Henotheism & Monolatry

 

Henotheism (Greek for "one god") is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean devotion to a single primary god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. Müller stated that henotheism means "monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact".

 

Monolatry (Ancient Greek: μόνος, romanized: monos, lit. 'single', and λατρεία, latreia, 'worship') is the belief in the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity. The term monolatry was perhaps first used by Julius Wellhausen.

 

Monolatry is distinguished from monotheism, which asserts the existence of only one god, and henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity.

 

Both Matt Dillahunty and Dr. Richard Carrier contend that the Jews of Abraham’s time were Henotheistic; they considered the other gods (Baal, ISIS, Ra, etc.) as real but worshipped their local tribal god, YHWH. 

 

Abraham’s father, Terah or Terach (Hebrew: תֶּרַח Teraḥ), worshipped many gods; he was polytheistic So, it must be assumed were other Hebrews.. Terah made graven images of them - again, an assumedly an ordinary practice. 

While he was away, his son, Abraham, burnt them all. Abraham claimed that the other gods had had an argument and did the burning themselves. Evidently, Terah bought or accepted this nonsense as possible. (gods being what they are, I suppose) Thus, was the henotheist worship of YHWH initiated. The YHWH sect was established with a single worshipper, Abraham. 

 

Henotheists – that’s what the Israelites were at the time of Abraham and afterwards. 

 

This would explain why the first 4 commandments out of 10 are regarding the worship of ‘the One, True god’.

 

1.   You shall have no other God's before me.

2.   Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. 

3.   Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 

4.   Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. 

 

What a lot of narcissistic rot.  If the desert war deity, Yahweh, were the only ‘god’ around, why impose such commandments that sanctified and demanded worship of it/himself before all other gods?

 

This idea in essence has broached before this and it makes good sense as it provides a link between polytheism (pantheons of gods, each with individual traits, associations, abilities, domains, predilections and provenance) and monotheism. 

 

‘Our god is the best god of them all. Defy it/him and die!’

 

That the Hebrews were henotheistic would also explain why YHWH is so jealous. He was vying for a position amongst other gods. Maybe like Neil Gaiman’s ‘American Gods’, if YHWH lost the Hebrews, he’d have faded away without worshippers and bloody sacrifice.

 

That the Jews were henotheistic would also explain why the Israelites made a Golden Calf after Moses disappeared for too long in the Sinai collecting god’s commandments on the stone tablets; they'd lost faith and looked to another god - one’s whose image they molded from their own gold. 

 

(…er…WTF? Gold? They had gold? They were slaves on the run from Pharoah, yet they had gold enough to make a statue? Where’d they get all the fucking gold? Let alone enough to shape into a god they’d hoped to worship and get them out of the fucking desert at last.)

 

Note that the first four commandments were to protect YHWH from competition; YHWH stakes a claim and assures his franchise by commanding ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ (Hebrew: לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני)

 

That’s an interesting injunction if there were no other verifiable gods around to worship; no graven images, no taking the name in vain, keeping the Sabbath holy, and so on. Only then does the god get to the part on how these pathetic desert wanderers were meant to treat each other. 

 

Thou shalt not steal… No shit, Sherlock. 

Hammurabi already chiseled that in stone. 

Or tell a lie? Were the Israelites a pack of uncivilized hooligans before this? They learned no manners in Egypt-land? How did they keep from killing each other before this?

(See Morality)

 

Odd that thought crimes and sex crimes seem to stand out amongst the vague though mundane injunctions against killing, theft, lying and dishonoring your parents.

Thou shalt not covet. (Isn’t that the basis for capitalistic trade?) 

 

Thou shalt not kill? Could you be less specific, god?

Kill what? Goats? Wheat? Grub worms? 

Sometimes translated as ‘Thou shalt not murder.’

Unless commanded by god to commit genocide, perhaps is the addendum to that commandment. Ask the Canaanites or the Amorites.

 

In fact, YHWH commanded the Israelites to kill everything in the ‘Promised Land’; men, women, children, livestock, etc. 

 

WTF is with the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ injunction then?

 

Question: why a golden calf? 

Glad you asked.

It must be noted that one form that the gods of the Bronze Age took was a bovine one; cows, bulls, oxen, calves. The prize of the tribe or the nation was cattle. 

 

Gavaevodata is the primordial bovine of Zoroastrian cosmogony and cosmology, one of Ahura Mazda's six primordial material creations and the mythological progenitor of all beneficent animal life.

Another Zoroastrian mythological bovine is Hadhayans, a gigantic bull so large that it could straddle the mountains and seas that divide the seven regions of the earth, and on whose back men could travel from one region to another.

 

The Iranian language texts and traditions of Zoroastrianism have several different mythological bovine creatures. The bull was also associated with the storm and rain god Adad, Hadad or Iškur. The bull was his symbolic animal. The Sumerian guardian deity, lamassu, was depicted as hybrids with bodies of either winged bulls or lions and heads of human males. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh depicts the killing of the Bull of Heaven as an act of defiance to the gods by Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

 

(Fuck with the god’s bull and you get the celestial horn.)

