My Path to Atheism, Annie Besant

This is the second nonfiction book I have read on atheism. I am an atheist, for numerous reasons. So, the topic is of interest to me. The book was published in 1885. I cannot help but wonder at how a woman, so far back in time, could have had the courage to question a patriarchal society that was often violent against such questioning and doubt. Therefore, I knew immediately that I was reading the work of an early feminist. My Path to Atheism is available for free on Gutenberg.org.

My guess hit the mark. According to Wikipedia, Annie Besant devoted her life to many worthy causes: the emancipation of women and India, not to mention the freedom to disbelieve in the popular Christian cults. However, it is also noted that she believed her son "was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha." However, her son refuted these claims. Perhaps the declaration was a fiction meant to discredit Besant, which makes perfectly good sense considering it came about as she toured the US, lecturing.

"On the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth"

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is the groundwork of heresy."

Annie Besant offers some solid arguments through literary analysis of the Bible, both old and new. She argues that Jesus could not fulfill the predicted messiah as a god, since it was not a god that was predicted as a messiah. Another interesting feature is her argument that his miracles were not nearly as profound as those of the ones before him. Raising the dead was done by Elijah and Elisha; Moses healed lepers, among others.

In Besant's essay, "A Comparison Between the Fourth Gospel and the Three Synoptics," Jesus is often referenced in a very favorable light (though not as a deity or half god). By example, she describes Jesus as, "...the tenderest, gentlest, widest-hearted man  who has yet graced humanity." She seems not to be saying that there is no god to worship. Merely she states that Jesus is not that god, not a half god, and never claimed to be anything other than a teacher about god. There is some excellent analyses of the Bible in relation to the question. She also refers to god reverentially, as a being of love. She leaves off the essay, mentioning 'the sacred memory of Jesus of Nazareth... an insult to Almighty God. Thus far, I do not feel connected to Besant's claim to atheism.

"On the Mediation and Salvation of Ecclesiastical Christianity"

Again, I cannot see how Besant relates her interpretation of the Bible to that of atheism. She repeatedly shows her belief in an all loving god rather than an absence of god. She points out some flaws in the basic tenants of a god who holds salvation behind a belief in Jesus as a savior. She argues that salvation comes directly from god rather than Jesus.

"On Eternal Torture"

This essay is interesting enough, but again, Besant takes a standpoint that's reflective of someone who is a theist, not an atheist.

That said, she brings out the conflict of a so called loving god who commits unbelievers to eternal damnation and torture. She quotes a Catholic priest who is teaching children about Hell:

"How will your body be when the devil has been striking it every moment for a hundred million years without stopping?" A girl of eighteen is described as dressed in fire; "she wears a bonnet of fire. It is pressed down all over her head; it burns down her head; it burns into the skull; it scorches the bone of the skull and makes it smoke." A boy is boiled: "Listen! there is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling.... The blood is boiling in the scalded veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones." Nay, even the poor little babies are not exempt from torture: one is in a red hot oven, "hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists about in the fire.... You can see on the face of this little child"--the fair pure innocent baby-face--"what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible."

That's some horror show to terrify little children into obedience. She quotes some Protestants on hell, though it is far less eloquent or imaginative. An Anglican preacher teaches young men and girls about the consequences of indulging in 'sins of the flesh.' She merely alludes to what he said (what a shame! I love the poetry of horror!).

She waxes poetic about the contradiction of a kind and loving Jesus/God and the expectant return to earth, whereupon,

 (The angels) are to spend eternity, hymning the Lamb who saved them to the music of golden harps, harps whose melody is echoed by the curses and the wailings of the lost; for below is a far different scene, for there the sinners are "Tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever...

More poetical imagery of contrasting Utopia and Dystopia. What is most amusing is the thought that those up in Heaven would not be disturbed by the suffering of others. What kinds of people are saved? Not the kind of people I would find kindred to my soul. However, the people who preach that they are the only ones to be saved since their gospel and faith is the only true one are often the first to want to bomb everyone else, stone, punish, and do whatever evil to those who choose not to believe, or cannot believe such myths.

