Throughout the last 200 years, approximately, we have had numerous "prophets" of atheism -
Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Darwin among the many. Why is it, Koster asks, these are so
remembered among the elite. Darwin supposedly "discovered" evolution while evolution is
consistently attacked on scientific grounds and not without just cause. Many of Freud's ideas are
being debunked, Nietzsche wrote as he was going mad, and so on. Yet scientists like Pasteur who
disproved spontaneous generation, Lister who used Pasteur's discovery to pioneer antiseptic
surgery, and Christian philosophers like G. K. Chesterton and Van Til have gone almost
unknown. Before Freud, the idea of the subconscious was developed by F. W. H. Myers and
furthered by Carl Jung, but it is Freud who seems to carry the banner of psychological science
while those who discover Freud repressed knowledge his theories were fraught with difficulty are
themselves ostracized. Could it be that Darwin, Freud, Marx, et. al., are so remembered because
they alone, among the many scientists of their day, became atheists? The "prophets" seemingly
based their "discoveries" on science and are prophets in Koster's words because they seemed to
erect a case which would lead to the dissolution of theistic beliefs. Yet, as Koster argues, most if
not all of these suffered from the psychological malady known as the "atheist syndrome." Hence,
the title of his book.
The "atheist syndrome" should not be understood as something inherent in all atheists. Rather, it
should be seen as something inherent in only a few who have the following features. The child
has an abusive or uncaring father in a loveless household. He, the son-victim, either rebels
against his father and God, or rebels against God as a substitute for his rebellion against his
father. The son escapes, runs away, but later in life finds himself turning into his father and then
self- destructs. Many of them alleviated their depression by raving against Christianity. Thomas
Huxley called his rage "crib- biting" and noted his mood improved when he was bashing
Christianity. Freud lived longer than many of his friends thought possible and, while racked with
disease, continued his attack on Judeo-Christianity when writing Moses and Monotheism. Hitler,
not quite an atheist although embracing atheist suppositions, had a terrible son-father relationship
and ended up killing himself. Koster therefore doesn't speak of anything common among many
atheists although I have found many embrace atheism because of poor parental relations. What
Koster mostly does is debunk the atheists commonly used to erect an atheist scientific foundation
today.
Charles Darwin is Koster's first test subject as he should be. Darwin's writings were the basis for
most of the philosophy of Hitler, Marx, and others. Darwin's father, Robert, the "largest man I
ever saw" as Darwin said, appeared to Darwin as loveless and lovelessness, Koster says, was a
characteristic of the Victorian era - a sad thing. Atheists may be surprised that many in Darwin's
family were skeptics (atheists) and also insanity, or at least the fear of insanity, ran in Darwin's
family as well. Perhaps Darwin's atheism is not a result of his "discovery" of evolution, but rather
a familial characteristic or line of thought, one bolstered by possible depression or mental illness.
Imagine Stephen Gould changing his image of Darwin upon considering Darwin's atheist beliefs
may not have been well thought out after all.
Darwin's mother died early in his life, but he remembers very little of his mother. Koster
attributes this to repression and wonders if deep in Darwin's mind he thinks his god-like father,
who seemed to divine medical diagnoses out of thin air, took his mother from him. Blaming a
parent for the death of the other is not surprising and hence Koster may be right. I remain
skeptical of this position; it seems quite a jump in reasoning. In reality, we can never fully know
what was in Charles Darwin's mind. Yet, one thing we can be certain of is that Darwin did not
bond well with his father and hence it would be more difficult for him to embrace any kind of
union with God. Perhaps, as said earlier, Darwin's evolution was not based on science and pure
reasoning, but on a familial tendency, a misunderstanding of science, and rebellion against father.
I ignored Thomas Huxley and concentrated more on Friedrich Nietzsche, Hitler, and Marx.
Darwin and Huxley never repudiated Christian morality, Koster says, and Darwin actually
contributed to Christian missionaries, at times. One person that did realize the results of a
repudiation of theistic beliefs was Nietzsche who is famous for the phrase "God is dead" and his
superman beliefs. In "superman" we're not talking of a man with a cape who saves trapped
women from certain death on a train track. We're talking about something that surpasses man in
evolutionary development because man's duty should be to evolve by overcoming the weak.
Nietzsche thought women were his plaything when he wrote "Man should be trained for war, and
woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else if folly." Nietzsche would not have been loved
by modern gender feminists although his atheism might have been.