 

Also in the Sumerian religion, the chief god, Marduk is the "bull of Utu" and Babylon used huge sculptures of bulls as emblems of their King. The Minoan god of the Labyrinth, the Minotaur, was a bullish creature. ‘Apis’ was the bovine god of ancient Greece. 

 

(Incidentally ‘apistavist’ is the term that means one does not Believe in any religious notion.)

 

The Olympian chief of gods, Zeus, took the form of a bull to rape Europa. A very virile form. In Hinduism, Shiva's steed was Nandi, the Bull. Aurochs (the precursors to modern cattle) are depicted in many Paleolithic European cave paintings as mighty beasts. Indeed, though not manifestations of gods, amongst several African tribes (the Maasai, the Mundari, the Dinka) cattle are still highly valued, esteemed and are taken as signs of wealth and ‘heavenly blessing’. 

 

In summation, cattle – specifically bullocks – were manifested in many godly panoplies throughout history, hence, when the Israelites grew weary of waiting on YHWH to deliver, they turned to a tried and true representation of a generic Bronze Age god; a golden calf.

 

Much later, in Abrahamic religions, the bull motif became a bull demon or the "horned devil" in contrast and conflict to earlier traditions. So, the devil got horns – to denigrate Ba’al and disassociate YHWH from the old symbology, perhaps?

 

Where were we before we dove down the rabbit hole of the Bulls and the Golden Calf? Ah, yes, ‘the Hebrews as henotheists’.

 

To give this henotheism idea longer legs, YHWH, when dealing with the shenanigans around the Tower of Babel, says, “Man has become like us.'

YHWH says this to himself, by the way; or was it to his lieutenant Satan?

(see below)

 

A quick side note: Trinitarians, (Catholics) will claim that the other two ‘gods in one person’ are/is to whom the ‘father’ is speaking. Trinitarianism, it would seem, is a kind of rump version of polytheism and henotheism combined. A missing link! 

The Catholic/Christian ‘3-in-1’ god is a kind of half-step from polytheism to monotheism with its ‘Holy Trinity’ conundrum. Three-in-one or One-in-three. Sounds like a bit of confused sophistry but there you are. 

(Anyone care to re-read Alexandre Dumas?)

It’s a massive head-ache to reconcile the issue; one which the Church managed to side-step by murdering all those who would openly question such immense piffle. 

 

(Nota bene: Such speculation and ironic jocularity would have meant a one-way trip to the stake in earlier times.)

 

 

Ba’al and Yahweh

 

In non-Biblical sources, “the ba’al” refers to the Phoenician storm deity, likely understood to be a form of Yahweh. The related term, “the ba’als”, is used separately as a collective for gods.

 

The myth of Ba’al was also a way of explaining seasonal cycles. In the myth, Ba’al is slain by Mot and is considered to be dead until he miraculously comes back to life through the aid of Anat; so, Ba’al is a dying a rising god just as Jesus would be centuries later.

 

(Ooh-boy, more gods than you can shake a stick at, right?)

 

In the Gnostic texts, Yahweh is the demiurge; that is not a supreme god but a demi-god that was created by the aeon (or minor goddess) of wisdom, Sophia. Yahweh, then created a celestial world (not this one) and is a malevolent sub-god who does not deserve worship. This brain-twisting story can be read in the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ in the Bible canon of the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the Gnostic gospels. 

 

It may be noted that the gods have been spoken of here as if they were real entities. This is done to provide the basis of an understanding of the minds of the people of the era. Of course, none of these gods existed but in the minds of these people. The Biblical Abraham and his father, regarded their own gods, polytheistic and then henotheistic before winnowing out the weaklings and declaring one god, YHWH, the winner.

 

Ba’al (also given as Baal) was a Canaanite-Phoenician god of fertility and weather, specifically rainstorms. The name was also used as a title, however, meaning “Lord” and was applied to a number of different deities throughout the ancient Near East. Ba’al is best known from the Bible as the antagonist of the Israelite cult of YHWH.

 

Ba’al and YHWH were each a god in a panoply of gods. The word ‘ba’al’ also means ‘Lord’, ‘god or deity. As silly as this sounds – as neither were more than mental constructs – Ba’al and YHWH were in competition. Ba’al had the Canaanites; Yahweh had the Israelites.

The two tribes were at war. Baal was the god of harvest, rain, dew and fertility; YHWH was the god of war. 

 

As a reminder to further confound you ‘dear reader’, YHWH and his/its rival, Baʿal were both associated with the bull as it symbolized both strength and fertility. (The link to the Golden Calf, again) 

 

(Oi, my aching head.)

 

Again, it must be stressed that none of these gods are or were real. 

