Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, November 26, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments

Document Monotheism was a con from the beginning

by Johann Hari

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1218
and
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/openhouse/2007/11/musings-on-mono.html

It's when you look at the birth-pangs of a religion that you can see most clearly how it was invented not by some mystical "God", but by human beings – usually for cynical reasons.

Look, for example, at the inventor of monotheism. The man who introduced to humanity the idea that there was One God was Pharaoh Akhenaten, some thirty-three centuries ago. (I've been thinking about him because you can see his likeness for the next few months in the gaudy exhibition at the Millennium Dome, excavated from the tomb of his son Tutenkhamun). Akhenaten declared that the sun-god Aten was the only true deity, and all other Gods must be discredited and denied. It was a crucial moment in human history, a radical break by a "heretic Pharaoh" with all preceding superstitions. At that moment, he first formed the idea that was later refined by Moses and Mohammed and Maimonidies (and that's just the 'M's) until it became humanity's most successful superstition.

But it was a lie – a political trick to maximise his power. Many Egyptologists now believe that Akhenaten only gave birth to monotheism because the priesthood of the rival god Amun was becoming too strong for the comfort of the royal house. At the very moment of its birth, monotheism was made up for the political convenience of man.

This shouldn't surprise us. (Especially not here in England, where our state religion is not Catholicism thanks to the fluke of a fat man wanting a divorce). At the birth of every religion, you can see this crude self-interested trickery. In Christopher Hitchens' brilliant new book 'God is Not Great', the traces the preposterous invention of Mormonism. My favourite example of a religion blatantly invented as a con is Scientology. Its bare-faced Messiah was a huckster called L. Ron Hubbard, a compulsive liar who declared in the 1950s, "If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." And how – by 1982, he was raking in forty million dollars a year.

Hubbard's religious "discoveries" strangely shifted to suit his needs and whims. After psychiatrists condemned his theories as "nonsense", he announced that psychiatrists were the root of all evil, "not just on this planet but from time immemorial." He "discovered" that psychiatrists existed at the start of the universe, and they actually invented evil.

The same make-it-up-as-you-go-along can be seen in the works of Jesus and the 'Prophet' Mohammed. Look at the affair of the 'Satanic Verses', which many people wrongly assume was invented by Salman Rushdie. The tale of the Satanic Verses is in fact a historical event, extensively documented by the earliest scholars of Islam.

When Mohamnmed was starting out in Mecca, he was finding it difficult to keep all his diffuse followers on side and retain good relations with his Arab kinsmen. Some of them were particularly attached to a few of the old deities, so they resisted the new-fangled 'there is no God but God' spiel at the heart of Islam's message. So one day, Mohammed had a convenient 'revelation', delivered by the Archangel Gabriel. He announced that you could worship three of the old Gods after all! Everyone was a winner, and peace prevailed.

But a few of Mohammed's followers were puzzled. They remembered him saying the complete opposite only a few months before. How could God, through his messenger the Archangel Gabriel, contradict himself? Didn't you say he was all-perfect and all-knowing? Panicked, Mohammed suddenly announced that clearly Satan had impersonated the Archangel Gabriel and dictated false messages to him. The passages saying polytheism was okay after all were swiftly dubbed 'Satanic Verses' and scrubbed from the record.

At its very birth, montheism was a con. Until we start demanding basic rules of rationality in human belief – like asking 'Where is the evidence for your claims?' insistently – we will keep falling for the transparently absurd inventions of the Akhenatens and the Mohammeds and the Hubbards.


You can comment on this post, and read the comments of others, here:
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/openhouse/2007/11/musings-on-mono.html#comments

You can read my other articles opposing superstition here:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/index.php?subject=againstReligion

Comments 1 - 30 of 30 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #90904 by kraut on November 26, 2007 at 4:15 pm

At its very birth, montheism was a con.


Thanks for stating that so clearly.
Now lets start applying some swift kicks to the rear of the selfappointed popes, priests and the lot of those social parasites.

Just listening today about the way the Ukrainians were treated in Canada after 1915 to 1920, i find it tempting at a point in history to establish such camps for the consummate and most highly developed liars there exists - theologians and all the other ancilliary perpetrators of this highly developed fraud.

Other Comments by kraut

2. Comment #90926 by USA_Limey on November 26, 2007 at 5:08 pm

 avatarExcellent, excellent article.

I have consistently stated on this web site and anywhere else I can that the best way to bring down the shaky house of cards that is religion is to chip away at the foundations of its origins.

Whilst scientific arguments on evolution, cosmology, geology etc are all helpful I truly believe nothing is a more effective weapon against religion than educating believers about the shady history of their own faiths.