Nietzsche suffered from syphilitic paresis, a disease that obviously impaired his judgement as he
wrote. The "skeptic" H. L. Mencken adored Nietzsche and claimed Nietzsche went insane at
forty-four, suddenly in fact. Yet, Koster argues Nietzsche was going insane long before that - his
writing in Thus Spake Zarathustra appearing the work of a madman. As far as the "atheist
syndrome," Nietzsche lost his father at age four and thence had no solid male role model. Koster,
along with others, theorizes Nietzsche had homosexual leanings, something Koster partly
attributes to having little bonding with his father. Nietzsche also pined after composer Richard
Wagner while Wagner did not return the love.
Obviously Nietzsche had many problems, yet does this lead him to fit Koster's "atheist syndrome"
mold? His father certainly was not abusive or emotionally barren like Darwin's. He, in fact,
literally had no father at all. This might, however, mean Nietzsche developed his atheism from
other causes, including a homosexual leaning that clearly is prohibited by the Bible. Yet, so far,
leading atheists have poor son-father relationships. Is this more than a coincidence?
Freud's father married a very young wife - he was over forty when she was not yet twenty - and
undoubtedly Freud fixated on her. He saw his mother naked and experienced sexual arousal and,
it seems, became obsessed with incestuous conquest of his mother and rivalry with his father. It
seems out of this he developed many of his theories. As far as Freud's atheism, it most likely grew
out of his hatred of his father's Jewish religion and heritage. So Freud's beliefs seemed to grow
out of mental strain rather than clear sight.
Robert Waite, a leading academic authority, counted fifty thousand books on Hitler up to 1975.
It's amazing a man of such deviousness would have so many books written about him. His father
appears to have been a sex addict - enjoying many women at one time and marrying several
different ones over his life. He even married his own niece. Adolf clearly hated his father
although writing of his "respect" for his father, so undoubtedly he had no sense of bonding with
his father. Hitler ended up being an occultist, so the "atheist syndrome" doesn't really apply to
him. What does is Hitler's rejection of a personal god due to familial and social ills while he did
display signs of the syndrome Koster speaks of.
Karl Marx did not show any signs of developing the atheist syndrome, but his collaborator,
Friedrich Engels did. His father was overbearing, Koster says, and seems to have biased Friedrich
against Christianity in the usual methods of fathers of atheist syndrome victims. Engels followed
the ways syndrome sons rebel against their fathers and later when Marx and Engels hooked up,
they produced the now famous Communist Manifesto. Both were materialists, but were not taken
seriously until Lenin came across their work and launched a revolution that still imprisons many.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a day I listened to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's radio show. Her
caller, a young woman, complained about her dysfunctional family, especially poor parenting.
Schlessinger reminded her that parents are all too human and they do make mistakes and
reminded her caller her high expectations for her parents were expected because, like God in a
small way, parents are our creators. We expect a lot of our creator - whether biological or divine -
almost by instinct. Out of the mouth of babes! Indeed, it is far easier to embrace an Earthly father
or mother when having respect for a divine one and vice versa. Also coming to mind is a tale in
Schlessinger's book The Ten Commandments: The Significance of God's Laws in Everyday Life
(p. 133). When an atheist commented why a rabbi's children were so well behaved, the rabbi said
that for the atheist to his children he was one step closer to an ape while for the rabbi to his
children he is one step closer to God. What this means is that historically speaking a parent has
been around longer and hence existed closer to the time God created mankind. And, as I said
earlier, parents are like the creator god in a modest fashion. In reality, there is a connection
between respect for parents and respect for God. Out of this common sense Koster's book evolves
(pardon the pun).
Review of William Murray, My Life Without God
I got a riddle for you:
Question: What does an atheist who is tired of that philosophical lifestyle do?
Answer: He or she becomes a Christian and maybe even a pastor.
This may sound like a poor joke, but it is often true. Like former atheist Ignace Lepp, others have
become disenchanted with atheism and then turn to religion which has more substance to it and
happiness to it than atheism ever can have.
Such was a man named William Murray (hereafter referred to as Bill). To those who have not
heard of him, Bill is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who is one of the most, if not the most,
influential atheists around.