It must be noted that Ba’al is cited as one of the Dying and Rising gods (i.e. resurrected gods ) by Dr Richard Carrier on findings by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger  documented in his book ‘The Riddle of Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" 

 

But we press on…

 

Satan, Ba’al and that stuff

 

When YHWH tested Abraham by telling him to kill his son Isaac – telegraphing the whole ‘only begotten Son’ episode played out in the New Testament -, YHWH’s motivation was to see if Abe would either be a loyal servant or ‘fall away’ and worship some other desert deity. 

 

Interestingly, prior to the Persian conquest of Judea, the Hebrews had a different role for Satan (Lucifer the Light Bringer) Once conquered, the Hebrews were influenced by the dualistic Persian religion; Zoroastrianism. 

 

Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia depicted an eternal, cosmic battle between Light and Truth (led by Ahura-Mazda) and Darkness and Deceit (led by Angra Mainyu). 

 

Satan might well have been originally the right-hand man (angel) of YHWH. Then, after the Hebrews were conquered by the Persian Empire, Satan became the ‘adversary of god’. This would more or less reflect the dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism with the supreme Ahura-Mazda in the position of YHWH and Satan in the position of Angra Mainyu.

 

Satan’s role in the temptation (torture) of Abraham might well be seen in light of the notion that Satan, prior to the Zoroastrianism influence was YHWH’s lieutenant (and perhaps advisor) in this and all affairs. 

 

Enter the story of Job: WTF is with that? Pick the best guy, happy, content, big family, prosperous, healthy and a devote worshipper of the big kahuna ‘YHWH’. 

 

Satan challenges ‘god’ (huh?) to bring death, disease and ruination upon Job as a ‘test’? The all-knowing part gets glossed over again. And so, the story goes with Job’s family murdered, Job covered in boils, his life in ruins, all to ‘prove’ that Job is devout and committed to the jealous, petty god of ‘creation’ with the able assistance of Satan as adversary or as lieutenant.

 

Once again – WTF?  

 

If this same, sad, silly story had been written by J.K. Rowlings, publishers would chucked her out of the office. 

 

The absurd notions of most Biblical tales (Adam & Eve, Noah’s flood, the Resurrection, the virgin birth, etc) told with the unspoken warning that questions were out of the question and are an affront –to ‘god’ and all righteous people. 

 

Question the sheer insanity of Noah living to the age of 900 years invokes curses of ‘Blasphemer!’ and accusations that the questioner was being prompted by Satan.

 

“How is Satan so powerful?” Lucifer was cast out (after exercising free will) and given Dominion over the under-world (where did that come from?)

 

‘God’ made the angels (at some point) and made Lucifer – the Light-bringer…

 

(a kind of Prometheus: (Who is Prometheus? In Greek mythology, Prometheus is one of the Titans, the supreme trickster, and a god of fire. In common belief, he developed into a master craftsman, and in this connection, he was associated with fire and the creation of mortals.)

 

To the point, though, Lucifer/Satan was made to be close to the power of ‘god’. Was Satan originally YHWH’s lieutenant before Zoroastrianism turned him into the lying adversary?

(Tolkien did a similar thing with Iluvatar and Melkor in the Silmarillion, a much better story than the Bible.) 

 

Then – the story goes – that Lucifer rebelled against ‘god’ (Tolkien’s Melkor does, too) waged war and was cast out of heaven. Was this the first exercise of ‘free will’? 

 

So, now Lucifer - renamed ‘Satan’ – goes on a tear of evil bad-doings out of spite or hate or something, First, in the Garden, tempting Eve as a talking snake (I love that) and then throughout the Bible as the baddie; Job, Jesus, etc. 

 

Again…

 

Satan was made in god’s image, so the story goes. He vied with god and was cast down, so the story goes. This raises loads of questions about god’s power and god’s knowledge; Why didn’t god simply ‘wish’ Satan out of existence? Why ‘create’ Hell for the devil (Satan) to rule in? 

 

Why didn’t god foresee that Satan would revolt and take a host of angels with him? 

Why does god allow Satan to continue to vie for the ‘souls’ of humanity? 

Why did god enter into a pissing contest with Satan about Job? 

Why did god follow Satan’s ideas to torture Job and test Job’s faith? First, didn’t god already know the future about Job? 

Second, why did god allow Satan to have influence over the torturing of Job; all of the torturing, the murder of Job’s children, etc were done by god, him/itself. 

Why?

Why did god allow Satan to tempt Jesus? 

Why didn’t Jesus understand that everything offered by Satan was already Jesus’s by dint of his being god?

‘Mysterious ways’ – amounts to bullshit responses to serious questions regarding god.

 

Is Satan eternal? According to the story, Lucifer (the light giver – smacks of Prometheus, does it not?) was there in ‘Heaven’ with god and predated the creation of the earth, etc (so the story goes…)

Why does Satan continue to exist? More ‘Mysterious ways’?

 

Who were these Canaanites whom God ordered to be annihilated? 

 

Snarky god!!

