Religious Implications of Atheism

German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer formulated the concept of “religionless Christianity.” He believed that “to be a Christian does not mean to be religious in some sense . . . but means to be Human” (to realize the human vocation).

An influential Protestant theologian Karl Barth has also denied that Christianity is a religion. In his thesis “Christ—the end of religion” by religion is meant any attempt to reach God “from below”. Ontological chasm between God and a human can overcome only God, and precisely in this sense the event of Christ (as action of God). Through the Incarnation God overcomes this abyss (in Christ God does for the people something that they are fundamentally incapable), because all human efforts are not enough. Similar ideas were close and to Thomas Merton—an influential American Catholic theologian, poet and Trappist monk. He was very impressed by the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and by books of Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

Throughout the twentieth century, many theologians discussed that “Christianity—is not a religion,” “Christianity—the end of religion,” “Christianity—is the trial of religion” and other theses with the same meaning. In fact, even in the Old Testament, there was a very ambiguous attitude towards religion. The Old Testament righteous (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others) did not belong to any religion. Moses spoke as a messenger of God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:15), and not as a representative of any religion.

The first affair of Moses was a struggle with the Egyptian religion, the isolation of the Jews from any influence of religious cults of other nations. For the same purpose served and all the laws of Moses and his precepts about the liturgical rites, and so on and etc. Externally, it was very similar to the cults of other nations, but the purpose was different.

The fire can be stopped with help of an oncoming fire. The best (and sometimes the only) means of combating with forest fires is ignition on the opposite side. [57 - .?However, this technique is far from being safer, more rational method is annealing of artificial fire edge.] Moses established religious rules in order to the Jews as soon as possible moved away from the Egyptian paganism. Over four hundred years of living in Egypt they are firmly assimilate the local religious paradigms. If Moses had acted in any other way, for example, would be talk about non-religious relationships with God following the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then no one would understood him. In the New Testament, the apostles abolished the entire complex religious ritualism of the Mosaic Law as unnecessary (Acts 15:19–20). However, people, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament history, still often in practice tended to magic and pagan rites.

The struggle against religion in the Old Testament sometimes took very harsh (“inhumane”, as we would say today) forms, but this was due to the exigencies of the situation. During an epidemic of plague or cholera, they do not always act humanely, and at that time, apparently, the situation was even worse. This is evidenced by the fact that despite all the strict measures, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel nevertheless separated and became half-pagans, and the rest of the house of David two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) are often inclined in idolatry.

The Bible repeatedly states that God opposes religion. Deities of any religion will not reject prayers, feasts, sacrifices, burn incense and other religious rituals in their honor. And through the prophet Isaiah, a completely different thing is proclaimed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:11–17).

Likewise, no deity of any religion will condone the destruction of its only temple (even by the hands of the Gentiles). The Jerusalem temple was the center and heart of the entire religious life of the Jews. Despite this, God twice allowed the Gentiles to destroy it. God was not worried so much about the destruction of the temple as about the hypocrisy of its servants. There is no such thing in any religion.

On the other hand, the Bible shows that religion opposes to God: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). All the hatred and all the anger that people are only capable of in relation to God was focused in the decision of the Jewish religious leaders to crucify God incarnate. This is evidenced by the parable of the evil winegrowers (Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19) and many other similar passages in the Bible.

To this we can add that in no religion does God say to people: “You are my friends” (John 15:14). And in the Bible this is the main idea, and the main priorities in it are “clean heart” (Ps. 51:10) and sincere love for God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37–40), and not at all religious rituals. Abel and Cain were brothers and made the same (in a religious sense) sacrifice. However, God’s attitude to one and the other was opposite. “The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21,23–24). This is no longer religious worship, but something more. The main question that God asks man (all of humanity) is, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15–17). And where there is love, there is liberty (including liberty from religion).

It is also important to note another aspect of non-religious Christianity, correctly noted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer: the Christian’s task is to be a real human, that is, to embody God’s plan for a human, to find and realize his true self. It often becomes possible to do this only if a man not looks back at the opinions of others, at cultural, social and even religious stereotypes. The Bible encourages a person to be himself, and not to play a false role (albeit an honorable one) imposed by social or religious paradigms.

For example, King David rode and danced while bringing the ark of God into Jerusalem, like a boy, like a commoner. His wife, Michal, told him that this was a “violation of protocol”, a degradation of the king’s dignity. But David answered her:

“It was before the LORD, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD, that I have danced before the LORD. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21–22).

Likewise, Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector and a rich man, climbed a sycamore tree like a boy to see Jesus (Luke 19:2–4). The head of the tax department is a fairly high rank, and even in that era, such behavior would have caused ridicule of the people. But Zacchaeus, like David, did not think about it, since all his attention was drawn to the Lord.

Some people, being completely turned to God, did not even look back at religious stereotypes. Religious people did not understand this and therefore expelled them from their society. St. Augustinus wrote about this, “Divine Providence often allows even good people to be driven out of Christian society, because of some extremely violent indignations of the carnal people . . . The Father, who sees the secret, secretly prepares a crown for such. People of this kind are rare, but examples are not lacking; there are even more of them than you might think.” [58 - .?Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, De vera religione, PL 34, cap. VI, 11, 128. Paris, 1845.]

