Religious Implications of Atheism

Sharpie looks at the world through the prism of probability theory. However, not all people are like that, and the theory of probability is not applicable everywhere. Let us say that Krauss meets a young man with a burning gaze, and he will happily tell that he has fallen in love with a girl. “She is beautiful, the one and only,” the young man will say. Suppose, Krauss will reply, “Your statement is ridiculous. There are hundreds of millions of girls in the world with exactly the same shapes, with exactly the same physiology. There is nothing special about it. Moreover, hormones, brain substances, and social patterns trigger your emotions. Therefore, the likelihood that your statement is true is low.” Will Krauss leave unbeaten after that? Great question!

Krauss’s picture of the world is dull and uncheerful. This is the picture of formulas and equations. This is a world without love, without spiritual achievement, without spiritual enlightenment. Everything in it is subject to the theory of probability, the impersonal laws of physics and chemistry. It has no purpose, no meaning.

Krauss’s theses testify to his complete lack of understanding of the essence of the issue. Religions are, first of all, spiritual states that defy description and cannot be expressed in words. Moreover, no science can say anything about them. Even religious scholars who study any religion from its texts, but have not experienced its spiritual experience, cannot adequately describe it. They are like people studying musical notation, but not knowing how they sound.

Christian ascetics and Islamic Sufis said that their goal was the comprehension of the Truth. In addition, this goal can be achieved not through reason, logic, and reasoning, but only with the help of love, conscience, and purity of heart. [34 - .?Hereinafter, everywhere by “heart” we mean a metaphor meaning a certain spiritual center or spiritual depths of a person. This metaphor is used very often in the Bible. In general, the “heart” in it is often called the center or depth. For example, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). It is obvious that the Earth does not have a heart (as a physical organ), but has depth.] In a state of spiritual imperfection, in an abnormal state, people are not able to see things as they really are. An imperfect person, due to his imperfection, without even realizing it, perceives the truth as distorted, and not as it really is.

Yet, Krauss never said, in what way is Islam or Christianity or Judaism contrary to what we know about the universe? He did not say because they did not contradict anything. So all Krauss’s accusations are unfounded.

On the other hand, Krauss’s argument can be rephrased in relation to atheism. Atheism is not unique. Everything has been said thousands of years ago. Even the ancient sophists wrote down all possible lines of thought, long before Krauss. Moreover, atheism can also be called one of a thousand religions. After all, religious people have always looked for common sense and engaged in science. Moreover, the penchant for myths is a feature of culture and psychology. There have been and are myths in science too.

[00:36:51] Krauss: The first part of the false promise is that Islam is special. Not special at all . . . It is just like all the rest.

Comment 15

Krauss did not study Islam, and he cannot say how Islam is similar to other religions. Therefore, all of his statements about the similarity of religions are groundless and fundamentally wrong. Although in Islam there are some borrowings from Christianity, Neo-Platonism, and Buddhism, the presence of some borrowings from three religions does not at all mean similarity with all. If we talk about Christianity, then everything in it is connected with the Incarnation from beginning to end (Matt. 16:15–18). This is the meaning of the creation of the world, and the meaning of human life. There is nothing like this in any religion.

[00:37:00] Krauss: And atheism is not a religion. It is just, in fact, it could be described as “common sense”. Ok? What make sense? I will think that those things that make sense are likely, and others things that do not make sense are unlikely prefer to assume that rationally understood events are probable, while are unlikely. In fact, science is all about. Okay . . .

I am an educator (may be it is flaw, but it is that it is). That means I believe in actually trying illuminate ideas and lead to discussion, critical thinking, and eventually learning things and increase in knowledge. Debates are not made for that. Debates are rhetorical devises . . .

[00:38:20] Krauss: So, the first thing I want to say, however, I want to clear some misconceptions. This idea of deductive arguments, which sounds good, is not the way we learn about reality. Okay. Deductive argument is just do not work. It leads to irrational actions. In fact, if we discuss “what common sense is?” The common sense is taking your beliefs to conform of the evidence of reality so you make rational actions.

Comment 16

Socrates and Plato would say the same thing about religion that it’s just common sense, and aligning your beliefs with reality data to perform rational actions. By the way, in the Byzantine era they were portrayed in the vestibules of churches and were called “Christians before Christ”, since long before Christianity they presented some Christian theses. Note that no angel from heaven said anything to Socrates and Plato. They made their conclusions solely based on logical reasoning and common sense.