I urge all atheists to arm themselves with a good understanding of the demonstrably fraudulent origins of Christianity and Islam for a start.

__________________________________________________
"Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!"

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

3. Comment #90943 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 6:40 pm

So to what degree are the Popes, Cardinals, Jesuits, Archbishops, Rabbis, Mullahs, Ayatollahs
and other high-ranking clerics actually consciously in on the act?

Obviously, the masses swallow the whole con hook line and sinker, but I wonder if the further you go up the heirachy, the more atheist, cynical, power hungry and exploitative the religious leaders become.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #90947 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 6:55 pm

 avatarActually the Arabs were idolators more than polytheists. They have always worshipped a mono-deity with the idols acting as intercessors. Monotheism in the Arabian peninsula has its roots way before Muhammad. The Arabs think they've inherited monotheism from Abraham and the Israelites.


Anyway it's refreshing to see an attempt at historical analysis of the origin of monotheisms but I have to admit the story of the Satanic verses is a red herring.

There are two histoirans (Tabari and Ibn Saad) that mention the story but the chain of narration is almost non existent and no serious historian would lend the story much credit.

If you're going to selectively quote these historians on such stories you might as well quote the other stories that appear to be more consistent with the man's character and his book. Unfortunately there is a wave of under informed critics that seem to be barking under the wrong tree by following such nonesense.

I wish the more "authentic" hadiths and the Quran be subjected to the same level of serious and honest historical analysis as the bible and the torah. If the author follows the likes of the satanic verses stories then he's definitely wasting his effort. As if there is no abundance of more reliable literature to chew on. Believe me there is, waiting to be dissected.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

5. Comment #90948 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 6:56 pm

 avatarFor those interested in the Satanic verses

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

Other Comments by Vinelectric

6. Comment #90961 by steveroot on November 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm

 avatar
7. Comment #90956 by crazy old man on November 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm
In my office,...

There are emails which daily make the rounds...

There was grousing...

I talked about skepticism in general...

Over the course of what became an hours-long exchange...

... and then I was fired! ;-)

Don't forget the generic "miracle" births prevalent in religious mythology. Keep their feet to the fire!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

7. Comment #90963 by jbblack on November 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

 avatarHey Crazy!

Went through the e-mail ring myself at my old job. Got multiple e-mails per day and finally started launching my own campaign. Not "against religion" per se, but really interesting scientific articles.

They asked about why I did that (most enjoyed the articles) and I said since I didn't believe in God, I thought I'd share what I found inspiring.

Result? Little bit of shock at first but overall no big deal.

Other Comments by jbblack

8. Comment #91012 by octopus on November 27, 2007 at 1:09 am

He "discovered" that psychiatrists existed at the start of the universe, and they actually invented evil.

Errr....not lawyers then?

Other Comments by octopus

9. Comment #91015 by stereoroid on November 27, 2007 at 1:31 am

 avatarChristianity as we know it was basically assembled by committee: the Councils of Nicaea set out what Christians believe, starting with just what Jesus was (Christology)! Well, I suppose some good came out of it: the First Council had the balls to pass a law against self-castration...

Other Comments by stereoroid

10. Comment #91018 by MuNky82 on November 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

 avatar@ Rtambree (#90943)
Obviously, the masses swallow the whole con hook line and sinker, but I wonder if the further you go up the heirachy, the more atheist, cynical, power hungry and exploitative the religious leaders become.


I honestly believe that the Pope is atheist. I mean does he really have conversations with God? I believe that this is the case with most religious leaders. They honestly must doubt their dogma, and become disillusioned the closer they get to the top. The only reason I think that they stay where they are is because of the comfortable pigeonhole they have reached. Mother Theresa is a great example of this, only after her death her true convictions came out.

Other Comments by MuNky82

11. Comment #91023 by MuNky82 on November 27, 2007 at 2:03 am

 avatar@ crazy old man & jbblack

I think your methods are the best. Only to awaken the sense of rationality within everyone, will this nasty virus of religion be cured. Once we take care of the problems at the base, the house of cards will come flying down. Even if people are not comfortable with the "there is no god" conclusion, humans being pattern seeking and all, then at least the ridiculousness of dogmas are eliminated. Then the stupid things like mutilating a child's genitals or paying the reverend's salary is solved.

