Nikola Tesla on Religion

Nikola Tesla, probably the greatest inventor in the last several hundred years, is another one who is sometimes called an atheist. Not often, though. His religious background is fairly well-known, but his name is occasionally added to lists of famous atheists.

The reason is quotes like this:

"Religion is simply an ideal. It is an ideal force that tends to free the human being from material bonds. I do not believe that matter and energy are interchangeable, any more than are the body and soul. There is just so much matter in the universe and it cannot be destroyed. As I see life on this planet, there is no individuality. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but I believe each person is but a wave passing through space, ever-changing from minute to minute as it travels along, finally, some day, just becoming dissolved."

This quote in particular is used to claim that Tesla did not believe in religion, the soul, or Einsteins physics. None of this is true.

"Ideal" can mean many things, such as "a conception of something in its perfection" or "an ultimate object or aim of endeavor, especially one of high or noble character," but even in its most negative connotation, which I think Tesla was using, it means "something that exists only in the imagination." This is absolutely true. Religion exists only in the mind. However, that does not mean that God also exists only in the imagination. It does not mean that Tesla does not believe in God. In addition, just because religion only exists in the mind, it does not mean that religion is bad. Tesla speaks of religion as a positive, liberating force, "[freeing] the human being from material bonds."

Another quote, which illustrates Tesla's spirituality, is this one, in his autobiography:

"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work."

Tesla attributes the gift of mental prowess to God and not only viewed the Bible as the source of all truth, but apparently devoted months at a time to its study. And this one:

"Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment and merging of races, and we are still far from this blissful realization, because few indeed, will admit the reality  that "God made man in His image"  in which case all earth men are alike. There is in fact but one race, of many colors. Christ is but one person, yet he is of all people, so why do some people think themselves better than some other people?"

So not only did Tesla believe that peace could only come through the realization of the doctrine that we are all alike, but he derived this truth from Christian doctrine. In other words, he used Christian doctrine as a way to say that we all equal and no one is better than any other person. As with most things involving Tesla, we need more of that.

Thomas Edison, Not an Atheist

Thomas Edison is often (falsely) credited as the greatest inventor ever, and one of the greatest names in science. He's also often described as an atheist. The belief that he was an atheist is so prevalent that many atheist organizations, such as Atheistempire.com and Atheists.org, claim him as such and often use quotes to support the idea, although the latter was good enough to include that "pantheist" is a better word for Edison, they still continue calling him an atheist, as if pantheism was a type of atheism.

One of the more famous quotes is,

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk."

This quote is not taken out of context. He really did not believe in Heaven or Hell, the afterlife, or a personal god, but that does not mean he did not believe in any God. Much like Thomas Jefferson, Edison was a theist, even though he had some serious disagreements with the religions of his day.


In an October 2, 1910, interview in the New York Times Magazine, Edison also stated:

"Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions."

This actually caused a bit of an uproar, with public accusations of Edison being an atheist. He never allowed himself to get wrapped up in the public drama, but he wrote the following privately in a letter:

"You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."

Edison specifically states that he believes in a Supreme Intelligence, but not the god of modern religions. Nature was Edison's god, and he considered it a sentient force. An Intelligence. He was a pantheist, believing that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.

Edison put it even more simply when he wrote on a piece of stationary from his office,

"I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe."

In addition, his family also testified regarding his belief in a Supreme Being:

"He never was an atheist. Although he subscribed to no orthodox creed, no one who knew him could have doubted his belief in and reverence for a Supreme Intelligence, and his whole life, in which the ideal of honest, loving service to his fellowman was predominant, indicated faithfully those two commandments wherein lies `all the law and all the prophets."

Religulous and the Founding Fathers

Bill Maher is actually a fairly insightful individual when it comes to social issues or politics, and he does have a regrettably accurate view of some aspects of modern Christianity. I say "regrettably" because I have to admit that he is right in some of what he says about theists these days. A significant percentage of theists at least seem to be deluded sheeple clinging to demonstrably false claims.

However, that doesn't mean that he is always right. In his documentary, Religulous, he talks about the Founding Fathers and whether they established America as a "Christian nation." In order to support the claim that they did not establish such a nation, he offers three quotes, seen in the video below:

Again, those three quotes were:

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." - Thomas Jefferson

In offering these three quotes, Maher steals a page out of Dawkins playbook by using quotes that are either  taken wildly out of context, or which simply do not exist.

