's little money to be made from First Place Bible Study, $19.99 books may be giving good advice it will dead children. (As far as I am aware, [$13.99]. be for the wrong reasons. Instead of only Christian Science Practitioners can First Place Leader's Guide, $19.99 credit accruing to the lineage of infidel collect from Blue Cross and other [$15.99]. scientists who have slowly and painfully sources for prayer 'treatment' even Health 4 Life: 52 Simple Ideas for accumulated knowledge of the functionwhen it has killed the patient.) On the Living Healthy in Every Area, Jody ing of other hand, there are other markets Wilkinson, M.D., M.S., $14.99 [$11.99]. the human machine, credit - and crediwhere religions and religious authors bility - will be conferred upon the precan invest their time and energy. American Atheist Winter 2003·2004 Page 10

your

Bible," "Bible Studies, and "Bible Reference Works." It must be said at the outset that there is almost nothing of any scientific value in those pages. That is, there is very little representing objective and impartial scholarship in them. A great Even though you must have realdeal has been discovered about the oriized that the gins and evolution actual foods to be of the various biblieaten are not Instead of credit accruing to the lineage of infidel cal texts, but you included in the won't find much of it scientists who have slowly and painfully accumulat- for sale here. To the prices listed above, you should ed knowledge of the functioning of the human contrary, you will not suppose that find only books and it will only cost machine, credit - and credibility - will be conferred reference works you the discount that toe the evanupon the prescientific writings of men who would gelical line and price of $268.92 plus postage and be implacable enemies of science if they were alive eschew 'Modernism' handling. I have and other secular or not told you yet today. scientific heresies. that you also need There are endless "Bible studies series of bible-study Bible Study with Scripture memory CDs" to do this guides and courses, not one of which is diet. In addition, you need to buy: worth naming in this essay. Not one of I have to confess that I get the CBD them will give any insight into the Everyday Victory for Everyday People, catalog for more reasons than just keepnature of the biblical texts or let the stu$19.99 [$15.99J. ing abreast of what the Fundies are up Giving Christ First Place, $19.99 dent know what real scholars have figto. As a scientific student of the bibles of [$15.99J. ured out, say, about the forgery known Judaism and Christianity, I possess a Living the Legacy, $19.99 [$15.99]. as the Book of Daniel. Not one of them Pathway to Success, $19.99 [$15.99]. very large library of scholarly resources will alert the student to the fact that the Pressing On to the Prize, $19.99 for studying those bibles: Aramaic, authors of Matthew and Luke plagia[$15.99J. Greek, and Hebrew dictionaries in great rized the Greek text of Mark, fitting it to Seeking God's Best, $19.99 [$15.99]. number, bibles in Greek, Hebrew, and their theopolitical circumstances. Not other languages, journals, symposia, In short, the fatted faithful should one will derive the creation myths in concordances, commentaries, atlases, be willing to sacrifice $364.86 in order to Genesis from Canaanite and collected works of early church fathers, begin letting Jehovah lap up the lard Mesopotamian mythologies. Only and photocopies of scholarly treatises in that rightfully belongs to him. Some benighted ignorance is for sale in the German, French, and other languages truly true-believing dieters might worry, bible-studies pages of the CBD catalog. published as far back as 1793. As the however, that the LORD may look There is so much more to tell you reader may suppose, such things don't askance at their discount sacrifice - he about the books and paraphernalia usually come cheap and they make up a might think they aren't sufficiently supbeing sold to the child-like, believing significant part of my annual budget (as pliant by not presenting Him an offering population that has helped an ultraconif I were well enough organized to have at full sticker price. True Christians servative 'Neocon' oligarchy to seize cona budgetl). Naturally, I try to buy such such as they might well want to avoid trol of our country, but I fear I have run things at the lowest-possible prices. this discount catalog and buy everything out of antacids and cannot turn another Once in a great while, I can find somestraight from the manufacturer at page in this catalog without suffering thing I need in the CBD catalog. Great! Suggested Retail Price, so the LORDwill ulceration of my splenic mucosa. I have Most often, however, there is nothknow they are sincere. already discharged all the bile I can proing I can use in the catalog. Although it It is hard to imagine an easier way duce for a single review and shall have does carry standard grammars and dicto make money from Homo boobus, as H. to let the hundreds of remaining catalog tionaries for the biblical languages, I've L. Mencken once christened the believitems go unclassified as well as owned them all for over thirty years now ing American multitude the unnamed - unscored and unscourged. and they are of no interest to me. 'booboisie.' I am reminded of Jon Certainly, however, they will be of use to Murray, when he became president of What Does It All Mean? young scholars beginning their investiAmerican Atheists indulging in some gation of the bibles of Judeochrisfantasizing about how to get Christians The CBD catalog conceals an importendom, although most of them are not to pay for Atheism to make up for the tant message, one that can be extracted discounted all that greatly. Unfortuages through which Atheists have had to from every page: America is on the verge nately, young scholars will be impeded pay for Christianity. He had just seen a of plunging back down into the depths of in their inquest into the nature of the bumper-sticker inscribed with Lev 3:16 the Dark Ages of Faith. The most biblical texts by all the nonsense that - "The Fat is the Lord's" - along with abysmal superstitions of a pre scientific blights the pages under the headings something suggesting Christian dieting. world are selling faster than Freedom "Biblical Studies," "How to Study the He thought it would be fun to cook up a [Normally 29¢ each, you can get each simple idea for just 23¢ a piece in lots of 52 or more!] Today Is the First Day: Daily Encouragement on the Journey to Weight Loss and a Balanced Life, Carole Lewis, $19.99 [$14.99].

Parsippany, New Jersey

biblical weight-loss scheme, publish it under a pseudonym, and launder it through a high-volume Christian distributor such as CBD. If only he were alive today to see how even his fantasy has been surpassed by the Christians themselves.

Winter 2003-2004

Page 11

Fries and are being back-ordered. The catalog tells us that there is an enormous market for disinformation in America and that the ignorance industry is a frightfully large business. Worse yet, it tells us that a large segment of our civilization desires to be deceived. It repeats the antique message of Pope Paul IV's legate to Paris: populus vult decipi - the people want to be deceived. It tells us that the investors who are profiting from the disinformation market have not forgotten the even earlier message of the fourth-century church father Eusebius, who titled a chapter of his Prteparatio Evangelica "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." It might be argued that my use of the term disinformation is not quite in accord with the dictionary definition displayed at the beginning: "deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations." It seems to me, however, that our present situation is

entirely analogous to that of two governments competing for hegemony. One is the secular government set in power by the Constitution of the United States; the other is a clerical, shadow government engaged in guerrilla warfare against the constitutional authority. The clerical disinformation specialists not only are trying to deceive the American government with ancient lies and fables, they are creating new falsehoods that have allowed government officials to 'discover' that the First Amendment doesn't really require a wall of separation between church and state or guarantee freedom from religion, and that the American Founding Fathers really wanted to establish the Christian Nation that we are becoming. Our civilization is being engulfed in a veritable Noah's Flood of disinformation. Atheists, Humanists, and rationalistic people of all denominations are desperately needed to play the part that Yahweh is said to have played at the end of the biblical flood:they must cut off the water supply. They must close the

"windows of heaven" to stop the rain and plug-up the "fountains of the deep" to stem the tide. Unfortunately, their task is greater than that of Yahweh. Now that the flood is already on the earth, what is to be done with the water? For the flat earth on which Yahweh operated it would be easy: just let the water run over the edges of the earth and "asswage" and "abate." For the real world in which we are trying to survive, however, this option is not available. Our earth is a sphere, and water can't drain off it into outer space. We must somehow annihilate the 'water' that is suffocating the senses of our government officials and choking the intellectual life out of our civilization. How is this to be done? Alas, I do not really know - but I'm working on the problem. Readers who have ideas about how to fight the disinformation war are invited to e-mail Frank Zindler at «[email protected]> or send a snail-mail letter to him at P.O. Box 5733, Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733.

Present day:

1543 A.D.:

I

"ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN "ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT EVOLUTIOi\J IS GOING TO HELL! THE EARTH ORBITS THE SUN SCIENCE INSTRUCTORS WHO WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!" TEACH IT MUST BE FIRED!" Page 12

Winter 2003·2004

American Atheist

Luther Burbank: Infidel Genius Introduction by Frank R. Zindler

a

rowing up on my grandfather's small farm in Michigan, I learned early-on that some ofthe most beautiful flowers and the most delicious and productive varieties of fruits and vegetables had been 'produced' by a man named Burbank. After I learned how to read real books, not just the primers and readers taught in the two-room school I attended, one of the first books of any kind I was to read all the way through was a children's biography of the "Plant Wizard" Luther Burbank. The book gave no hint that the man who had been named after the founder of my family's religion held heterodox views in the sphere of faith. There was not a word or phrase that would have suggested that Luther not only wasn't a Lutheran, he wasn't even a Christian or believer of any kind at all. Luther Burbank (1849-1926) became my first hero, and I read his biography at least twice. I resolved to follow in his Parsippany, New Jersey

footsteps perhaps to become a Lutheran Luther Jr. Life is irony! It wasn't until years later, after I had graduated from college - perhaps significantly, as a biologist with a heavy emphasis in botany - that I happened to learn the truth about Luther Burbank. (No, Burbank California is not named after Luther Burbank; rather, it is named after a Los Angeles dentist, David Burbank.) The man whose fungus-resistant potatoes had restored to life Catholic Ireland was an 'Infidel' an unbeliever in any of the superstitions afflicting this credulous world of ours. I have long wanted to publish a tribute to Burbank in this journal, but I have never had the time to research a completely original article. As other projects have had to take priority over the Burbank project, I have begun to worry that it will never come to publication and that my childhood hero will pass into oblivion and be forgotten even by members of the American Atheist community. For this reason, I have decided to reprint the full text of the 'Little Blue Book' ofE. Haldeman-Julius dealing with Burbank: Why I Am An Winter 2003-2004

Infidel: Luther Burbank, LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 1020, Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius (Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius Company, no date). In addition, I am reprinting part of a chapter from George E. Macdonald's book Fifty Years of Freethaught (1931) that contains the actual survey questionnaire to which Burbank replied and touched off the wave of hostile reaction alluded to in the Little Blue Book.

Luther Burbank (Apparently written by Haldeman-Julius) [Pages 3-4 of E. Haldeman-Julius' Blue Book No. 1020]

Little

L

uther Burbank, naturalist, originator of new fruits, flowers, etc., was born in Massachusetts in 1849. he was always devoted to nature study, especially plant life, with which he early Page 13

began to experiment. He moved to Santa Rosa, California, in 1875, where he conducted Burbank's Experiment Farms. He often had several thousand distinct experiments under way - even at the time of his death growing some five thousand distinct botanical specimens from all over the world. He was also a special lecturer on evolution at Leland Stanford, Jr., University. His fame as a botanist and inventor of new plant forms awakened widespread interest in plant breeding throughout the world. In January, 1926, Luther Burbank made a declaration of agnosticism to a newspaper reporter. Although Burbank's rationalistic convictions were not by any means unknown to readers of his books, or to his friends, the publication of this interview in the newspapers created a furore of criticism throughout the country. Since it then became known generally to the public at large, the facts about Luther Burbank's agnosticism were news. In spite of criticism from the pulpits, he refused to qualify his unequivocal statements. "I am an infidel," he said. About the middle of March Luther Burbank became III with gastro-intestinal complications. He died April 11, 1926. Lest the "last words" of this infidel be garbled in future ages to delude credulous mankind, it should be emphatically stated that Luther Burbank did not recant - even the newspaper accounts of his death made this fact clear. He remained an infidel until the last - an unbeliever, scientifically sure of himself, passing from life into darkness.

WhyIAm An Infidel by

Luther Burbank [Pages 5-9 ofE. Haldeman-Julius' Little Blue Book No. 1020]

C! cience

is knowledge arranged and according to truth, facts, and the general laws of nature. Our Dr. David Starr Jordan defines it more briefly as "organized human knowledge" or "human experience tested and set in order."

oclassified

Page 14

There are always at least two sides of every question which may be suggested to the human mind. Sometimes both views are correct, but far more often one is right, and according to facts and truth, the other wrong. All personal, social, moral, and national success depends upon the judicious wisdom of our choices made by the aid of science. Narrow personal prejudices and feelings quite too often becloud the issue and ultimate defeat is the inevitable result. Life as we see it around us on this planet is usually thought to be confined to man, animals, and plants, those organisms which grow and reproduce their kind with more or less precision. Why should we omit crystals which grow as truly as plants and reproduce themselves quite as precisely to type, or the more primitive forms of life which

for the continuation of any species. All these various powers of adaptation have to be acquired individually and repeated indefinitely until so fixed in the life stream that they are reproduced. Repetition is the means of impressing any quality or character in animal life or in man and by just the same means plants are impressed, and their qualities and habits changed as we desire. All life depends upon a series of selections, and repetitions. The first faint glimmerings of choice may be seen in the polarity of the magnet, next we see it perhaps in plants and the more primitive forms of life, and as we mount higher and higher in the scale of life there is more and more freedom of choice and less dependence upon heredity.

There are too few who exploit the inexhaustible forces of nature and far too manS' who exploit their fellow beings. Useless waste and unneeessat'S'parasitism take at least nine-tenths of the productive capacitS' of the United States. are reproduced by division? Science is proving that the world is not half dead, but that every atom is all life and motion. Life is self-expression, intricate organized polarity. The lure of happiness and the fear of pain are fundamental qualities possessed by all living things and are the two forces which have through untold millenniums kept what we usually call life from destruction by the ever encroaching outside forces of destruction. Life is heredity plus environment. At birth of a plant, animal, or man, heredity has already been fixed. Environment may now call into action only those tendencies which have been experienced in the age long past, yet may recombine and intensify them in a most surprising way. Such a modification is limited, generally, to the individual, but may, if repeated generation after generation, by slow increments at last become fixed and available in the species. Assimilation and reproduction are, and, of course, must be fundamental and universal. The power of adaptation to various conditions which beset all life may also be considered as fundamental Winter 2003·2004

Ancient tribes and nations had many gods, often one for almost every phenomenon of nature. The Hebrews have the credit of inventing the conception of our monotheistic JewishChristian God, who however is represented as having most of the weaknesses and bad habits of primitive man; this was a step in the path of evolution toward man's present conception of God; the God within us is the only available God we know, and the clear light of science teaches us that we must be our own saviors, if we are to be found worth saving; in other words, to depend upon the "kingdom within." The manhood and womanhood which would make the most of life in service to others is a sublimated form of the best of self which leads the way to a long lifetime of usefulness, happiness, health, and peace. There are without doubt some human beings in every nation, who, according to our present standards of civilization are truly civilized, but grave doubts may be entertained as to any community or any nation who could in any way measure up even to this standard scale of life, where we find more and more freedom, but even man today American Atheist

Our lives as we live them are passed on to others whether in physical or mental forms tinging all future lives forever. This should be enough for one who lives for truth and service to his fellow passengers on the way. No avenging Jewish Gcd, no satanic 'Devil, no fiery hell is of any interest to him. is far from free. Slaves yet to war, crime, and ignorance - the only "unpardonable sin." Slaves to unnumbered ancient "taboos," superstitions, prejudices, and fallacies, which one by one are slowly but surely weakening under the clear light of the morning of science; the savior of mankind. Science which has opened our eyes to the vastness of the universe and given us light, truth, and freedom from fear where once was darkness, ignorance, and superstition. There is no personal salvation, there is no national salvation, except through science. There are too few who exploit the inexhaustible forces of nature and far too many who exploit their fellow beings. Useless waste and unnecessary parasitism take at least nine-tenths of the productive capacity of the United States. Will the growing intelligence of man (Science) forever tolerate the wholesale production of the ever-increasing proportion of idiots, morons, mongoloids, insane, criminal, weak, destitute, nervous, diseased half men and women who infest the earth to their own sorrow and disgrace and perhaps the ultimate destruction of our present state of civilization? A knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature, not inefficient palliatives, is the first step. Is there a problem equal to the building of a better humanity? Our lives as we live them are passed on to others whether in physical or mental forms tinging all future lives forever. This should be enough for one who lives for truth and service to his fellow passengers on the way. No avenging Jewish God, no satanic Devil, no fiery hell is of any interest to him. The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead. Every normal human being has ideals, one or many, to look up to, reach up to, to grow up to. Religion refers to the sentiments and feelings; science refers to the demonstrated everyday laws of Nature. Feelings are all right, if one does not get Parsippany, New Jersey

drunk on them. Prayer may be elevating if combined with works, and they who labor with head, hands, or feet have faith and are generally quite sure of an immediate and favorable reply. Those who take refuge behind theological barbed wire fences, quite often wish they could have more freedom of thought, but fear the change to the great

ocean of scientific truth as they would a cold bath plunge. Mr. [William Jennings] Bryan [the presidential candidate and anti-evolution Scopes Trial orator] was an honored personal friend of mine, yet this need not prevent the observation that the skull with which Nature endowed him visibly approached the Neanderthal type. Feelings and the use of gesticulations and words are more according to the nature of this type than investigation and reflection. Those who would legislate against the teaching of evolution should also legislate against gravity, electricity, and the unreasonable velocity of light, and also should introduce a clause to prevent the use of the telescope, the microscope, and the spectroscope or any other instrument of precision which may in the future be invented, constructed or used for the discovery of truth.

I

\

}

c:::Jc::::::l (

(I

Winter 2003-2004

Page 15

Burbank Answers Some Questions Excerpted from Fifty Years of Freethought: Story of The Truth Seeker From1875, Vol. II, by George E. Macdonald (New York: The Truth Seeker Company,

T

he hot debate on evolution in 1922 acquainted us incidentally with the reason why scientific truth makes slow headway against religion. It was that the exponents of truth never could depend upon the scientists to rally around and battle for the right interpretation of facts. From the first of my Freethought reading I had learned that science traversed every article of faith held by the Christian world. The light of science, the writers of fifty years ago finely said, had dissolved the mists of superstition, or were destined to do so at an early date. And Evolution - Why, evolution didn't leave religion a peg to hang its millinery on. But they hoped against experience. Science didn't dissolve the mists; the mists befogged science. There is that old Science of Astronomy, with all its facts. that in the days of Galileo and Copernicus created a new heaven and a new earth wholly incompatible with Bible geography, aeronautics, and ascensions. The Bible had residents in heaven and on earth swapping visits and returning calls; and belief in that sort of thing - this ascension of persons from the pages of the Bible into heaven has survived the clearly demonstrated truth that there is nowhere for such persons to go. The belief is still so common that it is only the unusual man or woman who will openly express doubt Page 16

1931), pages 548-553

that Jesus was received bodily into heaven wearing his Sunday clothes. There is prospect that before my book is out, the pope, yielding to tradition and the request of many heads of religious societies, will promulgate the dogma - and see it accepted next day by the newspapers - of the "assumption" of the virgin; that is, that the mother of Jesus was snatched alive, with all her disabilities, into the presence of her son, seated just to the right of his father in heaven. Copernicus handed that foolishness a fatal blow; yet one may now examine orthodox faith closely and not find a dent made in it by astronomical fact. That other great science, Geology, by which it is certified that the six thousand year period since Genesis is less than sixty seconds on the clock of the world, disturbs the faith of no one who really wants to be a child of God and accept Jesus as his personal savior. This notwithstanding that no man having such endowments of horse sense that he knows a contradiction when he sees one can believe in modern astronomy and geology and in Christianity at the same time. Still it is hard to give up the belief, taught some of us at our mothers' knees, as it were, that knowledge shall yet dissolve the morning mists of superstition like fog before the rising sun. Winter 2003·2004

In 1922 Miss Lovisa Brunzell of San Francisco, who had been brought into Rationalism by the 1915 Freethought Congress in that city, thought to hang Christianity higher than Haman by taking the depositions of all the men of science in America and publishing them in a book for general circulation. Hence her famous Questionnaire, which before she completed her part of the work had been sent to all of the eleven thousand men and women who were members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Luther Burbank, the Darwinian plant "wizard" of Santa Rosa, California, answered promptly and favorably on one of the first forms distributed, and returned the questions with the answers here appended: Q. Do you believe in the divinity and miraculous conception of Christ? B. I do not; there is no proof of it, either natural or otherwise. Q. Is it your opinion that prayer is answered by an intelligent being from without? B. I do not believe that prayer has been or ever will be answered by any intelligent being from without. There is absolutely no proof whatever of this, though it may be very comforting to some to believe this myth. Q. Do you think that the sole value of prayer consists in its effect on American Atheist

Questioner: What, in S'0uropinion, has given rise to religious beliefs? Burbank: ProbablS'two things: First, the desire to extend our present life; and second , the desire of its teachers to be supported bS'those who labor. .

the person praying? B. Mostly. Sometimes it might prove of value to others. Q. Has science taught you that heaven and hell do not exist? B. The common orthodox heaven and hell do not exist. They could not exist ifthere were an all-powerful and just ruler. No criminal could be as cruel as the God who would consign human beings to a hell. Q, What is your opinion of the Bible? Is it the work of God or of man? B. Without the shadow of a doubt the work of man, being a history of the lives of ancient tribes reaching up toward civilization, and constructed mostly unconsciously by men both good and bad. Q. Do you assume that the soul of man ceases to functionate [szc] at death? B. In other spheres, I do. Its influence will live in humanity - will live for good or bad for all time. We actually live in the lives of others. Q Do you agree with Buchner that "the brain is the seat of the soul"? B, A very difficult question to answer in a few words. The brain, if we include the whole nervous system, is the soul. Millions of souls functionate [szc], through heredity, through our own personal ones. Q. Would you say that matter and force govern the universe rather than a supreme being? B. Matter, which in its last analysis is force, governs what we know of the universe. Q. Can you harmonize the Christian faith with the laws of nature? B. In part, though this requires more than a ''Yes'' or "No." It is a faith grown up in our heredity, and has been an important factor, even though it does not harmonize with the laws of nature. Q. Can you say with Darwin that "Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind"? Parsippany, New Jersey

B. Yes, with reservations. Q. Have your labors in the field of science and research caused you to alter your earlier opinions on religion? B. All my work in the field of science and research has come through a change in my earlier opinions on religion. Growth is the law of life. Orthodoxy is the death of scientific effort. Q. What facts of nature substantiate your views? B. The evolution and development of man and his civilization through his own efforts, and only these. Q. Is life after death proved or disproved by science? B. It has never been proved or disproved, but it is rapidly, in my opinion, being disproved and so accepted by intelligent people. Q. What, in your opinion, has given rise to religious beliefs? B. Probably two things: First, the desire to extend our present life; and second, the desire of its teachers to be supported by those who labor. Q. Is religion of any value in the conduct of human affairs? B. There is no possible doubt that it has been and, like police force, will be in the future to those who are not able to govern themselves, especially in their relations toward others. Further remarks: The thousands of religions which exist and have existed are stepping-stones to a better adaptation to environment, and are one by one being replaced by the clear light of science and knowledge - in other words, as the fables of childhood are being supplanted by a better understanding ofthe facts oflife. Faithfully yours, LUTHER BURBANK.

might otherwise feel that they would be too much alone in expressing heretical opinions, supposing they held them). Hudson Maxim, the inventor, junked the Christian religion and threw it into the scrap heap. He said that the story of Joshua holding up the sun and moon, the incident of Jonah and the whale, the gossip about a miraculous conception, the fable of the Holy Trinity, and a hundred other stupid inventions were absurd myths that Christian fanatics had for two thousand years tried to compel mankind to believe, using the tortures of the Inquisition for that purpose. A professor in the university at Tucson, Arizona, for the first time in his life yielding to the temptation to write an anonymous letter, argued that if all men of science should express their views for publication, it would bring the conflict between science and religion to an issue in which the adherents of science would be squelched unless they took shelter in the church. Candid replies were submitted by a score who withheld their names from publication; but so many more made inconsequent answers that, as I read their responses, I concluded that we had overestimated the importance of the opinions of the scientists about religion.