Bill was raised as an atheist by O'Hair, but found the life unliveable. He changed, with the Lord's
help, and became a preacher devoted to fighting the very influence that was a hallmark of his
mother's motivation for so many years. The account of his life as an ex-atheist is contained in his
book My Life Without God from which I quote in this essay. We will describe his conversion
later. For now, let's talk about Madalyn's movement into atheism and why she did so.
Madalyn in Bill's Early Life
Madalyn seemed early in life to be a Christian with average knowledge and faith in God. In her
high school yearbook she listed her goal as serving God for the betterment of man. She learned
early in life a bedtime prayer which she said every night religiously (pardon the pun). She grew
up with some religious upbringing, but in reality her parents were not regular churchgoers. Her
mother taught Madalyn to pray, not out of devotion to Christianity, but out of general interest in
spiritual affairs. Madalyn never, I believe, received a firm training in Christianity, a lack of
training that would eventually lead to her atheism.
Madalyn's change of attitude came sharply after she became pregnant by a man who was already
married. This man, J. Roth, would not leave his wife to marry Madalyn because of religious
reasons. She went to court to prove paternity and won, but never won Roth's heart. She returned
home to find her parents moved -- to a shack with a dirt floor. He family was a wreck. Her father
was strung out on booze and all the money was gone. It was at that point that Bill believes
Madalyn's atheism started. Here is how he tells it:
I believe it was during this period . . . that her extreme anti-God views were born. The same thing could have happened to others trapped in similar circumstances. In particular, Mother came to hate the Roman Catholic church and the Pope for preventing her marriage to a man of considerable wealth [Roth]. My father had told her point blank tha tit was his devotion to the church that would not permit him to divorce his wife.
So, Madalyn became angry at God. She became angry at everything that Christianity stood for. I
see here no discussion in Madalyn's mind over anything related to historical discussions of
Christianity's birth. I see no philosophical, theological, or cosmological discussions over whether
Christianity is true or not. All I see is anger. O'Hair became an atheist not out of lack of proof, but
out of anger. This could have been a time that she embrace God for support, but she didn't. She
merely reacted in a perverse way.
The Communist Days
Madalyn then turned to Communism. She attempted to defect to Russia without success. Why did
she want to go to Russia, especially when this country has such a poor record on human rights
and individual property ownership and success? She did because it was a way to get away from
Christianity.
Madalyn reveals her opinion of Russia in one of many arguments she had with Bill's grandfather.
He criticized Russia for being a place where you couldn't own a home of your own and where
everyone is poor. Bill's grandfather was right of course. How did Madalyn respond? She
criticized her father as a Nazi, and stated that the Jews were controlling everything and running it
into the ground. On the subject of Russia, she stated:
Russia is a strong and beautiful nation. They were our allies in the last war. They had the guts to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor.
The abuses of the Communist system are absent to O'Hair mainly because she doesn't want to see
them. Communism respresents the best way to get away from Christianity and the God she now
hated, and therefore anything bad about Communism is fine as long as its away from the despised
religion.
When she could not go to Russia, she started socialist movements in the United States and even
in her own house. The talk which went on in them was very revealing on the state of mind of the
participants. Bill tells of a few meetings in which the participants of Madalyn's socialist groups
characterized the USA as run by rich people who did not work, but instead lived of the sweat and
tears of the workers. To them, the USA was a fascist labor camp in which the workers could only
be freed with a revolution, one that Madalyn was ready to lead.
This behavior is not new, and everyone who has studied socialism will recognize this talk.
However, it becomes plain to me that many who advocate the revolution Madalyn and her
cohorts wanted were not really interested in helping others. They were indeed only interested in
destroying the system which Christianity was linked to. Since faith in Christ was a part of our
nation for so long, only a revolution like the socialist one would remove this blot from our
history. This revolution is not really interested in helping others, just from removing Christianity
from our society. Ample proof of that is in my previous chapter where I clearly revealed that
Communism treated people poorly despite its initial claims to help others. Communism was not
really interested in helping others anyway; it was only interested in eliminating religion,
particularly Christianity, any way it could even if it had to step on the backs of its citizens to do it.
Prayer Has To Go
After the family returned from their attempt at defection, Bill had to enroll at school. In his
school they prayed regularly, that is until Madalyn got wind of it. She attempted to change
everything, and got Bill in a mess of trouble. Other students regularly picked on him for his
Mother's political engagements. Bill questioned her on this, to which she replied:
The only way true freedom can be achieved is through the new socialist man -- an entire race that
lives for the state. Only when all men know the truth of their animal sameness will we have true
freedom. Russia is close but not close enough, or they would have let us in.