 

What was the source of the god that became YHWH? It had been known as El. Also Adonai, Elohim ("God," a plural noun), Shaddai ("Almighty"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts"); some also include Ehyeh ("I Will Be").

 

names of God so holy that, once written, they should not be erased: YHWH, Adonai, El ("God"), Elohim ("God," a plural noun),^[a]Shaddai ("Almighty"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts"); some also include Ehyeh ("I Will Be").^[1] 

 

YHWH-Niss"i (Yahweh-Nissi) — "The Lord our Banner" (Exodus 17:8-15). YHWH-Shalom — "The Lord our Peace" (Judges 6:24). YHWH-Ra-ah — "The Lord my Shepherd" (Psalms 23:1). YHWH-Tsidkenu — "The Lord our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6).

 

Sound familiar? This happens a lot – borrowings from other myth cycles and attributing them to some character in the Bible. Moses is a pastiche of borrows from other hero legends.

 

Another similarity: just as Zeus ousted Chronos as chief among the gods, the Baal cycle explains Baal’s rise to prominence and popularity among the Canaanites.

 

Consciousness in Animals

 

Matt Dillahunty, ‘Provide one piece of evidence that a god exists.’

Caller ‘Well, we’re conscious…’

 

I laughed out loud at that response. Then I looked to see my cat react to my outburst.

 

My reaction indicates consciousness.  I am conscious of the use of this particular tactic of argumentation as a dressed-up version of ‘god-of-the-gaps’ since there is no general accepted scientific explanation of the emergent property of ‘consciousness’. 

 

My cat’s reaction also indicates consciousness. It was conscious of my outburst and, for a moment at least, was on the path to determine whether the sudden increase in sound volume (i.e. my guffaw) should necessitate a response; either run to escape danger or stay still in repose. (My cat determined that my out-burst was not a threat to its safety and so remained in repose rather than run.)

 

Just moments before, I had given food to the two cats we care for; one young male and one, older female which I had startled with my laughter. I had been prompted by the young male to give him food. That indicates a series of events and possible determinations; first, the cat awoke and determined that it was hungry. That, in itself, indicates that the cat was aware of its own needs. It then came into the room I occupied - which indicates that the cat was aware of my quiet actions - and determined (again) to enter the room and begin pleading for food. That determination indicates that an association was made in the cat’s memory that I would be a source or an agent by which it could be fed. After several minutes of trying to advance its agenda by piteous squeaking, rubbing and licking, I carried out its agenda; I opened a can and spooned out its share. 

 

Mission accomplished! 

 

In the meantime, the older female cat came from its own place in the house – where it had no doubt been sleeping – and joined the queue to be fed. It had heard the commotion made by the little male cat and responded, perhaps knowing that food would be had.

 

The reader might dismiss all this as ‘instinct’. However, after years of living with cats, I have come to the conclusion that these little beasts are far more than simple automatons driven by instinctual programming. They are motivated by something other than instinct and imprinting. 

After all, in the 17th century, the French philosopher René Descartes argued that animals were merely “material automata” and lacked ‘souls’ or consciousness.

Descartes believed that animals “can’t feel or can’t suffer.” And went so far as to state that feeling compassion or empathy for animals was somewhat silly or anthropomorphizing. Apparently, Descartes figured that ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ only applied when the cognizant one could say so in words.  

Anyone who has been a steward of animals knows that each of them have a personality; one might like to be scratched behind the ears while another might like its belly rubbed. One might like the food presented it; another might not. One might prefer dry kibble to canned food. Beyond individual predilections of eating, one animal might be smarter than another one of its own kind. 

The difference in intelligence might be seen in terms of the mode of learning. One might be more inclined to kinesthetic or otherwise; one cat might figure out how to open a drawer while another might be less spatially attuned. Perhaps one is perceived as less intelligent but more emotionally keen; I.Q. v E.Q. much as people are.

When challenged to prove that cats (or animals generally) are intelligent, I answer, ‘Try hiding food from them and see if they can puzzle out a solution.’ Again, the reader might answer rebut with ‘Instinct’. It might be argued – and rightly so - that intelligence is not consciousness. While this may be true, one must concede that intelligence and consciousness are linked in some way. An intelligent creature is one that is conscious. 

 

And vice versa. 

If one accepts of consciousness as the taking in of information, the processing of that information, then interacting and out-putting further, additional information, then many creatures - if not all creatures – are conscious.

 

However, doesn’t instinct or memetic learning explain that perceived behavior? Can it be simply instinct when the situation presented is not an instinctual or habitual one? Clearly, my thought runs otherwise. Anyone who has put up a bird-feeder knows that little mammals - such as squirrels - will find a way to eat the food no matter how devious the placement of the feeder, no matter how the placement is re-positioned and no matter what additional barriers are put into place. 