Miss Brunzell printed the answers of Burbank on a separate sheet and inclosed them with future copies of the Questionnaire, in the trust they would encourage to frankness some of our scientific men who Winter 2003-2004

Page 17

Luther Burbank, Infidel by Edgar Waite [Pages 9-25 of E. Haldeman-Julius' Little Blue Book No. 1020]

I

W

hen Luther Burbank, disciple, prophet and high priest of nature, announced himself as an infidel he loosed a shot in the hierarchy of orthodox thinking that was destined, like another shot before it, to be heard around the world. On the morning of Friday, January 22, 1926, before Burbank's avowal of disbelief was broadcast through the press, California's gentle patriarch went about his experimental labors with the serenity of one who knows that he has harbored no evil thoughts of his fellowman and that in seventy-seven years of life he has never consciously hurt a living being. He was the revered, kindly old gentleman of an admiring world. No voice had ever been raised against him. How could any voice be raised against a man who had done only good, who had filled the world's gardens with more beautiful flowers than they had ever known before, who in times of hunger and war had helped replenish the world's granaries by his genius, and who had given mankind meaty vegetables and gorgeous fruits such as nature, working blindly, had never before visioned? At noon of that day the San Francisco Bulletin, shielding its sensational "beat" against the buccaneering plagiarisms of rival papers, rent wide its pages to make space for my copyright interview in which the famous horticulturist described himself fearlessly as an infidel, expressed disbelief in immortality, and of course scornfully dismissed Henry Ford's Page 18

recently pledged adherence to a fantastic theory of reincarnation. And before night Burbank, wrested violently from his calm nature-lore in the thriving little city of Santa Rosa, became the center of the most exciting philosophical and theological discussion of our era. Letters and telegrams began pouring in, first from nearby cities, but, as the days passed, from an ever-widening circle that finally took in Canada, England, Germany and a score of ether countries. From scientists and laymen who with Tennyson believe that "there is more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds," came messages of commendation. From the orthodox

Like kernels of popcorn, livid defenders of the faith, scorched by the heat of what a great man sees as Truth, jumped high into the air, and with quavering voices went into convulsions. Sententious champions of the gospel squared off to engage Burbank in Quixotic jousting, and fanatics ran amuck with anonymous threats of every dire punishment known either to God or the evil eye. One writer, addressing his protest to the newspaper that had first interviewed Burbank on the subject, consigned the plant wizard to no less a tropical climate than hell itself, where it was promised he would meet Conan Doyle and Sir Oliver Lodge.

Like kernels of popcorn, livid defenders of the faith, scorched bS' the heat of what a great man sees as Truth, jumped high into the air, and with quavering voices went into convulsions. clergy, and from cranks of all conditions of mental servitude, there came an avalanche of expostulation, reproof, and sibilant recrimination for the man who had the temerity to tell what he thought In the face of established doctrine. Ministers in Luther Burbank's own town, whose churches he had attended at times and for whose congregations he had more than once spoken on scientific subjects, winced, looked first askance, then scandalized. With wry faces religious leaders pecked at his words, outraged orators enveloped him in the gases of withering, trenchant criticism, and fanatics lashed him with biblical platitudes. Winter

2003-2004

And for many days thereafter, the furore, drawing fuel into the vortex with tentacles that encircled the earth, continued unabated. Rather was it marked with increased intensity, for many things were happening after that first interview was published. But through all the fury and the flailing of a fetid atmosphere Burbank himself remained unperturbed. The Women's Christian Temperance Union in Santa Rosa, of which he was an honorary life member, held a meeting of prayer (which only ten women attended!) for the misguided scientist - a meeting that became not so much a time of prayer as an indignation American Atheist

council - yet Burbank refused either to have his soul saved or to recant. They could pillory him for the leering stares of a morbid public. They could burn him, figuratively, at the stake. They could unroll eternal thunder to peal out threats of everlasting damnation, but Burbank remained inflexible on his original platform. From the outset the storm that blew so suddenly to rattle the holy Eucharist became a battle of the dictionary.

ness of the Christian Church. 2. One who does not believe (in something understood or implied). Thus the harried, lovable old man, met his well-wishers with unflinching eye, and was able to say: "I am an infidel. I know what an infidel is, and that's what I am." I heard these words with keen relish, for doubtless it would have gone hard with me had Burbank squirmed out of an unpleasant situation by

From the outset the storm that blew so suddenly to rattle the holy Eucharist became a battle of the dictionary. Burbank had said he was an infidel. Self-constituted apologists, as represented by the newspapers that had missed the story and by zealous ecclesiastics, insisted at once that Burbank had been misunderstood, that he had meant agnostic or something else less offensively noxious than infidel, Churchmen and newspapermen invaded Burbank's home grounds in hordes, all apparently bent on the determination to substitute a less inflammatory word. But Burbank evidently had consulted the dictionary before employing the word "infidel" in the first place, or in any event he peeked into its confiding pages after the first storm clouds began to break. He had found that an agnostic is one who professes ignorance as to the beginning of things and the power behind them. He had found that an atheist is one who denies the existence of God. And he had found, in

Webster's New International Dictionary that an infidel is: 1.In respect to a given religion, one who is an unbeliever; a disbeliever; especially a non-Christian or one opposing the truth or authoritative-

declaring what so many wanted him to declare - that he had been misquoted, that his sentiments had been garbled and distorted as the words and deeds of Christ himself. II I had been sent to Santa Rosa to quiz Burbank as to his theories on immortality and reincarnation. Burbank had that day been quoted in a brief dispatch as disputing the theory of his old friend, Henry Ford, that we return to earth after death to live again in some other form - perhaps a maple tree or a fox terrier. "All right," said the managing editor, "Burbank has told us what he doesn't believe. Now it's your job to have him tell us what he does believe." Burbank answered the question first by an epigram, and he asked that the Interview begin with the thought it contained. "Most people's religion," he said, "is what they would like to believe, not what they do believe. And very few of them stop to examine its foundations." Then, going on to tell why he does not believe in a resurrection: "The

universe is not big enough to contain perpetually all the human souls and the other living beings that have been here for their short spans. A theory of personal resurrection or reincarnation of the individual is untenable when we but pause to consider the magnitude of the idea. On the contrary, I must believe that rather than the survival of all, we must look for survival only in the spirit of the good we have done in passing through. This is as feasible and credible as Henry Ford's own practice of discarding the old models of his automobile. When obsolete, an automobile is thrown in the scrap heap. Once here and gone, the human life has likewise served Its purpose. If it has been a good life, it has been sufficient. There is no need for another." The scientist, who thus took exception to theories of a man whom he had but recently described as "one of the living geniuses who can truly typify our age," then went on to his adopted principle, true in his plant world as in human life, that there is no repetition in nature. "The theory of reincarnation," he said, "comes, like all other religious theories, from the best qualities in human nature, even ifin this as in the others its adherents sometimes fail to carry out the tenets in their lives. "Religion grows with the intelligence of man, but all religions of the past and probably all of the future will sooner or later become petrified forms instead of living helps to mankind. Until that time comes, however, ifreligion of any name or nature makes man more happy, comfortable, and able to live peaceably with his brothers, it is good. "But as a scientist I cannot help feeling that all religions are on a tottering foundation. None is perfect or inspired. As for their prophets, there are as many today as ever before, only now science refuses to let them overstep the bounds of common sense.

i

theory of his old friend, Henry Ford, that we return to earth after death

i1

~

to live again in some other form - perhaps a maple tree or a fox terrier.

~

~

Burbank had that day been quoted in a brief dispatch as disputing the

Parsippany,

New Jersey

Winter

2003-2004

Page 19

Edison, Burbank, and Ford "The idea that a good God would send people to a burning hell is utterly damnable to me. I don't want to have anything to do with such a God. But while I cannot conceive of such a God, I do recognize the existence of a great universal power - a power which we . cannot even begin to comprehend and might as well not attempt to. It may be a conscious mind, or it may not. I don't know. As a scientist I should like to know, but as a man, I am not so vitally concerned. "As for Christ - well, he has been most outrageously belied. His followers, like those of many scientists and literary men, have so garbled his words and conduct that many of them no longer apply to present life. Christ was a wonderful psychologist. He was an infidel of his day because he rebelled against the prevailing religions and government. I am a lover of Christ as a man, and his work and all things that help humanity, but nevertheless just as he was an infidel then, I am an infidel today." There it is, the hated word buried deep in the philosophical folds of a few candid remarks to a reporter. But let us go on: "I do not believe what has been served to me to believe. I am a doubter, a questioner, a skeptic. "However, when it can be proved to me that there is immortality, that Page 20

there is resurrection beyond the gates of death, then will I believe. Until then, no." One might think that these words would be accepted as the reasoned thoughts of a sane man. But in this age of bigotry they were not accepted. Burbank would have been the last man concerned to object to a calm, rational refutation of his views. Instead of any such well ordered rebuttal, those of narrow vision and intolerant hatred for free thinking sought to crucify him, with stinging words.

thinker in order that the hysterical clamor that rent the air may not be accepted for more than its face value. Burbank studied life at its fountain head - in the marvelous little buds and shoots and leaves that burgeon forth each spring to fill us anew with the awe for nature. He was a naturalist, no less than Thoreau. Nature was his teacher and he recognized her as a symbolism of that mysterious power which he was willing to have called God but which suited him as well if it was called merely Force. He saw nature, with Goethe, as the living, visible garment ofthat same mysterious power - God or Force, and faith in nature won him the eminent place he occupied in the world. Why, then, did he lack faith in the accepted doctrines of religion? Why did he see all religions on a tottering foundation? Because religions are based on a promise of immortality, and a threat of divine punishment for sin - two things to which this nature man could not reconcile himself. For the hope of immortality, he believed, is the refuge of cowards, and he could appropriately quote the Bible itself in pointing out that the commonly accepted faith is merely the substance ofthings hoped for, the evidence of things not seen but for which puny man, striving selfishly to improve his position, to increase his goods, always reaches out a grasping hand. Voltaire pictured faith as "deferential credulity." Burbank saw that

, ' ... as a scientist I cannot help feeling that all religions are on a tottering foundation. None is perfect or inspired. As for their prophets, there are as manS' todast as ever before, onlS'now science refuses to let them overstep the bounds of common sense." III So it becomes necessary for me (since I have talked with Burbank many times on many subjects) to tell more about him as a man and as a Winter 2003-2004

incredulity may rob us of our smug complacence, but in recompense gives us a sense of sincerity in our efforts to arrive at the truth. The philosophy of the infidel, he knew, may not be the philosophy best suited to the masses, American Atheist

held in subjection by a tempting promise of good things to come, but to the thinker who wishes to tear aside the veil of false promises this philosophy must, after all, be the only acceptable one. All this having been true to Burbank, if I caught his thought correctly, the great scientist's tolerant, yet withal inflexible, attitude toward those who were disparaging and excoriating him is entirely understandable. When the Women's Christian Temperance Union of Santa Rosa called its meeting to pray for Burbank, he only smiled, as much as to say that prayer at least was harmless, even if it couldn't do any good. Burbank had been a contributor to and a member of the organization for many years because he believed in its efforts toward bringing about prohibition. But he was not in the least perturbed when the very woman who had proposed him as an honorary life member five years ago joined in the call to save his soul. This call concluded with the following paragraph: All mothers and women who believe that irreparable injuries have been done to the cause of religion by the utterances of Luther Burbank, and who believe in the efficacy of prayer, are invited to join together for a season of prayer for Luther Burbank that his eyes may be opened and our youth may not be led astray from the religion of the fathers. The meeting was not so well attended as was to be expected. Only ten women of Santa Rosa, where Burbank had developed practically all the marvels of the fruit, vegetable, and grain worlds for which his name has become known throughout the nations of the globe, turned out to lift their eyes in solemn supplication that his soul might be redeemed, that he might be forgiven for his blasphemy. But in some inexplicable manner their prayers seem to have been unanswered. For Burbank continued to smile urbanely - and he stuck to his guns. On the other hand, Mrs. Burbank, the scientist's young wife, flashed defiance. In announcing that Parsippany,

New Jersey

she and her celebrated husband had declined invitations to attend the meeting, she said of her fellow townsmen: "It is simply an effort by the people of Main Street to get a little publicity. If these misguided, impertinent people would confine their activities to persons of their own caliber they would be much more logical and perhaps accomplish some good. It is all quite in line with the efforts frequently made to get rain by praying for it." And then, further to complicate an already vexed situation, Burbank accepted an invitation to speak from the pulpit of the First Congregational Church in San Francisco. He had been so invited some time previously by the Rev. James L. Gordon, a modernist type of minister who leans more to the sensational and to the attractions of immediate public interest than toward the old-fashioned, conservative line of church programs. Now, with the discussion of immortality, resurrection, and infidelism at the boiling point throughout the country, but particularly in California because its centrally distributing element was located here, Burbank philosophically consented to address the fashionable San Francisco congregation on his beliefs in divinity and eternity. The church, of course, was crowded to the vestibule. Hundreds stood outside hoping to get in long after the doors were closed, and then stood an hour or more longer to see the whitehaired infidel come forth from the church, where he had explained simply why he could not accept many of the commonly accepted beliefs. It was a trying situation, no doubt - both for Burbank and for Dr. Gordon - but a congregation that had assembled in the huge stone edifice, forewarned of what it would hear, did not march out in indignant protest at Burbank's sacrilege, but stayed to hear him out in respectful silence, then left, some of them perhaps with the feeling that they had enjoyed a most entertaining hour. But even that did not close the incident, although Burbank expressed hope, not without fervor, that the matter might be allowed to drop and he be allowed to get back to his work. Letters continued to stream in from all points of the compass - 538 Winter

2003-2004

of them in a single day, with the temperature steadily mounting. In all this febrile rush of things, however, the scientist was not too busy to write a reassuring letter to his newspaper friend, who in the midst of the furore had sent him a solicitous note expressing hope that his story and its reaction would not forever deprive Burbank of a zest for living. "To be sure," the scientist wrote, "I have had my hands full the last few days, as I am receiving some five hundred or more letters a day, but the publication of our interview made my life happy, not miserable." And then, doubtless with a mischievous sparkle in his eyes, he returned with sardonic glee to the word around which the whole controversy has ranged, subjoining, "Faithfully yours, Luther Burbank."

IV In the meantime, the orthodox clergy of California joined with that of other sections in soundly berating Burbank for being so courageous as to voice his views. Said the Rev. Fred A. Keast of the First Methodist Episcopal Church in Santa Rosa, where Burbank had attended services sporadically: "Mr. Burbank, in a time when the youth of the land are jazz crazed and breaking away In large numbers from religious teachings, has voiced foolish utterances." And he went on, according to press dispatches, to score Burbank as an uneducated man. Whereat the latter replied: "Although I went to college as a youth, I never considered it necessary to steep oneself in academic learning, in order to learn how to think. I welcome a fair and square, open and aboveboard fight on any subject, including this, but I despise a man who sneaks around under a cloak or cover of any society or clique to strike his blows." Said the Rev. E. E. Ingram, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church at Santa Rosa: "If words can be made to mean anything that one wants them to mean, we are bordering on linguistic anarchy. I regard Mr. Burbank's statement as most unfortunate and not worthy either of Mr. Burbank's head or heart. Mr. Burbank does not Page 21

seem to know the meaning of the words and terms he used." But Burbank merely smiled, pointing his finger suggestively toward the dictionary, and replied: "I said I am an infidel in the true sense of that word. Look it up, if you don't believe it." In addition to these critics, others presented themselves from near and far. One suggested kindly that "the gardener should stick to his cabbages," another that "the cobbler should stick to his last." Archbishop Edward J. Hanna of San Francisco, who was mentioned in press dispatches from Rome as a likely candidate to be elevated to the rank of cardinal, entered into a lengthy dissertation to prove that there is a God - a premise, or conclusion, as you will, that Burbank never denied. He merely said that for all of him the power called Godmight just as well be called Allah, Force, or by any other name deemed fitting. On this point he elucidated further: "I believe in a supreme ruler of

lowers.

1893 Burbank

Catalog

the universe, no matter what name one applies to it. The chief trouble with religion has been too much dependence upon names or words. People fail to discriminate. They do not think. Generally people who think for themselves, instead of thinking Page 22

Burbank merelS' smiled, pointing his finger suggestivelS' toward the dietional'S', and replied: "I said 1 am an infidel in the true sense of that word. Look it up, if S'oudon't believe it." according to the rules laid down by others, are considered unfaithful to the established order. In that respect I, too, differ with the established order and established designations." Nor did Burbank stand alone in his fearless tearing away of old veils. Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, president of Stanford University, had this to say: "The great accomplishment of science has been to place much of superstition in the discard. Science deals with ascertainable facts. Religiongoes farther than science in that it deals with personality and persons. The great difficulties that science has had with religion have come largely from the fact that there has always been a strongly dogmatic quality in organized religion. A race grows with accumulated experience, just as does a child, and with a racial growth there come new conceptions of religion. There is evolution in religion and religious thought that is as evident as the evolutionary processes in other phases of the world." Of the western ministers, only one, Rabbi Jacob Nieto, spoke up in partial defense of Burbank's views. "While not going so far as to say that religion today is on a tottering foundation," he told interviewers, "I do believe that it is in a state of transition and that Tom Paine's 'age of reason' is dawning upon the world. If Mr. Burbank meant that he is an agnostic rather than an infidel I can understand his position, for neither do I believe everything that is told me. It is true that the Bible has been edited and re-edited many times, in each case to suit the spirit of its particular age and occasion, but I would not say that Christ's words have been garbled. As to immortality, let us remember the verse in Ecclesiastes: 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it'."

Winter 2003-2004

v The battle of the dictionary, and, for that matter, the eternal battle of the ages - almost as old as the battle of the sexes - continued to ebb and flow. Burbank, rising as ever at six o'clock and putting in a hard day's work in his experimental gardens fifty miles from San Francisco, lent a not too attentive ear to the conflict, going on serenely about his labors, his conscience clear, his mind keenly alert, but willing to wait for Death itself to show whether there is anything beyond. Burbank knew that the reason of weak men staggers before the thought of immortality, and that through appetite for it "imagination foldsher weary pinions." As for himself, let the curtains draw aside when they might. He knew he would continue to believe that Christ was but a man, and that when we quit this life we lie down to rise no more. Nor had he any apologies to make for his heresy. If anyone asked him, there were always the words of Carlyle: Pin thy faith to no man's sleeve. Hast thou not two eyes of thy own?