Benjamin Franklin actually never uttered the words, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." This sentence cannot be found in any of his writings or correspondences. It is generally agreed that this is a paraphrase of a sentiment written in a letter to his wife shortly after he survived a shipwreck. To his wife, he wrote:

"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

Here we see a much more accurate view of Benjamin Franklin's beliefs, more of which can be read HERE.

To be fair, John Adams did actually utter the words used by Maher in the documentary, but Maher takes them far out of context. Adams only meant these words hypothetically, and not as being representative of his own beliefs. This is made more than clear when we read the words in context:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."

When read in context we see the actual opinion of Adams, and what is likely the opinion of several other of the Founding Fathers. He was rightfully disgusted by the history of religion and Christianity, but he also understood that we would be worse off without it. In Adams' view, religion doesn't prevent this world from being paradise, it prevents it from being Hell. More on John Adams view of Christianity can be read HERE.

Thomas Jefferson is the real Wild Card here. He did say (most) of the words that Maher quotes, and they do accurately reflect his feelings of Christianity, but again, the context is enlightening. The quote is an abbreviated form of his words in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, in 1801. He writes:

"DEAR SIR, -- I learnt some time ago that you were in Philadelphia, but that it was only for a fortnight; & supposed you were gone. It was not till yesterday I received information that you were still there, had been very ill, but were on the recovery. I sincerely rejoice that you are so. Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, & for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous. Bigots may be an exception. What an effort, my dear Sir, of bigotry in Politics & Religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power & priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement; the President himself declaring, in one of his answers to addresses, that we were never to expect to go beyond them in real science. This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, - endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame."

Thomas Jefferson actually considered Christianity to be the most sublime and benevolent philosophy that had ever shown on man. Knowing this, we can now plainly see what he meant when he called it perverted. He was not using the word in the sense of being "characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies," even though that does seem to fit some denominations today. Rather, he meant it in the sense of "having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state."

In other words, he meant "perverted," not "perverse."

His view that Christianity was truly "sublime" and that it had been corrupted is further evidenced by the way he spoke of other Christians in his day. Refusing to even acknowledge their faith, he referred to them as "Platonists." In a letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816, he wrote about a "wee-little" book of his, known as the Philosophy of Jesus:

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature." 

Jefferson's Philosophy of Jesus was one of his first efforts to produce his own version of the Bible, taking only the actual teachings of Jesus and compiling them together. Of Jesus' philosophy, Jefferson says, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen." He clearly thought very highly of "real" Christianity. In fact, it is somewhat amusing to note that when he referred to himself as a "real Christian," he underlined it for emphasis.

The emphasis not only draws attention to his affection for Christianity, but also to his disdain for modern Christians. He says they "draw all their ... dogmas from what [Jesus] never said nor saw," and that if "[Jesus] were ... to return on earth, [He] would not recognize one feature."

This is the definition of "perverted," not "perverse." Jefferson clearly did not view Christianity as something terrible or evil, but rather as the "most sublime & benevolent ... system that ever shone on man." Though it had been twisted and turned into something else by modern Christians. More on Jefferson's view can be read HERE.

Back to Bill Maher. He uses these faulty quotes to support the idea that the Founding Fathers had a negative view of religion and did not intend for religion to play a large role in society. I'm not a historian, but I don't believe so.

In 1787, the year the Constitution was written and approved by Congress, that same Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory and stated the basic rights of citizens in a similar way as the Bill of Rights. In the Northwest Ordinance, they emphasized the essential need to teach religion and morality in the schools, saying:

"Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

In other words, schools and education were to be forever encouraged specifically because people need to learn "religion, morality, and knowledge." The study of religion and morality is not required simply as an intellectual exercise,  but because it is a necessary ingredient for "good government and the happiness of mankind."

George Washington echoed this sentiment in his Farewell Address, saying:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

But just because they viewed religion, in general, as an essential part of public and private welfare, doesn't mean that they promoted Christianity specifically. For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill in Virginia regarding "Establishing Elementary Schools" in which he writes:

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."

In other words, religion was to be taught in schools, but only religious tenets which were universal to all religions. We can only speculate what these universal tenets might be, but some of the Founding Fathers have hinted at their opinion. For example, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion."

From this we may gather that Benjamin Franklin considered the following to be universal religious tenets:

1. Recognition and worship of a Creator who made all things
2. That the Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
3. That the Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other
4. That all mankind live beyond this life.
5. That in the next life individuals are judged for their conduct in this one.

If the Founding Fathers had their way, these basic principles would be taught in schools, beginning in Elementary Schools, and they would be held as "indispensable supports" to government and prosperity.