In the Bible, the word “wisdom” occurs over two hundred times. For example, King Solomon wrote, “Get wisdom; get insight: do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you. The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever else you get, get insight. Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her” (Prov. 4:5–8). Moreover, in the book of Ecclesiastes it is written, “Applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with” (Eccl. 1:13).

Thus, atheists have no monopoly on common sense. In Christianity and Islam a lot is said about the search for truth and wisdom. Therefore, as much as Krauss would like, in this respect atheism is not something unique. In fact, science was born and grew up in the religious tradition.

On the other hand, common sense and rational actions are not the only and universal tools for cognizing reality. Is it possible to love or compose music, poetry, paint pictures, relying only on common sense and rational actions? Of course not.

[00:38:51] Krauss: If you force reality conformed to your beliefs, you make irrational actions. So, you could do things, based on your beliefs, on your a priori beliefs . . . For example, your a priori belief could be that if you pray to Allah, then you can jumping out of the fourth storey from window of this building and you will land safely. Okay? That could be a priori belief . . . And, in fact, you could deduce based on all your beliefs and all of the evidence that you are a good person, and Allah would takes care of you, or whatever you call it, and you will be fine. I would take the elevator down. And only one of us could be walking at the end. That is not deductive. It is based on empirical evidence. Ok.

Comment 17

Neither Tzortzis, nor any other Muslim, jump out of windows, but ride down the elevator. The example is not relevant. Moreover, this is stupidity and slander. In addition, it is he, Krauss, who tries to deduce facts from his beliefs, a priori beliefs. Krauss did not have any mystical experience, and therefore his a priori conviction is the belief that there is no God. Nevertheless, Krauss’s empirical data is completely insufficient to draw any conclusions by the method of induction.

[00:39:35] Krauss: So, arguing that something does not makes sense to you, is based on the fact, the assumption that you know what is sensible in advance. But we do not know what is sensible in advance until we explore the world around us. Our common sense arise, in the fact, on the savanna in Africa to avoid lions, not to understand quantum mechanics, for example.

Comment 18

Krauss never ceases to amaze. I would like to believe that he is sincerely mistaken, and not maliciously. However, it is difficult to imagine how a person in their right mind could say that. According to Krauss and other atheists, the universe, and all of its contents, arose from random processes. However, at no stage in the chain of random processes can a purpose appear. Randomness and purpose are two opposites. Atheistic evolution, because of a chain of random processes, is blind and meaningless, and it cannot lead to the emergence of purpose and meaning. It is impossible to reasonably explain how hydrogen atoms were able to accidentally self-organize into living creatures that have desires, purposes (for example, not to be caught by a lion) and some “common sense”.

In addition, if common sense, as we understand it, originated in the African savannas, then antelopes and gazelles would succeed in it more than humans would, because lions hunt mainly antelopes. However, we do not know of a single animal that, at least in an embryonic form, had an interest in the study of the surrounding world, in science, art, creativity. Evolution has not bequeathed us to understand anything, because it is blind and meaningless. There is not a single rational explanation of how evolutionary self-consciousness of a person, his thirst for knowledge, and all types of creativity could arise. From the point of view of evolution, all this is superfluous and unnecessary, and therefore there is nothing like this in the animal world.

[00:39:59] Krauss: As I often said, common sense our deductions might suggest that you cannot be in two places at once. That is crazy. But, of course, an electron can do it. It is does not make sense because we did not evolve to know about it, we have learned about it . . . We force our common sense to change. And it is called learning.

Comment 19

Christian theologians have had to solve paradoxes that are far more surprising. How can God be in all places at the same time? How can the Trinity be absolute Oneness? How can the Uncreated God, existing outside of time and outside the material world, at some point in history unite with material human flesh? How can the Immortal die? How can God be separated from God (from himself) on the Cross? This and much more simply does not fit in the head, and it seems impossible. Theologians have to study this, and Christians make their common sense change.

Therefore, the example from quantum mechanics does not explain anything. This is not the difference between atheism and religion. Religious people have also studied and are engaged in quantum mechanics and strive for learning.

Nevertheless, it is good that Krauss draws attention to an important fact: human common sense can be a false guide and inadequate to talk about reality. Therefore, the topic of the debate was not formulated quite correctly. Let’s say one of the respected interlocutors convinces the audience that his worldview makes more sense. But a worldview, which seems to makes more sense, may inadequately reflect reality. And then all this common sense that a person hoped for has no value.

