Religious Implications of Atheism

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] 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]. 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] 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] Literally about “touching” (ψηλάφηση) of the Divine was preached by the apostle Paul (Acts 17:27). [39]

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 Curé 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]

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]

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] 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.

For example, many chants of the Byzantine era contain prayers for granting victory to the Emperor over the barbarians. Under the barbarians, the Byzantines understood all foreigners, including Slavs. And Byzantium repeatedly waged such wars, where Orthodox Christians fought against Orthodox Christians. It is tragic and completely contradicts the Gospel. And then the Byzantine Empire has been gone for almost six centuries, so there is no point in praying for the non-existent Emperor. However, in Greece, these chants have been mummified and repeat in our days in their unchanged form.

Moreover, almost all church hymns are written by monks. And this leaves an imprint on the way in which the hymns were written, to which saints preferences are given and what kind of relationship they preach. But the main problem is that a significant part of monasticism was clearly or latently influenced by the ideas of Neo-Platonism and Origenism. Therefore, in church hymns, attention is focused on Origenistic Ecclesiology. [43] Repeatedly the church councils condemned Origen, but his doctrine, to one degree or another, was revived again and again in monasticism.

In conclusion, let us note once again that the central “nerve” of Christianity is the sense of God’s presence. It depends not on education, not on theoretical knowledge, and not even on the number of fasts and prayers, but on whether a person opens up to God, or aspires to him with all the soul. The religious component in Christianity can be either beneficial or harmful. Therefore, each religious phenomenon must be considered separately.

Christianity is a Paradox that Transfigurate Religion

Many Christian theologians [44] have expressed the idea that “Christ is the end of religion,” “Christianity is not a religion,” “Christianity is a judgment on religion,” or something similar. However, when comparing Christianity and other religions, one can come to the conclusion that Christianity is a paradox that is above religion and transfigurate religion.

Even Friedrich Engels, who was not a specialist in Christian theology, quite correctly noted an obvious historical fact, that Christianity “entered into a resolute antithesis to all previous religions.” [45] Indeed, for the whole world, Christianity has become a paradox, requiring a complete revision of all religious doctrines.

A paradox [46] is a phenomenon that can exist in reality, but has no logical explanation. Paradoxicalness is unexpectedness, unfamiliarity, contradiction with the generally accepted, traditional (orthodox) view. Antinomy is a kind of paradox—a combination of real facts that logically contradict each other. The antinomies of Christianity were very fond of emphasizing Christian theologians and hymnographers. Especially many paradoxes are illustrated by the liturgical hymns of Christmas and Easter. For example, the Kontakion of Holy Nativity [47] or the 15th Antiphon of Holy Friday: “Today he who hung the earth upon the waters is hung on the tree . . .”

A separate thick book could be written about the paradoxes of Christianity. In Christianity, at every step, at each dot, at every point, there is an amazing paradox. For example: the Incorporeal incarnates; the Beginningless begins; Virgo gives birth; the Sinless one suffers for the sins of the world; the Righteous Judge is condemned by criminals of the law; the Immortal dies; God experiences God’s forsakenness on the Cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34); the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords washes the feet of the disciples; the power of God “is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), etc.

It is impossible to understand this with the help of ordinary human common sense and logic. That is why the apostle Paul wrote, “We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:23). Even the apostles, the chosen disciples, after three years of daily teaching from Christ, still did not understand and did not accept much, their logic was too human. The apostle Peter rebuked him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). The apostles James and John, sons of Zebedee, asked to be on the right and left sides of Christ, i. e. receive the highest honor. The other apostles were indignant at them, since and they would like the same (Matt. 20:20–24). But Christ taught them exactly the opposite, “It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26–28). And he himself “for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame” (Heb. 12:2). And he offers the same to his followers (John 16:2). Instead of the honor they justly deserve, they often endure dishonor (2 Tim. 3:12).

The voluntary suffering of good for the victory over evil is not only “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” but the apostles themselves for a long time remained “impervious” to this new teaching. And then in history everything repeated itself. The hierarchs of many churches are still arguing with each other over the primacy of honor and will argue until the Second Coming, although Christ taught something completely different (Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:34–35). Beautiful chants, rituals, godly traditions, etc. for many may be attractive, but not self-deprecation, dishonor and suffering, even for the truth.

Therefore, no man could have invented the teaching of Christ. It’s just that no one would want it. And no one would want to follow this without inspiration from above. God whom he loves, he reproves and disciplines (Rev. 3:19), promises his followers persecutions (John 16:33). Well, who will like it? Christian teaching surpasses any human logic and common sense. Krauss says that if a voice from heaven said something to a multitude of people, it would be convincing. However, nothing supernatural, no voice from heaven, is required to distinguish the divine from the human. People without external miracles perfectly feel and understand what is in accordance with their nature and what is higher than this nature. Nobody before Christ taught to love enemies, this is contrary to human common sense.

In any religion, its adepts who can prophesy, cast out demons and perform many miracles will certainly be considered religious leaders. But this is not the case in Christianity. By performing miracles in His name, Christ can say, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers” (Matt. 7:23).

All religions require worship and service to a certain deity. This is completely logical, and according to the religious idea, the Roman emperors, the Egyptian pharaohs, the Babylonian kings demanded to be worshiped as gods, they self-deified themselves. However, in Christianity, the opposite is true. The King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15) wants love, not sacrifice, believes in man (in his potential for deification), becomes a friend to human (John 15:14) and “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Christ proclaims the anti-religious teaching that God and the supreme authority in general, and His disciples too, should be like servants, and “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Thus, Christianity is, in fact, in every point opposite to other religions.

While religion is a socio-cultural phenomenon, in Christianity God looks at the heart, addresses the depths of the personality of each person individually. Sometimes He asks provocative questions or even gives provocative commandments to see the response of a person’s soul. For example, when Christ said to Judas, “Do quickly what you are going to do” (John 13:27), he did not want to push Judas to betrayal, but on the contrary, he wanted his conscience to awaken in him. And when Jesus said to the twelve apostles, “Do you also wish to go away?” (John 6:67) he certainly did not push them away. Does God look wherever the heart of a human bows, for good or for evil?

In the Old Testament, many religious ordinances were given. For example, about the Sabbath or the fact that harlots should be stoned. But Christ did not condemn the harlot whom they wanted to stone (John 8:11) and often provocatively violated the Sabbath in front of Jewish religious leaders. They were indignant at him, and he was at them, saying, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4) God, as it were, provokes people: will you fulfill a religious commandment if it will lead to evil, or will you break a religious commandment if it will lead to good? Perhaps, the Old Testament commandment to destroy seven nations in the land of Canaan was just as provocative: do you want to become executioners?