To O'Hair, Communism with is oppression of personal freedom was actually preferable to our
country with its freedom and with its religion. She was so entranced with trying to escape
Christianity, that the worst system with little freedom was preferable to her than a better system
with freedom and with religion present.
Toward Conversion
Madalyn's political activism continued and with ongoing disastrous results for Bill. He eventually
married and had a few odd jobs to keep himself afloat. He turned to heavy drinking and almost
ruined his marriage. He had numerous fights with his mother and eventually left her fold,
deciding that her fight was not worth it. His life was miserable through and through. This is how
he described his life when it finally sank as deep as it could go:
For the first time in my adult life I was nearly penniless. My printing equipment was gone and my furniture was sold. My frustration fed my hatred for my mother, her organization, and the people in it. I despised both my brother and mother. I concluded they no longer needed me now, after my business experience had built their little empire. . . . Now with Bill Murray gone, she was once again the undisputed savior of the atheist world. I thought of her and Garth [his brother] as two fat pigs waiting for the spike and wished them both the worst of everything.
This is indeed powerful hatred. What could possibly turn such hatred and disgust around?
During all this, Bill's thought turned to religion. He thought that if there was really a God, despite
his mother's wishes, there must be a devil because he had seen him. His mother was just an
example of the devil that Bill saw in the world. Bill felt that there must be a good God, because
he had saw evil and felt there had to be something better that this.
Bill was impressed with a preached named Bob who often debated his mother. Bob was an
ex-alcoholic who supposedly had kept off the bottle with the Lord's help. Bill thought that maybe
God was the answer. Unfortunately this changed when Bob opened up a bottle of Jack Daniel's in
his room while Bill was visiting one day.
Bill began reading a book called Dear and Glorious Physician which is supposedly about a
character Lucanas, or in the Bible: Luke. Bill's attitude was starting to change, but something was
still missing.
All this changed one night in a dream. Here is how Bill describes it:
Then, on the night of January 24, 1980, an unusual event changed my life. I went to bed and, not long after falling asleep, experienced a consuming nightmare of unmentionable horror. Suddenly, the nightmare was sliced in half by a mighty, gleaming sword of gold and silver. The two halves of the nightmare peeled back as if a black and white photograph had been cut in half. A great winged angel stood with the sword in his hand. The blade of the sword pointed down, making it resemble a cross. On the sword's hilt were inscribed the words "IN HOC SIGNO VINCE." The tip of the sword's blade touched an open Bible.
The Latin words meant, "By this symbol conquer." Bill dismissed any psychiatric explanation and
decided that perhaps God had touched him. He went out and bought a Bible, the very Bible his
mother and family had so vehemently crusaded against.
He read, of course, the book of Luke first. It was there that his attitudes started to change. Bill
accepted Christ into his life. His hatred of his mother began to disappear and he now firmly
wanted to help her instead of wishing her the worst. He then wanted to apologize to his wife and
all who had been offended by his actions. And he did. He went on to found the Murray Faith
Foundation from which he fights atheist and humanist influences.
In reading Bill's book, several things come to mind. First, atheism can often lead to very
destructive behavior. Madalyn's obsession with ridding the United States from Christianity was
not at all tempered with the harm it was doing to her son. Secondly, Christianity can lead to a
way out of this lifestyle, and often in miraculous ways (as Bill demonstrates). Thirdly,
Christianity can lead a person who was an atheist to be much more calmer and actually able to
forgive others where before it would have been impossible.(1)
I have more to say about Madalyn though. Her missionary zeal for atheism is something which is
not unknown in this society. Drawing from Ignace Lepp's analysis of Nietzsche(2), I would say
that she too became disenchanted in the same way a person is disenchanted with a lover. She lost
her love of God, and therefore had to remove him in any way possible.