American Atheist

Luther Burbank Speaks Out by

Joseph Mceabe [Pages 25-32 of E. Haldeman-Julius' Little Blue Book No. 1020]

r

here were two Pillars of Hercules in the United States whom I wished to see. Thomas A. Edison towers on the eastern coast, but I had to rush through New York and could not stay for my friend to present me. In San Francisco I had the - for so restless a wanderer unusually long stay of six days, when the imperious voice of E. HaldemanJulius, vibrating over the wires, roused me from my slumbers and bade me seek the shrine of Santa Rosa. I responded with alacrity. No, that is not poetry. I rose at 7 a.m. For me that is deadly prose. And prosy was the journey of fifty miles to see the great master of practical science. The Golden Gate was of ancient lead. The hills were sullen. A gray-blue haze screened the fair maid California. She was just recovering, maidlike, from a prolonged fit of weeping, and seemed cold even to the amorous sun, though the stately palms and rich green oranges bore witness to the warm blood pulsing in the heavy bosom, and the soft sibilants of the Spanish names suggested saints and sinners. San Rafael, San Anselmo, and so on. We have wiped out these superstitions, of course. Now we have St. Riley and St. Straton. Well, Anselmo was at least a conscientious scholar in his time, and Rafael, if tradition be worth aught, was a comely youth. But these modern saints and sages ... We are in Santa Rosa and this is the house ofthe man who did as much as any to impress on the world the beneficent power of science. He added billions to the wealth of the world, but this is no marble palace softly gleaming through the palms and cypresses. A very plain house, and a very pretty Parsippany,

New Jersey

maid looks at me cynically through the mosquito-net door. She is used to visitors, and does not trouble to unfasten the door. "Is Mr. Burbank in?" ''Yes, he is in," she says, and she does not add in words, "And you are out." Even the dog is hostile, silently disdainful. "Another old fool trying to see the master," it insinuates. But my card throws down all defense and a moment later. I am shaking (very gently) the rather limp hand ofthe man I would have gone far to see. Pathetically he points to a pile of opened letters, ankle-deep, on the floor. "Today's crop," he says. A smaller pile lies on the desk and must be answered. We must hurry, though there is no mistaking his genuine pleasure to see me. "Well, what about this recent misconduct of yours?" I ask, sternly. Candidly he is puzzled, and I have to tell him that the world is shocked or elated, according to the length of its hair, at his recent pronouncement on the future life - I mean, on the

it

and he did not speak in parables. We no more survive, he said, to the representative of the San Francisco Bulletin, than does the automobile you fling on the scrap-heap. Those are his words. We survive only in "the good we have done in passing through." Souls? Why, said Burbank, "the universe is not big enough to contain perpetually all the human souls and the other living beings that have been here for their short span." Very comforting to some people, these religions, he said, but "as a scientist I cannot help feeling that all religions are on a tottering foundation." God? Well, there is "a great universal power," but whether it is "a conscious mind" or not, Luther Burbank did not know. What is worse, he did not care. "As a scientist I should like to know, but as a man I am not so vitally concerned." No wonder California, the land of saints and angels, wept. Not much to be added to, or explained, in that," Mr. Burbank said to me, smiling. He disliked talking. Looking rather frail, pale and artistic

"What is the use of assuring Fundamentalists that science is compatible with religion. They retort at ~ once, 'eertainly not with our religion'."

absence of a future life. Henry Ford, his friend, had recently declared his belief, not only in incarnation, but in reincarnation. Henry always does things big, and, incidentally, it is always the people who know most about machines - Kelvin, Lodge, Faraday, Ford - who talk most about spirit. Psychologists and biologists, who ought to know, are very shy of spirits. However, Burbank was asked what he thought about the matter, Winter 2002-2003

- he somehow reminded me at once of my good friend Eden Philpotts, the most artistic of living writers after D'Annunzio - he seemed born to finger a brush or a pen, not a spade. Artist he was, of course: the great artist of modern science. He worked with its flower. He did not speculate about it. "There is nothing at all new in this interview," he said. I had, of course, read his Training of the Human Plant, and had for that Page 23

enshrined

him

in

my

States. "Yes, another big element in the movement," he occasions when he does assents. "And to think of this speak in public, he speaks great country in danger of out in a way that goes far to being dominated by people redeem the credit of ignorant enough to take a few American science. "Here," he ancient Babylonian legends said to me, "you have the as the canons of modern culsentiments I lately exture. Our scientific men are pressed in the pulpit of a paying for their failure to chapel at Santa Rosa." speak out earlier. There is no It was just the same outuse now talking evolution to spoken denunciation of thethese people. Their ears are ology. "No avenging Jewish stuffed with Genesis." God, no Satanic devil, no I almost felt at times as fiery hell, is of any interest though I were talking to to me," he said. Jesus? He Darwin, and I expected some ...children are, he said, "the liked the literary figure, but deprecation of my vigor and greatest sufferers from outgrown "the clear light of science lack of diplomacy, such as Darwin used gently to adminteaches us that we must be theologies. " ister to Haeckel. Not a bit. I our own saviors." God? "The patible with religion. They retort at took courage and remarked that God within us is the only available once, 'Certainly not with our reliGod we know." We must come out Fundamentalism must be fought gion.'" from "behind theological barbed-wire "with both fists." Burbank uses the word religion, fences," into "the great ocean of scien"Of course it must," he said, "and but it is never misleading. It is, he tific truth." "Science, unlike theology, our scientific men must be criticized says, "Justice, love, truth, peace, and boldly. They will not feel comfortable never leads to insanity." The word harmony, a serene unity with science when you and I are through with "ceremony," he pungently said, "is and the laws ofthe universe." It is idethem." derived from cerements" or "grave alism, and there is not the slightest clothes." Very topical, in a chapel. He spoke with envy of the countenance of any sort of theology in Religion is a matter of feeling, and Rationalist Press of England and its Burbank's use of the word. honorable company of distinguished "feelings are all right if one does not I remind him that Dr. David Starr men of science and letters. I told him get drunk on them." "Obsolete misJordan is popularly supposed to have that I am to do a bigger work in leading theologies," he said, "bear the hinted that his friend went too far. America than I have ever done in same relation to the essence of true "Not in the least," he says disdainEngland. "Mr. Haldeman-Julius," I religion that scarlet fever, mumps, fully. "Jordan is one of my best began ... and measles do to education." But friends, and thinks as I do." "Doing splendid work," he said. what will become of the children? If And, in fact, though the language "Can we have some of these Little there was one thing Burbank was is a little more diplomatic, Jordan's Blue Books to help in the work?" zealous about it was the training of pronouncement is, substantially, He lighted up with enthusiasm children, and children are, he said, Agnosticism. Mr. Burbank did not when I described the plan which Mr. "the greatest sufferers from outgrown believe in knocking a man down when Haldeman-Julius and I have hatched theologies. " it is not good for him to stand up. He - fifty Little Blue Books covering the No, there is not much to add to provided a chair. Dr. David Starr entire ground of religious controversy that. Luther II threw his ink-pot at Jordan is inclined to provide a feather and inquiry, systematically and courthe devil - the parson - with a vigor bed. There are physicians who think a teously, but firmly and inexorably. that surprises when one recalls the wooden chair the most healthful seat. "That will be magnificent help," he fleshy physique of the first Luther, Anyhow, there is no Millikanism or said. "And let us have some of the Big and contrasts it with the gentleness Osbornism about either of these two Blue Books too." and silver hair of the second. But he is fine American gentlemen. as disgusted as I at the "timidity" of Haldeman-dulius "Bryan - a great friend of mine, his brother scientists in America. I by the way - had a Neanderthal type explain, almost apologetically, that I I explained that some of the latter of head," Burbank says. "As to Riley, have entitled an article "The are already in circulation and more of he has not even the oratorical skill of Cowardice of American Scientists." a Rationalist nature will come. The Bryan. The whole movement is based "Quite right," he says. "And it is old man was visibly delighted. Almost on the poor whites of the south." not only cowardice, but wrong tactics. alone in his scientific world he outspoI remind him of the ten million What is the use of assuring kenly disdained creeds and cerereligious colored people of the United Fundamentalists that science is commonies. Undermining ancient dogmas

Dictionary of Modern Rationalists, but, on the rare

Page 24

Winter 2003·2004

American Atheist

is not enough. The people, who begin to see the power of science, must know what men of science, with their trained minds and their grasp of realities, think about man and the universe. So out I went, to continue my mission in California, with the hearty "good-speed" of this wonderful man. Santa Rosa, nay California, is proud of him, and there must be some temptation to avoid friction. What, no danger in California? Why, here in a suburb of San Francisco I hear of an audience of five thousand Fundamentalists rocking with laughter at some ofthe elementary truths of science. Even the educated run after iridescent verbiage and shun facts. Hindu word-spinners dig gold here. As I sped away my eye caught a board in a field by the road: "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life," it

Haldeman-Julius

said. This after 1900 years experimental verification of his efficacy! And in the heart of California, where Luther Burbank showed that the only way and truth and life is science. All honor to him that he did not leave it to such obtuse minds to "draw their own conclusions," as so many do. "Science is the only savior," he said to people. He said it in church one memorable day. "I very rarely speak in public, and, curiously, my two addresses are in churches," he said, eyeing me, I thought, apprehensively. "I know no better place to say such things," I retorted, and I thought sadly of the very different things which American men of science had recently, been saying in the churches of Kansas City during the convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"Sorry about the delay, but we're having a problem sorting out species and subspecies."

Parsippany, New Jersey

Winter 2003-2004

Page 25

Burbank the Infidel bS'

Joseph Lewis (1021) (Excerpted from the book Atheism and other Addresses, The Freethought Press Association, New York, 1941, 1952, pages not numbered) Address delivered on May 22, 1927, in Central Park, New York City, at the Tree-Planting Memorial Exercises, conducted by Freethinkers of America, in honor of Luther Burbank, who was a member and First Honorary Vice-President. On April 11, Luther

Burbank

died ..

His death was not only a bereavement to his family and friends, but the entire country, aye, the whole civilized world mourned his passing. The world mourned because a man had died who had brought happiness to the human race; had added to the sum total of knowledge, and had made the world better for his having lived. Luther Burbank was a rare spirit, a tender soul. He was a noble son of the earth and his death was an irreparable loss to mankind. We honor Luther Burbank today not only for his independence of thought, although that alone would entitle him to our homage, but also because of his achievements as a scientist and his accomplishments in the realm of Nature. Stone and marble do not seem to be fit attributes for this lover of Nature and so we plant a tree to his memory. It symbolizes more appropriately his life and work. Flowers and plants and trees were his intimates and formed part of his family.

Page 26

He loved them as we love human beings and they became as much a part of his life and existence as if he were born one of them. This close intimacy gave him a familiarity possessed by no other man. He learned the secrets of the plants and spoke the language of the flowers. So remarkably intimate was he with life in the flower kingdom that he became known as "The Wizard of Pi ant Life." He moved in a mysterious way among them his wonders to perform. He nurtured a flower as we do a child and it seemed to love him for it. A broken branch of a tree touched him to pity, and the wanton destruction of flowers was a grievous hurt to him. He cured sick flowers, brought beauty to ugly ones and sweet odors to all. From early life he manifested a kinship with them and often when provoked by pain to tears his mother would place a flower in his hands and a smile would appear on his tearstained cheeks. He took the rough and uncouth of plant life and brought beauty and charm to them by the magic of his touch. Flowers seemed to obey him like good children a kind parent. No man had greater love for them. And no man was more tenderly revered by them. Burbank also loved children, his country and mankind. His life was one continuous romance. He lived like a man forever falling in love with his wife and child and family. What a glorious feeling to be in love and happy and live! He gave as freely of his work as flowers their perfume. He made the earth a better, brighter, and more beautiful place than he found it, and Winter

2003-2004

the world is healthier and happier for his having lived. More cannot be said of any man. Even a god would be proud of such a record. It is even impossible to calculate the value in health and the amount of enjoyment his creations of fruits, flowers and vegetables have been even to this generation. Millions are enjoying the fruits of his labors without the slightest knowledge of their benefactor. Laws of selection, variation and heredity which he discovered and applied are in themselves invaluable instruments of knowledge with which to accomplish among human beings what he so marvelously achieved with plants. Burbank's work is not done, it has really just begun. His death ended his own labors but placed a tremendous responsibility upon the living. Thousands are now required to do the work that he alone performed. On March 7, 1849, Luther Burbank was born. Twenty-six years later he entered Santa Rosa, California, the little town which he made his home and which he has since immortalized. He lies buried there beneath a tree he planted. It is said that he came to this little town with but ten dollars, ten potatoes and few choice books. Three authors of these books inspired him in his life's work. They were, Henry Thomas [sic] Thoreau, Charles Robert Darwin, whom he loved to call "Master," and Alexander Von Humboldt, who imbued him with the spirit of the importance and worth of his work. American Atheist

more brilliant conversationalist the around his neck, but rather mileThese three men inspired him plants have never known. Once on stones on his road to fame. with a burning desire to accomplish, a speaking terms with Nature he estabEach difficulty proved a new expeconfidence that only one genius can lished a friendship never to be broken. rience, and a new experience to impart to another, and with an idealHis loyalty never wavered. Burbank meant more knowledge with ism known only to the few heroic men He was also an apt pupil. He studwhich to work. He built his knowledge and women who have been mankind's ied her alphabet, mastered her gramupon experience and experiments. benefactors. mar, punctuation and rhetoric and He had a keenness of perception And it is most fitting for us to wrote many pages in the book of Life not surpassed by any man. He plant this tree as a memorial to which only a few are privileged to do. watched for the slightest variation to Burbank that it may grow and spread "I took Nature's mind and added wrest a secret from Nature. Experiits verdant leaves as a shade over the it to my own," said Burbank, "and by ence is the only knowledge we possess magnificent head of this "Columbus of so doing bridged centuries of time in and is the basis for the development of Science." adding sweetness and charm His material equipment was and color to Nature's products." indeed poor, his body was not He married beauty and overstrong, and his heart was strength and sweetness to probroken. He had been unsuccessduce the Ideal. ful in love. He tried to mend his He took Nature by the hand so broken heart by lavishing his to speak, and led her into paths love upon his beautiful garden of beauty that she had not and upon the flowers he loved as dreamed existed. With his help his children. And what an abunhe made Nature excel herself dance of love he had, and with and sit and marvel at her what abandonment he lavished wonders. it! Burbank did not claim occult He added strength to his powers. He did not pose with a body by living close to Nature, halo around his head. He did not and following the advice of boast that he was "divinely Mother Earth. inspired." He performed no mirEnraptured in his work he acles, although he accomplished began his labors of more than a marvels. half of a century. He gladly, freely and generousLuther Burbank & Thomas Edison Although Burbank came to ly gave his knowledge to others. Santa Rosa unknown and in He was an intellectual spendthrift. our mind. In Burbank's experiment poverty, the world made a beaten path "What I have learned, you may learn," with the cactus he discovered how to his door. The celebrated and the are his words. intelligence is gradually formed famous the world over came to pay His soul was the heart of a true through experience and manifests homage to this "Gardener touched scientist. itself through what we call instinct. with genius." Where did Burbank learn the As with Edison, perspiration was By the fruits of his labor he gave great truths that he applied so effecthe predominant part of his inspiraincalculable wealth to others. tively and so ardently wanted man to tion. No task was too arduous for him Do not let it be said, however, that follow? Why was he so sure that they and he permitted no obstacle to stand Burbank's accomplishments were the in his way. He knew the ends he would be as successful in the human result of a magic wand. He labored realm as they were in the plant kingwished to accomplish and determinedly assiduously and found competition set about his work. dom? most keen. Surely his own academic educaHe did not always work from There may be room always at the tion was not sufficient to give him this appearances. Appearances, he found, top, but there is always a crowd that grasp of Nature, nor was his technical were as deceiving in flowers as in must be pushed aside in the middle of human beings, and he often went back training sufficient to enable him to the road so as to clear the passage for perform his wonders. many generations to correct a fault. the ascent. His early schooling was the barest A changed environment invariBurbank found many botanists, rudiments that the little Red School ably changed the character of the and horticulturists, and plain gardenHouse had to offer. flower, but to eradicate a deep-seated ers who were doing things a bit above The secret of his marvelous intelfault it was sometimes necessary to the ordinary, and he realized early in lect and his ability to apply the knowllife that if he was to distinguish himoperate upon the roots. edge he acquired are told in his own Once he learned the secrets of self he must do something that had Nature, once he learned to talk to not been done before. words. The obstacles that he found in his He received a scholarship which Nature in her own language, Burbank anyone with a desire for knowledge became proficient in conversation. A path did not prove to be millstones Parsippany,

New Jersey

Winter

2003·2004

Page 27

may secure also. He said: "My school has been the University of Nature. I matriculated in the College of Horticulture, Department of Market Gardening, but I finished that course in short time and entered the laboratory where Nature teaches Plant Breeding. I cannot say that I graduated from that branch ofthe Institution even yet - there is so much to lean! But in the years that I have been a student I have spread out considerably and taken something pretty nearly of every course my Alma Mater offers except Football and Public Speaking. I was not taught everything, but was taught the fundamentals behind everything!" In the University of Nature, Burbank not only learned about plants and flowers and trees and vegetables, but also about rocks and soil and mountains and rivers, about birds and fish and horses and cows and dogs and men. He was told by the great Humboldt that "the Universe was governed by law, " and in the University of Nature, Burbank verified this great truth! Burbank wanted others to enter the University from which he was graduated with such high honors and in these words differentiated it from any other college in existence. "The great difference between my favorite University and. the schools men build is that the ambitious and the interested student can enroll for life and take every course offered, and each fact he adds to his store, and semester work he does, fits him precisely and definitely for the next subject ahead without any loss of motion and without a line that is superfluous to him." The University of Nature might well be proud of the distinguished career of her pupil and above the portals of her entrance should be inscribed these words of his. "Nature is not personal. She is the compound of all these processes which move through the universe to effect the results we know as Life and of all the ordinances which govern that universe and that make Life continuous. She is no more the Hebrew's Jehovah than she is the Physicist's Force; she is as much Providence as she is Page 28

Electricity; she is not the Great Pattern any more than she is the Blind Chance." A great artist was once asked by a lady admirer what he mixed his paints with to get such marvelous results, and he answered: "With brains, madam." Burbank's brain bore the same relation to flowers as did the artist's to his paints. With an almost uncanny touch the artist can, with a daub of paint, change the perspective of his picture; and so sensitive was Burbank to the pulse of the flower, that he could, with the slightest touch, make it perform wonders for him. In his own words he defines this unusual characteristic. "It was with this instinct for selection that I was gifted. It was born in me, and I educated and gave it experience, and have always kept myself attuned to it. I have particularly sensitive nerves that accounts partly for my unusual success in selecting, as between two apparently identical plants and flowers or trees and fruits. I have always been sensitive to odors, so that I could detect them, pleasant or disagreeable, when they were so slight that no one about me was conscious of them." Burbank never grew old in mind or body. He was as ready to accept a new truth as to discard a wrong . impression. This attitude of mind is the first requisite of knowledge. It is the first principle of an alert intellect. And these words of Burbank should become an axiom in our language: "Intolerance is a closed mind. Bigotry is an exaltation of authorities. Narrowness is ignorance unwilling to be taught." That he did not consider the Bible a divine revelation can be attested by these words of advice: "Let us read the Bible without the ill-fitting colored spectacles of theology, just as we read other books, using our own judgment and reason, listening to the voice within, not to the noisy babel without. Most of us possess discriminating reasoning powers. Can we use them or must we be fed by others like babes?" No dogmatism hampered Burbank. No theology prevented him from Winter

2003-2004

peering into the unknown. He never permitted himself to become set in his opinions. "Folks wonder how I keep so young!" he said. "I am almost seventyseven and still can go over a gate or run a foot race or kick the chandelier. That is because my body is no older than my mind, and my mind is adolescent. It has never grown up. It never will, I hope. I am as inquisitive as I was at eight." To those who ask us "what will you give us in exchange" when we free them from their superstitious religion, how pertinent and precious are these words of Burbank. I wish they could be impressed upon the mind of every living person. "I have seen myself," he says, "lose intolerance, narrowness, bigotry, complacence, pride and a whole bushel-basket of other intellectual vices through my contact with Nature and with men. And when you take weeds out of a garden it gives you room to grow flowers. So, every time I lost a little self-satisfaction, or arrogance, I could plant some broadness or love of my own in its place, and after a while the garden of my mind began to bloom and be fragrant and I found myself better equipped for my work and more useful to others as a consequence." "I have learned from Nature that dependence on unnatural beliefs weakens us in the struggle and shortens our breath for the race," said Burbank, and in the twilight of life, when he knew that the end was approaching, he said that "the time had come for honest men to denounce false teachers and attack false gods" and with a courage characteristic of this great and grand man he proclaimed to the world that he was an infidel! When Burbank made this declaration, the theological hyenas were ready to tear the flesh from his body. They maligned and vilified him, and tried to inter the good that he did with his bones. When he made that statement, however, he classed himself with Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln and Ingersoll. Burbank refused to accept the dogma and religion of his time because he knew that they were poiAmerican Atheist

soning the brain and mentality of man. They were paralyzing the intellect. He looked upon them as weeds that must of necessity be rooted out before man could think freely and act properly upon the problems of life. Because of his fame, and despite his open declaration, the religious world is making an attempt to claim him as one of their members. What hypocrisy! Luther Burbank was not religious! His name cannot be mentioned in the same breath with that impulse, with that conviction which produces religious mania, religious strife, religious hatred and religious prejudice. Religious love is clannish. Christian loves Christian. Jew loves Jew. Luther Burbank loved everybody. He said: "I love everything. I love humanity. I love flowers. I love children. I love my dog." Luther Burbank was not religious - he was too human for that. He was a humanitarian, a lover of mankind. A religious person loves his GDd. He loves his GDd so vehemently that he has no love left for man. Burbank hated the idea of an allpowerful GDdand said: "The idea that a good GDd would send people to a burning hell is utterly damnable to me. The ravings of insanity! Superstition gone to seed! I don't want to have anything to do with such a GDd." And in a letter from him shortly before he died, in response to my request for a statement indicative of his belief, he wrote, ''This should be enough for one who lives for truth and service to his fellow passengers on the way. No avenging Jewish God, no satanic devil, no fiery hell is of any interest to me." A religious man attends church, observes feast days and fast days. He takes part in religious ceremonies and pays the priest to pray for him. "Prayer," says Burbank, "may be elevating if combined with work, and they who labor with head, hands or feet have faith and are generally quite sure of an immediate and favorable reply."

Parsippany, New Jersey

To pray for that which you have not labored for is the most selfish impulse in life. A religious man is one who has sold his brain, and who has mortgaged his intellect. He believes in a heaven and in a hell. Burbank asked for no heaven because he knew that it did not exist, and he feared no hell because he knew that there was none. No, Luther Burbank was not a religious man. He was a good man. He was a grand man - one of the grandest that ever lived on this earth. Moses, and Jesus and Torquemada were religious. So were John Calvin and John Knox and John Wesley and Martin Luther and Cotton Mather. The pope is religious. '""Hypatia and Bruno and Galileo were infidels. So were Ernest Haeckel and Herbert Spencer and Charles P. Steinmetz and Voltaire and Thomas Paine and John Burroughs and Mark Twain. Clarence Darrow was an infidel. Luther Burbank is dead. His lips were sealed in death with the same conviction that was his philosophy while he lived. And now that he is gone we seek to honor his memory with the fullness of our love.

Winter 2003-2004

We have come not to honor a soldier or a statesman. No bugle is to sound taps for his military triumphs. We are honoring a simple, lovable man. One who was a saver of life, a benefactor, a creator of joy, a dispenser of happiness. One who was not revengeful or vindictive. One would rather have made a mistake on the side of mercy than to have a single human being suffer because of his mistake. Those who were privileged to know Luther Burbank have lost a friend. Our country has lost one of her chosen sons, one who helped to make her famous and added lustre to her name. The world has lost one of its great benefactors. In the heart of the flower and in the beauty and sweetness ofthe world he has perpetuated himself. And in the starry firmament of immortality is seen a new star - and there appears this illustrious son of America - this great and good man - this Scientist, Naturalist, Humanitarian and Infidel - Luther Burbank.