On a brief side note, there is a somewhat controversial line from the Treaty of Tripoli which states that "the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This is absolutely true. The United States were not founded on the Christian religion. However, "Christianity" is not "religion." While they did not intend to found a nation specifically on the Christian faith, it is more than clear that they intended for the United States to be a generally, fundamentally religious nation.

I do actually agree with Bill Maher that the Founding Fathers would be displeased by the current religious condition in America. Not because we are too religious, but because we are not religious enough. They intended for religion to be taught in schools and for it to be held as an important pillar of our society.

Instead, we live in a nation that seems to be forever on guard for new ways to erase God and religion and where any discussion of religion quickly degenerates into childish shouting matches. Under the Founding Fathers, the nation clearly lived an undeniably religious lifestyle.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a french political thinker and historian who visited America in 1831. He was so impressed by Americas government that it inspired his book, Democracy in America, one of the most definitive studies on the American culture and constitutional system that had been published up to that time. He wrote:

"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things, to which I was unaccustomed.In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country." 

The Founding Fathers produced a nation in which religion was, unlike its modern counterpart, a force of liberation and freedom, and where religion was an important part of the lives or American citizens, regardless of race, class, economic status, or political party. This was a sharp contrast to Toqueville's description of Europe at that time. His description also closely fits modern America:

"The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion ... The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a [political] party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government."

The nation established by the Founding Fathers was exactly how they wanted it. True, it was not a Christian country, but it was a very religious country. Religion was taught in schools, as they intended. It was a force for liberation, as they intended. It was one of the fundamental pillars of America, as they intended.

I wish mainstream Christianity was still the sort of organization that could fulfill this role in America. Even in Jefferson's day, it had been deeply "perverted" from Christ's original message. I am not arguing that we return Christianity to schools and society. Given the way most Christians think and reason now, that would be a catastrophe.

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers did establish a religious nation. They were believers, perhaps not in Christianity, but in God. Bill Maher's quotes are misleading, and he is simply wrong.

Historicity of Jesus; A Double Standard?

Here is a very interesting post by David B. Marshall, at Christ the Tao, about the historicity of Jesus Christ, and  that of Confucius, with most of the information coming from a chapter in his book, Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could.

The post is called How Confucius Proves Jesus and can be read here.

But first, let me point out that the title of the post is a little misleading. If you scroll down to the comments section, you'll see that it caused some people to misunderstand what Marshall was arguing. The argument is not that the existence of Confucius as a historical figure somehow proves that Jesus existed, too.

Rather, he's arguing that the Gospels are just as reliable as historical texts as the Analects. In fact, the gospels even have certain advantages over the Analects.

Despite this, virtually nobody debates whether Confucius existed, while the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is still hotly debated.

Therefore, we practice a double standard by refusing to accept the historicity of Jesus.

The only problem I would have with the argument is that there is more evidence to consider than just their respective writings. Confucius, for example, has had many descendants throughout history, unlike Christ.

But then, not every genealogical claim is true and verifiable.

It's an interesting question, and Marshall offers some interesting points.

Christianity's Bloody History

I bet you weren't expecting this.

"Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt." - Mark Twain, Reflections on Religion


Christianity is often criticized because of its violent history. I've shown elsewhere that religious violence has not caused nearly as much bloodshed as some other causes which we still actively promote today, such as capitalism.

However, even if Christianity has caused a fair amount of suffering, which it has, holding modern Christianity accountable is irrational and a double standard.

This is because there are plenty of other organizations have caused millions of deaths and yet they are hailed as symbols of progress and innovation.

For example, IBM developed the punch card technology that measured large-scale statistical information and provided these machines to the Nazi regime, making the deadly efficiency of the Holocaust possible.

Nobody protests IBM or proposes that we eradicate it in the way that some wish we would abolish religion.

BMW had a hand in the Holocaust, as well. Factories used around 50,000 slave laborers from concentration camps to supply weapons and ammunition to the regime. Hundreds of these labourers died from working in the inhumane conditions and others were executed. BMW produced the Luftwaffe's Fighter Plane engines, as well. BMW was also discovered to have profited from taking over dozens of businesses seized from Jewish families by the Nazis. Incidentally, Mitsubishi built Japanese fighter engines.

Nobody wants to abolish BMW or Mitsubishi.

Perhaps the most extreme example is the US Democratic Party. Democrats have historically represented the interests of white, male, slave-holding Southern farmers. It fought hard to preserve and expand a slave trade that ended more human lives than the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts and 9/11 combined. These efforts were a major cause of the American Civil War, which killed or wounded another 800,000.

