God: The Practical Consequences

excerpted from the book

Atheism

The Case Against God

by George H. Smith

Prometheus Books, 1989, paper

p280
Ayn Rand essay, "The Objectivist Ethics"

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions-the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, S: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this: The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question 15: Does man need values at all-and why?

p283
... the discipline of ethic .. the science of human values. What are the facts of human nature that generate the need for such a science?

The first relevant aspect of human nature is an obvious one: man is a living entity, a biological organism, who faces the alternative of life or death. And, as Rand has emphasized, it is this conditional nature of life, the alternative between life and death, that generates the concept of "value":

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of "Life" that makes the concept of "Value" possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

p284
Like all existing things, animate and inanimate, man has a I specific nature; and, like all living organisms, his nature requires a specific means of survival. Unlike other life forms, however, man has the capacity for choice. While other life forms respond to their environment on the automatic level of sensations or perceptions, man's distinctive power of conceptualization permits him to deliberate before acting. He can compare his alternative courses of action, project their consequences, and decide on the action best suited to his needs. In other words, man has the ability to evaluate the alternatives confronting him; and the volitional, goal-directed action of man is motivated by his evaluations. What a man values determines how he will act. As Branden puts it "values constitute man's basic motivational tie to reality. "

We thus see that the concept of value applies to man in two different respects. First, there is the objective sense of "value," in which things are of value to man-4. e., conducive to his welfare-whether he chooses to recognize them or not. Second, there is the subjective of "value," in which "value" designates the result of an evaluative process; and a man's values, in this case, represent his personal preferences. It is possible, therefore, for a man to value things (in a subjective sense) that are not in fact of value to him (in an objective sense). Man can pursue self-destructive courses of action; he can pursue goals that are detrimental to his welfare. Nature does not provide him with an automatic means of survival.

[Ayn Rand] A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it ....

What, then, are the right goals for man to pursue? What are the values his survival requires? That is the question to be answered by the science of ethics. And this... is why man needs a code of ethics.

If man is to survive, he must have knowledge of those principles of action conducive to survival. And, beyond the level of mere survival, if man is to achieve happiness he must have knowledge of those principles of action conducive to happiness. Man must discover, through a process of reason, the values required for his survival and well-being. To live successfully, man's subjective "I value" must be derived from the objective requirements of his life. Thus, concludes Rand, "Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival ..."

p297
"Religious morality," as the phrase is used throughout this discussion, designates any code of values ultimately derived from the alleged commandments of a supernatural being. This view of morality is clearly presented in the Bible (e.g., the Ten Commandments) and is generally typical of any revealed religion.

Basically, religious morality defends a universal moral order established by god and existing independently of man. Man is born into this moral structure, where he finds that his foremost duty is to obey the dictates of his supernatural lawgiver. Morality, according to this view, serves the purpose of god, not man; and man is required to subordinate himself to the moral code. Obedience is the major virtue, disobedience the major vice.

The most obvious characteristic of religious morality is its authoritarian nature. As soon as the "good" or the "moral" are defined with reference to divine fiat, we are discussing a theory steeped in authoritarianism. And where we have an authority, we have sanctions-and where we have sanctions, we have moral rules.

p299
Religion has traditionally appealed to the will of a god justification for its moral principles. To the question, "Why should I do x?" religion has answered, "Because it is the will of god." To the further question, "Why should I obey the will of god?" religion has answered, "Because he will reward or punish you accordingly, either in this life or in an afterlife."

The power of a supernatural being has thus served as a moral sanction. One obeys a principle, not because one desires its causal result, but because one fears its sanction-in this case, the wrath of god.

The fundamental characteristic of religious morality is that it views every moral principle, in effect, as a traffic law. One is rewarded or punished according to how well one snaps into line with a prescribed set of rules. These rules, when acted upon, do have consequences (as does every human action), but the desirability of those consequences is not the agent's primary motive for acting. Instead, he is motivated to act by the sanction accompanying the rule.

