Category: Religion

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society that the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word “orthodox.” In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them;t they had rebelled against him.

The word “heresy” not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word “orthodoxy” not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong.

… people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.

At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a many say, “Life is not worth living.” We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody things that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saying men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating.

Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch.

In the fifteenth century men cross-examined an tormented a man because he preached some immoral attitude; in the nineteenth century we feted and flattered Oscar Wilde because he preached such an attitude, and then broke his heart in penal servitude because he carried it out. It may be a question which of the two methods was the more cruel; there can be no kind of question which was the more ludicrous.

The age of the inquisition has not at least the disgrace of having produced a society which made an idol of the very same man for preaching the very same things which it mad him a convict for practising.

And just as this repudiation of big words and big visions has brought forth a race of small men in politics, so it has brought forth a race of small men in the arts. Our modern politicians claim the colossal license of Caesar and the Superman, claim that they are too practical to be pure and too patriotic to be moral; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our new artistic philosophers call for the same moral license, for a freedom to wreck heaven and earth with they energy; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Poet Laureate. I do not say that there are no stronger men than these; but will any one say that there are any men stronger than those men of old who were dominated by their philosophy and steeped in their religion? Whether bondage be better that freedom may be discussed. But that their bondage came to more than our freedom it will be difficult for any one to deny.

Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor.


An atheist is very often a curious character for he removes all possibility of a subjective ideal, in that he worships only the objective and apparent, and an ideal is just too wishy washy for him to waste any time on. Is it any wonder then that clothes, cars, buildings, and art conceived by the atheist are so often very dull and pointless, as if they had no purpose at all except to be. The atheist must do something because he is afraid of doing and being nothing, which is the ultimate goal of his life, oblivion is what awaits us all he proudly proclaims. Much of what he is and produces merits it. It is a man overly concerned with his own sanity from fear of going insane. Of course what that sanity could be he cannot truly know, because he only knows and studies what is not sane, so everything that is not his current definition of insanity is precisely what he should do.

That the atheist, or the honest one, cannot have an ideal is easy enough to prove. The atheist proclaims he only believes that for which there is objective evidence, since he cannot believe in an ideal because, objectively, it has no objective existence, cannot be measured in a lab, cannot be photographed by an electron microscope, then it cannot be ‘believed’ in. He may accept an ideal, or even follow one, but then he is hard pressed to escape his gross hypocrisy, for if you can create and follow an ideal, and it is good, then what’s the harm in creating and following an ideal that is God.

Of course the atheist doesn’t have to do any of this at all, only he has become trapped by his short sighted refutations of theism, just because there isn’t a personal God, or even a “god” per se in any sense has nothing to do with the supposed ‘objective’ evidence against it, but from its complete silliness. Everything that we know and understand about the world and universe suggests that the idea of a personal God moving every rock, and hearing every prayer is utter nonsense. Mostly because it’s just impractical.

Of course there is no ‘objective’ evidence against the existence of god, that would be silly as well. As it turns out, there is none for god, and none for much of anything. It of course depends a bit on how you define ‘objective’, and here is how I see it: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

Considering that most atheists who have dropped out of religion do it based on their feelings of their respective church’s ideas on heaven and hell, the former being torment by tedium and the latter torment by tormentiness, then we are hard pressed to take them at their word. Many atheists, rightly so, seem positively relieved when they consider that the burden of heaven and hell isn’t necessary to bear.

Now it occurs to me that a very common argument by very smart atheists, ones who have deeply thought about the problems of creation, is that the universe is mathematics, and that ultimately perhaps mathematics holds the key to prove that something can come from nothing, i.e. integers from a null set. Of course it rarely dawns on them that mathematics does very little without a mathematician.

Then we come to this idea that intelligent design must necessarily be lazy thinking, but how hypocritical, for the average atheist, even the scientist, when faced with almost any problem just says: Well, it started small, and got bigger over millions of year, and voila. Atheism, especially darwinist atheism, is the most lazy form of thinking, for it assumes that the statement “it’s evolution dummy” is some magical formula and can explain everything. You can hardly read any book, on any topic, which doesn’t conspicuously base whatever nonsense programme it is trying to sell on the copiously detailed account of how it all started with cavemen and went from there.

I was thumbing through Robert Greene’s Mastery, and what did I find but a rather detailed eyewitness account of the evolutionary development of the brain which was used, unnecessarily in my opinion, to justify his observations about how people practice skills and become masters. It was of course complete poppy cock, if he had ever bothered to read the actual scientific works of various scientists analyzing digs where they find a few chipped rocks and a pile of bones and somehow feel they can talk about the emotional states of early hominids and how they may have named their children, he would have done what any sensible person should do, and chuck the whole mess out as the puerile fantasies of intellectually sheltered scientist.

Today the atheist doesn’t have to present any real evidence, he can show a few bone fragments, some evidence that there was a fire and a few people eating around it, then can jump to waxing philosophical about the society and psychology of this prehistoric diner’s club. Evidence has become a magical thing, it’s mere physical presence is enough to quiet any dissent. But did not the church do the same thing? This is nothing more than holy relics. Hell, even the church has bones!

It is not that there is a physical magical substance, like mana, called evidence. It is only evidence when it actually relates to the theory being postulated. I am sorry, but 3/4 of a jaw and a couple of gnawed bones isn’t evidence of much at all.