To be honest, some people do want Democrats to just go away, but not even for this reason. They don't care about the Democratic Party's bloody history any more than anyone cares about BMW, Mitsubishi or IBM.

Why don't we care? Because it's in the past, and because we judge these organizations by what they are, not by what they were. These organization's no longer promote African slavery, or assist tyrannical despots in racial genocide and global domination. In most cases, the unscrupulous people behind these endeavor's are not even alive anymore and the organizations have gone in totally different directions. These charges are simply no longer relevant.

Except when it comes to Christianity. I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity is simply no longer an organization that would attempt to control the Holy Land at all costs, hunt down and kill witches, or torture and execute dissenters. Nevertheless, we are clearly practicing a sort of double standard by picking and choosing which terrible atrocities we're willing to forgive.

Am I arguing that Christianity is perfect? No. Just as BMW and Mitsubishi still produce machines that kill 35-40,000 people annually, Christianity has it's flaws, too.

But if we are going to forgive other organizations for the terrible things they've done in the past, then we must forgive Christianity, which hasn't even been the most destructive of the bunch. Otherwise, we're just being biased, bigoted, and irrational.

Sir Francis Drake's Elusive Horse Sighting

Sir Francis Drake and his wondrous pantaloons.

While looking into the history of horses in America, I frequently come across the claim that Sir Francis Drake was able to see large herds of wild horses as he sailed up the coast of California and Oregon in 1579, long before the Spanish reached the territory.

Drake allegedly saw large "bands of wild horses," and wondered how it could be, since the Spaniards found no horses in Mexico or South America.

I can find the quote credited to two sources.

The first, and most common, seems to be Arcano Del Mare, by Robert Dudley, Earl of Northumberland, in 1630.

I have also found it credited to Richard Hakluyt's description of Drake's landing in California.

The problem is that I cannot find a copy of either of these accounts, either a hard copy, or digital. The Library of Congress has a copy of the Arcano Del Mare, but not online.

I was tempted to dismiss this as a non-existent quote, created by some misguided LDS member trying to defend the Church, but I got more curious when I saw this account referenced by a non-LDS source. Archive.org has a document from UCLA which references the event.

If anyone reading this can provide me with a reliable source for this account, I will give them a batch of home-made cookies (from the supermarket of their choice,) and the biggest hug they've ever seen.

Religious Violence

Some people have some strange hobbies. For example, Matthew White at Necrometrics.com apparently spends his time cataloging death tolls and body counts for various events throughout history. 

I've taken some numbers from this site because I was curious if the saying is true that "religion has caused more suffering and death than any other single cause in human history."

The site lists various scholarly estimates for each event. When possible, I've tried to select the most reliable sources, or have used the median, following the rule of thumb that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, rather than with the outlying estimates. 

Here are the numbers for various religious tragedies throughout history:

Christianity

Holocaust: 5.6M

Crusades: 3M

Biblical Atrocities: 1.283M

Spanish Inquisition: 341K (Including those tortured, not killed)

Witch Hunts: 60K (Including Europe)

9/11: 3,037 (Including 19 hijackers)

TOTAL: est. 10.828M

Now here's a few things with a higher death toll:

Atheists

I point this out, not to be controversial, but only to provide an example of human violence which is clearly not religiously motivated. 

Since the origins Islam and Christianity, each religion has had 80M and 70M martyrs respectively, at the hands of:

Atheists: 31,689,000

Muslims 9,121,000

Ethnoreligionists: 7,469,000

Christians: 5,538,000

Quasi-religionists 2,712,000

Mahayana Buddhists: 1,651,000

Hindus: 676,000

Zoroastrians: 384,000

Smoking

R. Peto, "Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics" Lancet, 23 May 1992:

1930-59: 11M

1960s: 9M

1970s: 13M

1980s: 17M

1990s: 21M

TOTAL (1930-1999): 71M tobacco-related deaths in developed countries. (US, Europe, USSR, Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ)

Capitalism 

(unbridled corporate exploitation)

Colonial El Niño Famines (1876-1900): 27M

Colonial Slave Trade (1700-1850): 17.8M (Only counting the dead among the first generation of slaves brought from Africa. Subsequent generations would contribute additional premature or unnatural deaths.)