The oldest and crudest form of a rule sanction is the use or threat of physical force. This is manifested in Christianity by the doctrine of hell.

The belief in eternal torment, still subscribed to by fundamentalist Christian denominations, undoubtedly ranks as the most vicious and reprehensible doctrine of classical Christianity. It has resulted in an incalculable amount of psychological torture, especially among children where it is employed as a terror tactic to prompt obedience. Many examples are available, but one should suffice. An English priest named Father Furniss wrote a series of "Books for Children" in the last century which enjoyed a wide circulation among English Catholics well into this century. Dubbed "the children's apostle," Furniss specialized in describing the tortures of hell. Here is an example depicting the torments of a child in hell:

His eyes are burning like two burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears... Sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things.

Here is another gem:

A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell-despair, desperate and horrible.

p301
The notion of sin is perhaps the most effective sanction ever invented. For a Christian, to sin is the worst thing imaginable, and the thought of committing a sin can cause intense guilt. Anyone who comes from a religious background can appreciate the tremendous psychological force of this concept. Sin represents something metaphysically monstrous, something that directly undercuts a man's sense of self-esteem, and this adds to its effectiveness as a manipulative device. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his vitriolic but penetrating attack on Christianity, clearly recognized the function of sin in this context. "Sin," he writes, "... that form par excellence of the self-violation of man, was invented to make science, culture, every kind of elevation and nobility of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin."

p302
The effectiveness of sin as a psychological sanction rests precisely on the fact that for many theists, disobeying god functions as a criterion of immoral action. Acting contrary to god's will is included within the definition of "immoral." It therefore follows, tautologically, that disobeying god is immoral, and following god's rules is considered a necessary prerequisite for being a "good" or "moral" person.

p304
... religious morality may be described as the denaturalization of values. It divorces the pursuit of values from their natural consequences and relies instead on sanctions, both physical and psychological, to motivate obedience to its moral rules. In Christianity, hell is the most prominent physical sanction; and sin, the psychological equivalent of hell, is the most common psychological sanction.

With its emphasis on obedience, enforced through the inculcation of fear and guilt, Christianity has transformed morality into something that is generally considered ominous and distasteful. With its emphasis on punishment and reward in an afterlife, Christianity is largely responsible for the notion that morality is impractical, and has little or nothing to do with man's life and happiness on earth.

The religious concern with obedience, duty and guilt stands in stark contrast to the rational conception of morality, where man is of central concern, where man's life is the standard of value, and where moral principles function for human welfare. Any link between religion and morality is not only unjustified, it is enormously harmful. The religious view of morality is still widely accepted; children are raised by it, and men attempt to live by it-with the result that millions of people practice, in the name of morality, what amounts to emotional and intellectual suicide.

p305
Reason is the faculty that enables man to identify and integrate the facts of reality. But man's reason does not function automatically; it requires the choice to exert mental effort, to actively focus one's mind. This is the virtue of rationality. Rationality is the commitment to reason, to mental awareness, to the sustained use of one's mind. A rational man's foremost concern is with facts, with what is true, and he is unwilling to sacrifice the judgment of his mind to the demands or desires of other people.

Intellectually, every man is an island unto himself; no man can assume the responsibility of thinking for another. The virtue of rationality thus entails intellectual independence and the willingness to assume responsibility for one's beliefs, choices and actions.

In direct contrast to the virtue of rationality and its corollaries, stands the primary virtue of religious morality: obedience. This, in concrete terms, is the meaning of faith. Translated into action, faith means acting without critical deliberation, acting without regard for the natural consequences of one's actions, acting because it is demanded of one by an authority. Faith requires knowledge only of one's duty and how to obey; beyond this point, it is a simple matter of conformity.

If there is a uniform theme throughout the Bible, it is that God must be obeyed ...

While the content of Christian ethics has varied throughout history, this principle has remained unchanged: God is the master, man is the slave-and the fundamental characteristic of a slave is that he is not permitted, under the threat of force, to act according to his own judgment. But the Christian God far surpasses the capabilities of any human slavemaster, for he can monitor, not only the actions of men, but their thoughts and feelings as well. The Christian God can, and does, command how man should think and feel.