Page 29

Atheism and Natheism Part II By Tony Pasquarello In an earlier paper, I coined the term 'natheism' to stand for a relatively new version of Atheism which defines 'atheism' as "lack of belief in God." Natheism retains the term 'atheism' but redefines it. I then argued that natheism is mistaken; the standard conception and dictionary definition - "denial of the existence of God" - is indeed, correct. For these papers, I have chosen not to provide direct attribution or identify the source of specific remarks. The positions are there, and fairly represented; those who take them will recognize their handiwork. All are taken from items in the Bibliography. I A

frequent

contributor

to

American Atheist, Tony Pasquarello is perhaps best known for his hilarious quasi-autobiographical book The Altar Boy Chronicles, published in 1999 and still available on the American Atheist Web-site -cwww.atheists.org». Tony is a retired philosophy professor (Ohio State University) who continues a lifelong career as a professional pianist. Page 30

write of Atheism primarily, and only incidentally of atheists. For a group whose crying need is unity, unity resulting in political power, it is surely inappropriate to foment an internecine struggle. The last thing needed by the freethought community is more internal strife, hostility and wrangling in an infinite series of point-counter-point tomes.

Leaving Out 'Believing In'

S

ome fifty-plus years ago, a member of the University of Pennsylvania's illustrious Philosophy Department took aside an undergraduate major and issued a stern admonition: "Son, if you want to get anywhere in philosophy, never use 'believe in'. Well, 1 never got anywhere in philosophy, but it was sterling advice, nonetheless. 'Believe in' is both ambiguous and vague, a hopeless expression often used - deliberately, 1 suspect - to obfuscate discussion. We believe in persons, things, institutions, theories, books, doctrines, virtues, ... 'Believing in God' sometimes means 'believing that God exists', and sometimes 'believing that God will help me' or 'believing that God knows best'. "Do you believe in your spouse?" is obviously a very difWinter 2003-2004

ferent question from "Do you believe in ghosts?" The latter is the existence query; the former clearly not. But in is not the only culprit here; believe is a logically maddening concept on its own demerits. At one extreme, it is used to represent the unswerving conviction and absolute credulity of the true believer. "God said it. 1 believe it. End of discussion." Thus does the familiar bumper-sticker flaunt the unassailable level of belief of the car's occupants. Most religious beliefs are held with similar, unshakeable intensity - which demonstrates that psychological certainty, the feeling of certainty, has little connection to knowledge. When, in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy, an entire nation knee-jerks its way to praise and pray to the very Being who caused, or, at least, permitted, the slaughter, that's what's called BELIEF! On the other hand are the many usages that make believe the black sheep of the epistemic family, the counterfeit of knowledge, the shadow of truth, and the margarine of certainty. "Only Make Believe"; "I believe my spouse is faithful"; "I believe 1 added correctly." Believing is what you do when you don't really know. Dictionaries reflect this wide range of vagueness by listing both extremes: for the former, "to take as true, real"; for the latter, "to suppose or think." This last use is quite close to concepts like 'guesses' or 'hopes', i.e. the tiniest degree of confidence. American Atheist

'Knowledge' has been defined in terms of belief. Those attempts, e.g. ('knowledge' = justified, true belief) and their flaws are notorious. But, how is 'belief' itself to be defined? Perhaps behaviorally? That approach may work for some practical, empirical beliefs, but founders on the rocks of abstract beliefs and beliefs involving universals. "Sam believes that 'The True' cannot be reduced to 'The Good"'; "Sam believes there are no primes between 1069 and 1070." Such beliefs appear to have no behavioral counterparts or pragmatic implications. Not the least of all the puzzles involved in attempting to clarify the concept of belief is the matter of 'doxastic voluntarism', a forbidding name, indeed, for a much more comprehensible theory. Are beliefs freely chosen? Can we pick or select our beliefs? Can we decide to believe? Voluntarism answers these questions affirmatively. It is a theory implicit in a great deal of religious usage and thus, directly relevant to our inquiry. When evangelical persons, preachers, and pamphlets invite us to "believe in Jesus" or "believe that Christ died for your sins," they presuppose that there is an act of believing, and that we can freely choose to perform that act. We can decide to believe. While there certainly appear to be a number of mental states that are volitional - contemplating, calculating, imagining, and analyzing come readily to mind - many thinkers would deny that believing is one of them. Rather, believing seems to be properly classified with desiring, or wanting, or knowing itself. It makes little sense to decide to desire sushi, or to choose to want bourbon. Either one is in the state of wanting something or not, and it is impossible voluntarily to put oneself in that State. So it seems with believing; reports of believing something or other are best understood as reports of a pre-existing, mental/dispositional state. What we can decide to do is to undertake a set of activities that will probably result in our having the given mental state at some future point. We can't decide to be thirsty, but we can decide to exercise vigorously, and that should produce thirst. Parsippany,

New Jersey

Of course, religion is masterful 111 its use of the art of conditioning. Repetitive prayer - autobrainwashing - is a case in point. Repeat the 'Apostles' Creed' ad infinitum and, subsequently, a person could be convinced that she actually believes the propositions comprising that mantra. In retrospect, it seems a sensible speculation that religion had to promote a voluntaristic interpretation of belief so that its victims could aver, in good conscience, that they believed the mysteries, the occult nonsense, the irrational and illogical doctrines. Just choose to believe them! No comprehension, no understanding required. For religion's nefarious purposes, belief could not be characterized as attendant or consequent upon knowledge. Quite the contrary, the believer knows the doctrine is true, because he believes it. From this absurdly brief survey of the checkered semantics of believe, it seems reasonable to draw the following conclusions: 1. For serious analyses, avoid the term when possible, unless, of course, that is the concept being explored. 2. For serious analyses, all occurrences of 'believes in' are to be reduced to 'believes that', using intent and context as guides. What follows 'believes that' will be a complete proposition, the only sort of linguistic formation capable of being true or false. 'A believes that p' makes explicit the complex nature of the original ambiguous proposition and indicates the direction our explication must take: first, we ascertain whether p is true or false, probable or improbable; then we can determine whether A's belief that p is warranted or misplaced. This obvious, logical analytic strategy accomplishes an enormously significant shift in focus, by turning attention to what is believed, rather than to the believer. In other words, the emphasis is put on the objective, the facts of the matter, the relevant evidence, the state of reality - not the subjective, psychological considerations.

Winter

2003-2004

3. Those distinguished thinkers who, deliberately or unwittingly, retain 'believe in' in their formal «xaminaticns ofthese concepts, all the way to their last formulations, are just perpetuating muddiness and murkiness, bad weather for reasoning. The flawed believe-in locution is endemic in the writing - and thinking - of Natheists; it might even be fingered as the "enabler." Here are direct quotes from leading proponents of natheism: "All atheism requires is the lack of belief in God." "An atheist does not believe in the existence of a God." "Atheists ... lack belief in a god." "'Atheist' means 'without belief in God'." Yes, these would be considered ordinary, commonly employed expressions, but they're hardly appropriate if one claims to be doing serious, philosophical explication. In that context, they must be adjudged as circuitous, bloated, evasive attempts at hinting (wink, wink), that God doesn't exist, without saying it directly. 4. I've often wondered why Atheists don't make greater use of the wonderfully apt, ready-made, 'Santa' analogy, when discussing God's existence. Using any of the myriad gods from humanity's mythic past would also serve, but not as well. Santa is a current, vivid, and dynamic figure with tens of millions of devout followers. And, they're all small children, i.e. intellectually immature. If an adult, native-born American were to state his position on Santa, using similar expressions - natheispeak - we would conclude that his sleigh wasn't hitting on all reindeers. "I'm just without belief in Santa"; "I lack a belief in the existence of Santa." Statements like these would make us cringe, if not scream. Why doesn't he speak plainly? Why doesn't he say simply that Santa isn't real? As we acquire the terms of a language, we acquire concepts. As we acquire facility in using a term, we acquire the cluster of related concepts that comprise that linguistic family. We acquire beliefs, ideas, opinions, judgments, etc. It is, therefore, logically Page 31

impossible, at that point, to assume the pose of the feral innocent emerging from the deep jungle, clutching his unsullied tabula rasa. It is logically impossible to know how to use the term 'God' yet not have any beliefs pertaining to God. For any person, A, fluent in the language, who does not 'have', or 'hold', or 'believe in', or who is 'absent', 'lacks', is 'free from' or 'without belief in' some proposition, p - (these are typical ofthe cumbersome circumlocutions employed by N atheists to express this new version of Atheism) this may be the case because: (1) A is unfamiliar with the component concepts ofp;A does not understandp. As indicated, for the God concept, this option is not open to a practiced speaker of the language. (2) A lacks the information enabling one to judge the probability or truth value of p. (E.g., p is "Magnesium can be found on Jupiter"). A may believe that .p'e value is unknown or unknowable at his intellectual level, or unknowable in general, or at the present time, or to science, or in principle. A may be gathering information about p, or awaiting some event, or the outcome of some experiment bearing on p. Perhaps A has simply not made up his mind about p. Any of these could be, and has been, considered some form of classic Agnosticism. (3) Finally, A considers p to be highly improbable or false. Given our topic, this is classic Atheism. A is 'free of' belief in God because A is convinced that God does not exist. It is quite normal, and logical, not to 'hold' or 'embrace' a belief that one considers false! Without the baggage of the bloated belief-vocabulary, a much more succinct summary can be given. For any mature language-user, a given proposition will be meaningless or meaningful; if meaningful, its probability or truth value will be known or unknown.

Taking Good Advice Ifwe follow our own schematic, 'A doesn't believe in God' becomes 'A doesn't believe that God exists'. Now, how is that to be parsed? Common sense, ordinary linguistic practice, and reasonable understanding of the Page 32

thrust of the negative all point to 'A believes that God doesn't exist'. That is one, standard way of expressing standard Atheism. But, the reform Atheists, the Natheists, are adamant in their insistence that they are painstakingly carving out another interpretation that is significantly different from the flat-out denial that God exists. (It is different, but it's certainly not new, since it is no more than the old, familiar Agnosticism.) Natheism claims that 'A doesn't believe that God exists' must be unpacked to 'A is without the belief that God exists'. Let us grant that, for the sake of our analysis. Now, only one crucial question: How about the belief that God does not exist? Is A also 'without' or lacking that? Either he is or he isn't. If he is, i.e. A holds neither the belief that God exists, nor the belief that God does not exist, for whatever reasons, A, an intellectually mature language user, is properly classified as an Agnostic. If A is not lacking the belief that God does not exist, then he has the belief that God does not exist, which is traditional, strict, hard, explicit Atheism. There is no other alternative. It follows that Natheism is not a separate, discrete stance on "belief in" God but collapses into . either traditional Agnosticism or traditional Atheism. But, since Natheism itself is unyielding in insisting that it is positively not traditional Atheism, then it must be Agnosticism. Q.E.D. This proof is easily formalized and I am convinced of its logical soundness. If a reader detects any flaw, either logical or factual, please apprise me of it. The same sorts of skewed conclusions can be deduced from the various redefinitions of 'atheism' proposed by Natheism. A definition is, by definition, an equivalence. If '... all that Atheism requires is the lack of belief in God," then that lack of belief is both necessary and sufficient for Atheism, and therefore, equivalent to Atheism. But, an Agnostic, by definition, lacks belief in God (for any of a slew of problematic reasons connected to concepts like 'knowledge', 'certainty', 'unknowability', etc.). Therefore, it follows, rigorously, that an Agnostic is an Atheist! This would surely come as Winter

2003-2004

startling news to most Agnostics, who constantly, vigorously strive to differentiate their stance from the "arrogant certitudes" of Atheists. Grotesque results like these are inevitable when Natheists engage in this redefinist orgy reminiscent of the absurd claims of Soviet revisionism. When leaving the semantic boundaries of the dictionary's realm, the Twilight Zone often lies just ahead. It's hardly surprising that our analysis has led us to the conclusion that Natheism is really Agnosticism. Every philosophically sophisticated acquaintance to whom I mentioned the natheistic redefinition of 'atheism', without any comment, had essentially the same reaction "Sounds like Agnosticism to me". Our analysis confirms that first impression as absolutely correct.

Under a Semantic Spell How bewildering when so many distinguished thinkers seem to be linguistically bewitched by Natheism when, logically speaking, that theory has so little to recommend it. One can only speculate as to which fallacies might have entrapped them, though I suspect that the ultimate source ofthe errors is not poor logic, but a political motivation. That involves creating a position that could be seen as a kinder, gentler Atheism; one that is politically correct and less confrontational. The redefmition of Atheism so that it emerges as Agnosticism is a significant part of a larger agenda calling for downplaying Atheism, and rendering it impotent and irrelevant -in the present case, by defining it out of existence. As the best-known of all humanist thinkers wrote to me some six years ago, ". . . atheism is out"! But, these issues must be made the subject of another paper. Illicit conversion of the universal affirmative proposition could possibly be one of the snares that influenced some of these profound thinkers to adopt such a peculiar interpretation of 'atheism'. 'All X is Y' cannot be reversed or converted with impunity; it is risky business to do so because there is no guarantee that the original truth value will be retained. Hence, American Atheist

the reversal "is an invalid procedure. Could this, then, be the trap that gave rise to Natheism? They realized that all Atheists lack belief in God (because they deny that God exists), unwittingly turned that around, and came up with 'All who lack belief in God are Atheists', (an obviously false proposition). Could it have been that simple? Or perhaps it was the fallacy called undistributed middle in syllogistic logic. All Atheists are without belief in God, and all Agnostics are without belief in God, but it surely does not follow, either that all Atheists are Agnostics, or that all Agnostics are Atheists. (To see that, try "All members of American Atheists are Atheists" and "All Communists are Atheists".) Whatever other traps ensnared Natheists, they definitely commit this specific, little-noticed faux pas - definition by negatives. Informal logic teaches that a definition should not be negative where it can be positive. Eminently reasonable advice. Define apple as "not blue, not Martian, not uranium ... " - and, a few trillion negative properties later, you will still be no closer to conveying the idea of what an apple is. Define atheist as "without belief in God" and, while that may be true, it is hardly informative. For the Atheist is also without the beliefs that grass is red, squares have 5 sides, etc. Consequently, the natheistic redefinition only tells us what the Atheist does not believe and fails to convey the essence of Atheism, the positive claims that make it distinctive. Incidentally, one wonders if the natheistic formula for definitional reconstruction applies to all negative belief statements. When A, confiding in his friend, B, confesses that he doesn't believe in his wife, B might reasonably respond, "So, you think your wife's unfaithful?" But A, having absorbed a little too much natheist rhetoric, replies indignantly, "What? I never said any such thing! I merely meant that I lack the belief that my wife is faithful. That's all." Well, while we may differ on the definition of atheism, surely, we'd all agree that such a conversational exchange would be the very definition of ludicrous. So many ways to go wrong! These are merely hints at what might have Parsippany, New Jersey

led Natheists astray. Then again, that gamy aroma emanating from Natheism could be the result of having been too long in the stable, putting the cart before the horse. To be sure, Atheists are 'without', 'free of', or 'lacking' belief in God, for the very same reason that we are without belief in statements we consider false. Ordinarily, we do not knowingly incorporate false proposition into our belief systems. Atheists claim that God does not exist; naturally, they do not hold or have the belief that God does exist. Their lack of the latter belief follows from, is a consequence of, their Atheism; not vice-versa. That seems clear enough. This cart-before-the-horse blunder, essentially a causal fallacy, seems to be a key misstep. For, in general, it is a matter of misplaced emphasis. Emphasis on the believer and his mental state, rather than what is or is not believed. Emphasis on a person's lack of belief rather than the reasons for that lack. Mistaking a consequence of Atheism - lacking the belief that God exists - for the essence/definition of Atheism - the denial that God exists. When we do not have or hold a belief that we understand and know something of, it is usually because we have previously rejected the belief as false or highly improbable. That is, after all, why I don't hold the belief that grass is red. "Why are you without?" This is the crucial question to pose to Natheists. When one is without a near-universal belief, it is surely fair to ask why. Why is the Natheist lacking the belief that God exists? How come? It would be equally legitimate to ask "Why? of a three-year old child who lacked belief in Santa. (And the child would surely answer that his parents taught him that Santa isn't real.) When N atheists talk of "freedom from" or "being without" God-beliefs, what do they have in mind? The child of some sturdy Nordic freethinkers in a remote corner of Montana? It's probably not a good idea to base philosophic analysis, or anything else, on an anomaly, a rarity. Our explorations of these tangled concepts should stem from, and apply to, real Atheists in the real world. That isolated child will Winter 2003-2004

hear about God the moment he begins the socialization process. He will acquire the term 'God', and, with it, beliefs about God. Given the smothering omnipresence of religion in the contemporary milieu, any adult in the Americas has beliefs about God. Those beliefs will be either theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. Freethinkers of all varieties often express their exuberance in being unbelievers by emphasizing being 'without' or 'free from' the madhouse of religious beliefs. Many Atheists escaped that asylum only with great hardship and suffering. The comparison with extreme cults is perfectly fitting here since the differences between them and mainstream religions are usually matters of size and severity of indoctrination. Similarly, intellectuals and sophisticates, pseudo or genuine, often express their disdain for the entire religious scene by ignoring it, by dismissing it as "beneath" them, or calling it "unimportant." In reflecting on these commonplace cases, it could be tempting to assert that these individuals proceeded directly to a state of lacking Godbeliefs, without passing GOd, i.e. without claiming that God does not exist. It seems that they are without God-beliefs, but have never expressly denied the existence of God. They exult in the Atheist life style but cannot remember ever having explicitly declared "God does not exist." While this may be true in some cases, it misses the point. First, many Atheists can recall some life point at which they did explicitly deny God's existence. But, explicit denial is not necessarily the criterion; implicit denial, implied denial also counts. Whatever is implied is thereby, presupposed. And, we have been attempting to show that being responsibly and securely without the belief that God exists, presupposes having the belief that God does not exist. The argument - a very simple one - goes something like this: if God, the interactive, wrathful! loving, punishing/ rewarding, Judeo-ChristianIslamic deity really existed, it would be extremely important. It would be important to ascertain the deity's wishes and commands; important to Page 33

live by them; important to have the proper religious beliefs. Indeed, ifthat sort of god existed, it would be the most important fact about life, about reality. I assume everyone would agree. Now, add the premise that religion and religious beliefs are unimportant, and it is possible and rationally acceptable to be 'without' or 'lacking' them (another way of saying they're unimportant) and it follows, deductively, that God does not exist. This shows, I think, that one cannot casually, safely take the natheistic high-road of freedom from Godbeliefs, without presupposing oldfashioned Atheism.

Pro - Non-Existence I think an analogy can be drawn that illuminates both my comments about political correctness and about a logical presupposition; an analogy between Natheism and the liberal faction in the abortion controversy. It was nothing less than a stroke of genius to adopt the slogan "prochoice" instead of "pro-abortion." Who can be against freedom of choice? That would be un-American. And who wants to hear the distasteful term "abortion," with all its yucky, biologi-

cal connotations? Yes, "pro-choice" was a masterful public-relations gambit. Yet, we should be aware of the logic of the situation: the claim that one ought to be able to perform cer tain actions without legal repercussions or sanctions presupposes the belief that the action is morally permissible, i.e., not wrong. That could be the reason why we find no pro-choice advocates for bank robbing or child molesting. Those calling for the legalization of prostitution or marijuana should adopt this strategy and just refer to themselves as "pro-choice." So, being pro-choice presupposes, and therefore implies, being pro-abortion. 'Pro-abortion' obviously does not mean that abortion is a wonderful thing and everyone should have one; its meaning would parallel the sense in which we are all 'pro-appendectomy'. However, the use of 'pro-choice' was a triumph of political correctness and strategic savvy. Here's the analogy: in all cases of any interest to our inquiry, being 'without belief in God' describes Agnosticism, or presupposes Atheism. And if the usual description of God as all-powerful and all-knowing, as well as all-rewarding and all-punishing, is at all accurate, the only way to be

Sna shots at jasonlove.com

---

1--..::---_

o

Page 34

Winter 2003-2004

comfortably free of god-beliefs is to have made the prior judgment that God is mythical. The nine-year-old child who feels secure in no longer putting out cookies for Santa on Xmas Eve, has, at some prior point, decided Santa is not real. I claim that Natheists must have made the analogous judgment "God does not exist." For both the child and the Natheist, it is too dangerous to be blithely "lacking" certain beliefs without being pretty sure of the non-existence of the respective entities.

Bibliography I am listing some key items in this controversy - both pro and con - with which I am familiar. All are by freethinkers. Some are eminently sensible; some few level justified critiques at Atheism. I agree with a good deal of what is said. However, some have raised my hackles to Viagral levels; some appear to be sound-bites written for Pat Robertson; some are more critical of Atheism than the Pope is! Cooke, Bill, "Atheist in a Bunker," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, Vol. 23, No.2. Dawkins, Richard, "A Challenge to Atheists," Free Inquiry, Summer 2002, Vol. 22, No.3. Eller, David, "Atheism: Positive and Negative," American Atheist, Autumn 2003. Estling, Ralph, "Another Skeptical Inquiry," Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 200l. Flynn, Tom, "ASecular Humanist Definition: Setting The Record Straight," Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol. 22, No.4. Frazier, Kendrick, "Science and Religion 2001: Introductory Thoughts," Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 200l. Kagin, Edwin, "Speech," American Atheist, Winter 2002-2003. Kurtz, Paul, "First Things First: Toward a Minimal Definition of Humanism," PHILO, Vol. 1, No.1, Spring-Summer 1998. Kurtz, Paul, "Secular Humanism: A New Approach," Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol. 22, No.4. Murray, Jon and Murray O'Hair, Madalyn, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists, American Atheist Press, 1983. Pigliucci, Massimo, "Methodological vs. Philosophical Naturalism," Free Inquiry, Winter 2002/03, Vol. 23, No. l. Shermer, Michael, "Do You Believe in God?" Skeptic, Vol. 6, No.2, 1998. Smith, George H., Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, 1989 Zindler, Frank R., "Atheism: Its Logical and Philosophical Foundations," American Atheist, Summer 2000.