Islamic Slave Trade: 19M

Soviet Decommunization: 6M

Kinshasa Congo: 3.8M 

Amazonian Rubber Companies: 200K

TOTAL: est. 73.8M


If the number of people killed by some organization or phenomenon is a measure of its moral worth, than we could come to some strange conclusions about a host of other causes.

I think, given enough information, an honest individual would come to agree that an organization's negative past is not necessarily a mark against it in the present.

John Adams' Hell

In yet another baffling display of poor scholarship, Richard Dawkins offers the following quote by John Adams, on page 43 of The God Delusion:

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Adams did actually write these words in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson, but here is the full context:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."

In other words, the history of religion may sometimes disturb us  greatly, but we need it. This world would be hell without it.

Incidentally, Dawkins uses this misquotation immediately after another false quote, allegedly from Benjamin Franklin. The full context of the Adams quote shows us quite a different view than what Dawkins would have us believe. In addition, Adams had this to say in response to Thomas Paine's criticisms of Christianity in his Deist book The Age of Reason:

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."

Gregg L. Frazer, in The Political Theology of the American Founding, notes that, while Adams shared many perspectives with deists, "Adams clearly was not a deist. Deism rejected any and all supernatural activity and intervention by God; consequently, deists did not believe in miracles or God's providence....Adams, however, did believe in miracles, providence, and, to a certain extent, the Bible as revelation." Fraser argues that Adams's "theistic rationalism, like that of the other Founders, was a sort of middle ground between Protestantism and deism."

History's False Atheists

Except for Hemingway, none of these men were atheists...

Many historical figures are falsely reported as being atheists when they were not. Most of them were actually theists who simply believed in an unconventional conception of God, or they were agnostic.

This is not to say that they were all theists. Certainly there were atheists in history who were, nevertheless, great men and women.

Below is a list of people in history who are often described as atheists, even though they were not. Click their names to read about the religious views.

This list will be added to in the future.

1. Charles Darwin - Theist/Agnostic
2. Thomas Jefferson - Theist
3. Carl Sagan - Agnostic
4. Albert Einstein - Theist
5. Benjamin Franklin - Theist
6. Mark Twain - Theist
7. Abraham Lincoln - Theist
8. John Adams - Theist
9. Thomas Edison - Theist
10. Nikola Tesla - Theist

Abraham Lincoln's Religion

Abraham Lincoln is sometimes claimed to have been an atheist because of the way he spoke about Christianity early in his life. His religious views later in life are a controversial matter, but the common consensus among historians is that he was a man of deep faith.

Lincoln grew up in a Baptist family, but while he was still young, he grew frustrated with organized religion when he saw how excessive emotion and bitter quarrels were common in yearly camps and among traveling ministers of various denominations. Growing up, Lincoln did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the Atonement, the infallibility of the Bible, miracles, or heaven and hell. However, he did believe in a Supreme Being.

William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, stated that Lincoln admired deists Thomas Paine and Voltaire, and had read and knew of Charles Darwin before most. Also, James Adams labeled Lincoln "a deist."

Even early on, Lincoln believed in a God, though not the God of Christianity. One aspect of Lincoln's Calvinist background that he wholeheartedly embraced throughout his life was the Doctrine of Necessity, which is more commonly known as Predestination, or Determinism.

During this time, Lincoln is reported to have said, "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Quotes like this one have led to the belief among some that he was an atheist, but even early on, that was simply not true.

While in office, dealing with the Civil War, among other issues, religion began to play a greater role in Lincoln's life and there is evidence that he began to accept Christian doctrine.

On Thursday, February 20, 1862, at 5:00 P.M. Lincoln's eleven year old son, William Wallace Lincoln (Willie), died in the White House. Historians suggest that this may have been the most difficult personal crisis in his life. After the funeral, Lincoln attempted a return to his routine, but he was unable. One week after the funeral, he isolated himself in his office and wept all day. Lincoln reportedly said, "My poor boy. He was too good for this earth. God has called him home. I know that he is much better off in heaven."

At the same time, the War was not going well for the Union. Lincoln said, "I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go." Later, as he was preparing to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said, "I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Maryland I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves."

Later, while trying to put into words, from a divine perspective, the necessity of the Civil War, he wrote:

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."

In 1863, after the Battle of Gettysburg,  Lincoln issued the first Federally mandated Thanksgiving Day to be kept on the last Thursday in November. Reflecting on the successes of the past year, Lincoln said:

"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."

In 1864, some former slaves in Maryland presented Lincoln with a gift of a Bible. Lincoln replied:

"In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it."