And of course, there can be no religion in a baby in the womb. The greatest of all the prophets, John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth joyfully greeted the Virgin Mary, who also bore Christ in the womb at that time (Luke 1:41,44). Naturally, he did not even think about any religion at that moment. In Christian Tradition, there are many more cases when babies express their feelings for God. Therefore, we can talk about completely non-religious and even pre-verbal communication with God. For example, the gospel call “to be changed and become like children” (Matt. 18:3; 19:14) is just about this. The theologians’ formulas “Christianity is the end of religion” and “Christianity is the trial of religion” will be completely incomprehensible to children. If Christianity is defined as love for God, this will be clear to everyone.

It follows from what has been said that in the modern universal meaning the term “religion” is extremely unfortunate due to its abstractness. In any case, it would be wrong to attribute Christianity to religion in some cases.

Relationship between State and Religion

In one thing, atheists are right: in religions, the human factor plays a significant role, there is much human, sometimes too much human. Religion is a social phenomenon. This is how religions differ from pure metaphysics. One, two, or three people can philosophize about metaphysics as much as they want, but they will never create a religion. And a few people living in a desert will not create a religion. It only occurs in a fairly large society. Therefore, it would be a mistake to view any religion outside the historical, social, and cultural context. Many people are followers of one religion or another, not because they searched for a long time and found some truth in it, but simply because it is the religion of their ancestors, or they were brought up in a certain cultural environment or it is so accepted among their relatives and friends.

Atheists often misunderstand religions as myths about supernatural beings invented by someone. It’s not like that at all. The genesis and existence of religions has many aspects in common with the state. Despite the fact that both the state and religion are often the subject of discussion, there is no single universally accepted definition of these terms. This uncertainty is explained by the fact that both of these concepts are quite complex and multifaceted, and it is not at all easy to express their entire essence with one universal definition.

Hegel said that there can be no definition of the state. However, summing up the various modern definitions, it is possible to highlight its main characteristic features. The state is an institution or a series of institutions for regulating social relations and for providing internal and external conditions for maintaining a certain order in society. These relations are legitimized by ideology and traditions, with which, at least, most of the society agrees.

Much the same can be said about religion. Religion is an institution or a series of institutions for regulating spiritual relations in a society. These relations are legalized by the worldview, ideology, culture and traditions prevailing in a particular society. Religion can be associated with a certain territory, and then it is even more closely intertwined with the state, but much more often religion, like culture, has no geographical boundaries.

Many books can be written on this topic, but for now we will confine ourselves to small comments. The state and religion have a common nature—they are like two channels of one river, two trees from one root. History is replete with examples of diffusion or fusion of the state and religion. As long as there is a certain paradigm of social relations, there is its reflection in religion, and vice versa. There were many theocratic states or those where religion was one of the state institutions. The Byzantine coat of arms, the double-headed eagle, is a reflection of the relationship of almost any state and religion. They have one body and two heads. One head thinks about political or everyday issues, and the other about spiritual ones.

The question naturally arises: what about atheistic states? In them, after all, religion is either prohibited or separated from the state. However, the paradox is that the prohibition of ideology is also an ideology, and the prohibition of religion is also a kind of religion. The nature of the state and religion originates from the socio-psychological nature of man, which cannot disappear anywhere. Therefore, if you “cut off the head” of a two-headed eagle, then in its place will grow another, perhaps not at all similar to the severed, but also head. This also happens in atheistic states. Having banned the old religion, they create a new one in its place. Of course, atheists will avoid religious terminology in every possible way, but, in fact, instead of traditional religion, they create their own religion of unbelief.

For example, in the atheistic USSR, belief in God was replaced by belief in science and the dogmas of Marxism-Leninism. Dissenters (even scientists) have been repressed and discriminated against, so an analogy can be drawn with the Inquisition. There was censorship, and a completely religious cult of veneration of the relics of Lenin in the Mausoleum. Church Councils were replaced by Communist Party Congresses. The glory of the CPSU was sent everywhere (instead of the religious glorification of God), etc. etc.

When a religion is transferred to new soil, it inevitably enters into interaction with previous traditional religious ideas, because it is impossible to start from scratch. The new religion is either built into the previous ones, or there is a kind of diffusion, hybridization. That is why in Judaism there was a strict prohibition even on everyday communication with pagans; and Christians from the Jews were very wary of the conversion of pagans, and the Romans looked wary of Christianity, since they saw it as a threat to their state. History shows many examples of hybridization of religions. In Byzantium, there was often a mixture of Neo-Platonism, Hellenic paganism and Christianity, simply veiled under different names, under different masks. In Latin America and Africa, under the guise of Christian saints, they still worship their ethnic spirits, they simply changed their names and external attributes.

In general, it can be said that every person from birth is influenced by upbringing, culture, national characteristics, traditions of their country, the spirit of the era, and other social factors. On the other hand, a person has his own inner “self”; he is a personality, he can mature his own point of view, and he may even dare to challenge the traditional foundations of society. If there are enough such people, a certain critical number, then a social revolution may occur.

The same happens in religions. It is impossible not to notice that social revolutions, or significant transformations in a state, are immediately reflected in religion in this state. [59 - .?An illustrative example can be the history of the emergence of the Church of England, the transformation in France during the Great French Revolution.]