 

Here, we’re talking about rodents; squirrels. There is a raft of You-Tube videos starring a squirrel which eats bird-feed after a gymnastic display. All quite amusing. All of them, for me, indicate that these animals had reasoned a solution to a problem. My cats take a more lackadaisical approach to getting fed but nevertheless; a problem is encountered and solved.  

 

The Reader might be claiming that dogs – especially their dog – is far more intelligent than any cat. I agree wholeheartedly; dogs are highly intelligent, highly trainable, highly motivated and highly social. They are able to learn a complicated series of actions. Hunting dogs will point out game, wait anxiously for the hunter to act and then fetch the kill, if need be. Circus dogs will perform a series of tricks; each trick requiring that a puzzle be solved; usually a puzzle of involving gravity or the lack of opposable thumbs. Show dogs will preen and strut confidently. House dogs will learn its steward’s schedule and accommodate it; taking the leash in its mouth before going for walkies, for example. On the other hand, house dogs will attempt to exercise their own will, presumably, by whimpering for food or attention or nesting in a restricted place such as a sofa or comfy arm chair. 

 

In short, animals must be seen most certainly as being conscious and, by extension, of have consciousness, as well.  Horses know its favorite rider and its trainer. Horses are known to run simply for the fun of running. (Hence; horse-racing!) Elephants are known to have favorite people, as well. These are social animals, after all. As social animals, co-operation of the group member is a key to survival. Working as a group is a tactic which requires awareness; awareness of individual roles and awareness of the situation at hand. Meer cats will signal their group to warn of predators. Incidentally, this warning carries with it the danger of being the predator’s first victim. A wolf pack on the move is arranged for the consideration of the slowest and the frailest with the strongest and swiftest taking positions of defense and protection. 

 

Such bits of what might be called sacrifice or martyrdom are common amongst social species; mammals, birds, fish, etc. Sociability is just one show of intelligence and consciousness. The adaptation of sociability has been offered as the reason for human intelligence. Why should that emergent intelligence not be attributed to other life-forms – other great apes and mammals?

 

But is not simply sociability which has led to intelligence. Octopi - a solitary species - are renown for problem solving to a degree which has come to world-wide attention. Watch ‘My Octopus Teacher’ and remain unmoved by the intelligence of the aquatic creature. The octopus determines the condition of the situation and then determines that an action be taken; hiding from predators, for example – and avoiding those places which the octopus associates with past physical trauma!

 

If awareness of the environment is a part of consciousness, then is it the ability to act within the environment which might then be at the root of intelligence? There are certain strains of amoeba which react to a toxic environment by moving away from that environment. Some amoebas have what are known as pseudopodia; false feet. Many single-cell organisms have flagella for movement. Does this ability for movement – and the genetic capacity for movement – mean that movement in response to stimuli; this action in response – indicate awareness and thus intelligence?  

 

Perhaps this is over-stretching a premise, perhaps not. One must posit when ‘sentience’ becomes ‘intelligence’ and also when ‘sentience’ becomes ‘consciousness’. Much depends on how species-centric one is. 

 

Could consciousness be the sole province of humans? Or was consciousness had by all hominids? Neanderthals? Denisova hominins? Homo Erectus? Homo Robustus? How about Australopithecus? Or any of the precursors to the species Homo? Where would the province of consciousness enter the evolutionary story? Are all the Great Apes conscious? Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans? Do they all have consciousness? What about the lesser apes? Spider Monkeys? Capuchins? All mammals? All chordates? All animals? All eukaryotes? Some of the aforementioned but not others? 

 

If humans are the result of the evolution from a common ancestor, then consciousness must be part of that evolutionary track. Where along that track did consciousness enter the mix and become the vital component of an organism’s survival?

 

Think this is too extreme?

 

Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on April 19, 2024.

 

https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration

 

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness

Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.

Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

 

‘The declaration says there is “strong scientific support” that birds and mammals have conscious experience, and a “realistic possibility” of consciousness for all vertebrates — including reptiles, amphibians and fish. That possibility extends to many creatures without backbones, it adds, such as insects, decapod crustaceans (including crabs and lobsters) and cephalopod mollusks, like squid, octopus and cuttlefish.’

 

 “Once you recognize animals as sentient, the concept of humane slaughter starts to matter, and you need to make sure that the sort of methods you’re using on them are humane,” Birch said. “In the case of crabs and lobsters, there are pretty inhumane methods, like dropping them into pans of boiling water, that are very commonly used.”

 

As a postscript, during the most recent solar eclipse, observations of animal behavior were conducted. A variety of animals were observed during the eclipse and their varied responses recorded. As has been noted before, as the eclipse approaches totality, birds and insects grow silent. Other animals also have distinct, separate reactions to totality. Researchers at the Riverbank Zoo in South Carolina found that many normally sedentary animals grow very aggressive and agitated during the eclipse. (As do humans who hoot and holler and exclaim as totality nears.) Meerkats ran erratically through their habitat and whooping cranes had fun dancing; gibbons made unusual vocalizations never heard by researchers at any other time. Thousands of points of data are yet to be analyzed but it seems clear that animals consciously react to novel elements in their environment.