I just reached the part in "End of Faith" where Sam Harris explains how the temporary break in phone service is measured in billions of dollars, but how much must the spending on organized religion be? The resources wasted on the Crusades alone cost us about 400 years of technological advancement. What about the European Dark Ages in general? What about the burning of the library at Alexandria (last I heard about 200 years). If it wasn't for the religious connotation of weekends, how much more productive could we be? Not that I would volunteer my weekends first :). The Aztecs had a 10 day week with only one "off" day. They were used to it. We would have been too...

...Sorry, rant over....

Other Comments by MuNky82

12. Comment #91050 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 5:29 am

13. Comment #91018 by MuNky82

>Mother Theresa is a great example of this, only after her death her true convictions came out.

It does lead to an uncomfortable paradox, though. If Hitchens spends a book writing how immoral Theresa is, and then it turns out she's actually an atheist, then the religious can use this to support THEIR argument that atheists are immoral and that the truly devout are less so. Ditto for Jerry Falwell, who Hitchens called a fraud and charlatan - another evil atheist.

Hitchens doesn't seem to have acknowledged this Catch 22 situation yet. You can't called theists immoral and then imply they're really atheists. It's shooting your own argument in the foot. I'd be interested to know how Hitchens would respond to this. Luckily no religious debater has been astute enough to pick up on this and put it to him.

Other Comments by Rtambree

13. Comment #91054 by ShavenYak on November 27, 2007 at 5:51 am

Good point, Rtambree.

Without religion, you'd have good people being good and bad people being bad - but to get good people to do evil, that takes religion. Okay, it's a cliche - but it's also (sort of) the answer to the dilemmna.

Whether Mother Theresa actually believed the dogma she espoused is irrelevant. The fact is that she lived by its rules, and it was the overriding reason why she behaved as she did. If she had never been exposed to religion, or if she had felt free to reject it, perhaps she would have done things differently.

Hitchens' argument shouldn't be that theists are immoral - it should be that theism (or any form of irrational dogmatic belief system) promotes immorality. This argument can't be countered by claiming that the alleged immoral theists don't really believe. It's still the belief system and the things it is allowed to excuse that are the problem.

Other Comments by ShavenYak

14. Comment #91057 by ShavenYak on November 27, 2007 at 5:57 am

Good point, Rtambree.

Here's the thing though - even if our alleged "immoral theist" turns out not to actually believe the dogma they preach, they are still using it to excuse their behavior. It's still the dogma itself that promotes or allows their immorality. Just imagine if Theresa had been able to reject her faith instead of having to continue to pretend to believe - she might have been able to actually do some good instead of just providing places for people to die.

As long as the argument is that theism (or any other irrational dogmatic belief system) leads to immorality, and not that the theists themselves are inherently immoral, it's immune from the paradox.

Other Comments by ShavenYak

15. Comment #91058 by ShavenYak on November 27, 2007 at 5:57 am

Good point, Rtambree.

Here's the thing though - even if our alleged "immoral theist" turns out not to actually believe the dogma they preach, they are still using it to excuse their behavior. It's still the dogma itself that promotes or allows their immorality. Just imagine if Theresa had been able to reject her faith instead of having to continue to pretend to believe - she might have been able to actually do some good instead of just providing places for people to die.

As long as the argument is that theism (or any other irrational dogmatic belief system) leads to immorality, and not that the theists themselves are inherently immoral, it's immune from the paradox.

Other Comments by ShavenYak

16. Comment #91059 by ShavenYak on November 27, 2007 at 5:57 am

Good point, Rtambree.

Here's the thing though - even if our alleged "immoral theist" turns out not to actually believe the dogma they preach, they are still using it to excuse their behavior. It's still the dogma itself that promotes or allows their immorality. Just imagine if Theresa had been able to reject her faith instead of having to continue to pretend to believe - she might have been able to actually do some good instead of just providing places for people to die.

As long as the argument is that theism (or any other irrational dogmatic belief system) leads to immorality, and not that the theists themselves are inherently immoral, it's immune from the paradox.

Other Comments by ShavenYak

17. Comment #91063 by USA_Limey on November 27, 2007 at 6:12 am

 avatarComment #91050 by Rtambree:

Luckily no religious debater has been astute enough to pick up on this and put it to him.


They won't do it Rtambree because they will never admit that the people you reference are/were atheists. So I think Hitchens is safe.

It is a good point though. I think a good answer would be that the question of being an atheist/theist is not as important as the point that these people are acting fraudulently and actively living a lie to deceive others.

It is their deception that makes them immoral, not their atheism.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

18. Comment #91065 by Ultraviolet G on November 27, 2007 at 6:17 am

Rtambree>

I think Hitchens doesn't bother to elucidate this because he thinks it's implicit: the immoral actions are the direct result of scripture, and in your position as a "believer" you are given authority to carry out such actions, regardless of whether you personally think the bible/koran is true or not.