Is see this behavior in circles outside of religion. I see women who have become so upset with
men that they not only want nothing to do with men, but they want to change all other women so
that they also hate men. Thus, these women become missionaries of sorts who are not out to
spread good news, but to make sure that all other women are just as miserable as they are. Thus,
these women receive labels such as "FemiNazis" (ala Rush Limbaugh) and other very rude titles.(3)
I hope I haven't offended any women out there, because that is not my aim. I only used this
example because it is a phenomenon that is so prevalent in society today that it serves as such a
good comparison to O'Hair's lost love of religion. Just as people are so disgusted with their mate
that they must hate that sex and must drive away any consideration of that sex as good, so many
(but not all) atheists must drive away any hint of religion. This is not because they sincerely want
to help people, but because they want to make sure that the people they want to convert are as
miserable as they are. This attitude is what is behind atheists such as Nietzsche. Madalyn did not
really want to help anyone when she adopted her socialist attitude. She only used her political
activism as a screen for her real motive: to remove the lost love of religion from her life. When
she couldn't remove religion like she wanted to, she was rather disgruntled. In her hometown
newspaper, Austin American-Statesman, she remarked, "I think that the window of opportunity
for atheism has closed . . . Our '63 case will be overturned. It's just a matter of the right case
coming before the Court. By the end of the decade, I think you'll have full- fledged religious
ceremonies return to public schools."(4)
There is another correlation in atheist logic with my "atheists are people with a lost love"
hypothesis. People who doubt that another really loves them will often challenge that person to
prove his or her love. Here's an example: Suppose I don't really believe my mother loves me. I
might say to her, "If you really love me you'll . . ." I want my mother to prove her love by issuing
a challenge to her. We have already seen that atheists often issue a challenge to God. Is it because
they want God to prove his love by proving his existence? Many atheists who have found God are
happy, just as I would be if my mother's love was proven (in my hypothetical example). Is this
what atheists are subconsciously doing? Or are they stating such a challenge because they firmly
believe it will never be taken up and therefore they have insulated their atheism against any
disproof? I don't know, for only God and the psychologist would know. But what I have said is an
interesting hypothesis nevertheless.
I feel that other atheists (but again, not all) are like this. They see the injustices done in the name
of religion and lose their love of it. Thus, they want to see religion gone from not just their sight
but from society. It makes no difference to them that people benefit from religion. Religion to
them must be gone and all who don't agree must change their views. If people will not change
their views, those atheists embark on a missionary course to show everyone just how wrong
religion is.
The problem with missionary zeal is that often it becomes an obsession, and Madalyn's was. I
really feel for her now and feel for Bill. However, I can't help her. As I am writing this, a short
while ago I saw on the news that Madalyn was missing. Where she is I have no idea. She might
be on vacation. She might be dead. If she is dead, I fear for the rest of her children and I fear for
her immortal soul. And, I fear for the rest of the nation when there are others out there to take her
place.
Notes:
1. I should also mention the testimony of Josh McDowell who I use as a reference in my book. At
the time he was converted, he was going to college. Here is what he says his conversion to Christ
did for him:
"One area I told him [a professor he was debating with] about my restlessness. I always had to be
occupied. I had to be over at my girl's place or somewhere else in a rap session. I'd walk across
the campus and my mind was like a whirlwind with conflicts bouncing off the walls. I'd sit down
and try to study or cogitate and I couldn't. But a few months after I made that decision for Christ,
a kind of mental peace developed. Don't misunderstand. I'm not talking about the absence of
conflict. What I found in this relationship with Jesus wasn't so much the absence of conflict but
the ability to cope with it. I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world." [McDowell, Evidence
That Demands a Verdict vol. 1, p. 365-366. Original quote from McDowell, More Than a
Carpenter, Tyndale House Publishers, 1977]
2. Ignace Lepp, Atheism in Our Time, 1963, Macmillan Publishing: New York. Lepp says that
Nietzsche was hurt inside emotionally because Christianity did not satisfy him because it did not
turn out to be what he expected.
3. For reference to this, see the book, Who Stole Feminism, by Christina Hoff Sommers. Her book
contains a whole catalog of feminist arguments and their methods of making their arguments unfalsifiable.
4. Quoted in Pat Robertson, The Turning Tide: The Fall of Liberalism and the Rise of Common
Sense, 1993, Word Publishing: Dallas, London, Vancouver, Melbourne, p. 276; quoting from
Chuck Lindell, "Religion to Return, Says Atheist O'Hair," Austin American-Statesman, July 18, 1993
Review of Ignace Lepp, Atheism in Our Time
I admit that I am an avid book-sale buff. Going to them is a great way to line your library with
great books which you might never see, hear of, or buy. Many of these books are the smallest
ones available, but one which have the most to say.