American Atheist

Tony Pasquarello's ''Atheism and Natheism" A response from George Ricker

T

ony Pasquarello's "Atheism and Natheism" (Autumn 2003 American Atheist) raises some interesting points about the definition of atheism and the apparent disagreement that plagues us over the meaning of the word. I offer the following comments on the subject. Although I have no objection to 'dictionary philosophy' I think it's worth noting there has been a persistent theistic bias evident in most dictionaries and most dictionary definitions. Toillustrate consider the following entry: atheism IA'the e ism I, n. [Cf. F. atheisme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. -R. Hall. Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded.

-Shipley.

2. Godlessness. (Webster's Revised Dictionary, © 1996)

Unabridged

This bias - evident in the selection of the sentence from R. Hall - is George A. Ricker is an awardwinning journalist and weekly newspaper editor, now retired. A 1963 graduate ofthe University of Miami (Coral Gables, Fla.) with a degree in secondary education, he has worked at a variety of occupations, including one year spent as associate pastor of a Methodist church while he was attending a theological seminary. He lives in Palm Bay, Fla. and is a member of American Atheists, Atheists of Florida, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Parsippany, New Jersey

hardly surprising since most human cultures for most of human history have promoted the virtues of gods and religions and deplored their absence. However as usage changes, dictionary definitions change as well. We are beginning to see the "lack of belief' definition show up in places like Encarta, which calls Atheism "unbelief in gods and deities, and UltraLingua.Net, an on-line dictionary which offers the 'lack of belief' definition as the first or preferred and the doctrinal (the doctrine or belief that there is no god) as the secondary. It's also worth noting that virtually every dictionary recognizes the root of atheism as in the Greek a meaning 'without' and the as meaning 'god.' Hence atheas means 'without god.' One who is 'without god' need not think there are no gods. Indeed, one who is without gods need not think of them at alL The condition of being without god or gods is independent of any knowledge claims about the existence or nonexistence of a deity of any description and need not depend upon any belief at all. Not only do virtually all dictionaries recognize the atheos construction as the root source of the word, they also are nearly universal in recognizing 'godlessness' as the best synonym for atheism. Again, the condition of godlessness requires no one to make any claims about the existence or nonexistence of deities. While the definition of Atheism as 'the absence of (or lack of) belief in a god or gods'is fairly modern usage, I submit it is a more accurate reflection of the word's root a (without) + theos (god).That modern usage is partly, I suspect, a reaction to the attempted pigeonholing ofAtheism by religionists who insist Atheism is simply being in "denial" about the existence of a god. In fact, there are reliWinter 2003-2004

gionists who insist there is no such thing as real Atheism, only the act of denying 'God' who everyone, Atheists included, knows exists. Tony Pasquarello's identification of Atheism as "a claim about reality" which is that "reality does not include the entity normally called 'God' " seems questionable to me. First of all, I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "the entity normally called God." Indeed, having given the matter considerable thought, I'm no longer certain what anyone means by the use of that word. I realize it's one of the words on which he says there is general agreement and that may be true - in dictionaries. But out here in the real world, I have a great deal of difficulty getting many theists to make any sort of a good-faith effort to define, with any precision at all, what they mean by the word 'God.' Indeed, most of them run away from the exercise entirely and insist that 'God' cannot be defined or described in any detaiL Besides, what normally is called 'God'here in the U.s.A. is quite different from what normally is called 'God' in India or China. Pasquarello insists "It would be true that 'God' does not exist even if no Atheist had ever existed." However, the more relevant fact is that the concept of Atheism would not exist if there were no such thing as theism. Absent god-belief, there would be no need for the distinction made by Atheism. And whether or not there is such a concept as Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not god(s) exist in reality. Secondly, and perhaps I run the risk ofbeing drummed out ofthe corps for saying this, I don't think Atheism is a "claim" about anything. Atheism, in my lexicon at least, is a word which describes the absence of an attribute. Page 35

It is the absence or lack of theism. Theism is god-belief. Atheism is being without god-belief. Theists believe in gods. Atheists don't. I think that is the most economical and the most inclusive definition of Atheism. I also think it is the definition that best reflects the attitudes of most modern Atheists. In my view it is a mistake to attempt to load the term with more than it should rightfully have to carry. I repeat, with all respect to Mr. Pasquarello, I don't think Atheism is a claim about anything I'm not sure who came up with the following description of the Atheism/Agnosticism matrix, but I think it works. Both Atheism and Agnosticism depend upon their root words for their own meaning. Atheism is being without theism or god-belief. Agnosticism is being without gnosticism or knowledge (originally this had to do with knowledge of god and that is the sense in which I'm using it here.). If that dichotomy is correct - and I understand it can be argued differently - then it suggests the following positions relative to the god hypothesis (i.e. the beliefthat a god or gods of some description exist) :

I think each of these positions accurately reflects the meanings of the words in question. Of course, most of us simply identify ourselves as Atheists or Agnostics or Theists most of the time. It's also true that in this breakdown, one who claimed no knowledge and had no belief could call himself an Agnostic, an Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist. It seems to me that both atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism correspond to binary switches. One either believes or does not believe. There is no convenient middle ground to occupy. The belief switch is either on or off. By the same token, one either makes a knowledge claim or one does not. Here again, it simply is not possible to know and not know at the same time. Of course, when we're talking about god(s), one must begin with a clear understanding of the nature of the entity or entities

about which the knowledge claim is made. If I understand Mr. Pasquarello correctly, the only atheism in his lexicon would be that which I call "Gnostic Atheism." It would not be enough for one to not believe in gods, one would have to claim to know there were no gods in order to be entitled to call oneself an Atheist. I find that unsatisfactory, and I suspect most Atheists will. Ultimately, atheism should mean what the majority of Atheists want it to mean. The definition of Atheism as the absence of god-belief leaves room for many degrees of Atheism. But whether one is a "strong" Atheist, a "weak" Atheist, an "Agnostic" Atheist or a "Gnostic" Atheist, and regardless of why we are not Theists, we are united by one simple fact: we don't believe in godts). That may not work for Mr. Pasquarello. It does for me.

Agnostic Atheism - a lack of belief in god(s) and no knowledge claim about god(s) Gnostic Atheism - a lack of belief in god(s) and a knowledge claim about godrs) {the claim that gods don't exist} Agnostic Theism - belief in god(s) but no knowledge claim about god(s) {this would be the position of someone who "chooses" to believe but doesn't claim to know whether those beliefs correspond to any sort of reality} Gnostic Theism - belief in god(s) and a knowledge claim about god(s) {this would be the claim that one or more gods do exist}

"No thanks, I'm on a low carb diet." Page 36

Winter 2003·2004

American Atheist

AGNOSTICISM: THE BASIS FOR ATHEISM, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO IT By David Eller

Ai

old question recently led me to a new thought: can an gnostic be a Theist? The easy answer appears to be yes, because there are people who call themselves Agnostics and Theists. As we will see below, we cannot leave that claim unchallenged. But a second question emerges from this line of thought: can an Agnostic be an Atheist? In other words, what is the relationship between Agnosticism, Theism, and Atheism? Is Agnosticism a third, intermediate, alternative position, or is it something else? This general issue was raised in these pages by Tony Pasquarello, who distinguished between Atheism and what he called Natheism (as if we need another neologism'), the former being the good old dictionary-definition version of belief that there is no such thing as god(s) and the latter being a "new" position of rejecting belief without rejecting god(s) (1). This second position, which is sometimes called "weak" or "negative" Atheism, I also find incoherent, as I have argued in a previous article (2). What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X? That is why I concluded that all Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X. What does all of this have to do with Agnosticism? Everything, as it

Dr. Eller is an anthropologist as well as American Atheists Director for Colorado. He is the author of Natural Atheism, a book which will be published by American Atheist press later this year. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Parsippany, New Jersey

turns out. Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice, but they are also committing a crucial conceptual error - and allowing others to commit it too. The error is the assertion that "Agnostic" is some third thing to be, an alternative to both belief and nonbelief, and in fact a milder and more acceptable alternative to belief than Atheism. Agnostics are supposedly people who claim to be "undecided" about religious questions or possibly uninterested in them. They are "not sure" or noncommittal, they do not have "enough information," and hypothetically they are waiting, actively or passively, for some basis on which to settle the two "claims" of Theism and Atheism. Agnostics - persons who declare themselves to be Agnostics allegedly say "I don't know." However, this will not do. First, Agnosticism is not an alternative position to Atheism, because Agnosticism and Atheism are completely different kinds of phenomena, not simply different positions on the same continuum. Agnosticism is in fact not a position at all but a method for arriving at a position. It is not on the belief spectrum in any sense. Second, Agnosticism is the only proper approach to the particular problem it addresses - the problem of knowledge - and as such it is not only compatible with Atheism but is actually a foundation, the essential foundation, for Atheism. What is Agnosticism? Agnosticism is a recent concept, introduced by Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to describe his own concerns about knowledge and belief. It is derived Winter 2003·2004

from the Greek roots a- for 'no' or 'without' and gnosis for 'knowledge.' Dictionary definitions, which are often worse than useless, tend to depict it as the position that certain things, like god(s), are unknown or ultimately unknowable; in common usage it is a third religious position between Atheism or Theism. The Oxford World Encyclopedia goes so far as to declare that it is a "reasoned basis for the rejection of both Christianity and Atheism" (3). However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation ofthe concept goes as follows: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative, there is no mention of belief in general or of religion in particular. Rather, it addresses what we should and can claim to know. It is akin to skepticism in the less extreme sense: not that it is impossible to have knowledge or that we have none but that we should not claim to have knowledge that we do not have.

Page 37

Agnosticism, then, is not a branch of religion but of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge: what is it possible to say that we know with some acceptable degree of certainty, and how do we know that we know it? More accurately, it is a method in regard to knowledge, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know. It is certainly not a body of particular knowledge, nor is it a position to take on any particular issue. It is the process by which to arrive at such knowledge on which to base one's position. In this sense, it is entirely consistent with - in fact, it is virtually the same thing as - reason. It is the demand for true facts and valid logic as the grounds for one's sound conclusions. In the absence of true facts and valid logic, one cannot call one's conclusions sound and should be at least cautious if not self-critical about them. Applied to religion, Agnosticism means that we should not claim to have 'religious knowledge' unless we can demonstrate by our 'agnostic method' that such knowledge is justified. It does not insist prima facie that religious knowledge is impossible, only that it must pass this test. The question then is whether anything that we can seriously call religious knowledge does or can pass the agnostic test. Can we claim to have sound, even true, religious knowledge? I would argue that we do not and most likely cannot have it. What exactly is religious knowledge? It would be propositions about religious topics - in particular, the existence and nature of god(s) - that are accepted as true on the basis of evidence and/or interpretation of evidence, with the requirement that such evidence and interpretation lead soundly to the propositions. Such knowledge seems astronomically unlikely and logically impossible. The myriad of beliefs about godts), contradictory and mutually exclusive as they are, makes it just short of inconceivable that one of them could be the 'true knowledge' of god(s) while all the others have it wrong. Furthermore, there is no way imaginable that we could ever determine which was the true knowledge and which was teaching false gods. There is no criterion for judging the truth or justification of a Page 38

religious claim other than one that is itself part of the very religious system. For example, Christians sometimes argue the veracity of their religion on the grounds of biblical prophecy or the special nature of Jesus. However, if you do not accept the authority of the Bible or see its prophecies as fulfilled, or if you do not accept the divinity - or the very existence - of Jesus, then this argument is moot. There are two 'agnostic problems' with any claims to possessing religious knowledge. The first is the possible source of such knowledge. There are, in the end, only two potential sources of religious knowledge - authority and personal experience. In other words, if I know something about godis), I either learned it from someone or I experienced it directly. If I got it from an authority, where could my religious authority have gotten it? Either from a prior authority or directly from experience. And where could his prior authority have gotten it? Either from an even more prior authority or directly from his experience. We can therefore distinguish the regression of authorities passing 'knowledge' on from one to the other, without any means of verifying the truth of the information. Authority, then, amounts to little more than hearsay and testimony, and we can reject it out of court as a source of knowledge, as a way to certify that our knowledge is sound. In fact, the appeal to authority or to tradition is a wellknown logical fallacy. That only leaves personal experience as a source of religious knowledge. This is perhaps the fountain of all things religious and the last refuge from rationalistic criticism. If I had a personal experience, how can you argue with that? Well, there are a number of ways to argue with that. The first isthat, in all fields except religion, personal experience is not accepted as a, dependable source of knowledge. If a prosecutor brought a psychic into court who said that she had had a personal vision of the defendant committing a crime, both would be (rightly) laughed out of the building. Second, since this experience is subjective or "internal," there is no possible means of verification - I cannot even be sure that you had the experience, let alone that you had the experience you think you had or that it refers to anything in external Winter 2003-2004

reality. Third and perhaps most importantly, experiences are subject to interpretation and the vagaries of memory. An individual who has a 'spiritual experience' (whatever that is; see my earlier article on spirituality) (4) might interpret it as the Christian God in one time or culture, as nirvana in another, as a 'good trip' in another, and as a hallucination in yet another. In other words, even if the experience is real, the object or referent of the experience is questionable and ultimately not known. But if this is the case, then personal experience cannot be a source of religious knowledge either. Predictably, the appeal to personal experience is another well-known logical fallacy. This is at least partly because it faces the second problem with religious knowledge - that it does not conform to the rules of evidence and logic. Even if we might, for argument's sake, accept a personal religious experience or an authority's testimony as evidence for the existence of some god, this evidence still fails to satisfy the conditions of falsifiability, comprehensiveness, honesty, replicability, and sufficiency on which sound knowledge depends. For instance, why do we accept that authority rather than some other? Why do we accept this person's experience instead of that person's? Also, there is no way we can test them, either for accuracy or for actuality; we cannot verify that you had any experience at all, let alone the one you claim. This is, of course, the main charm of personal experience for Theists, since it is unimpeachable by science or reason. However, no one not even a Theist - lives his whole life this way, taking for granted and acting on somebody else's subjective claims; if someone said, "I had a vision that chocolate bars cure cancer," or even, "My alternative healer said that chocolate bars cure cancer," you would be a fool to stop your medical treatment and go on a regimen of candy. Precisely because personal experience and ancient authority are so unapproachable for purposes of testing and falsifiability, they are untrustworthy as evidence. Agnosticism - that is, reason rejects them. You Don't Know - But Do You Believe? We may safely conclude, then, that there is no 'religious knowledge' American Atheist

that we Atheists are lacking. In fact, even Theists themselves typically emphasize belief (faith) over knowledge; especially Christians, but all Theists to an extent, devalue knowledge as a way of approaching spirituality and privilege 'faith' instead. Undoubtedly, many Theists think that knowledge is possible and good, and some have tried to reconcile faith and reason, but in the end, reason takes a back seat to faith. As Tertullian, an early church father, stated clearly, Christianity is true because it is absurd - because there is no evidence for it and nothing else like it in human experience. We humans are, therefore, all without religious knowledge. In other words, in the realm of religion, we are all a-gnosis. People who claim to have some gnosis, like the famous and appropriately named Gnostics, essentially must maintain that they know what everyone else does not and cannot know; yet, their claims to gnosis have no substance and need not bother us. Let us state then simply and firmly that all of us are, in the conventional sense, Agnostics, since we are all without knowledge when it comes to religion. We might think we have some, and we might have learned some teachings about religion, but this does not and cannot qualify as knowledge. In Huxley's original sense, we might not all be Agnostics, but we all should be; we should practice Agnosticism and refrain from making claims to knowledge that we are not justified in making. But if religious claims - like claims about the existence of god(s) fail inspection, doesn't that mean that we should reject them? Yes, it does. Let us look at it this way: the question for us is, does a god with these or those particular qualities exist? There are only two possible answers: yes or no. How do we begin to approach the problem? We begin to approach the problem with a method, in this case the Agnostic method: we collect information, we make observations, we subject it all to careful logical analysis, and we do not accept an affirmative answer until there is sufficient reason to do so. In the meantime, we adopt the 'null hypothesis' (as scientists say), the innocent-until-provenguilty stance (as jurists say), or, in this Parsippany, New Jersey

particular instance, the "presumption of Atheism" (as Antony Flew says). Thus, there are only two possible outcomes to our investigation - yes this god exists, or no this god does not exist. The first is (one of the many types of) Theism, and the second is Atheism. These two positions represent the poles of the spectrum of belief. In fact they are the only two points on that spectrum. Either you believe in god(s) and are a Theist, or you do not believe in godls) and are an Atheist. So Agnosticism does not and cannot belong on this spectrum, let alone 'in between' the theistic and atheistic points. It is now apparent that Agnosticism is in a different dimension (the methodological dimension) than both Atheism and Theism. Atheism and Theism are positions, but Agnosticism is a process. In what dimension do Atheism and Theism dwell? The most common answer would be the dimension of 'belief.' Now we are back on familiar ground. Theism is the belief (or one of the many beliefs) in godis), and Atheism is the belief in no godts). However, as I have argued elsewhere and will continue to argue, this is wrong: Atheism is not a "belief' at all. Theism is a belief in the sense that you must stand your theistic ground must make the claim of the truth of your 'religious knowledge' - without the aid of solid evidence or logic; it is accepting something as true without confirming evidence or even in the face of disconfirming evidence. It is acceptance of a knowledge claim in disregard or contradiction to the 'agnostic method.' Atheism, conversely, is the (sound) conclusion that any such knowledge claim is false, completely and necessarily in compliance with the agnostic method. As I have stressed before, when there is firm evidence, valid logic, and sound conclusion, there is knowledge - and no need to appeal or refer to belief whatsoever. (5) If Atheism is not a belief, then what is it? And ifit is not a belief, what does it have in common with Theism that it does not have in common with Agnosticism; that is, what is the correct spectrum on which Atheism and Theism fall? Pasquarello, in the article cited above, refers to it as "metaphysical," referring to that other branch of philosophy that deals with the nature Winter 2003-2004

and composition of reality. Metaphysics is distinct from, although significantly related to, epistemology, so the Theism/Atheism schism is distinct from, although significantly related to, Agnosticism. However - and this is the theme of the entire present article - they are not related in the sense that most people think. Name your god. He/she/it either exists or not. Call it a metaphysical question if you like. In the final analysis it is an empirical question: the fact is either the god does or does not exist. There is no third alternative. We may not easily be able to know which, but it is one of the two. How is the empirical question to be solved? The only possible answer is with the correct method; here, empirical truth and methodology meet. In other words, here Atheism and Agnosticism meet. In other words, here belief and knowledge meet. What ultimately is the relation between the two dimensions - between Agnosticism and Atheism/ Theism, between method and fact, between metaphysics and epistemology, between belief and knowledge? The answer is clear. If you have no knowledge of a thing, if your methods yield no knowledge of it - not of its existence, not of its characteristics - then how could you justifiably ever believe anything about it? You cannot. If you do not know, you should not believe. Your only sensible option is to reject the knowledge claim and to eschew any belief on the subject. Your only sensible option is Atheism. Therefore, if Agnosticism is the method pertaining to religious knowledge, then the only valid conclusion from that method is Atheism. There is, then, a natural and unavoidable connection between the two concepts. If Agnosticism is the process, Atheism is the product. I am an Atheist because I am an Agnostic. I have reached the conclusion of Atheism because I have traveled the only road there is and arrived at the only point to which that road leads. Of course, not all people practice Agnosticism - certainly not in their religious lives - and not all, obviously, recognize their inevitable state as Agnostics. Those who do practice it conspicuously must inevitably concede that there is no foundation whatsoever for making any religious claims that have any reality Page 39

to them. People may, do, and probably will continue to believe in the absence of evidence or in contradiction to the evidence, but that is now the only way that they can believe. Belief as a respectable and rational position has been vanquished. Theism is defeated, and only Atheism remains. There is one last problem to dispatch. Theists, and Agnostics in the conventional sense, will often dismiss Atheism as if it implies or requires certain knowledge that god(s) does/do not exist - as if we are claiming to 'know' that there is/are no god(s). But that is a false characterization, and this is now patently obvious from an 'agnostic perspective'. Atheism is not and does not have to be about certainty; rather, in a funny way, it is about the lack of certainty. As Huxley put it, "do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Therefore, if a Theist cannot demonstrate the existence of god(s) or even worse, argues that such existence is undemonstrable - we are right to reject the conclusion. We don't know; they pretend to know. So Atheism does not depend on certain knowledge of the non-existence of god(s). It depends on the non-existence of certain knowledge of god(s).

My conclusion is that everyone is agnostic or at least should be; Agnosticism, like reason, is the only trustworthy method for threshing the true from the false. In reality, Agnosticism is simply another name for reason - and probably an unfortu-

misrepresent ourselves and muddy our thinking in the process, then we are betraying our true convictions and crippling our own ability to think. It is not only false but false to ourselves. Ultimately, it even aids Theism by making the existence of god(s) implicit and default: if Agnosticism is the position that god(s) is/are unknown or unknowable, that presupposes that there is such a thing as god(s) beyond knowledge. Operating on that definition cedes the ground to Theists. Finally we can return to the question we posed at the top of this article: whether it is possible to be an agnostic Theist, for example an agnostic Christian. The answer, after further inspection, is no. If there is no religious knowledge that we can claim with any certainty, then there is no ground for belief and Theism. An agnostic Theist is a Theist in violation of Agnosticism. A reasonable Theist is a Theist in violation of reason. It should be immanently clear that there is no agnostic path to Theism. Agnosticism is a path indeed - the only viable and reliable path through the thicket of theistic claims, but its necessary and inevitable destination is Atheism.

Atheism does not depend on certain knowledge of the nonexistence of god( s). It depends on the non-existence of certain knowledge of god(s).