In September 1864, Lincoln, placing the Civil War squarely within a divine province, wrote in a letter to a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers),

"The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail accurately to perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise...we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."

Rev. James Armstrong Reed, in preparing his 1873 lectures on the religion of Lincoln, asked a number of people if there was any evidence of Lincoln being an infidel in his later life. The reply from Phineas Gurley, pastor of the same New York Avenue Presbyterian Church while Lincoln was an attender, to Reed's question was:

"I do not believe a word of it. It could not have been true of him while here, for I have had frequent and intimate conversations with him on the subject of the Bible and the Christian religion, when he could have had no motive to deceive me, and I considered him sound not only on the truth of the Christian religion but on all its fundamental doctrines and teaching. And more than that: in the latter days of his chastened and weary life, after the death of his son Willie, and his visit to the battle-field of Gettysburg, he said, with tears in his eyes, that he had lost confidence in everything but God, and that he now believed his heart was changed, and that he loved the Saviour, and, if he was not deceived in himself, it was his intention soon to make a profession of religion"

Regarding his intention to join a church, according to an affidavit signed under oath in Essex County, New Jersey, February 15, 1928, by Mrs. Sidney I. Lauck, then a very old woman, Mrs. Lauck said:

"After Mr. Lincoln's death, Dr. Gurley told me that Mr. Lincoln had made all the necessary arrangements with him and the Session of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church to be received into the membership of the said church, by confession of his faith in Christ, on the Easter Sunday following the Friday night when Mr. Lincoln was assassinated." 

Noah Brooks, a newspaperman, and a friend and biographer of Lincoln's, in reply to Reed's inquiry if there was any truth to claims that Lincoln was an infidel, stated:

"In addition to what has appeared from my pen, I will state that I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet he freely expressed himself to me as having 'a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.' His views seemed to settle so naturally around that statement, that I considered no other necessary. His language seemed not that of an inquirer, but of one who had a prior settled belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. Once or twice, speaking to me of the change which had come upon him, he said, while he could not fix any definite time, yet it was after he came here, and I am very positive that in his own mind he identified it with about the time of Willie's death. He said, too, that after he went to the White House he kept up the habit of daily prayer. Sometimes he said it was only ten words, but those ten words he had. There is no possible reason to suppose that Mr. Lincoln would ever deceive me as to his religious sentiments. In many conversations with him, I absorbed the firm conviction that Mr. Lincoln was at heart a Christian man, believed in the Savior, and was seriously considering the step which would formally connect him with the visible church on earth. Certainly, any suggestion as to Mr. Lincoln's skepticism or Infidelity, to me who knew him intimately from 1862 till the time of his death, is a monstrous fiction -- a shocking perversion."

Of Lincoln's increasing religious views during this time, Lincoln's widow, Mary Todd Lincoln, said,

"A man, who never took the name of the Maker in vain, who always read his Bible diligently, who never failed to rely on God's promises & looked upon Him for protection, surely such a man as this, could not have been a disbeliever, or any other than what he was, a true Christian gentleman....From the time of the death of our little Edward, I believe my husband's heart was directed towards religion & as time passed on - when Mr. Lincoln became elevated to Office...then indeed to my knowledge - did his great heart go up daily, hourly, in prayer to God - for his sustaining power. When too - the overwhelming sorrow came upon us, our beautiful bright angelic boy, Willie was called away from us, to his Heavenly Home, with God's chastising hand upon us - he turned his heart to Christ —"

Mark Twain and God the Almighty

Mark Twain is another figure in history who is commonly reported to have been an atheist. He was raised Presbyterian, but, like Charles Darwin, became rather critical of organized religion, and specifically of Christianity, later in life.

Reports of atheism probably come from his habit of speaking sharply about some aspects of Christianity, including its bloody history. In his final autobiography, published in 2010, one hundred years after his death, he had written,

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory. The invention of hell measured by our Christianity of today, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the deity nor his son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."

In addition, he once wrote, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so," and "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian."

However, despite his critical view of Christianity, he was a theist. Specifically, he was a deist. In the essay Three Statements of the Eighties in the 1880s, Twain stated that he believed in an almighty God, but not in any messages, revelations, holy scriptures such as the Bible, Providence, or retribution in the afterlife.

He believed in a God, though not the God of Christianity, and not a God which intervened in the lives of men. However, he also wrote that "the goodness, the justice, and the mercy of God are manifested in His works."