I was most fortunate at one book sale to find the book Atheism in our Time, written by an ex-
atheist named Ignace Lepp. Lepp is a Frenchman who used to be in the Communist party. Thus,
he knows rabid, militant atheism firsthand. I quickly put his book at the top of my reading list.
What I discovered was that he makes statements that have such profound significance for today
that I had to make his wisdom part of a chapter in this book.
Lepp characterizes himself as one who has "always been an atheist." He had contact with
religion, but it meant nothing to him.
At 15 years old, he joined the Communist Party. Here he served for many years, being
indoctrinated in the ways of Soviet Russia. While he was there, he was taught that atheism was a
path to enlightenment. After splitting with the Communist Party, he found that Communist
atheism was more a path to darkness than a trip into the light.
Communism as Religion
What is interesting is that Lepp openly declares Communism to be a religion. Lepp says that his
entrance into Communism was "an entrance into a religion." He says that Communism
"mobilized my spiritual energies to such an extent that I could no longer become interested in
anything else."
The transcendent is normally linked to the belief in religion and god. Lepp, however, links it
strongly with Communism.
What psychologically distinguishes the profoundly religious man from the atheist? . . . I have
closely observed many fervent believers . . . Christians, but including Moslems and Hindus. . . .
[religious] life is . . . entirely in the service of a Transcendent, an Absolute. . . .
But, in retrospect, the psychological content of my adherence to communism bears an undeniable
resemblance to religious faith. . . . My firm conviction . . . was that life in this world constituted a
self-sufficient totality that needed no finality nor justification outside or above the terrestrial. But
the reality which I designed by the word "world" took on so broad and complex a meaning that it
almost matched in intensity that Christian's hope in eternal life.
This is powerful testimony. Lepp's testimony cannot be dismissed simply because he once was an
atheist and a Communist. Other authors have expressed the same sentiment that Communism is a
religion. They have sacred books (Marx, Engels, and the Communist Manifesto), they have their
saints who have died and had cities named after them (Stalin, Stalingrad), and they have a hope
for eternal life embodied in the social reform they create. Communists struggle forever to create
a different world and take comfort that their changes will live forever in their progeny that live
long after them.
Do you want more proof that Communism is a religion? Consider the missionary work of
Christians. Now, think about the missionary work of Communism. Lepp explains.
When I was seventeen or eighteen . . . I remember receiving an order from the party to replace a
speaker at an antireligious meeting. The "without God" organizations at that time had orders to
conduct an active campaign against "religious superstitions" . . . To attract as many believers as
possible to these meetings we organized them in the same rowdy and equivocal manner as did
Adventists [and other religions].
All doubts should be removed there. This tells you an idea of why Communism was and is so
adamant in its positions. Communism survives because it demonizes its opponents (Christianity,
western civilizations, ...) as evils that need to be conquered in order to bring about a more civil
world. Yet, Communism is exactly a religion in the same way Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and
others are. This goes unnoticed, simply because those tireless crusaders have no time to check
their own beliefs in logic when they are in a constant struggle against opponents who have been
characterized as "superstitious," "backward," and "demonic." An evil-fighting crusader who does
check to see if his campaign is indeed worthy is to be feared almost as much as the evils he is fighting.
The Path to Conversion
Lepp did not check his logic simply because he took what he was taught for granted. Lepp states
that he never had the "metaphysical unrest" that many people have. He never questioned what
happens to a human soul and what the ultimate purpose on earth for man is. Why did he not ask
these questions? One reason is his staunch indoctrination into Communism. Another is that his
Communist atheism was itself a religion that fulfilled everything which Christianity or other
religions would. Communism worked for him simply because, while taking away any thought of
religion, it supplanted its own. Think of religion like food. If Christianity is one such food that
you can eat, then removing it will make you still hungry. But, if you substitute another food,
perhaps religious Communism, then you can be filled with no thought as to the quality of the
food you are ingesting. Communism is junk food, however, while Christianity is more healthy to
the body and soul.
To back up his beliefs, Lepp used methods not unlike those used today. When confronted with
metaphysical unrest, he gladly quoted Marx, as if Marx's statements are to be put on par with
Biblical truth. When asked questions which he could not answer, Lepp stated that science has not
solved all the riddles and perhaps maybe someday they will.