Conclusion To Believe or Not to Believe, That Is the Question There may still be those who call themselves "Agnostics" as if that names their position or frees them from the necessity of taking a position. But Agnosticism does not invite you to suspend judgment; it invites you to reach judgment in full light of the facts and the logic and to stand by it. And, as the old adage goes, if you don't take a position, then you are taking a position - a position against. If you are not actively a Theist, you are passively an Atheist. If you are waiting to believe, you are not believing now. God, if he/shelit exists, will not make the distinction. Page 40

nate name, since people are led to think that it is a unique process in its own right or, even worse, a unique thing or conclusion in its own right. But one would not say "I'm rational" as the description of one's position; that does not tell us what you think, only how you think. Agnosticism is not an alternative to Atheism, let alone a compromise between Atheism and Theism, but rather the very foundation upon which reasoned Atheism stands. Perhaps we should only talk about Agnosticism in the active, verb form: not that I am an Agnostic but that I 'agnosticize.' Thus, I agnosticize, therefore I am an Atheist. Why do even so many Atheists continue to represent and defend Agnosticism as a 'middle way' on religion? I would hope that it is from not having thoroughly pondered the meaning of Agnosticism and of Atheism, from a lack of understanding of the difference between methodology and outcome, between process and product, between epistemology and metaphysics. This article is meant to contribute to the clarification of these issues and to make Atheists stronger and clearer advocates for their own position. I fear, at the same time, that the confusion may be intentional - a tactical move to make non-belief more palatable to the pious public. It is more acceptable to be "an Agnostic" than "an Atheist," since it appears not to refute belief but simply not to share it ("Oh, I don't say you are wrong, I just don't join you in it"). While I understand the appeal of public palatability, if we must Winter 2003-2004

REFERENCES 1 Pasquarello, Tony. "Atheism and Natheism.' American Atheist, Fall 2003, 19-24. 2 Eller, David. "Atheism, Positive and Negative." American Atheist, Autumn 2002,42-4. 3 Humphries, Christian, ed. The World Encyclopedia. NY: Oxford University Press, 2001, 11. 4 Eller, David. ''Why I am not Spiritual: Spirituality as the Alienation of Humanity." American Atheist, Winter 2003,12-5. 5 Eller, David. "Belief and Knowledge: A Conceptual Analysis." American Atheist, Summer 2001, 47-9.

American Atheist

The Word Is 'Freedom' By Davtd M. Frtzpatrtck

T

hey pursued him through the deluge, mindless crusaders with a purpose. He'd been able to see lights behind him across the fields for the last hour, but in the past five minutes he'd been able to hear them. The mad, howling storm was so intense that to hear them at all meant they were dangerously close. Horizontal rain stung his face like a plague of locusts. He leaned into the screaming wind, squinting, hand out to break the rain from his eyes, and pushed onward. He couldn't be captured. If they acquired what he carried, so many would suffer. He stole a look over his shoulder. Over the rise were the faint glows of many lights. He stumbled on the muddy gravel but kept moving. They were damn close, and he was so tired. He'd barely slept at all in the past five days. His body ached and cried out in its exhaustion for him to stop, to just collapse and let sleep overtake him. He couldn't let that happen.

***** "How do we know he has it, Captain Gramwell?" the nervous young man hollered over the storm. "Another of his kind told us all about it," Gramwell hollered back in the dimness of their lights. "It's amazing what those barbarians will say when you drive a few steel spikes through their bodies." Maine author David M. Fitzpatrick is a freelance writer and militant Atheist whose fiction has appeared in such publications as Brutarian Quarterly, Night to Dawn, Amazing Journeys, and American Atheist. He can be reached at [email protected]. Parsippany, New Jersey

"I wonder what's taking the skimmer so long," the kid said. Gramwell smiled. ''Youtired of this, kid?" "No, sir," the kid said, but his face said otherwise. "Not discouraged from the rain and the wind?" he asked with a sardonic grin. Rain smacked his wrinkled face; wind whipped his soaked hair around. He was the only one in the group not wearing any headgear. The rest of them were bundled up as if ready for an Arctic trip. "Not tired and hungry and wishing you were dry?" "I suppose I am, sir," the kid yelled. "But I want to see him caught." "As well you should," Gramwell said with a chuckle. "And we'll get him, son. We have to. He carries something we need. So all of you remember," he said, raising his voice, "as tempting as it is, keep this one alive - and don't damage him. We don't know where it's hidden." "Sir, the skimmer is on its way," came a voice from the liquid darkness, and Gramwell smiled with satisfaction.

***** He broke the rise and saw it. Straight ahead, nearly invisible in the black torrent, he saw the dark outline: the forest, several hundred feet away. A surge of hope exploded in his heart like a firecracker and he surged drunkenly forward. If he could break the treeline before they topped the ridge behind him, he'd be safe. Without dogs or air support, they'd never track him in there. His heart was like a woodpecker trapped inside a tree. His lungs felt like swelling balloons, full of chilly air and cold water. If all he got out of this was pneumonia, he'd be lucky. His foot suddenly hit an unseen rock and he went over the way they'd toppled what was left of the Washington Monument when he was eight. He hit Winter 2003·2004

the ground sprawling, cursing the precious lost seconds. He clambered to his feet and snapped a look back as he staggered into a clumsy sprint. He couldn't see their lights behind them. The trees loomed close before him. He was going to make it. He ran again, fast and awkward, feeling like the scarecrow in a movie he'd seen as a child. It was banned now, like most movies -especially a fantasy like that, full of magic and all. The censorship was such a tragedy ... The sky lit suddenly up above and before him. He yelled in anguish, skidding to a stop as the massive hovercraft roared into view over the treetops and dropped sharply between him and the woods. Blinding spotlights targeted him as if he were some overrated stage performer. The thirty-foot, silver-domed skimmer's sensors were locked on and he knew it wouldn't lose him. He watched helplessly as it lowered to the ground, blue-glowing pulse guns ejecting from their compartments with hydraulic whirs. He stood in the driving rain, pelted as if by countless nails, hands up and fingers at his temples, waiting for the end. That was standard procedure. He only hoped they opened up good, and aimed above his shoulders. That ought to destroy his cargo. Behind him, the voices were loud. He looked over his shoulder to see the searchers herding toward him like excited cattle. He spun back to the hovercraft, eyes wide. "Do it!" he yelled above the din of the storm, keeping his hands at his temples. "DO IT!" They did it.

***** He was on cold concrete, still wet. Every joint was stiff. Every muscle ached. He had a pounding migraine. He Page 41

tried to sit up and could only groan in pain. "Morning." He rolled sideways, pushed himself painfully into a sitting position. He was in a jail cell, barely eight feet on a side, without any beds or mats. A single dim overhead light down the hall weakly illuminated the cell through the thick bars. Distant voices were barely evident. "How long?" he asked, hoarse and raspy. "About ten hours." He was a young man, blond and athletic, dressed in a black prison jumpsuit. He sat in one corner with an arm resting on an upright knee. "It was late last night. They didn't even get you dry clothes. What'd you do, anyway?" "What's your name?" he asked. "Nice dodge. I'm Thomas. You?" He regarded the kid for a moment, then answered, "Clevalis." "Can't say I've ever heard a name like that." "No. My parents created it." "Something wrong with James or Peter or Matthew, or any other normal name?" "Yes,"Clevalis said evenly. "They're Christian names." Understanding crossed Thomas's face like a dark cloud over the sun. "I see. You're one of them." "Interesting way of putting it. What them are you talking about?" ''You're Godless," Thomas said, visibly astonished. "That's why they treated you so badly. They're never nice to sinners in here, but you ... they dumped you in here like ... garbage." He said the last word as if he'd actually tasted it. Clevalis winced as he leaned against the wall. The concrete was rough, but the coldness felt good against his burning back muscles. ''You think I'm garbage, kid?" "Doesn't matter to me. Matters to the Church. I'm not sure why I deserved you as a roommate, but if you don't mess with me, I'll stay on my side of the cell." Clevalis cocked his head curiously. "That's quite judgmental for someone also in here for breaking a moral." "My immorality doesn't compare to yours." "Do tell." Thomas shrugged. "I was caught stealing." Clevalis raised his brow. "Oh, not just any moral - you broke a Commandment. They'll crucify you for that." "Just for a few hours, and no spikes." Page 42

"Ah, yes typical Christian hypocrisy. The Church has decided God's will: stealing gets you strapped up for a while, but not honoring God is punishable by death." "That's because 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' is first on the list. You broke the primary Commandment." Clevalis laughed, shaking his head. "So much for 'judge not, lest ye be judged.' Anyway, the logic is flawed. Being an Atheist isn't the same as having another god, you know." Thomas blinked. "Being a what?" "An Atheist - you know, godless types. But I suppose they don't teach you about that." "They sure don't, mister." "So how many times have you been up on the cross?" "Is that your business?" "I'm trying to make it my business." The kid considered it. "This will be my fourteenth. But I've never been spiked. They've all been minor thefts ... well, I got caught lying once when I was in school, and I skipped daily service once a few years back and got caught." Clevalis gave a low whistle. "You don't learn, do you?" "I just have a... theft problem. I don't get caught often. I have some nifty tech gear that usually gets me out of trouble." "Tech gear is very immoral for citizens to possess," Clevalis said. ''You get caught with that ... " "No kidding. The only reason I've gotten caught at all is because I didn't want them to see me using my tech gear." He shrugged, smiling under his blond mop. "So once in a while things go wrong and I get tied up for a while." "So what's your tech gear?" Clevalis pressed. Thomas shook his head. "Sorry, I don't tell anyone that." He shifted uncomfortably on the floor, changing which knee was up and leaning the opposite way. "So why are you locked up? They usually crucify you guys immediately. " "I'm a special Atheist." Thomas grunted in amusement. "That's an oxymoron. What's so special about you?" "I'm sure you wouldn't care." "Hey, you wanted to make things your business. Now it's my turn." Clevalis nodded with a raised brow. "Fair enough. I have a cybernetic implant in my body. The Church wants it." Winter 2003-2004

"So why don't they just kill you and take it?" "They don't know where it is. It's microscopic. It could be anywhere. They don't dare risk damaging it. But soon, an expert with the right equipment will be here to find it. Then they'll spike me." Thomas was visibly interested now, leaning forward a bit, eyes slightly wider than before, mouth slightly open. ''What's in that implant?" "Names," Clevalis said. "Names of Atheists hidden in society, pretending to be just like you. People whose lives will be ended if they're discovered." Thomas scoffed. ''Well, you're asking for it, you know. Your beliefs are clearly against the morals of the Church. All you have to do is accept God when you're up on that cross tomorrow and you'll be spared." "That will never happen," Clevalis said through gritted teeth. "Why not?" "Because I don't believe." ''Why not?" "We could debate this all day," Clevalis said. "My clock's running down, kid; I don't have time to try to stir up the logic and reason I know is buried in that head of yours somewhere." "Maybe you're not clear on this," Thomas said carefully. "As soon as they get the implant, they'll string you up on a cross and they'll pound spikes through your hands and feet. They'll leave you up there for an hour, a day, a week however long it takes. It's not going to be some anti-Church statement. It's not going to make you a martyr, because nobody will care. It's going to be painful and terrible and will result in your death. So give them what they want and convert, man!" Clevalis chuckled. "I can't give up my intellect in favor of fairy tales - not even to save my own ass." Thomas shook his head in disbelief. "Then ... lie! Just tell them you believe. Hell, I don't think anyone should be tied up on a cross for stealing or lying, but man, I tell them that's what I believe. Youjust have to play the game their way if you wanna live. After all, if you have atheists living in society who are pretending to be like us, why can't you do the same?" "The mindlessness never ceases to amaze me," Clevalis said, closing his eyes and leaning his head heavily back against the cold wall. "Listen to yourself, will you? Preaching about how righteous you are and how terrible godlessness is ... talking about what's good and what American Atheist

isn't ... and at the end of it all, advising me to lie about believing to save my ass - and telling me how you do the same. If you could truly hear how ridiculous you sound ... maybe you'd learn to think differently."

***** "Captain Gramwell?" Gramwelliooked up from his paperwork at the face ofthe cop leaning in his doorway. "Go ahead, officer." "Bringing the prisoner, as ordered." Gramwell's face hardened. "All right." The young cop came in, Clevalis in tow and in handcuffs. Two other cops followed. The office was spacious, the far wall open glass; the spires and bell towers of countless cathedrals standing tall in the backdrop of the cloudy sky could be seen for miles. The walls were adorned with the decorations Clevalis expected: Christ on the cross, painting of the Last Supper, a few assorted Psalms, portraits of Church leaders. Bookcases full of Bibles and other religious texts lined every wall. Clevalis, now in a prison issue black jumpsuit, took it all in as he was led before the monstrous mahogany desk. Gramwell, decked out like the officers in his dress whites, blue field with a superimposed red cross huge on his chest, leaned back in his chair and regarded the prisoner for a few long moments. "You sad bastard," Gramwell finally said. "Standing there in your godless glory, nothing but a filthy animal. Running free in our good society, corrupting the lives of good Christians ... running from the acolytes as they chase you all over God's Creation. Pitiful, Clevalis - shameful and embarrassing." "I'm not ashamed or embarrassed," Clevalis said quietly. Gramwell rocketed forward in his chair, slamming both hands on his desk with a resounding smack. The whiteclad officers jumped at the sudden sound. Clevalis didn't flinch. "I'm ashamed because of you!" Gramwell snarled, his dark face a mask of rage. Age lines in his face hardened into steel grooves. "I'm embarrassed that you're living in my world. I'm offended by the very smell of you, you evil little punk. You and your kind disgust me." He calmed abruptly, smiling lightly and clasping his hands before him. "But that can all be past you. Everything can change. We give you people a chance the chance you're deserved as a child of God. Officer, get this man a book." Parsippany, New Jersey

The first cop scrambled to a bookcase behind him, fished out a volume, and scurried to the desk. He set it down, bowed his head briefly with his hands together before him, then backed off to his original position. Clevalis regarded the book, disinterested. It was big, thick, and white, with black letters emblazoned across the cover: THE HOLY BIBLE THE PERFECT WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD NEW MODERN CHRISTIAN AUTHORITATIVE ULTIMATE FINAL VERSION REVISED "That is a Bible," Gramwell said. "It will be your very own Bible when you leave here. It will be your personal understanding of God's word and His will, carried with you everywhere you go, for consultation whenever you need it - if you make the right choice. That

choice is this: you place your hand on this Bible and proclaim acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Then, like any good citizen, you'll have a Guardian Angel device implanted in your body. That will enable us to keep track of you, in case you're ever led astray." Gramwell smiled, leaning back in his chair once again, visibly pleased with himself. Clevalis regarded him with the same neutrality he'd exhibited since being brought in. "So are you ready to make that choice?" "I see no choice," Clevalis said in monotone. "Then open your eyes, boy. You choose what I've told you, or you go to the cross. Now, for a lot of things, we just tie them up for their sins and let the catcalls and thrown stones teach them the error of their ways; but not for you atheists. Disbelief is the worst offense, and we'll spike you for it. We'll nail you up there and let you bleed to death. So that's your other choice, atheist... and

~o~\ ~ ~0f~~B~U~~ W\e,~!

Wt'\oDA

~~u~\L- \1'"1 ~~ C>

Winter

2003-2004

Page 43

from where I'm sitting, the first one is a whole lot better." "That's no choice," Clevalis said. "That's the Church forcing people into submission. That's the Church controlling everyone - do it their way or die." ''You're starting to catch on," Gramwell said, his face hardening again. "I'll never surrender intellect and reason in exchange for mindless, childish beliefs," Clevalis said. "I choose crucifixion." Gramwell's eyes darkened and he spoke through clenched teeth. "What the hell is it with you people? All you have to do is make the right choice and you'll live, boy!And you're not protecting anyone - our specialist will be here tomorrow morning and we'll find that implant and have those names. Then, it won't matter if you accept God or if you die screaming in agony on that cross like a stuck pig. And when we find the rest of the atheist scum, they'll all face the same choice as you - become members of Church society or die bloody deaths!" Clevalis regarded him coolly, lips pursed. "If that's what we have to endure for exercising the free will your own God has given all of us, so be it." "Don't you blaspheme my religion," Gramwell hissed. "How am I blaspheming? It's your own rules!" For the first time, Clevalis was showing emotion beyond his stony face and flat voice. "Free will is guaranteed by your God - regardless of who we are. And nobody but God is supposed to pass judgment. Yet the Church has molded society into its own will, not God's - made all the decisions, spoken on behalf of God, interpreted everything to its own benefit!" ''You're Satan, quoting Scripture to your own purpose!" Gramwell said, gripping the arms of his chair with hydraulic fingers. His nostrils flared; his eyes were flame. "And you're a hypocrite," Clevalis said, shaking his head. "All of you ... nothing but an army of mindless hypocrites. Robots reciting what you've been told to believe, ignoring logic and reason when you can't explain your way around the fallacies and contradictions of your worshipped mythology." "That will be all," Gramwell said, still holding his chair arms in death grips and trembling with anger. "Take this Godless scum back to his cell."

Page 44

***** "Good thing you have that implant, or they'd have roughed you up," Thomas said to him later. "They usually do." "That's the 'convert or we'll beat you until you do' technique," Clevalis said from his comer of the cell. He lay on his back, one arm over his eyes, and chuckled. ''You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, Thomas. You mean to say you can't see how silly that is?" "I never said it wasn't silly," Thomas said. "I told you before 1don't agree with everything the Church says. It's just that ... 1believe in God and you don't." "That's not the point. Your religion supports free will and your Church doesn't." "I support free will. Heck, I've made free choices to break more morals and Commandments than anyone I know, but that doesn't mean I don't believe." Clevalis looked from under his arm at him. "Okay, I'll go out on a limb. There's no way I'm ever going to accept your god or your religion, or this fascist society that requires me to do so. Knowing that, do you think I should be allowed to live free or should 1be put to death?" "What you're really asking," Thomas said slowly, "is whether 1think anyone, regardless of beliefs, should be allowed to live in our society without Church control." Clevalis smiled. "Like I said, you're a reasonably intelligent guy." Thomas returned the smile. ''You're pretty sharp yourself, for a disbeliever." Clevalis grunted his way into a sitting position, legs crossed, and leaned forward with his elbows on his knees. "So how about it?" "Well, first off, 1think you're wrong to disbelieve. 1can't imagine how you're unable to see the truth." "I believe as I do because I've used logic and reason to direct my life," Celvalis said. "Now tell me how you believe what you do." Thomas shrugged. "I was brought up that way. I learned from my parents ... from living in our society. It's all around us ... it's in everything we do." There was a long silence in the dark cell. Thomas and Clevalis stared at one another for the long moments; Thomas' face blank and searching, Clevalis' anticipatory. Presently, understanding washed over Thomas and he smiled weakly. "I get it. You're saying I believe

Winter 2003-2004

because I've been programmed to believe." Clevalis shrugged. "I'm not saying anything. I just asked a question. You're the one making the connections." "Well, it isn't like that." "Maybe not. But it was nice to see the intellect that I know is hiding in that head of yours kicking in for a brief moment." Thomas glared at him. "So you want to know if 1 think atheists should be allowed to live." "I already know your answer," Clevalis said. Thomas rolled his eyes. "Now atheists are telepathic, I suppose." "I don't need to be. You're not a mindless robot like the rest of them, Thomas. There's a stronger humanity in you than most of the believers in this society - certainly more than those who run it. 1can see the good in you as clearly as 1 can see the senselessness, the hypocrisy, the evil in the Church." With that, he returned to his prone position on the cold concrete floor, arm back over his face. Thomas watched him, mouth agape, anticipation still coating him like a glass shell. Finally, he said, "Well... what do you think 1 was going to say?" "You think Atheists should be allowed to live as Atheists," Clevalis said simply. ''You think it's a tragic injustice for them to be forced into your beliefs. You feel it the same way you feel it's a tragic injustice to be strung up on a cross even for lying or stealing - and the way you feel it's a tragic injustice for the Church to pervert your religion into a society of people afraid to be who they want to be." Thomas thought for a moment before saying, ''You seem pretty sure you have me all figured out." "It's obvious to me," Clevalis said.

***** Thomas dreamed he was running, barefoot, from the acolytic police. They were chasing him through the streets of the cathedral-populated city. No matter where he ran, people crowded on the sidewalks shouted insults and threw stones. Some of the faces were people who were sure of themselves in their righteousness. Others were far more doubtful- insulting and stoning because they knew they were supposed to. In the crowds were plenty of metallic robots, too. "Thief1"they screamed at him.

American Atheist

He ran faster, but his pants were loose and trying to fall down. He hauled them up and kept running, but there were always people - and there were always acolytes not far behind. They commanded that he stop. He tried to fly, but of course he was barefoot and beltless. Eventually the crowds thickened and spilled off the sidewalks, and his path down the street narrowed. Soon the road was completely blocked by thousands of people pointing fingers all accusing, all judging, all condemning. "I need to fly!" he hollered to the heavens, hoping his God would hear him. He tried to leap into the air, tried to fly without his gear, but he fell to the ground and collapsed in a heap. The acolytes were upon him, beating him to the ground. He begged for them stop, but there was no mercy for one who had broken a Commandmentand run from those who would take the Lord's vengeance on His behalf. He was hauled up to a cross standing in the street behind him, and they lashed him to it with the restraining straps - wrists and arms, ankles and legs, torso and neck. He struggled the whole time, but the crowd liked it when he did. They cheered, drunk with satisfaction. Everyone loved a good show of barbarism. "Thief!" they all screamed in primitive ecstasy. ''You are charged with breaking the Commandment against stealing," Captain Gramwell called out, and the crowd roared its approval. "And with possession of immoral tech gear enabling you to escape your crime scenes." Then the cops stepped up with steel spikes and mallets, and Thomas began screaming again: "It's just stealing ... they never spike for stealing... it's just stealing!" ''You are also charged with violating the most important Commandment of all," Gramwell bellowed, and suddenly his eyes glowed red and horns sprouted from his temples. "For committing the ultimate mortal sin, violating the Commandment that prohibits having other gods before Him, the penalty is death." The crowd went insane. Thomas was thunderstruck. "But I believe!" he hollered above the intense noise. ''You've got it wrong! I believe!" "But you've been listening to an Atheist," Gramwell said, and with that Parsippany, New Jersey

they drove the first spike through his hand.