It is commonly said of totalitarian power seekers that they wish to "play God." This comment has a double edge, and it is far more insightful than most people realize.

The word "faith" has a benevolent sound to many people. They think of the man of faith as a man of inner strength and compassion, such as the early Christians who, rejecting violence, were willing to die for their convictions. Yet it must be remembered that, whereas faith may have inspired acts of courage, it has also inspired moral atrocities. The Christian Inquisitor burning a heretic at the stake was as much a man of faith as the Christian martyr.

Whether their consequences are beneficial or harmful, acts of faith are united by their submission to an authoritative moral code. God demanded of the early Christians that they refuse to submit to state decrees, and they sacrificed themselves in obedience to his will. God demanded of the medieval Christians that they eradicate heresy, and they sacrificed others in obedience to his will. Men praise the former as acts of courage and condemn the latter as moral atrocities, but the underlying principles in each case are identical: passive obedience to moral rules.

When a politician asks people to have faith in their government, it is clear that he is calling for obedience and the suspension of criticism. And it should be equally clear that when a theologian speaks of faith in God, he means that divine rules are to be obeyed without question. The man who seeks truth calls on reason; the man who seeks conformity calls on faith. A morality of independence relies on reason; a morality of obedience relies on faith.

Whether the consequences of an act of faith are good or bad, those consequences are considered by the man of faith to be essentially irrelevant to the moral worth of his action. Within the framework of religious morality, the natural effects of one's actions are regarded as secondary to the issue of obedience. By focusing on divine commands, rewards and punishments, religious morality, and Christianity in particular, demands the evaluation of an action divorced from its consequences-and herein lies the primary danger. A morality of conformity, a morality divorced from consequences-this idea has sanctioned more bloodshed and devastation than any comparable notion in ethical theory. Millions of persons have been slaughtered, mutilated and tortured in the name of religious morality, in the name of obedience to a "higher," "nobler" realm.

In personal terms, obedience is a convenient escape from individual responsibility. If a man functions only as an agent of God's will, then it is God, not the man, who bears responsibility. The Christian who refuses credit for a courageous or benevolent action because he claims to have been merely obeying God's will is typically regarded as admirable. Yet, on the reverse side of the same coin, we have the Christian who refuses to accept responsibility for a moral outrage because he too was obeying God's will. Both Christians, by representing themselves as tools for divine use, seek to disown personal responsibility for their actions by shifting the responsibility onto God. Christian humility, therefore, which is commonly viewed as a harmless trait, is actually the manifestation of a wider principle which, when accepted, has taken a considerable toll in human lives.

Only if one understands the central role of conformity in religious morality, can one appreciate fully the ruthless consistency of primary Christian virtues-such as humility, self-sacrifice and a sense of sin-which, without exception, are geared to the destruction of man's inner sense of dignity, efficacy and personal worth. It is not accidental that Christianity regards pride as a major sin. A man of self-esteem is an unlikely candidate for the master-slave relationship that Christianity offers him. A man lacking in self-esteem, however, a man ridden with guilt and self-doubt, will frequently prefer the apparent security of Christianity over independence and find comfort in the thought that, for the price of total submissiveness, God will love and protect him.

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, [universe. there is something to be "saved" from. Christianity has ) nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is f potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

It is not accidental that Christianity is profoundly antipleasure, especially in the area of sex; this bias serves a specific function. Pleasure is the fuel of life, and sexual pleasure is the most intense form of pleasure that man can experience. To deny oneself pleasure, or to convince oneself that pleasure is evil, is to produce frustration and anxiety and thereby become potential material for salvation.