Why Be An Atheist?

 

There is an abundance of reasons for not accepting the premise that a god exists. First and foremost is the simple fact that reasonable evidence has never been presented to support the assertion that there is a god of any kind. There have been many attempts to do so and there have been many learned arguments. However, little to no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the claim there is a god and... arguments are NOT evidence.

 

Nevertheless, the challenging question continues to be asked; ‘How can you be an atheist?’ or, perhaps less bluntly: ‘Why are you an atheist?’ The non-believer may pose this question to himself several times a day. ‘Why don’t I just accept the tenets related to the local religion?’, might well be an alternative wording of the question. 

 

Perhaps you’ve asked yourself a similar question. I don’t know that I ever openly voiced or cohesively and coherently thought the question out. Perhaps I’m more intuitive than logical in this regard, at least. Moreover, I don’t know if I’ve ever been asked the question. The stigma of being an atheist precludes many from even saying the word ‘atheist’ - as if it were a blasphemous pejorative.

 

For me, the question of the higher power persisted to simmer for a long time. Raised as a Roman Catholic, there was much I found to be absurd or immoral or ludicrous and evil in the teachings of the Church. (I’ll forgo giving a list of such things. The reader can supply a list for themselves that needn’t be as comprehensive as Martin Luther’s.)

 

Prompted by the niggling of the question of a higher power, I looked to other sources than the Bible – other viewpoints and other prophets; Edgar Cayce, Velikovsky, Gurdjieff, Eliade, Jung, Buddha, Nostradamus, Illich, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.  All presented interesting hypotheses but all felt out of whack, a bit. Tales about Mu, Atlantis, crystals, and ancient wisdom had an appeal but delivered little satisfaction. 

 

My conclusion – thus far - has been that all these things, while not improbable, were little more than speculative because very little real evidence was provided. Wordy ad hoc reasoning does not make for good argument and - as mentioned before - argument is not evidence. The tales were intriguing; sometimes beautiful and awe-inspiring and overwhelming, but the luster wore off after a while; the sausage had been seen being made, as it were. 

 

Arguments, even by the saintly, seemed specious. (Again, argument is not evidence.) The pre-supposition that a god – a higher power - existed was pervasive but not persuasive. Too much was ludicrous on its face; soul travel, pyramid power, prophesy, (etc.) much else lacked credible evidence. 

 

There’s that word, again.

 

It would seem that evidence of a higher power would be all around and obvious. One might insert the ‘Look at the trees!’ apologetic here but acceptance of that simple-minded notion would require a willful ignorance of biology. Evidence of a god should be more than inferential. Shouldn’t it? For such an overwhelming claim, evidence should be stark and irrefutable. None has ever been presented, that I know of.

 

It has been claimed that god has ‘written it on your heart’. Posh! Again, one would have to think that the heart is a repository of tenets, a container wherein higher knowledge resides. I cannot accept that. The heart is a pump for blood. The brain is the place for thought, emotion, decision-making, consciousness and so on. While ‘god writing its/his instructions on your heart’ makes for an appealing metaphor, so do the diagrams of Gurdjieff and the quatrains of Nostradamus. It would seem that a Supreme Being would be more capable than Aesop was of presenting itself and a governing creed by parables.

 

And what about all the other demi-gods, semi-gods and deific personalities which speckle the ancient world? Asclepius, Simon Magus, Romulus, Siddhartha, Osiris, et.al. had the powers attributed to the Man from Nazareth. Raising the dead and healing the sick were like squirting boutonniere to these and other folk of legend and myth. They were parlor tricks; pick a card, any card! And like feats of magic, none of these averred miracles were true. None were accompanied by credible evidence.

 

Walk on water? As if…

Water to wine? That trick is on the back shelf; old hat.

Raise the dead? Come back from the dead? Get a grip!

 

The apologetic runs that ‘with god, the omnipotent, all is possible...

Oy! Again with the presupposition! 

If that is the case, then mustn’t all of the various rabbit-trails offered by the likes of Cayce, Illich and others be equally viable and factual? The Bible is real ‘cuz the Bible tells us so. Amen and Halleluiah. Praise B! Jesus is god cuz it says so in the Bible. And Cayce is a prophet cuz it says so right in the literature. And all the Sadhus – the Holy Men- of India are real and true because they say they are. 

 

Easy-peasy! 

 

All it takes is unshakeable faith and willful ignorance. Just put all doubt out of your mind and ‘Voila’, you’ve joined the ranks of the Believers and are entitled to salvation, etc. Be sure to get your entry ticket to Paradise stamped and verified. You wouldn’t want to left at the station because of an oversight. Heaven forfend!

 

Once one steps back from modern Christianity and hears about the plethora of mystery cults, children of god and the accounts of revelations, one must at least sense that the Christian faith is much the same as other myths of dying-and-rising gods and the Holy Men of Judea and Galacia have substantial similarity to those of the Punjab.