***** Thomas woke with a violent shudder and stifled cry. It was dark in the cell, even darker than usual. At night, they killed the main lights down the hall and left just the emergency lighting. ''You okay?" came a soft voice from the darkness. It took his muddled brain a moment to focus. "I'm fine," he said shakily. "Just ... bad dream." "What were they doing to you?" ''Who?'' "The Church. 'It's just stealing, they don't spike for that,' and other stuff. What did you do to deserve spiking?" "If you must know, I was charged with violating the First Commandment ... for listening to you." Clevalis whistled lightly. ''Well, I don't think they spike for that in the real world - yet. " They lay quietly for a few minutes, until Thomas' eyes had adjusted to the darkness. He said, "So what does this specialist do to you when he arrives in the morning?" "He'll use a tech device to scan me. In five seconds they'll know where it is." A few silent moments passed before Thomas said, ''You were right in your assessment of me. What they're doing to atheists is wrong. What they do to liars and thieves is wrong. Just about everything they do is wrong. I want to believe, I want to keep believing ... but the Church has twisted everything." "It's hard to expect anything less from the followers of a religion filled with contradictions and illogic." Thomas sighed, exasperated. "I'm trying to communicate with you, and you're crapping on my religion - and you're not backing your mouth up with any facts. Give me some examples of how my religion is contradictory and illogical." "I could give you a thousand, but I'm due to be crucified in a few hours; so I'll leave you with one good one: if God is all-powerful and perfect, why does he need to be worshipped?" "How is that contradictory or illogical?" "Because he either needs people to worship him, in which case he isn't allpowerful; or he wants people, which makes him vain and thus imperfect. An all-powerful, perfect God who wants or needs anything is nothing short of a totally illogical contradiction." Winter 2003-2004

''We can't presume to understand God's reasoning ... " "But there isn't any gray area here - he either needs or wants worshipers. No Supreme Being, no Creator, would ever have needs or wants. Is there a Higher Power? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But if there is, I'm certain it doesn't need worshipping." Thomas sighed again. "I admit there are a lot of holes ... and I've questioned them myself, believe me. And points like those make me question everything about the Church and society." "As well it should. Now I have a question for you." "Okay." "Are you gonna tell me about your tech gear?" Thomas laughed aloud. "No! What makes you ask that?" "Well, you have my curiosity," Clevalis said. "I'll be dead in a few hours, and before I go, I'd like to know what nifty, immoral tech gear you have. I mean, who am I gonna tell?" "Sorry, man," Thomas said with a grin. Clevalis chuckled. "Can't blame me for trying." "Tell me something about the names of the Atheists in your implant ... why carry them at all? Why put them at risk?" "There are lots of us. The Church can track every other form of communication, but we need to coordinate somehow. It's a necessary risk." "But why live with us like they do? The cause seems so hopeless ... why live among us, risking their lives?" "Because everyone should have a choice," Clevalis said simply. "Every human should choose for himself and not be forced into anything - not Christianity, not Atheism, nothing. Not long ago, there were many other religions on this planet. Now there's only one, because the Church runs the world and nobody has a choice. We live among you because this is our planet, too. We work to educate others. Eventually, we hope people will unite against the Church and make Earth once again a world where everyone can choose to follow any religion - or no religion. That's the way this planet has to be." "But the Church is too powerful and far-reaching," Thomas said. ''Your cause is beyond hopeless. There's a word for why you do what you do. That word is 'insanity'."

Page 45

"No," Clevalis said, "the word is 'freedom'." The only sounds in the dark were the distant murmurs of their jailers, down several corridors. The ventilation system moaned faintly. Somewhere nearby, Thomas could hear a light sobbing of another dissatisfied customer. Finally, he said, ''Where's the implant?" Clevalis looked at him in surprise. "It doesn't matter. They'll find it soon enough." "I'm serious. If they'll find it anyway, why won't you tell me?" Clevalis scrunched his brow. ''You won't tell me about your tech gear ... why should I tell you about my implant?" "Give up on the tech gear, Clev," he said, irritated. "Just tell me where the damn implant is." Clevalis regarded him a few moments longer, then sighed. "All right. They'll have it soon anyway. It's in my right index fingernail, near the tip. Just have to cut the end off." "I want you to give it to me." Clevalis gave a start. ''What?" "Tear the end of your nail off and give it to me," he repeated. "I've been awake half the night thinking about this. I don't know what I believe right now, but I do know the Church is wrong. If there's a God, I'm sure this isn't something he'd condone. I can't let you go out there with the names of all those people - not when I can do something about it."

***** The next morning, their wrists and ankles were shackled and secured together with belly chains, and they were escorted outside to the prison's crucifixion yard. Decorated with three dozen crosses, the yard looked like a field of giant daggers. Already, six moral-breakers were tied up on crosses, enduring the taunts of the crowd. Several dozen citizens were beyond the fence, letting the sinners hear their thoughts on the sins. An occasional stone was lobbed over the fence, but nothing like Thomas knew it soon would be - especially with an Atheist being spiked. "This is it," Clevalis whispered, nodding toward a group of guards coming toward them. "Better not look like you're friendly with me." Led by Captain Gramwell, the guards escorted a plainclothes tech over to them. "This is the one," Gramwell announced as the tech readied a hand scanner. "Let's get this over with so I can Page 46

get on with these crucifixions. You planning on repenting while you're up there, Clevalis?" "No," Clevalis said quietly. "And there's no implant to find. Youwere misinformed." The tech smiled smugly. "We'll see about that." "Don't bother," Thomas interrupted. "He's gotten rid of the implant." Everyone looked at him in surprise - especially Clevalis. Gramwell stepped up, nose to nose with Thomas. ''You're a known thief and a liar, Thomas. You'd better not be lying now." "I'm not - I swear to God," Thomas said. ''The implant was in his right index fingernail. But he chewed off the end so you wouldn't find it." ''You backstabbing bastard," Clevalis breathed incredulously. Thomas ignored him as the tech hurriedly scanned. The guards grabbed up Clevalis' hand and produced the proper finger. Clearly, the end ofthe fingernail had been recently chewed off. The tech looked up, eyes wide. "I'm not reading any implants in this man's body." Gramwell turned angrily to Clevalis. "Where is it?" Clevalis gave no reply, and Thomas said, "He'll never talk, Captain. But I can tell you where it is. He flushed it this morning. I'd have told the guard, but I didn't know he was going to do it. They returned him after a visit to the toilet and he told me." Clevalis looked astounded. Gramwell ordered one of his officers, "Shut down the sewer systems. Take the tech down there to scan for it." To Clevalis, he said, "All this does is delay our finding the implant. You're still dying today, you atheist scum." "What about me?" Thomas interjected. "If it weren't for me, you'd never know where to look. You might have scanned him and assumed he never had the implant at all. I've now made it possible for you to find the Atheists living among us." Gramwell sighed and nodded. "All right. You'll get no pardon, but your punishment is hereby commuted. But don't expect any 'get out ofjail free cards' from me in the future." "I appreciate that, sir," Thomas said, and extended his hand. Gramwell regarded it for a moment before taking it. Thomas pumped it heavily with a huge smile. "However, I have had the unpleasant task of being stuck for two days in a tiny cell with this Atheist Winter 2003·2004

scum, listening to his godless propaganda." He gestured out at the crucifixion field. "I'd like to be the one to lead him up the steps to the cross - and the one to drive the spikes through his body." A slow smile crept across Gramwell's face, and he nodded. "A fitting duty for a repentant man such as yourself, Thomas. So be it." "Thank you, sir," Thomas said with a broad smile, and then he gestured down at his prison blacks. "But can I change back into my own clothes first?"

***** By the time Thomas had returned in his street clothes, all seventeen sinners - besides Clevalis - had been strung up on crosses. Thomas stood, silent and stoic, next to the still-chained Clevalis. Captain Gramwell was on the loudspeakers, playing to the huge crowd outside the fence. "We have one more for you today, citizens ... one that will make your faith in Almighty God ever stronger!" The crowd roared its approval. Clevalis leaned his head toward Thomas and whispered, ''What the hell are you doing?" ''You don't believe in hell," Thomas said with a smile. "Here we bring you a Godless soul!" Gramwell hollered, pounding the air above his head with a fist. "Captured while trying to destroy your right to know the truth - an atheist spy!" They screamed. They cheered. They waved arms in the air. "Citizen Thomas," Gramwell said, "take the prisoner to his cross." Thomas gripped Clevalis' arm and strode forward. Clevalis stumbled along clumsily in all his chains. The crowd, like some beast with hundreds of voices, cheered them on as they mounted the steps. "I hope there's something I'm missing," Clevalis said. "You won't miss a thing," Thomas said. The punisher, all in white, waited above. The binding straps were attached to the cross, but the punisher held a mallet in one hand and three gleaming, stainless steel spikes in the other. When they reached the top, he handed the tools to Thomas and prepared to bind Clevalis to the cross. Thomas stopped him with a raised hand. ''You can spike him," the punisher said, ''but I'm required to strap him." "I know," Thomas said. "Just give American Atheist

me your mike. I want to speak to the crowd first." The punisher passed over his handheld microphone and Thomas keyed it up. The loudspeakers squeaked and the crowd obediently quieted like a flock of sheep. Gramwell regarded him from across the yard with a satisfied smile. "Citizens," Thomas announced, "I stand before you now to do my duty in punishing this Atheist." "Spike him!" someone in the crowd yelled, and others echoed his sentiment. "But I say it is not our place to decide the fate of others - that falls only to God, and we cannot presume to know God's wishes." "What is this?" Gramwell hollered out. "It isn't our right to put a man to death for being an Atheist," he yelled over the microphone. "So I will not participate in the crucifixion of this man instead, I will set him free." "Enough!" Gramwell cried. "Punisher, strap this blasphemous atheistlover to the cross!" The punisher growled and advanced. Thomas whirled about, dropping the mallet and two of the spikes, lunging with the third. The punisher yelped in surprise, leaping back to avoid

being skewered, and toppled over the edge. "Guards!" Gramwell screamed, and a dozen uniformed officers dashed across the yard toward the stairs. The crowd lost its collective mind now, screaming in its displeasure. Several people began trying to scale the fence. "One more thing," Thomas hollered, holding a silver and gold watch high in the air. "Lose something, Captain Gramwell?" Gramwell frantically checked his empty wrist and realized what Thomas had done. Thomas stepped close to Clevalis. "Hang on tight," he warned. ''You're crazy," Clevalis said, grabbing on. "I must be," Thomas said, getting a handhold on Clevalis' belly chain as the guards thundered up the stairs toward them, and then he hit the hidden button on his belt buckle. His boots kicked in and the pair shot into the air high above the crucifixion yard, the startled guards, the prison, and the city. The sounds of the screaming citizens below was quickly lost as they antigravitated. His passenger hung on for all he was worth, but the antigrav field handled them both easily. Clevalis yelled, "Antigravity boots!"

He laughed insanely. "I'd say they're definitely against the morals!" "They certainly are," Thomas said as they flitted quickly through low clouds and broke into the endless blue sky. "And that's not all. What good are antigrav boots without a flight belt?" Thomas kicked his feet at different angles, leveling their trajectory. Clevalis wrapped his legs around Thomas' as Thomas thumbed other hidden controls on the belt and they rocketed away to the north. "North to the Atheist lands?" Thomas asked. Clevalis nodded. "First order of· business will be to remove your Guardian Angel so they can't track us." Clevalis laughed. ''You amaze me. I knew there was something special about you, but this ... thank you." "It's my pleasure," Thomas replied as they soared on invisible wings toward the horizon. ''You were right about freedom, Clev." "So are you thinking differently about your beliefs?" "I don't know what I believe," Thomas said, "but I know things need to change." They flew off into the heavens, angels happily cast out.

~J.lMJ>~.'fJiOW CAN PtNYON£. Wrrn.OOT Ii 8E..l.IE.t IN GOb HAVE !iNY ~L. O~ MORRLlTY.'

Parsippany, New Jersey

SENSE.

Winter 2003·2004

Page 47

By G. W. Foote hristmas eve had come and ~ almost gone. It was drawing nigh midnight, and 1 sat solitarYc· my room, immersed in memory, ~ dreaming of old days and their buried secrets. The fire, before which I mused, was burning clear without flame, and its intense glow, which alone lighted my apartment, cast a red tint on the furniture and walls. Outside, the streets were muffled deep with snow, in which no footstep was audible. All was quiet as death, silent as the grave, save for the faint murmur of my own breathing. Time and space seemed annihilated beyond those four narrow walls, and 1 was as a coffined living centre of an else lifeless infinitude. My reverie was rudely broken by the staggering step of a fellow lodger, whose devotion to Bacchus was the one symptom of reverence in his nature. He reeled up stair after stair, and as he passed my door he lurched against it so violently that I feared he would come through. But he slowly recovered himself after some profane mutterings, reeled up the next flight of stairs, and finally deposited his well-soaked clay on the bed in his own room immediately over mine. After this interruption my thoughts changed most fancifully. Why I know not, but I began to brood on the strange statement of Saint Paul concerning the man who was lifted up into the seventh heaven, and there beheld things not lawful to reveal. While pondering this story I was presently aware of an astonishing change. The walls of my room slowly expanded, growing ever thinner and thinner, until they became the filmiest transparent veil which at last dissolved utterly away. Then (whether in the spirit or the flesh I know not) 1 was hurried along through space, past Page 48

galaxy after galaxy of suns and stars, separate systems yet all mysteriously related. Swifter than light we traveled, I and my unseen guide, through the infinite ocean of ether, until our flight was arrested by a denser medium, which I recognised as an atmosphere like that of our earth. I had scarcely recovered from this new surprise when (marvels of marvels!) 1 found myself before a huge gate of wondrous art and dazzling splendor. At a word from my still unseen guide it swung open, and I was urged within. Beneath my feet was a solid pavement of gold. Gorgeous mansions, interspersed with palaces, rose around me, and above them all towered the airy pinnacles of a matchless temple, whose points quivered in the rich light like tongues of golden fire. The walls glittered with countless rubies, diamonds, pearls, amethysts, emeralds, and other precious stones; and lovely presences, arrayed in shining garments, moved noiselessly from place to place. "Where am I?" I ejaculated, half faint with wonder. And my hitherto unseen guide, who now revealed himself, softly answered, "In Heaven." Thereupon my whole frame was agitated with inward laughter. I, in Heaven, whose fiery doom had been prophesied so often by the saints on earth! I, the sceptic, the blasphemer, the scoffer at all things sacred, who had laughed at the legends and dogmas of Christianism as though they were incredible and effete as the myths of Olympus! And 1 thought to myself, "Better I had gone straight to Hell, for here in the New Jerusalem they will no doubt punish me worse than there." But my angelic guide, who read my thought, smiled benignly, andsaid, "Fear not, no harm shall happen to you. I have exacted a promise of safety for you, and here no promise can Winter 2003-2004

be broken. " "But why," 1 asked, "have you brought me hither, and how did you obtain my guarantee of safety?" And my guide answered, "It is our privilege each year to demand one favor which may not be refused; "I requested that 1 might bring you here; but 1 did not mention your name, and . if you do nothing outrageous you will not be noticed, for no one here meddles with another's business, and our rulers are too much occupied with foreign affairs to trouble about our domestic concerns." ''Yet,'' 1 rejoined, "I shall surely be detected, for 1wear no heavenly robe." Then my guide produced one from a little packet, and having donned it, 1 felt safe from the fate of him who was expelled because he had not on a wedding garment at the marriage feast. As we moved along, 1 inquired of my guide why he took such interest in me; and he replied, looking sadly: "I was a sceptic on earth centuries ago, but 1 stood alone, and at last on my death-bed, weakened by sickness, I again embraced the creed of my youth, and died in the Christian faith. Hence my presence in Heaven. But gladly would I renounce Paradise even for Hell, for those figures so lovely outside are not all lovely within, and 1 would rather consort with the choicer spirits who abide with Satan, and hold high revel of heart and head in his court. Yet wishes are fruitless; as the tree falls, so it lies, and my lot is cast for ever." Whereupon 1 laid my hand in his, being speechless with griefl We soon approached the magnificent temple, and entering it, we mixed with the mighty crowd of angels who were witnessing the rites of worship performed by the elders and beasts before the great white throne. All happened exactly as Saint John describes. 'The angels rent the air with their American Atheist

acclamations, after the inner circle had concluded, and then the throne was deserted by its occupants. My dear guide then led me through some narrow passages until we emerged into a spacious hall, at one end of which hung a curtain. Advancing towards this with silent tread, we were able to look through a slight aperture, where the curtain fell away from the pillar, into the room beyond. It was small and cosey, and a fire burned in the grate, before which sat poor dear God the Father in a big arm- chair. Divested of his godly paraphernalia, he looked old and thin, though an evil fire still gleamed from his cavernous eyes. On a table beside him stood some phials, one of which had seemingly just been used. God the Son stood near, looking much younger and fresher, but time was beginning to tell on him also. The Ghost flitted about in the form of a dove, now perching on the Father's shoulder and now on the head of the Son. Presently the massive bony frame of the Father was convulsed with a fit of coughing. Jesus promptly applied a restorative from the phial, and after a terrible struggle the cough was subdued. During this scene the Dove fluttered violently from wall to wall. When the patient was thoroughly restored the following conversation ensued. Jesus.-Are you well now, my Father? Jehovah.-Yes, yes, well enough. Alack, how my strength wanes! Where is the pith that filled these arms when I fought for my chosen people? Where the fiery vigor that filled my veins when I courted your mother? (Here the Dove fluttered and looked queer.) Jesus.-Ah, sire, do not speak thus. You will regain your old strength. Jehovah.-Nay, nay, and you know it. You do not even wish me to recover, for in my weakness you exercise sovereign power and rule as you please. Jesus.-O sire, sire! Jehovah.-Come now, none of these demure looks. We know each other too well. Practise before the saints if you like, but don't waste your acting on me. Jesus.-My dear Father, pray Parsippany,

New Jersey

curb your temper. That is the very thing the people on earth so much complain of. Jehovah.-My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am not at all well pleased, desist from this hypocrisy. Your temper is as bad as mine. You've shed blood enough in your time, and need not rail at me. Jesus.-Ah, sire, only the blood of heretics. J ehovah.-Heretics, forsooth! They were very worthy people for the most part, and their only crime was that they neglected you. But why should we wrangle? We stand or fall together, and I am falling. Satan draws most souls from earth to his place, including all the best workers and thinkers, who are needed to sustain our drooping power; and we receive nothing but the refuse; weak, slavish, flabby souls, hardly worth saving or damning; gushing preachers, pious editors, crazy enthusiasts, and half-baked old ladies of both sexes. Why didn't you preach a different Gospel while you were about it? You had the chance once and let it slip: we shall never have another. Jesus.-My dear Father, I am reforming my Gospel to make it suit the altered taste of the times. Jehovah.-Stuff and nonsense! It can't be done; thinking people s~e through it; the divine is immutable. The only remedy is to start afresh. Could I beget a new Son all might be rectified; but I cannot, I am too old. Our dominion is melting away like that of all our predecessors. You cannot outlast me, for I am the fountain of your life; and all the multitude of "immortal" angels who throng our court, live only while I uphold them, and with me they will vanish into eternallimbo. Here followed another fit of coughing worse than before. Jesus resorted again to the phial, but the cordial seemed powerless against this sharp attack. Just then the Dove fluttered against the curtain, and my guide hurried me swiftly away. In a corridor of the temple we met Michael and Raphael. The latter scrutinised me so closely that my blood ran cold; but just when my dread was deepest his countenance cleared, and he turned towards his companion. Walking behind the great archangels Winter

2003-2004

we were able to hear their conversation. Raphael had just returned from a visit to the earth, and he was reporting to Michael a most alarming defection from the Christian faith. People, he said, were leaving in shoals, and unless fresh miracles were worked he trembled for the prospects of the dynasty. But what most alarmed him was the spread of profanity. While in England he had seen copies of a blasphemous paper which horrified the elect by ridiculing the Bible in what a bishop had justly called "a heartless and cruel way." "But, my dear. Michael," continued Raphael, "that is not all, not even the worst. This scurrilous paper, which would be quickly suppressed if we retained our old influence, most wickedly caricatures our supreme Lord and his heavenly host, and thousands of people enjoy this awful profanity. I dare say our turn will soon come, and we shall be held up to ridicule like the rest." "Impossible!" cried Michael; "Surely there is some mistake. What is the name of this abominable print?" With a grave look, Raphael replied: "No, Michael, there is no mistake. The name of this imp of blasphemy is - I hesitate to say it - the Free--"* But at this moment my guide again hurried me along. We reached the splendid gate once more, which slowly opened and let us through. Again we flow through the billowy ether, sweeping past system after system with intoxicating speed, until at last, dazed and almost unconscious, I regained this earthly shore. Then I sank into a stupor. When I awoke the fire had burnt down to the last cinder, all was dark and cold, and I shivered as I tried to stretch my half- cramped limbs. Was it all a dream? Who can say? Whether in the spirit or the flesh I know not, said Saint Paul, and I am compelled to echo his words. Sceptics may shrug their shoulders, smile, or laugh, but "there are more things in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in their philosophy." *A reference to the Freethinker, the journal edited by Foote - for which he underwent prosecution and conviction on a charge of blasphemy. Foote spent a year in prison. At the same time, a religious commission was appointed to examine the works of Mill, Darwin, Huxley, and others with the intent of bringing blasphemy prosecutions against their publishers. FRZ

Page 49

On Avoiding That Last Visit Tony Pasquarello

pled with a sickly-sweet sanctimoniousness. And little wonder, since those Christian students imagine themselves to be participants in some deadly serious, monumental struggle between divinities and demons, angels and beasts, christs and antichrists. Such fatuous nonsense afforded us countless hours of mirth; who says religion has no value? She married, quite recently, another bright, sensitive, young Atheist. They insisted upon certain modifications in the ceremony - the "hip" music

tional biblical passages on traversing certain shadowy valleys, and the talk of souls and hope of an after-life - the whole gamut of religious delusion. A nice he was bright, yes. But there had Christian funeral! been other bright ones - those One of her professors, a master who had absorbed, with an enviShakespearean scholar, brilliant theable casualness, the intricacies of symatrical director, compelling orator, and bolic logic, the twists of Platonic dialeccharismatic teacher, was also an tic, the meanderings of the Ontological Atheist, and a dear colleague of mine. Argument, the frightful paradoxes of the He frequently told me of his admiration Free-Will Problem. She had not merely for my "courage" in openly espousing brains, but a warmth and feel for Atheism and reassured me that of humanity, and a sense of humor honed course, he too was an Atheist, but someto a fine edge. Simply put, she what apprehensive about the understood what I was saying; wisdom of coming out of the A minister spoke of how he had closet in a small, closed-minded, here was one of those rare human beings who make speakheld my comrade's hand at the mid-western town, dominated ing seem to be synonymous with by hordes of fanatical fundacommunication. Most notable of end, and claimed that this con- mentalist ministers and the all, she possessed a profound Roman Catholic firmed Atheist had accepted Jesus ever-popular sense of the existential absurdiChurch (maintaining the big ty (without the preposterous high school with the super basChrist as his personal savior. existentialist metaphysics) of ketball team). And, as the years this whole sorry farce called life, passed, he began to see, with in which we find ourselves unwitting, painful clarity, that the dulling) stupefy(folk-songs and guitar), the vows oftheir unwilling, and quite amateurish playing effect of religion on his students was own composing, and the truly "now" ers. She was, and is, my friend. She was, really the root problem. He began to see touch - the female minister! But, all else and is, an Atheist. Not a joiner, not a the utter futility of attempting to transwas the same: the church, the numerous marcher - but a good Atheist nonethemit the humanistic insights of great litprayers, the appeals to God to bless the less, who rejects lock, stock, and barrel erature - revelations concerning the union. Two hundred people left the the Christian mythology, its perverse minds and bodies of human beings, their church content, secure in the belief that and demented god, and the hilarious loves, foibles, passions and powers - to a they had witnessed another good inanities of the contemporary religious befuddled class staring back blankly at -Christian marriage - a little peculiar scene, How often we would swap stories him while, all the while, they were wonperhaps, but still a good Christian marand ensuing hysterical laughter over the dering what mortal sins they had comriage. in-class gaffes of those "nice, Christian mitted that day, where they would wear Some two years before, her younger students" - she from a student, and I their permit number 666, or whether brother, in his late teens, had been tragfrom a professorial perspective. We had the "rapture" would take place before ically killed in an auto accident. She had both noted and both deplored a virtually the end of the academic year. The years told me of him - an easy-going, intellecuniversal characteristic of the Christian wore on, and he grew weary of casting tually curious lad who saw little sense in mentality - an almost total lack of a Shakespearean pearls before fundamenChristian balderdash. But the funeral sense of humor, a stern solemnity coutalist swine. Disillusioned, discouraged, service included readings of the tradi-

Reprinted from American Atheist, February 1982.