What does Christianity say? Will it be based on common sense and earthly wisdom? Not. “For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart . . .’ Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:19–20) The human mind encounters many paradoxes in Christianity.

On Christianity and Religions

Uneasy Relationship of Christianity and Religion

Before talking about Christianity and religion, it is advisable to briefly talk about the very concept of “religion”, because during debates, interlocutors often means by “religion” are completely different phenomena. For example, before the Middle Ages, the term “religion” had a very narrow meaning and denoted godliness, piety, worship of God, or something like that. [35 - .?For example, Acts. 17:22 “Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, ‘Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way’.” Gr.: «??????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???• ?????? ?????????, ???? ????? ?? ??????????????????? ???? ?????».] Only specific ideas and related practices were called religion. Later, from about the eighteenth century, the term “religion” began to be given a broad and universal meaning.

To solve the terminological problem of determining religion, we offer the following arguments. Any idea in the field of worldview, social relations and cultures is usually materialized and externally expressed by any ceremonies, rites and rituals. As a rule, these ceremonies and rites follow their idea in the event of her evolution, but sometimes they can break away from her, closing in themselves. Thus, the formation of a conditional “body” of religion occurs similarly to the formation of state and cultural traditions, because the action of the same laws of psychology.

For example, the Byzantine emperors were always escorted by spear-bearers (doriforians) during any events. In fact, it was not a guard, but an honorary escort as an expression of the highest honor. The Christian concept of God as the Heavenly King began to be expressed through similar symbols. For example, at the Liturgy, in the Cherubic hymn, depicted the image of God—the Universal King, surrounded by the angelic ranks of the doriforians. The Bible does not say anything about any doriforians angels; this metaphor entered Christian worship from the Byzantine court ceremonial.

Over time, these external expressions of ideas may change. In our time, there are no more doriforians, but the salutation of the highest honor to especially significant persons is still expressed through honorary escort. The Pope has a Swiss guard; the presidential cortege is accompanied by an honorary escort of motorcyclists.

Thus, the conventional “body” of religion—its expression in the social and cultural sphere—is formed according to the same psychological laws as non-religious phenomena, such as art. Therefore, it is possible to find parallels and analogies of religious phenomena with non-religious ones, and this will facilitate understanding of the processes taking place in any historical religion.

Also we should take into consideration the fact that, for various reasons, other ideas, parasitic and even opposing, can mix with the main idea and co-exist in parallel with it. For example, the purpose of art is art itself. If an artist starts thinking about commerce, then he loses inspiration and sense of beauty [36 - .?Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin and other painters, whose work is now estimated at $100 million per painting, lived in poverty and barely made ends meet. Also, in music, the brilliant Mozart and others geniuses lived in poverty, while the less talented were much better off.]. Likewise, in Christianity, some of the fundamental ideas are non-possessiveness and humility: “You cannot serve God and wealth,” “You received without payment; give without payment,” “Whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave” (Matt. 6:24; 10:8; 20:26–27), etc. But historical Christianity provides many examples of Christians doing exactly the opposite.

What’s going on? Why Christians are often live quite differently from how the Holy Scripture teaches them? By the way, the same thing can be said about the followers of other religions. This question is sometimes asked by atheists, but most of all it worries the believers themselves.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh tells on this subject a very remarkable case. Once, he spent three days of talks on the spiritual life for a group of students who were to be ordained in the Anglican Church. At the final meeting, one of the students on behalf of the others, in front of all the teachers, asked, “How can we find again the faith that led us to the theological school, and which the theological school destroyed?” That is the situation. That’s the edge of the sword! And this is a key question for the future of modern Christianity!

Both Darwin and Stalin were going to become priests, but the church educational institution destroyed their faith, and they became militant atheists. There are so many such examples that it is impossible to attribute all this to special cases and exceptions. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, theology flourished in Russia: many achievements of church science remain unsurpassed to this day. However, four Theological Academies and hundreds of Seminaries ruined the faith in many of their graduates. The atheist revolution of 1917 would not have been possible without the active support without the active support of graduates of religious educational institutions.

In the Bible, some regions, countries, and nations are sometimes described as being one person. Using the same metaphor, one can ask the cardinal question of an Anglican student already on the scale of the entire Christian civilization: “How can Christians revive that faith for a better understanding of which Christians have been creating theology and establishing theological institutions for one and a half thousand years? Why did these theological institutions destroy faith and lead many people to atheism?” Where was the mine of the delayed action hidden? Is this the reason that Greek theologians tried to present Revelation in the language of ancient philosophy? Or is the reason in Western scholasticism, which also used the logic of Aristotle?