Christianity cannot erase man's need for pleasure, nor can it eradicate the various sources of pleasure. What it can do, however, and what it has been extremely effective in accomplishing, is to inculcate guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one's dependence on God.

p309
... Christianity has a vested interest in human misery. This central theme manifests itself again and again in Christian doctrines, and most Christian doctrines are unintelligible unless viewed in this context. The spectacular success of Christianity has been a topic of heated debate among scholars, and it is certainly true that definite historical factors influenced that success. I suggest, however, that much of Christianity's success can be accounted for in another way: Christianity, perhaps more than any religion before or since, capitalized on human suffering; and it was enormously successful in insuring its own existence through the perpetuation of human suffering.

Of course, Christianity, with some exceptions, has never explicitly advocated human misery; it prefers to speak instead of sacrifices in this life so that benefits may be garnered in the life to come. One invests in this life, so to speak, and collects interest in the next. Fortunately for Christianity, the dead cannot return to demand a refund.

Through inculcating the notion that sacrifice is a virtue, Christianity has succeeded in convincing many people that misery incurred through sacrifice is a mark of virtue. Pain becomes the insignia of morality-an , conversely, pleasure becomes the insignia of immorality.

p310
It is Christianity's obsession with conformity that leads to its various doctrines-doctrines that can only be described as profoundly anti-life. Christianity has found it necessary, out of self-preservation, to oppose the virtues of rational morality; reason, pride, self-assertiveness, self-esteem - these are the enemies of conformity and, therefore, of Christian faith.

Since the foremost aim of Christian ethics, psychologically speaking, is to cultivate a mentality of obedience, Christian ethics, to the extent that one adopts it, will cause and contribute to a variety of psychological problems. It encourages intellectual passivity, fear that one's thoughts and emotions may be sinful, guilt at the thought of sexual assertiveness, and the pervading feeling that one is basically helpless, unimportant and evil. These are serious charges which, if true, constitute an overwhelming moral case against Christianity.

p312
According to most biblical scholars, written stories of Jesus did not begin to appear until around forty years after his death. Later compiled into the Gospels, these accounts were laden with interpolations and mythology, such as the story of the virgin birth. But it was the biblical Jesus, not the historical Jesus who exerted influence, and it is the biblical Jesus to whom people refer as a great moralist. Therefore, we shall accept the New Testament account fairly uncritically, and we shall disregard the question of to what extent, if any, the biblical Jesus corresponds to its historical counterpart. We shall examine the major tenets of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels-especially Matthew, Mark and Luke which, because of their similar structure and content, are referred to as the synoptic Gospels.

Even taking the Gospels at face value does not solve all problems of interpretation. The teachings of Jesus are unsystematic, and many of them, particularly those related in parable form, are notoriously obscure. This unclarity has resulted in a wide spectrum of opinion among Christian scholars as to what Jesus really meant. Despite these divergent interpretations, however, it is interesting to observe that Christian theologians unanimously agree that Jesus was the greatest moral teacher in history. Considering the widespread disagreement over the content of Jesus' teaching, this unanimity of praise is highly suspicious.

Many Christians feel that Jesus, regardless of what he said, must have been the greatest moralist because he was, they believe, the "Son of God" (however this phrase may be interpreted). Few Christians reserve judgment, read the Gospels and, on the basis of an objective evaluation, conclude that Jesus was outstanding. Instead, believing as they do that Jesus was a divine figure, they assume beforehand that whatever he said must be vitally important, because to believe otherwise would be to cast doubt on his divinity. And this is tantamount to blasphemy.

It must be remembered that the sword of heresy looms as a constant threat over the heads of Christians, and this applies equally well to liberal Protestants. While liberals are perfectly willing to concede that the Bible contains many errors, and while they may go so far as to concede that Jesus was no more than a man, they are unwilling to admit that Jesus advocated principles which, by any reasonable standard of human decency, must be judged as morally repugnant. To overtly disown or condemn the teachings of Jesus-this is the line that no Christian, fundamentalist or liberal, dares to cross, because to cross it would be to define oneself out of Christianity. It is the limit of heresy for even the most liberal of liberals.