Particularly interesting is how religion was thought of in his political circle of friends. As I stated,
Lepp was told that religions, particularly Christianity, were all superstitious nonsense. His
Communist teachers told him that the Middle Ages where religion flourished was akin to a
period of "darkness." Since Christianity was responsible for much of this, it was considered the
antithesis to the "light of reason," and considered the "enemy of social progress." His Russian
masters had convinced him that "priests, pastors, and all other official spokesmen of religion
were liars and deliberate imposters who were paid by capitalists to dupe the people with promises
of eternal happiness, so they could not revolt against the established order and demand their share
of earthly goods." Such was the brainwashing he received.
Light did shine eventually. In retrospect he wishes he would have known of Christian
intellectuals as Mounier, Maritain, Gilson, and Guardini and states that they were "the equals of
my Marxist masters." He states that all this he learned after his conversion. So thorough was the
censorship he was put under. He left the Communist part and started having this "metaphysical
unrest" after which he encountered the Christian message.
Lepp stated that Christianity is the best hope for Communist Russia. How prophetic he was, as
the wall of Communism has fell, allowing missionaries to abound in that sector of the world.
They hurry, not knowing how long it will be before the wall is up again.
The Path to Psychotherapy
Lepp became a French psychotherapist who converted to Catholicism. In his book from which I
quote from, he relates several case studies of atheists who came to him for counseling, and how
he helped them. Doing so, he weaves a tapestry of different types of atheism and why followers
cling to those beliefs.
His first story comes from a woman named Evelyn. Evelyn's atheism, like that of many atheists,
came from her upbringing. Her parents were very puritanical, to the point of justifying every
prohibition by appealing to the authority of God. They were especially puritanical when it came
to sexuality, qualifying anything that was concerned with the body as sinful. Evelyn, not
surprisingly, revolted. She became grossly atheistic. Since her parents were bad, she assumed the
god they invoked was as well.
This woman did get help, and in an unusual way. Lepp explains.
What psychotherapy did for Evelyn, first of all, was to give her a better understanding of her
parents. She saw that they, too, were victims of the prejudices of their environment and of their
own inner conflicts; this explained their puritanism that was so much at odds with the true spirit
of Christianity. This understanding led her to forgive her parents . . .
Evelyn was healed. However, I wonder how many other atheists are like her.
Actually, I know of one whom I'll call Jerry (certainly not his real name). This is an atheist I
debated with briefly on the fidonet Milwaukee-general area. Jerry was a militant atheist who,
while complaining that Christians were using judgmental and demeaning language, did just the
same in the statements he made. His atheism stemmed from his experience with his parents. He
is a homosexual, and his revelations of that fact to his parents led them to reject him. He was
understandably upset by this. He was angry at them and therefore at God. My debating friend
Nancy correctly mentioned to him that he did not receive the upbringing he should have gotten
according to the Biblical statements that parents should, "bring up you children in the knowledge
of the Lord" and to "not provoke them to anger." Jerry's attitudes did not change although Nancy
was quite correct on her interpretation of Jerry's problems.
Liberalism and Hurt Faith
My second and last citation from Lepp will be of an atheist named Francis. Francis started out as
a Christian, but lost his faith about the age of twenty-seven.
Francis was a foreman in an automobile factory and secretary of the Communist cell there. It
appeared that his faith was damaged by his association with the Communist party. He attached
little importance to his faith as a child. But about the age of eight he met the chaplain of the local
boy scouts and acquired some faith. He married a Communist girl and became greatly entrenched
in that atheistic system. The loss was great; it was his faith. The Communists condemned the
priest-workers and therefore most theologians, theorizing that they were always on the side of the
rich and those who want to hurt the poor. The greatest blow came when his favorite church
director left the church. The total effect of all these setbacks was that Francis left the church and
never went back.
Lepp talked to Francis and wanted to know why, despite his agreements with the church, how he
could abandon Christianity. Francis stated that Lepp was right, but that he could not believe in
any absolute revealed truth, only in the truth of seeking a better world. He still believed in the
importance of the Gospel and people like Francis of Assisi and Vincent de Paul. He always
would. But this was not enough to persuade him. His faith was hurt so bad that the facts are not
good enough.
Lepp has his own analysis of Francis. He states that, "The part played by the emotions is equal to
that played by the intellect. A faith in which fervor and enthusiasm play no part will generally
soon fade." This analysis plays a specific part in the diagnosis of Francis. Francis had the facts he
needed, but lost his emotion and enthusiasm for the Gospel. Thus, his faith faded. Lepp
concludes that a psychologist would say that he has indeed lost his faith.