Indeed, countries with “young” Christianity, such as Ghana or Samoa, are distinguished by their sincerity and liveliness of faith. There is no crisis of faith and, moreover, no atheism there at all. At the same time in Europe, with its two thousand-years-old Christian history, atheism dominates.

Most likely, the reason for this is not so much in theology and not so much in the conversion of Christianity into a religion, as in betrayal of the fundamental principles of Christianity. Very often, the attention of Christians was focused on ethics and moral perfection: how to become better, fairer, more restrained and kinder. But all this is not the great purpose for which God created man. The main message of Christianity is that God became the Son of so that man could become the son of God. Various holy fathers formulated this idea a little differently, but the meaning is exactly that. [37 - .?See Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus haereses, III, 10, 2 and in the Prologue of the chapter 5); St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Contra Arianos I, 39). Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian said about the same thing.] That is, the Creator, being God ontologically, calls man to become a god by grace. Man was created in God’s image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) in order to achieve not only a moral, but also a personal relationship with his Creator.

Therefore, the central nerve of the Christian life is the sense of God and living relationship with him. [38 - .?See Скабалланович, «Что мы ждем от обновленных монастырей?», 20.] Literally about “touching” (????????) of the Divine was preached by the apostle Paul (Acts 17:27). [39 - .??????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ?? ??????????? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? (????. 17,27).]

Although it is possible to experience God outside the religious context, the elements of religion either immediately follow or are present as a background. For example, in the life of the Catholic priest, saint Curе of Ars, the following incident is told. Coming to his village church, he found there an old peasant who sat for hours, apparently without even praying. And once the priest asked the old man: “Grandpa, what are you doing here, sitting in church for hours? I noticed that your lips do not move in prayer and your fingers do not run along the rosary, you just sit and look straight ahead. Explain to me what’s going on?” And the old man answered with a smile, “I am looking at him, he is looking at me, and we are so good with each other!” [40 - .?Quoted from: Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 715.]

Another typical example is given by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. A man came to his temple to deliver a package for one of the parishioners. He was a convinced atheist and wanted to come after the service, but by chance he came too early. After the service he stayed and turned to the priest with the question, “What is happening in your church? I came here knowing that there is no God, knowing that all this is fiction. But I sat through part of the service, and something struck me. Does it flicker of candles, singing or something else?” The priest answered him, “If you were a believer, I would say that this is God’s presence. But if you know that there is no God, then I cannot say anything.” He then thought and said, “Can I come somehow, when there will be no one in this temple, when you leave, so that nothing will affect me? I want to be alone, to look and smell if there is anything here, or just emptiness, an empty space.” He came several times and then said, “I don’t know if God exists, but I know for sure that there is something here, because when I am alone in the temple, I feel some kind of incomprehensible, unintelligible presence for me . . .” This unbeliever was able to feel something that believers who visit the temple regularly do not often feel.” [41 - .?Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 821–822.]

On the one hand, both a believing peasant and an atheist were able to sense God in an empty temple. And worship, and religious education, and theology, and rituals would only hinder them. On the other hand, they felt God in the temple, not in a museum, theater, or university. Due to theology and liturgical tradition, this temple arose as a meeting place with God. Divine services in it became that background, a prerequisite, thanks to which it became possible to feel God’s presence in the silence of an empty church.

All these examples show that Christianity is not identical with religion, but when trying to separate one from the other, there is a risk of losing something essential and important. However, the revision of historical Christianity is necessary for the sake of purification from everything superficial, extraneous, and alien to it. The bottom of the ships is overgrown with mollusks, which increase the ship’s friction against water. Because of this, the ship loses speed and in vain spends fuel. In addition, fouling makes the ship heavier [42 - .?For a large ship, the additional harmful cargo can be several hundred tons.] and increases its draft. Therefore, ships are periodically docked, scratched, cleaned the bottom and painted. Something similar is required for Christianity.

For example, in the Orthodox Church, the revision of the liturgical texts is long overdue. Often, parishioners do not fully understand what they hear in worship, due to the archaic language. Some people like this situation, and they make their misunderstanding even sacred. And they are happy in their ignorance. If you make a translation and explain the meaning of these texts, then Christians will be horrified and will make a sad discovery: in two thousand years, the “church ship” has increased not only by a huge number of ballast, but in this ballast there is also a lot of heretical and alien to Christianity.