S

Page 50

Winter 2003-2004

American Atheist

defeated, he turned to alcohol, and, as it will do, alcohol turned on him, and he is dead now. Older relatives claimed the body, and he was given a proper Christian burial. A minister spoke of how he had held my comrade's hand at the end, and claimed that this confirmed Atheist had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. Soon after, a substantial trust fund was established at our campus, to provide a yearly cash award to the student contributing most significantly to the school's theater program a commendable, thoroughly humanistic gesture. But how will additional young minds be freed from the stifling bog of religion in order to become possible candidates for that theater award? The cause of Atheism receives not one penny in direct support from the life of this memorable teacher. And that is my tale of three Atheists. Summary: one Christian wedding and two Christian funerals. Score: Christianity, 3; Atheism, o. It has been well said that most Americans will visit a church at least three times in their. lives - birth, marriage, and death. There just isn't much that anyone can do about that first visit, but one would suppose that Atheists could somehow manage to avoid the second and third. Yet, incredible as it may seem, the probability is that they will not! No one need own the imagination of an Asimov to draw the moral from my brief narrative: religion is culturally so firmly entrenched, possesses so monolithic an inertial momentum, commands so dazzling an array of financial resources and so vast an arsenal of persuasive sophistry that unless an Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist or whatever takes specific preventive measures, he will almost certainly have a "good, Christian burial," and probably "a nice Christian wedding." Mind-boggling? Improbable? Not at all. Indeed, it is quite easy to conceive a scenario in which Madalyn Murray O'Hair herself is given a "good, Christian burial!" A disaffected but financially powerful son, a suit for custody of the "remains," a sympathetic, upstanding, 'good Christian judge'," and - 10 and behold - there lies the corpse of America's premier Atheist, and there stands the clergyman swaying and praying over her, barely able to conceal his gloating satisfaction. If we listen carefully, we can almost hear the quite plausible sounding eulogy, concocted of shameless fallacies and convoluted logic. Parsippany, New Jersey

"...And so, dear brethren, I tell you that she was more religious than many, for - was not Atheism a religion to her? Did she not, in her messianic zeal and tireless fervor only exemplify the zeal and fervor of our lord Jesus Christ? Will he not forgive her errors, while accepting the purity of her sincerity and integrity as payment in full for admission to Paradise? Let us pray ... " Thus is Madalyn O'Hair beatified! Given the terminal insanity of religion, its utter disregard for the canons of reasoning, and its shark-like ability to digest anything and everything, who dares cry "Impossible!" were Rome, in a hundred or so years, to declare O'Hair a saint of the Catholic Church! Although a wide and bewildering variety of flimsy considerations is often employed to justify this state of affairs, perhaps the most important is the maxim that "the funeral is not for the deceased, but for the survivors" - just as it is claimed that the nuptial ceremony is not really for the bridal couple, but for friends and relatives. Psychologists and sociologists and - of course - funeral directors stress the importance of these "ceremonies," their critical role in e.g., "grief therapy," and the churches, having capitalized on this attitude for years, echo these sentiments by pointing to the need to "sanctify" and ''bless" the central events of a human life. Besides, a religious funeral is so easy, so convenient, so proper. Those helpful clergymen with all their specialized training in counseling and consoling, comforting and conducting souls to their destinations. Why not have a religious funeral? And surely they are correct in saying that the funeral is not for (meaning 'for the benefit of') the deceased. So, it must be for the survivors; their wishes as to the tone and content ofthe service are to be respected as paramount. Actually, there is only one type of case where this argument has the slightest plausibility - the deceased Atheist has older, very close and very conventional relatives who would be deeply shocked and perhaps seriously harmed by the revelation of the deceased's Atheism. However in the normal course of events, a person is survived by contemporaries, a peer group of relatives and friends who would be, in all likelihood, well aware of that person's position on religion. But the ultimate and conclusive refutation of this reasoning is merely to point out that it would justify making of Winter

2003·2004

the funeral service a mockery of truth and a travesty of everything the life of the deceased stood for - all in the name of the comfort and pacification of the survivors. Indeed, just as it might justify - given very peculiar circumstances - a religious funeral for M. M. O'Hair, the other side of the coin is every bit as absurd. Suppose, e.g., that some of Jerry Falwell's closest relatives were to see the light and "decouvert" to Atheism. Then, if the funeral is "for the survivors," the Reverend Falwell should be given an atheistic funeral service! In truth, the real question is not who, but what is the funeral service for? . Surely, it is an occasion to assess and to memorialize the posit of this one human life. What were those unique personality characteristics which etched out an individual identity and gave it vitality and definition? What was the beloved's music? Art? Literature? What were the sports or hobbies? What was the favorite food or drink? Did the deceased delight in ice-cold draft beer, spicy meatballs, and chocolate cheesecake? Then let that be proclaimed! This is the time and place. And - of greatest significance what were the ideas and ideals that this being stood for? Towhat did he devote his time and energy and finances? What aspirations? What dreams? What sort of world did this human being wish to inhabit, and to bequeath to the future? This is truly a eulogy, one which delineates the meaning of one human life and, in so doing, confronts those in attendance with a legacy which they can either embrace or reject, in part or whole. In each case, they will know that someone lived and stood for something, and left them with a challenge - and thereby, in a small way, enriched their lives. Contrast such a service with the ordinary religious farce; hollow ludicrous, impersonal. The dreary recitation of standardized biblical gibberish - the 'Valley' passage and the 'Sparrow' passage, the 'Cleaning Lady' passage (I go to prepare a place for you) and the 'Realtor' passage (In my Father's house are many mansions). All this intoned by a bored clergyman who, in most cases, never even knew the deceased, nor knew of those things which mattered in that person's life. Is this proper memorialization? Is this a fitting close to human existence? But, here we must bear in mind one of the striking lessons of Logical Positivism - gibberish can be beautiful, touching, moving, uniquely expressive. Page 51

While, strictly speaking, nonsense is literally nonsense, it may deeply affect us, emotively. Whatever the logical failings of religion - and they are legion - one must admire its psychological adroitness in grasping this point. After all, ifit lacked both logical and emotional appeal, how account for its enormous success? Religion has managed to identify itself with much that human beings find good, important and valuable, and thereby implied that to approve the latter is to accept the former. In the mind of the typical person - even the non-churchgoer - religion connotes morality, peace, brotherhood; hospitals, colleges, charities, food programs; camaraderie and fellowship; celebration and ceremony and sanctification. The supreme task for the Atheist-humanist is to break that connection, to sever the supposed bond between religion and all those other desirable values, and to keep insisting that where religion does right, it does right for the wrong reasons. In short, the task is de-theologizing; keep whatever is of value, keep the emotive significance, the beauty, the ceremony, and discard the fantasy foundation - those theological underpinnings

which were never there to begin with. (It is no exaggeration to suggest that the opening of the first Atheist hospice or university, the first Atheist commission to a major artist or composer, the first Atheist aid program to some impoverished community - these might well be

to dedicate a portion of the battlefield. Then he went on: 'But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground.' ''You might have expected him to make the pious point here and, say that we mortals cannot consecrate anything because that is God's prerogative alone. But he didn't say that: " 'The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.' "Not just the 'right' side, but all those who fought, are the consecrators. Suffering and dying men, he suggests, have the power to make holy or sacred what was ordinary and profane before." (W. Hamilton, "The Death of God," Playboy Aug. 1966) Dedicating and consecrating, commemorating and celebrating - all these can be done "without benefit of clergy." Those focal events of life, particularly marriage and death, would seem to be excellent places to begin the detheologizing process. Humanistic Atheism has its heroes and poets, its magnificent literary stylists. After the proper sort of relevant eulogy, what could be more fitting or more moving than a reading from some of the powerful prose of Russell, Darrow, or Ingersoll? Indeed, great expressive art is, by its very nature, automatically detheologized - its aesthetic merit autonomous from any accident of religious inspiration, text, or commission. Brahms' German Requiem is no more a "religious" piece than the symphonies, and the Last Supper stands on its own merits as a study in compositional value and balances, irrespective of the silly personages, bizarre events, and quasi-cannibalistic overtones of that evening's dinner. But good intentions, appropriate literature, even the understanding of friends and their willingness to be cooperative - all these will avail as naught against the onslaught of the religious behemoth. Like making a will, funeral arrangements are easily put off until too late. And when "too late" arrives, they whoever "they" might happen to be will call for the clergy. Christianity will then record another victory and you will have - and you can bet your American Atheist membership card on this - a "nice Christian funeral."

Gibberish can be beautiful, touching, moving, uniquely • expressive.

Sna

more beneficial to the cause of Atheism than all the litigation in all the courts of all the world.) Comte saw this quite clearly in his advocacy of a secular religion celebrating the birth dates of scientists, rather than saints. So did John Stuart Mill when he urged that the Utilitarian morality and the feeling of unity be "...taught as religion, and the whole force of education, of institutions, and of opinion directed (to it), as it once was in the case of religion ... " And so does William Hamilton in his marvelous exposition of the true import of Lincoln's thinking in the Gettysburg Address "He said, you'll recall, that they had met

shotsatjasonlove.com

Really? I was killed by a man named Jesus. Jesus Sanchez.

I was run over by an ambulance.

-

-r=>. '

A small section of heaven devoted to ironic passing.

Page 52

Winter 2003-2004

American Atheist

Tony Pasquarello

S

ometimes, there is no joy in being a prophet; even a very good one.

Jerry was one of my outstanding philosophy students, so many years ago. He really shone in the logic courses, where I noted his exceptional abilities in critical thinking and analysis. After graduation and a stint in the armed forces, Jerry was employed by GM even though his degree was in education. No logical skills were needed to recognize the enormous monetary differences between those two occupations. Eventually, through savings and shrewd investment - and lots of overtime - he amassed a seven-figure-plus nest egg, and took very early retirement. Jerry's pleasures were few, and simple. Motivated by considerations of health, he became a dedicated body-builder with an impressively sculpted physique. He thought nothing of taking 4-, 6-, or 8mile daily walks, and truly loved long bike rides, especially through the glorious autumn coloration of the area's hills and dales. He had no vices - nor did he need any, since he was cursed, for most of his adult life, with a severe depression and dread of financial insecurity, despite his enviable monetary status. It was painfully difficult,for him to give anything of his, including himself. And so, e.g., he never joined American Atheists, nor any other organization. Nor did he ever take steps to insure that his final wishes would be in accord with his views. We became close friends and enjoyed, literally, thousands of extended conversations over thirty years oflunches and late-night beers. We thoroughly dissected the Nixon and Clinton presidencies, the O. J. Simpson fiasco, the Marilyn vos Savant phenomenon (Marilyn vos Savant is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for 'Highest 1Q'),the demise of the Soviet Union, and - most happily - the Martin Gardner type of

mathematical-logical puzzles and paradoxes. And I could never forget the theological puzzles and paradoxes. I was frequently impressed by Jerry's ability to unravel some knotty conundrum, and to spot the key fallacy involved or see the key to the solution when I could not. Naturally, with such intellectual aptitude, Jerry became an outspoken, confirmed Atheist. His frequent letters in the local paper enlivened and enlightened - small candles in the dreadful night of the region's religious fanaticism. Jerry's greatest fear, shared by many, was a painful, prolonged death, with uncountable quills of tubing protruding from every natural and artificial bodily orifice. He had never seen anything "precious" or "wonderful" or "unique" about human life. Life was, like death, just a fact of life. So, at 58,

attempt to insure that the service would be humanistic, in fidelity to Jerry's true beliefs. To no avail. Just prior to the service, I spoke privately with the looming, hulk of a minister. I began, "As you probably know, Jerry was a good Atheist." when the preacher interrupted me with "I don't believe there really are any Atheists." Astonished, I began again to make the same point, but elicited exactly the same response. I continued "I was hoping that, in honor of Jerry's convictions, the religious aspects of the service would not be heavily emphasized." Summoning up all his evangelical fervor, that insensitive man of God delivered his final answer: "Sir, I intend to preach the Gospel." And so he did, this holy man who could not even bring himself to acknowledge the reality of Atheists; this stranger who had never known Jerry at all. He prayed and preached and psalmed. He assured us that Jerry was in Jesus's embrace at that very moment. He memorialized my friend with a performance, Christian in every detail, from clap to trap. Little old ladies contributed anecdotes of Jerry, the boy; the boy who had mistaken cranberries for strawberries. I could have said much of Jerry, the man; the keenly rational man. I could have shattered the smug, Christian complacency of that tiny hamlet and all its resident ostriches. But, I didn't. I didn't know what to do, what was right; I didn't know what Jerry would have wanted me to do. Thus it was that the irony that passeth all understanding transpired: North Central Ohio's Atheist par excellence was dispatched to eternity with Christian credentials, under a religious pall. An outrage, a dark travesty in such contrast to the clean taste of that bright September morning in the country. Sometimes, there is no joy in being a prophet - even a very good one.

Sometimes, there is no joy in being a prophet - even a very good one.

Parsippany, New Jersey

that deplorable, incurable brain sickness did its thing; Jerry took his own life. Without any terminal affliction, with a million bucks in the bank, without a penny of indebtedness, and with the love and devotion of a good woman, Jerry left. Quickly and neatly, without pain or company. And the rest of us, so terrified and confused over death, can hardly say whether Jerry's act was one of courage or cowardice, madness or supreme rationality. At Jerry's death, his mother and brother swooped in, took charge, and decided that the venue for all proceedings would be Jerry's native village, 25 miles away; he hadn't lived there for 40 years. I first became suspicious when I noted the obituary's mention of a "Reverend" who would be conducting the memorial service. I appealed both to Jerry's mate and to his brother to Winter 2003-2004

Page 53

A Physicist's Critique of The Existence of a God by

Alfred Bahr

I

n all major religions 'God' is thought of as being the creator of men and the world, that is, the creator of the universe. This god existed already before space, time, and matter were created. God was therefore capable of residing and governing in an absolute 'nothingness' according to the theologians. Great thinkers of all times have attacked and criticized this god-idea with philosophical arguments. Despite this, the god-idea is still alive. Propped up by questionable arguments and means, it still clings to life. In what follows, this idea of a creator-god is analyzed and scrutinized with the logic of a physicist.

This essay by German physicist Alfred Bahr has been published in German in the February, 2003, issue of the philosophical journal Aufkldrung und Kritik: Zeitschrift fiir freies Denken und humanistische Philosophie, published by the Gesellschaft fur kritische Philosophie (GKP), Nurnberg. Originally published under the title "Das Problem der realen Existenz Gottes aus der Sicht eines Physikers" ("The problem of the real existence of God seen with the eyes of a physicist"), Bahr's article has received considerable academic acclaim as constituting a completely new type of proof of the non-existence of a god. Most of Bahr's professional life has been spent in the field of Satellite Technology and related fields. He now resides in Greece where he is carrying out research in cosmology. He can be reached at: alfredbahr®ath.forthnet.gr

Page 54

The belief in a creator-god stands and falls with our understanding of 'nothingness'. If it can be proved that in nothingness nothing - absolutely nothing - can exist, then the god-idea is finished. If, in addition, it can be shown that this nothingness of the theologians does not exist in reality, but can exist only as a thought, as a speculative idea in our brains, then the foundation for the existence of a creator-god has vanished and this god is revealed to be only a thought of the brain - a fantasy creation of the brain that does not exist in reality outside the brain. In what follows these proofs will be presented. It is maintained that this god already existed before he created the universe. This implies, that he was able to reside in an absolute nothingness. This nothingness is conceived as being some kind of 'super-emptiness' or 'supervacuum' in which the creator-god resides and in which space, time and matter is located after it was created by him. However, 'nothingness' is only a synonym for 'nonexistence'. Ifit is maintained that this god resided in nothingness, this only means that he resided in nonexistence. In other words, as nothing yet existed, as there existed neither space, time, nor matter, we had the nonexistence of the universe. Now this 'nonexistence' expresses only a condition, namely the nonexistence of something; it does not mean that this nonexistence is a kind of vacuum, where at the time X something can be created and can exist. A vacuum is spatial, is empty space. A vacuum, which is not spatial, that is, a vacuum which does not even contain space, does not exist, and has never existed! No one can remove the space from the inside of an evacuated container. Therefore, where nothing Winter

2003·2004

exists, that is, where we have a 'nothingness' or 'nonexistence', we can not suddenly have space, time, and matter. From this it follows that the universe can not have emerged out of nothingness. Indeed, modern cosmology teaches today that the universe emerged out of a quantum-mechanical state. In other words, before our universe emerged, there was already something existing. The universe existed, so to speak, at that time, in an embryonic state, and then separated into space, time, and matter with a bang - the 'Big Bang'! In addition, according to the newest theories of the cosmologists (physicists) there exist not only one universe, but infinitely many, all of which exist separately and are causally independent of each other. This conclusion of the cosmologists appears also plausible; if there exists one universe, why should there not be very many somehow? In this world-of-many-worlds there is, of course, no longer any room left for the nothingness of the theologians and their god who is supposed to reside in this nothingness. But let us assume for a moment, that there is such a nothingness and the god of the theologians resides in this nothingness, and let us look at the consequences of this arrangement. Their god must have at least a form and a size. In addition he must be some kind of substance in order to distinguish himself from nothingness. God cannot be just plain nothingness. But the notion of form and size are dependent already on space. But where there is no space, that is, in nonexistence, nothing can have a form or a size or a substance. In nonexistence there are no means to differentiate and to distinguish. In nothingness there is also no time-flow possible. TimeAmerican Atheist

flow is possible only in space in the nothingness, and would loose its exispresence of matter, which moves and tence. It would not be able to exist in undergoes changes. In nothingness nothingness. However, we know that the there is nothing that can move and universe is existent. Therefore there can undergo changes. There are therefore no not be such a nothingness outside of the clocks possible in nothingness. Only in universe, and we must have space-time space can we have time, and only in outside of the universe instead, so that space can something have a form, a size, the universe can exist. But in that case, and also a substance. In nothingness there can not have been such a nothingeverything loses therefore its distinness before the universe came into guishing marks, and even a god would being. This in turn means, that there not be able to distinguish himself from can not be such a creator-god, since nothingness, would not be able to choose there is no nothingness to serve as a the time X for the creation of space, domicile for this god. It is therefore time, and matter, would melt together wrong to believe that there is a 'superwith nothingness, would become identiemptiness' outside the universe, or a cal with nothingness and lose its exis'nothingness' outside the universe, or a tence, because the nothingness is nonexregion of 'nonexistence' outside the uniistence. That applies also if we imagine verse, or a beyond of space and time. this creator-god to be of a spiritual The nothingness of the theologians, with nature - whatever the meaning of that a god residing in this nothingness who notion may be. In order for a god to possessed a clock and decided to create exist, the nothingness would have to be the universe at the time X together with space and time. Only in space-time is heaven and hell, is an impossibility and existence possible. But space-time an unsurpassed absurdity! There is no always appears together with matter. nothingness and there is no god residing That means that a god could exist only in a nothingness. These ideas can exist inside the universe, provided he existed. in our brains only as a thought of fantaBut then this god could not be a 'creatorsy, but not in reality outside of our god' but has been created at the Big brains. Bang together with the universe - as a perishable creature! But let us assume again for a moment, that the uniFUNNY - TMa WAIIT verse has been created by a TO SAN ~NIN~, god out of nothingness. SOT ALSO 'WANT Logically, this universe must eVERYONE TO rnINl