As a side note, Twain was also a Freemason. He belonged to Polar Star Lodge No. 79 A.F.&A.M., based in St. Louis. He was initiated an Entered Apprentice on May 22, 1861, passed to the degree of Fellow Craft on June 12, and raised to the degree of Master Mason on July 10. One of the conditions to be a Freemason is that you must believe in a Supreme Being. There are no requirements as to the nature of that Supreme Being, but the initiate must believe in some conception of God.

In the 1880's, Twain described his views on several religious topics, saying,

"I believe in God the Almighty.
  I do not believe He has ever sent a message to man by anybody, or delivered one to him by word of mouth, or made Himself visible to mortal eyes at any time in any place.
  I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him.
  I think the goodness, the justice, and the mercy of God are manifested in His works: I perceive that they are manifested toward me in this life; the logical conclusion is that they will be manifested toward me in the life to come, if there should be one.
  I do not believe in special providences.  I believe that the universe is governed by strict and immutable laws.  If one man's family is swept away by a pestilence and another man's spared it is only the law working: God is not interfering in that small matter, either against the one man or in favor of the other.
  I cannot see how eternal punishment hereafter could accomplish any good end, therefore I am not able to believe in it.  To chasten a man in order to perfect him might be reasonable enough; to annihilate him when he shall have proved himself incapable of reaching perfection might be reasonable enough; but to roast him forever for the mere satisfaction of seeing him roast would not be reasonable... even the atrocious God imagined by the Jews would tire of the spectacle eventually."

He went on to describe his views on other topics, such as the afterlife, of which he said he was indifferent, and others.

Later, in 1906, only four years before his death, he wrote,

"Let us now consider the real God, the genuine God, the great God, the sublime and supreme God, the authentic Creator of the real universe, whose remotenesses are visited by comets only comets unto which incredible distant Neptune is merely an out post, a Sandy Hook to homeward-bound specters of the deeps of space that have not glimpsed it before for generations a universe not made with hands and suited to an astronomical nursery, but spread abroad through the illimitable reaches of space by the flat of the real God just mentioned, by comparison with whom the gods whose myriads infest the feeble imaginations of men are as a swarm of gnats scattered and lost in the infinitudes of the empty sky."

Mark Twain did believe in a God, but it was a God that was cold and distant, and very different from the "feeble imaginations of men." Mark Twain's God was closer to Cthulhu than Christ.

Those who knew Twain well late in life recount that he dwelt on the subject of the afterlife, his daughter Clara saying: "Sometimes he believed death ended everything, but most of the time he felt sure of a life beyond."

"Atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan was an amazing scientist, and a brilliant individual. Issac Asimov described him as one of only two people he had ever met whose intellect was greater than his own. In addition to the sciences, Sagan wrote frequently on the topic of religion. He once wrote,

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

On another occasion, he wrote,

 "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

Quotes like these have led some to believe that he was an atheist, but this is not true. He hated the term. Much like Charles Darwin, Sagan recognized that claiming that there is no God is as irrational as claiming there is one. He once said:

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views:

“My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it . . . An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”

Charles Darwin: Not An Atheist

Charles Darwin is credited with the discovery of the phenomenon of evolution by natural selection. In the 20th century, this concept became a major source of contention between atheists and theists. Due to his contributions to science, especially in areas that seem to contradict Christian doctrine, and because of some of his more famous sayings, he is often painted as an atheist. While it is known that he was not a Christian throughout his life, he was also not an atheist.

Darwin actually spent a more than half of his life as a Christian. "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age," Darwin said to some dinner guests in 1881, just under a year before his death. Even in 1859, when his most significant work, On the Origin of Species, was published, he was still a believer in a personal God, although he had doubts about the teleological argument that nature is evidence of God.

Nevertheless, in his autobiography, in 1876, Darwin wrote that at the time that he wrote Origin of Species, he was still very much a believer because of "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

In 1879, John Fordyce wrote to Darwin, asking if evolution and theism were compatible. Darwin responded that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

This was pretty much Darwin's view.

However, slowly over the years, disbelief became more a part of Darwin's thinking. One of several reasons was the Evidential Problem of Evil. During Darwin's study of biology and nature, Darwin saw a lot of suffering and death. He could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.

He stopped going to church around 1849, preferring instead to go on long walks while his family attended Sunday meetings. On 23 April 1851, his daughter Annie died after a painful illness. Darwin would write about his daughter, but no longer believed in an afterlife or salvation.

Even after this time, Darwin was hesitant to share his religious views because of the harm it may cause to loved ones, but people would often write to him asking for his opinions. He once commented, "Half the fools throughout Europe write to ask me the stupidest questions." He once replied, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."