To avoid disclaiming the teachings of Jesus, theologians continue to do what they have done for centuries: they interpret. Passages unfavorable to Jesus are reinterpreted in a more favorable light, or they are dismissed as unauthentic interpolations. Anything will do as long as it permits the theologian to profess agreement with the ethics of Jesus; the minute he ceases to conform in this respect, he is no longer a theologian, nor can he continue to pass himself off as a Christian.

p317
The famous Golden Rule [was] advocated by Confucius 500 years before Jesus, it was also promulgated by Hillel, a Pharisee and older contemporary of Jesus. Quoting the Jewish Talmud:

And Hillel said: What thou dost not like, do thou not to thy neighbor. That is the whole law; all the rest is explanation. (Sabbath, 31.1)

p318
In Matthew 7.12, Jesus says: "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, to them; for this is the law and the j prophets." (Emphasis added.) Jesus freely admits that this precept is imbedded in Jewish tradition, thus contradicting the many theologians who prefer to credit him with the formulation.

p321
When conformity is required, as it is in Christianity, what are\ the results? To begin with, the sacrifice of truth inevitably follows. One can be committed to conformity or one can be committed to truth, but not both. The pursuit of truth requires the unrestricted use of one's mind-the moral freedom to question, to examine evidence, to consider opposing viewpoints, to criticize, to accept as true only that which can be demonstrated-regardless of whether one's conclusions conform to a particular creed.

The fundamental teaching of Jesus-the demand for conformity-thus gives rise to a fundamental and viciously destructive teaching of Christianity: that some beliefs lie beyond the scope of criticism and that to question them is sinful, or morally wrong. By placing a moral restriction on what one is permitted to believe, Christianity declares itself an enemy of truth and of the faculty by which man arrives at truth-reason.

Whatever minor points may be offered in defense of Christianity, they cannot compensate for the monstrous doctrine that one is morally obligated to accept as true religious beliefs that cannot be comprehended or demonstrated. It must be remembered that this teaching is not incidental to Christianity: it lies at the heart of Jesus' mission, and it has played a significant role throughout Christianity's history. It was this belief that "justified" the slaughter of dissenters and heretics in the name of morality, and its philosophical consequence may be described as the inversion-or, more precisely, the perversion of morality.

To be moral, according to Jesus, man must shackle his reason. He must force himself to believe that which he cannot understand. He must suppress, in the name of morality, any doubts that surface in his mind. He must regard as a mark of excellence an unwillingness to subject religious beliefs to critical examination. Less criticism leads to more faith-and faith, Jesus declares, is the hallmark of virtue. Indeed, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18.3). Children, after all, will believe almost anything.

The psychological impact of this doctrine is devastating. To divorce morality from truth is to turn man's reason against himself. Reason, as the faculty by which man comprehends reality and exercises control over his environment, is the basic requirement of self-esteem. To the extent that a man believes that his mind is a potential enemy, that it may lead to the "evils" of question-asking and criticism, he will feel the need for intellectual passivity-to deliberately sabotage his mind in the name of virtue. Reason becomes a vice, something to be feared, and man finds that his worst enemy is his own capacity to think and question. One can scarcely imagine a more effective way to introduce perpetual conflict into man's consciousness and thereby produce a host of neurotic symptoms.

Another significant teaching of Jesus, closely related to the preceding, is that certain feelings and desires are in themselves sinful. Merely feeling or desiring something can bring divine condemnation upon oneself, regardless of whether one translates the feeling into action: "every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment"; "every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This idea, as we have seen, did not originate with Jesus, but Christianity has given it an unusually heavy emphasis. Even today Christians are warned to "repent" of evil emotions, which often consists of feelings in the realm of sexual desire.

Morally, this doctrine is reprehensible, because it erases the crucial distinction between intent and action. Psychologically, however, it is nothing less than murder. It is a prescription, a demand, for emotional repression, for deliberately obstructing awareness of one's inner emotional state. Psychological health, to a large extent, consists of being in touch with one's feelings, and to believe that one is not morally permitted to experience certain feelings is to declare war on one's emotions. Of course, a psychologically healthy individual does not act unthinkingly on the basis of his feelings, but it is essential to self-awareness that he be able to experience what those feelings are.