 

Was Asclepius different from Jesus, the Christ? Yes, the tales are different but the underlying message is entwined with the tales of the Nazarene. Is Herakles or Romulus different from Jesus? Yes, the tales are different; the tellers of the tales were different, as well. The social circumstances of the tale-tellers were different. They came from a different time in history; a different culture; a different society; a different people. This is at the heart of ‘syncretism’; one fable/myth/legend is adapted to another culture with a different legendarium and back-story. 

 

The tales, while different, are comparative to high degrees. There are too many parallels in the tales of Asclepius and the children of god, to ignore. There are too many similarities to cordon off one as factual and dismiss the others as fantasy.

 

Was Jesus of Nazareth special? Not so much, as it turns out. (Oh, and ‘Happy Easter’ BTW.)

 

One shouldn’t accept any claim as true until that claim is supported by sound reasoning and empirical evidence.

More on the God Conspiracy

 

‘People who think with their reptilian brains are susceptible to cults, to conspiracy theories, to rallies, to slogans, to simplistic us-or-them formulas.’ Robert Harrington

One point that has not been addressed regarding conspiracy theories about ‘god’ is the part addressing the assertion that there exists a powerful (and sinister) group which in turn upholds the conspiracy theory as fact. 

 

To address this is more problematic I that fingers need to be pointed at specific targets such as ‘The Illuminati’, the ‘Free Masons, etc. Allegations made against specific, actual groups tend to attract lawsuits. This is a morass into which this writer would rather not descend. That said, if the Roman Catholic and Apostolic church did not spring to mind when a powerful group was mentioned then perhaps the reader has been living under a rock. 

 

No offense.

To backtrack a bit, one must consider the role of gods and divinity in the formation of society. It is generally acknowledged that the first urban centers were in Mesopotamia. The cities of Babylon, Asher and Ur are renown though there must have been others in Africa and Asia which predated those; smaller cities which would have necessitated moral codes, laws, law-givers and law enforcement of some type. 

 

One cannot image a congregation of humans in a group which did not have a code of ethics and behavior. (Here, one might refer to the extensive writings on morals and morality.) Apart from the codes of behavior necessary for tribal groups to exist, more extensive and specific laws would be required to assure public safety when two or more such tribal groups cohabitated. 

 

Such laws would need to be enforced and adjudicated by some authority. Such authority would need to be unassailable. That authority might come in the form of a deity; the authority might then be conferred on the priests which ‘served’ that deity. The priesthood, not being warriors and strong-men would then require a strongman to enforce the adjudication of laws. The priesthood and the strongman would exist symbiotically with the priesthood beholden to the strongman who was, in turn, beholden to the priesthood and their connection to the deity. This would be the fundamental ‘con’ upon which civilization rests.  This relationship would lead to the concept of the divine right of kings. 

 

Leaving aside the usurpation of the priestly power by the king, it is logical to assume the necessity of such a relationship of priest and strongman for the establishment and functioning of a proto-society. Codes of behavior most surely were in place for any group larger than a tribal one to exist together and form an urban center, a nation or a state. Lawlessness is not conducive to the formation of a coherent and sustainable coalition of people as in a city. Chaos is not a good medium for cohesion; laws must be in place and those laws enforced.

 

The god, through the priesthood and the strongman, would be claimed to be the originating source of those laws. By this logic, the conspiracy is shored up; god, its priests and the strongman/chieftain are the symbiotic triumvirate which allows for nascent cities to exist and therefore allow for the establishment of civilization. Without the god, there would be no priesthood. The priesthood, then, requires its alliance with the muscle of the strongman/chieftain for protection from the less privileged and for the enforcement of the codes or laws of conduct ‘decreed’ by the god. 

 

This brings up the privileged positions of the priesthood and strongman.

 

The God Conspiracy

 

The myth of god and religions are the longest–running, most successful conspiracy theory ever.  Let’s define ‘conspiracy theory in the usual way; ‘an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable’. 

 

Crucial to this definition must be an addendum which states that proper evidence is anathema to conspiracy theorists. Evidence must now be defined as well: ‘the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.’ That’s what acceptable evidence is, now, let’s state what good, acceptable evidence is not; conjecture is not evidence. Intuition is not evidence. Wild claims and personal anecdotes are not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Distortions of the truth, misapplications of scientific principles, wishful thinking and lies are not evidence.

 

Anytime a ‘Believer’ claims that they have ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ of a god, it turns out to be nothing more than ‘look at the trees’ or ‘I have a feeling’ or a rehash of an argument from the Middle-ages. If not those, then the ‘Believer’ will recite one or more of examples of poor evidence such as ‘personal anecdotes’ or ‘intuition’. None of these are evidence. Anyone waiting for the ‘Believer’ to provide decent, sufficient evidence is wasting their time.