Darwin was rational to the core. He would not accept Christianity because of insufficient evidence, but he also would not deny the existence of God for the same reason. On Thursday 28 September 1881, Darwin met with Doctor Ludwig Büchner and Edward Aveling for dinner. After eating, Darwin asked why they called themselves Atheists. They said it was because they "did not commit the folly of god-denial, [and] avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion." Darwin answered, "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." In other words, Darwin agreed that it was folly to assert the existence of God, but he also agreed that it was folly to deny it.

This was pretty much Darwin's view.

In the 1879 letter to John Fordyce, in which Darwin commented on the compatibility of evolution and theism, he said, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (Emphasis Added)

Darwin was an agnostic with theistic leanings, though as he aged these leanings became slighter and more infrequent. At the end of his life, he was, first and foremost, agnostic.

Darwin's Westminster Abbey funeral expressed a public feeling of national pride, and religious writers of all persuasions praised his "noble character and his ardent pursuit of truth". In particular the Unitarians and free religionists, proud of his Dissenting upbringing, supported his naturalistic views. The Unitarian William Carpenter carried a resolution praising Darwin's unravelling of "the immutable laws of the Divine Government", shedding light on "the progress of humanity", and the Unitarian preacher John White Chadwick from New York wrote that "The nation's grandest temple of religion opened its gates and lifted up its everlasting doors and bade the King of Science come in."

Benjamin Franklin, Lighthouses, and Church

Benjamin Franklin was possibly the least religious of the Founding Fathers, but he was religious. Many, including Richard Dawkins, try to paint him as an atheist with a famous quote. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."

Dawkins is not the only person to use this quotation to justify the view that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist or, at best, a deist. The quote is pretty common in the atheist community. How common, you ask?

Common enough to be profitable.

There is a problem with this quote, though. It does not exist. You will not find this quote anywhere in the works or writings of Benjamin Franklin. The quote is most likely a paraphrase of a sentiment he wrote to his wife in a letter on 17 July, 1757 after he narrowly escaped a shipwreck. The quote can be found in a footnote on page 133 of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818):

"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

Taken in context, the quote gives us a very different impression of Benjamin Franklin's view of God. Next are some quotes from Benjamin Franklin which actually do exist. When he stopped attending church, Franklin wrote in his autobiography:

"...Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter."

In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble..."

Here we may find the strongest evidence that he was not strictly Christian. Much like Thomas Jefferson, who did consider himself a Christian, Franklin considered the moral system taught by Jesus to be the best the world had to offer, but also recognized that the doctrine had been corrupted over the centuries. In addition, Franklin had no strong opinion regarding the divinity of Christ, but believed in an afterlife in which he would find the truth of the matter.

Strangely, despite being critical of Christianity's past, he still considered organized religion to be a positive social force.  At one point, he wrote to Thomas Paine, criticizing his manuscript, The Age of Reason:

"For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection....think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc'd and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it."

Thomas Jefferson's Faith

I stumbled across the picture above on a social networking site. Some would have people believe that Thomas Jefferson was not a theist. To them, I offer the following quote:

"In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other..." 

- Thomas Jefferson, April 21, 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush in Bergh, ed., Writings of Thomas Jefferson 10:379 (Emphasis Added)

Thomas Jefferson did have some very serious and legitimate concerns about mainstream Christianity and most of its organizations, but he did believe in a divine being and the teachings of Christ.

JFK on Mormons

Einstein's God

The sometimes vague and ambiguous writings and speech of Albert Einstein have lead many to wonder whether or not he was an atheist. He is often quoted as saying,

 "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." 

 To be honest, this quote is not taken out of context, but just because he did not believe in a personal God does not mean that he does not believe in God. He also said,

 "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." 

 Of the way his quotes are typically used to portray him as an atheist, he had this to say,

 "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214 

 An example of this is a quote by Richard Dawkins,

 "Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own." The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins 

 This is exactly what bothered Albert Einstein. Dawkins either purposefully misleads readers or he has not done his homework. It is fairly common knowledge in academia that Einstein followed Spinoza's conception of God, but he did believe in a God. In fairness, he did not believe in the personal God of Christianity. In fact, he was rather critical of the idea, but he did believe in an intelligent force behind the universe. He was not an atheist.

 A few more quotes from Albert Einstein about God.

 "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." 

 "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." 

 "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." 

 "When the solution is simple, God is answering." 

 "God does not play dice with the universe."  

 "God is subtle but he is not malicious."