This general attitude toward emotions runs throughout the teaching of Jesus. His second commandment, the Bible tells us, is that we should "love" our neighbor as ourselves. Aside from the content of this pronouncement, which is rather difficult to make sense of, the entire notion of commanding feelings in and out of existence is ludicrous. Love is an emotional response to values, and if we do not perceive the necessary values in many people, how are we to force the emotion of love? Jesus does not say. He simply threatens damnation for those who disobey.

We are similarly cautioned by Jesus to be meek and humble, and-even if we overlook the fact that meekness and similar passive qualities are the antithesis of self-assertiveness and self-esteem - we must wonder how the promise of reward or the threat of force can significantly alter a man's inner qualities. There is only one possibility: if the threat of force, of eternal damnation, succeeds in breaking a man's spirit-if it robs him of emotional strength and intellectual independence-he will indeed become meek and humble. Perhaps this is what Jesus was aiming for.

The best thing that can be said about Jesus' approach to human emotions is that it is psychologically naive. The worst thing that can be said is that when men attempt to practice what he preaches, they invariably inflict a great deal of psychological misery upon themselves. As Nathaniel Branden has written:

Desires and emotions as such are involuntary; they are not subject to direct and immediate volitional control; they are the automatic result of subconscious integrations .... It is impossible to compute the magnitude of the disaster, the wreckage of human lives, produced by the belief that desires and emotions can be commanded in and out of existence by an act of will.

To those who accept the validity of Jesus' pronouncements, and their wider implications for undesired or "immoral" emotions in general, his teachings are clearly an injunction to practice repression. Whether or not by intention, that is their effect. 10

Another important teaching of Jesus is passive non-resistance to evil. "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6. 27-28).

Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5.3941)

My first response to these precepts is: Why? For what possible reason should one offer oneself as a sacrificial animal in this way? Such questions, however, do not apply to Jesus, because he is interested only in obedience, not in presenting rational arguments. In fact, when viewed in this context, these commands begin to make sense. We are not to judge others, Jesus says, which is merely another facet of suspending one's critical faculties. We are to tolerate injustice, we are to refrain from passing value judgments of other people-such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil; they require the kind of intellectual and moral passiveness that generates a mentality of obedience. The man who is incapable of passing independent value judgments will be the least critical when given orders. And he will be unlikely to evaluate the moral worth of the man, or the supposed god, from whence those orders come.

In short, there is nothing virtuous in the virtues recommended by Jesus. The only thing close to an ethical precept with merit is the Golden Rule, which is a rough approximation of a fairness ethic, but even this is issued in the form of a command. Generally, Jesus commands us to have faith in God and in himself as a messenger from God-which means the sacrifice of reason-and we are reminded that God will reward those who obey and punish those who disobey. Also, we are told that God is monitoring us at every moment, and that he has complete knowledge of our innermost thoughts and feelings. If the notion of an omnipresent voyeurist does not create a high level of nervous tension and anxiety, not to mention guilt, nothing will.

It is an interesting exercise to ask oneself the following question about each precept attributed to Jesus in the New Testament: What does this precept have to offer a confident, efficacious and happy man? In the vast majority of cases, the answer will be: nothing-absolutely nothing. As Jesus himself put it, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2.17). In order to fit within the framework of Jesus' mission, one must view oneself fundamentally as a "sinner"-as evil and worthless in the sight of God. In order to accomplish this, it is precisely the qualities of confidence, efficacy and happiness that must be surrendered: "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep" (Luke 6.25). "For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14.11).

What remains after the qualities essential to a rewarding life are surrendered? Nothing-except a man without reason, without passion, without self-esteem. A man, in other words, that will find anything preferable to life on earth. Such a man may claim that Christianity has given him hope of happiness in an afterlife, but all that Christianity has really given him is an elaborate excuse, draped in a banner of morality, to continue his blind stumbling through life on earth.

Human misery is a sad spectacle. But it is sadder still when disguised as moral righteousness.

Atheism - The Case Against God

Index of Website

Home Page