Without religion, Mother Theresa may or may not have been a good person, but she would not have had any authority to promote suffering on such a large scale.

Likewise with Jerry Falwell, it is possible for him to be a liar and fraud AND to have religious delusions too. Doublethink is practically a condition of religiosity for anyone with a higher education.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

19. Comment #91066 by Vinelectric on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 am

 avatarIf you're atheist you'd obviously be either moral or immoral. If you're a theist then you just have to be moral, don't you? So I don't think Hitchens is in trouble for his views on Mother Theresa.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

20. Comment #91116 by black wolf on November 27, 2007 at 9:35 am

 avatarNo argument regardless of how well founded it may be will give a believer pause. If we had a time machine and sent 200 people, preachers and theologians among them, to the cruxifixion. Jesus would say 'oh well, as I'm going to die anyway I might as well tell you the truth - I'm not the son of God, he doesn't really speak to me, all I wanted was to become king and I fu**ed up', and then those same 200 people would witness how his followers carried away his corpse and claimed resurrection. Faithheads would still bullshittishly blabber about, 'I would like to say, is it not really our spiritual knowledge that makes the difference, and spiritually we perceive his sonness, and would we not, what is the factual difference in metaphorically saying, as I would like to put it, which makes it True(TM) in any case'.
If secular politicians only had the guts to uncompromisingly refute any justification for faith schools and subsidies for clerical endeavors. No proselytizing allowed, no clerical opinions respected on social and political matters, and let them pay for their personnel and immobilia from their own pockets. Churches and religion are a major and influential part of our history, but that is no reason whatsoever to preserve it. In Germany, the Romans built roads, bathhouses and schools - so why isn't the government putting aside money for the Temple of Jupiter? Christianity would be nowhere without the Roman heritage establishing it as state religion. Roman religion wouldn't have existed without the ancient Greek clergy and incorporation of Egyptian deities.
They lost the human sacrifices, animal sacrifices, heretic burnings. But they still assume the right to 'educate' children and to have their opinions respected, by redundantly pointing at their cultural importance. Which exists because they are allowed to do what they have always done.

Other Comments by black wolf

21. Comment #91134 by terradea on November 27, 2007 at 11:39 am

I agree with black wolf. Believers will always justify their religion with "god works in mysterious ways." They will declare that, even though a lie brought about christianity (or some other myth), god meant for his word to get out to his believers in any way possible.

In order for humankind to thrive, public support and/or respect of religion must be reversed (i.e., religious schools closed, religious college degrees ended, churches converted to public housing or community centers).

Believers must be constantly ridiculed (e.g., if someone says "bless you" after a sneeze, they must be made to feel ashamed and stupid, not thanked.)

Other Comments by terradea

22. Comment #91144 by seqenenre on November 27, 2007 at 12:12 pm

There is a theory that links Akhenaten's sun cult to the jewish monotheism. Bluntly: Jahweh = Aten. This is how it works:
Akhenaten lived around 1350 BC. Ramesses II, the farao who had to deal with Moses, lived during the 13th century BC (1300 BC till 1200 BC). Akhenaten's heresy was short lived and the old religion was restored without any problem during the reign of his successor Tuthankamun (yes, that guy).
But a few Egyptians liked the idea of monotheism. And so it survived for roughly a century as a relatively small sect or cult but still rememerbed as an enemy of the Amun religion. Then Ramesses had enough of them and kicked them out of the country, together with their leader, Moses.
End of story.
This is mostly armchair-science, but the theory is so beautiful it would be a shame if it were not true.
If geneticists could do research in the genetic history of Egyptians and Jews this 'nice idea' could even be tested!

Other Comments by seqenenre

23. Comment #91161 by USA_Limey on November 27, 2007 at 12:51 pm

 avatarComment #91116 by black wolf:

No argument regardless of how well founded it may be will give a believer pause


For the skull fucking nutters I agree that's true. But alot of people of faith can and do loose their faith. Many of them post on this very website. They can be reached, and there is hope.

__________________________________________________
"Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!"

~Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

24. Comment #91344 by BNCbright on November 28, 2007 at 5:19 am

 avatarI saw a video on YouTube recently, where the poster made the claim that Jesus doesn't claim to be the Son of God any where in the Bible, and is only referred to as such by others. Can anyone confirm whether this is true or false?