 

None is ever forthcoming because no proper, acceptable evidence is existent. Nevertheless, the ‘True Believer’ will vehemently mouth one or more of the assertions which they feel in ‘their heart’ is sufficient evidence of ‘god’. Moreover, once the proffered twaddle is refuted as worthless by the skeptic (the non-Believer), the Believer will whinge and whine that there is no evidence that will be accepted by the skeptic. The ‘Believer’ will not accept the standard of evidence defined by the skeptic or might peevishly ask what the skeptic might accept as evidence. 

 

Quite often a ‘Believe’ will moan as to why a skeptic would be concerned about the beliefs of the ‘Believer’. A typical query might be; ‘What does it matter?’. The answer should be readily apparent; if one simply accepts nonsense and non-evidence as fact, then other nonsensical ‘beliefs’ can and will be internalized by the ‘Believer’. There is a heuristic failure which leads to further failures in cognition and critical thinking. The adherence to other conspiracy theories are a usual result of such heuristic failure though often tis particular heuristic is reserved for the god claim and religious dogma.

 

The conspiracy that there is an all-powerful deity which constructed and designed the universe and who is particularly interested in the sexual proclivities of humanity is such a failure. The failure is further compounded by the acceptance of religious authorities which hone the dictates of the pre-supposed deity and require subservience and submission to not only the deity but to the authority of the religious clerics. Not surprisingly, the religious authorities (e.g. preachers, priests, pastors, prophets, etc.) demand a steady source of funds from the ‘Believers’ to finance the life-style and ostentatious real estate of the religious authorities. 

 

If you dare, ask a flat-earther or one who buys into any of the 9-11 conspiracies, or the conspiracies swirling around the JFK assassination, or the iron grip of the Rothschilds or the infamous Area 51 to provide evidence of their claims. (I strongly advise against such inquiry.) Akin to the balderdash and deflection offered by theists, one finds a very similar use by other conspiracy junkies of non-evidence spiced with pseudo-science, the misapplications of scientific principles and outright lies and distortions of fact which indicate a heuristic failure.

 

This heuristic failure is at the core of the MAGA cult and the worship of Donald J. Trump in the USA and beyond. All evidence to the contrary of the preposterous ‘beliefs’ of flat-earthers and other conspiracy theorists are refused or discounted. Quite often, the evidence refuting the conspiracy is given credence to support the notion that a conspiracy is hiding the ‘truth’ (i.e. the claims of the conspiracy theorist.) 

 

The Pentagon is concealing the ‘truth’ of Roswell, the White House is hiding the facts of JFK’s assassination, the Central Bankers obfuscate monetary policy deemed nefarious. The Jews, the Vatican, the Teamsters, the scientists, the ‘Blacks’, the ‘Gays’, etc.; any group or faction can be cited as obstructing the clear understanding of the ‘truth’ declared by the conspiracy community.

 

It is the ‘atheist’ who is accused of being the obfuscator of ‘truth’ in the case of theism. As no decent evidence from ‘Believers’ has ever been forthcoming, the skeptic is railed against as the one who befuddles the minds of the faithful and under-cuts valid argument for the existence of a deity. This is simply demonization and often includes the assertion that the skeptic is the witting or unwitting agent or stooge of Satan, the enemy of ‘god’. Such dismissal is prevalent in the heuristic failure of conspiracy nuts.

 

The success of the god conspiracy is quite evident in history. The Christian conspiracy – based on the questionable activities and historicity of a ‘man from Galilee’ – has been dominant for 2000 years.  This dominance has been imposed by the violence of the Crusades, the slaughter of heretics (such as the Albigensians), the suppression and execution of natural philosophers such as Giordano Bruno, the murder of women indicted as witches, the abominations of the various Inquisitions, the burning of all texts deemed heretical or non-canonical (the gospel of Marcion, the Gnostic gospels, etc). The Islamic Faith is no less stained by similar violence and oppression. 

 

Yet, the ‘god’ claim predates Christianity and Islam. The Greeks and Romans had their gods and ceremonies. The Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians and Babylonians had their pantheon of gods. The Egyptians had their gods and notion of after-life’ So, too, the people of the Indus Valley, China, Africa, Japan, Mesoamerica, and so on all had a god or a pantheon of gods replete with ceremony and rituals of worship, often bloody and murderous. 

 

It is this prevalence, this predilection which is provided by ‘Believers’ in lieu of evidence for a god. The thinking goes that ‘If humanity has always had a deity or a selection of deities, then there must be a god’. This line of thinking is fallacious and circular. It is an appeal to nature and it is the band-wagon fallacy attempting to validate an extraordinary claim by citing the prevalence and popularity of the claim. 

 

The conspiracy theorists depend on incredulity; depend on logical fallacies and unsupported pseudo-evidence for their claim. The same tactic is used by ‘Believers’ to falsely substantiate guff, clap-trap and gobbledygook. Once you get people to believe in an invisible sky genii, you can get them to believe anything outrageous.