It is an interesting paradox that she mentions: the Christian who believes in the act of forgiveness, the requirement thereof, but also believes that those who sin against them will never be forgiven by their god. Perhaps that sort of believer does not so much as forgive as expect to see and enjoy the spectacle and screams of the offender suffering eternal torture.

But again, in the end, she is not arguing for or against theism or atheism. Her closing shows that she's clearly a theist:

I believe that God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all; I believe that all mankind is safe, cradled in the everlasting arms.

Truly that is a nice sentiment, but it is also optimistic that some all powerful and all knowing god would be so in love with us. A tyrant, which is what such a being would be, either good or evil, would relish good cheer or lamentation: if nature is anything to go by, it's something in between. All life ends in death. Death itself does not end. It seeks immortality through its ability to reproduce.

Religion, for me, is the delusion used to help people sleep better at night: either in good cheer because those whom you hate shall suffer eternal damnation while ye sit on high in the music that praises your savior, or in the screams of pain from the torture of eternal torture.

"On the Religious Education of Children"

Besant certainly has some odd ideas about education. She writes, "Religious education should come, so to speak, by chance." As an atheist, I would never entertain the idea of sending my children to a Sunday school to become brainwashed by the dogma. However, I find it hard to imagine teaching math in the same way, or any other subject. If there was a god, certainly that seems to be his means of educating mankind. We seem to have to discover everything ourselves.

The next opinion she brings up seems poorly thought out. "A child's natural instinct is towards good." Most children have little empathy and are entirely selfish. They need to learn empathy. She supports her argument with this:

A tale of heroism, of self sacrifice, of generosity, will bring the eager blood flushing up to a child's face and wake a quick response and a desire of emulation.

However, this emulation of the hero is due to the treatment of the hero. Most stories have 'happy endings' where the hero wins, is rewarded and praised, and has a good conscience (doesn't feel guilt). Usually he (especially in Besant's century, heroes were male) wins the maiden or the fantastically beautiful maiden whom he just saved from the villain. Thus, all the rewards belong to the hero, while the villain typically loses everything and is miserable. Therefore, I would conclude that it's not the goodness of the character that the child emulates for the sake of goodness, but rather for the rewards that the character receives.

While Besant won my respect earlier in her book, this particular essay seriously damaged my first impression.

"Natural Religion Versus Revealed Religion"

This essay points out that many associate "God's truth" with the works found in the Bible. Besant points out that some of these truths were written of before the Bible itself was written.

That said, I still see no argument suggesting that there may not be any god.

"On the Nature and the Existence of God"

God is a projection of man into space.

At last, perhaps, I have discovered Besant's claim to how she is an atheist. "...'atheist' is often flung unjustly at any thinker who ventures to criticise the popular and traditional idea of God..." Thus, it is not that she is any kind of atheist in the sense that she does not believe in god, but that she does not believe that the so-called experts of theism know much about god. She is not an atheist. She believes in god. Her beliefs are centered around the things that are good in life: love, good works, as belonging to god while the evil in the scriptures and in works are not of god, even when they are in the Bible.

My Conclusion

At this point, I am undecided on whether or not I have wasted much time reading this book. I feel deceived. This is not a book written by someone who had doubts and later became an atheist. Perhaps I should have seen this coming based on Besant's Wikipedia article as being someone who converted to an Eastern religion. I thought, perhaps, that her becoming an atheist was a mental or philosophical space she was in before she took on another religion. Now, unless I am pleasantly surprised, I feel duped. However, having wasted this much time digesting the first half, I might as well continue my meal until it is complete. That said, I read somewhere that once you've discovered the book you are reading is not worthy of your time, you ought to throw it against the wall. Well, I won't be doing that with my Kindle. But I do think I will be deleting it, which works even better: no hole in the wall, and it 'disappears' from my house, having never been the cause for harvesting a tree for its pulp.