So, What Does this Have to do With Atheism Today?
I talked much about Communism. But this essay is not about Communism; it's about atheism and
other forms of nontheist beliefs. What relevance do Lepp's revelations have on our knowledge of
these systems of thought.
First, I should point out Lepp's remark that atheism fulfills the same philosophical, spiritual, and
emotional hunger that belief in God does for a theist. This is a noteworthy remark because many
atheists trumpet themselves as being free from the bounds of religion and free-thinkers who can
explore any possibility in life with ease of thought. This is tremendously false. Atheism is very
much a religion and the belief system around it fills all the holes that belief in God does. This is
the reason atheists hold to evolution so. Evolution gives them the answers to life's questions when
you take away the necessity of God. Evolution will tell us where we came from and where we are
going. It incorporates natural selection as a godlike force to do anything that is possible. Just as
religion carries with it all the philosophical attachments, so does atheism.
Another point he makes is how the atheism he was put under appealed to transcendent qualities
which supposedly they had banished. This is noteworthy, as I believe atheists do the same today.
When they appeal to a purpose in life, such as when they tell me that they are happy to be part of
the great biological changes of evolution (such as one that I was debating with did), they are
appealing to a transcendent purpose in life. When they appeal to a conscious earth (Gaia) or a
conscious universe and calling us a natural product of them, they are appealing to a transcendent
godlike force in the universe which is the creator. When an atheist believes that their ultimate
goal in life is to remove Christianity from society or to create one-government world which
supposedly should usher in a time of peace and tranquility when the discomforts of religion are
gone, they are once again appealing to a transcendent quality or purpose in life.
His detail of some of his patients is stunning. It is so stunning because I see people like his
patients every day. Evelyn is a perfect example of many atheists. They come from broken homes
or abusive homes where God is cited as reason for the abuse. Francis is an example of those who
see cruelty in the name of religion all around them. I believe that people like this firmly want
Christianity to be true. But, they see so much abuse in the name of God that they reject religion
totally. They have no use for any historical, philosophical, or other proof any religion might
provide simply because to them it is no longer possible to show that any religion is correct. They
simply remove it from their thoughts and turn to the religion of atheism where they become
militant apostles who want religion gone complete. Not all atheists are that militant, but a great
many are.
From what I read of Lepp, it might be argued that many an atheist comes under psychological
stress as a result of the situation that drives him or her to embrace this faith, and needs a
psychotherapist to help sort it all out. Perhaps such a belief also needs a good Biblical scholar to
point out that their aversion to Christianity as from a bad characterization of it. Am I being too
direct? If anyone reads this and is offended, I am sorry. Lepp gives very strong evidence that
many of the psychological reasons people have for becoming atheists come from some trauma at
home or in life which is done in the name of Christ or with so-called Christians who have
distorted the Bible and given a wrong impression of Christianity. I see much of this, and I wonder
if my analysis of Lepp is right. Lepp helped the atheist woman named Evelyn by helping her
understand her parents and helping her see the true nature of Christianity. Perhaps others have
been hurt in the same way and have been fed a bad version of Christianity, and would gladly
change if they could understand the truth.
Lepp's last contribution is his analysis of the atheist Neitzsche. Lepp summarizes the
psychological basis of Nietzsche's belief as such:
When a psychologist considers Nietzsche's relentless hatred for Christianity, he suspects, even
before he knows much about te man's life, a great disillusioned love. As a matter of fact,
biographers of the philosopher . . . say that Nietzsche expected much, perhaps too much humanly
speaking, of Christianity. Not having found what he expected, he became terribly angry.
. . . In a psychological study such as this, we may be permitted the opinion that Nietzsche's
external contradictions are the projection of painful internal suffering.
Nietzsche demanded something of Christianity which it could not fulfill. Thus, while he admired
much of it, it just didn't fit the bill he had for it. This is like many atheists. They want Christianity
to be great and Christians to reflect the sincere truths of Christianity. To their disappointment,
however, people don't reflect their aspirations of religion and the religion that its followers push
do not meet their expectations. Thus, while they admire Christianity, they cannot believe it, and
won't believe it, because their hopes are dashed.
Unsatisfaction is a powerful tool in the hand of those who are not happy with the current
orthodoxy. It puts them in a position where they might desire any system which is contrary to that
orthodoxy, no matter how illogical or how offensive it is.