Secondly, regarding the comment about Hitch's seemingly lose-lose argument, I think it's worth noting that Hitch, and others (myself included) really think that many people are much closer to being atheists than they want to admit, and many 'religious' people have moments of doubt and enlightenment but out of fear or otherwise force themselves to maintain an illusion. So, although many religious leaders are probably frauds, I think that they WANT their lies to be true, and refuse to openly acknowledge the opposite even when directly challenged. This, in my book, is something very different from any respectable atheist/freethinker/bright/secularist/humanist etc.

Other Comments by BNCbright

25. Comment #91355 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 28, 2007 at 5:56 am

 avatar23. Comment #91344 by BNCbright:
they WANT their lies to be true
I agree. It has recently dawned on me how they - theists - see us (which doesn't speak well for my powers of introspection because I WAS one for some time), and it is very hard for them to examine. They have simply lumped everything Good under the collector "God". This simplicity has freed them from the questions that occupy most people on this site, and they no longer trust complexity; it is easily dismissed as elitist pedantry from that point of view.

Now that the Good is all in the same place, they effectively "feel" the warmth coming from that direction, and have a "relationship" with it.

When we say we don't believe in God, there is no way they can get their heads around it - God is everything good, even with all the contradictions. They see us as people who reject Good, and don't value this warmth that means so much to them.

It never will make sense, but they're not stupid, they're just afraid. I think they (we, this time) need an example of courage and acceptance of life the way it us, and us the way we are - the third strain of chimpanzee, perhaps frightened of the future but exhilarated to be here at all.

It's just occurred to me, and I don't know what to do with it yet, except to BE it.

Anyone else?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

26. Comment #91358 by irate_atheist on November 28, 2007 at 6:24 am

 avatar24. Comment #91355 by prettygoodformonkeys -

I simply cannot comprehend how the collective masses are able to believe the absurd in the face of all reason. Some do eventually come to their senses, but most do not.

Believing that which is demonstrably false is a delusion. Why is humanity so amenable to this mental illness? And why do many of those who do not share this irrational mindset, respect - nay applaud - those who hold it?

I have gone beyond the point of trying to understand them. I have no desire to 'get inside their heads'. I do not want to be someone who understands the 'faith-head'.

I want their creeds kept away from power and influence wherever practical.

The only long-term solution is to keep their influence away from children, but even then, many will no doubt embrace the ridiculous as they grow-up.

With the inability and unwillingness for humanity to face reality, I am not of the opinion that the prognosis for our species is good.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #91362 by black wolf on November 28, 2007 at 6:42 am

 avatarUSA_Limey wrote:
For the skull fucking nutters I agree that's true. But alot of people of faith can and do loose their faith. Many of them post on this very website. They can be reached, and there is hope.


That is true, and I'm glad it is. But it seems that most 'apostates' have lost their faith or left their churches by a different motivation than arguments brought forth from nonbelievers. Many cite specific events involving clerical miscoduct, or they state that it was more a loss of faith on an emotional level (i.e. reason and observed reality overriding spiritual 'knowledge'). Nevertheless it is very important that humanists and other atheists relentlessly point out that there is an option to take a stance of compelling reasonableness relying on factual evidence and non-theistic moral philosophy. Apparently otherwise many people in very faithful communities would never realize the alternative, as their social background involves avoidance of non-theistic thinking. Getting attention on the media and reaching out to doubting believers is immensely important.

Other Comments by black wolf

28. Comment #91525 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm

 avatar25. Comment #91358 by irate_atheist:
I have gone beyond the point of trying to understand them. I have no desire to 'get inside their heads'. I do not want to be someone who understands the 'faith-head'
This seems like a poor way to proceed; if you are asking:
Why is humanity so amenable to this mental illness? And why do many of those who do not share this irrational mindset, respect - nay applaud - those who hold it?
then it seems you are wanting answers. I agree that the hands of the deluded should be kept from power, but if you're going to be talking to them or about them, not wanting to understand is a bad way to start. Your only other choice would be to stop asking questions, also bad.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

29. Comment #91552 by wednesdayguevara on November 28, 2007 at 2:33 pm

If anyone is interested in a great book about Pharaoh Akhenaten and his religious revolution, please check out "The Life and Times of Akhnaton, Pharaoh of Egypt" by Arthur Weigall. I think it's the first book written about the subject, but so far it's my favorite. Pithy and informative!

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

30. Comment #91789 by arogop on November 29, 2007 at 9:55 am

 avatarGrowing up I read lots of L.Ron Hubbard's books. He is a good Sci Fi writer with a very active imagination. Recently I checked out from the library a DVD on him explaining Scientology. My wife and I both felt that he just got bored one day and decided he would just create a religion.

Other Comments by arogop
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE