Warsaw has denounced Lviv Oblast authorities' plans to honor the World War II-era Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and its military leader, Roman Shukhevych.
The move signals a fresh rift in the already strained Kyiv-Warsaw ties just days after President Volodymyr Zelensky said the relations had finally improved.
The council
Anna Lodyhina, a mother of a 5-year-old, spent many nights on the cold floor of Kyiv's metro, driven there — like many others — by relentless Russian attacks. As her child slept, she watched over him, exhausted by the constant threat and lack of sleep.
This is just
Britain's history has been trashed by ideologues with an agenda, undermining the nation’s patriotism and cohesion. It's time to tell a better story about Britain, say Nigel Biggar and Robert Tombs.
The post It’s Time to Tell a Better Story About Britain appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Carrie Berk
My 21st birthday party was packed with a dozen faces I half-knew. They all smiled as I blew out the candles and made a wish, yet I felt as if I were surrounded by strangers.
As I looked out into the crowd, I realized that most of my friendships were surface-level, rather than genuine connections. We talked about upcoming school assignments, trending TV shows, and our favorite restaurants, but I wanted more.
What was supposed to be a celebration turned into a rude awakening: Did these people even know me at all?
I've always been someone with many hobbies, which meant making friends across all walks of life. Although I'm lucky to have so many people in my corner, there came a point where it felt like I was collecting friendships like tokens rather than forming meaningful relationships.
The realization set in: I had tons of friends, but somehow, I was lonely.
Carrie Berk
Even years after graduating from college, I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd been collecting the wrong type of friendships.
I realized many of my relationships had been rooted in transactions or shared activities, which may explain why I was still feeling lonely.
Upon reflection, I noticed that the most genuine friendships I had involved some emotional depth and connection. I only have two of these in my life — one who lives close by, and another who is across the country.
Regardless of where they are, the empathy goes both ways — I share in their joys and sit with them through their struggles, and they do the same for me. We're not just shoulders for each other to cry on, but supportive pillars who help each other walk through life.
These were the friendships that fulfilled me most, and I needed to make more room in my life for them.
Carrie Berk
In order to do this, I needed to figure out what was holding me back. I came to the conclusion that, when it comes to friends, I'd kept many people at a distance, afraid that opening up would make me seem like "too much" or leave me hurt again.
I'd also been spreading myself too thin, trying to maintain too many relationships instead of investing in the ones that mattered most. For example, I felt like I rushed through dinners to mentally check a box that I was keeping up the relationship. Not only was that a waste of time, but it led to major emotional burnout.
Now, I focus on a handful of friends with whom I can build a deeper bond. Even though I only have time to see a select few people, I make sure the few hours we spend together are packed with thoughtful, not superficial, conversations.
Recently, I spent some time with a work colleague outside the office, and we discussed how fitness helped us during difficult points in our lives. We connected on something beyond our jobs, and for the first time in a long time, I felt less lonely.
Carrie Berk
At first, it was difficult to let go of my larger circle. There's nothing wrong with casual friendships, but they couldn't give me the depth I was craving.
Instead, the friends I need are the ones who will hold me up at my worst and cheer me on at my best without expecting anything in return — and I never think twice about doing the same for them. These connections take more time and care to develop, but are well worth the wait.
Once I started watering the friendships I truly valued, I noticed our moments together aren't rushed, and our connection is stronger now because of the care we put into each conversation.
This year, I'm thinking about having a birthday dinner with two or three close friends rather than a larger celebration. Ironically, when I began filtering superficial relationships out of my life, I felt less lonely — and that's all I could have ever wished for.
A trove of ancient coins has been unearthed at a construction site in Germany — after remaining hidden for more than 2,000 years.
The discovery, made at Singer Berg in the central German state of Thuringia, was announced recently by the Thuringian State Office for Monument Preservation and Archaeology (TLDA).
In a translated news release, officials said excavation director Ronny Krause discovered the coins while archaeologists were investigating a former sports field ahead of the construction of a new fire station.
7,000-YEAR-OLD BONES UNCOVERED AT CONSTRUCTION SITE IN STARTLING FIND
Archaeologists conducted follow-up excavations at the site in August 2026 — and confirmed that the 11 coins dated back to the first century B.C.
The hoard represented the largest known Celtic coin hoard from that period ever found in Thuringia.
The 11 coins, dating back to the first century B.C., were identified as a type of ancient Celtic currency known as Prague-type quinarii.
"Until now, only about 80 examples of these quinarii had been identified throughout Thuringia, underscoring the significance of the Singen hoard," the translated statement said.
WORKERS RENOVATING MAJOR CITY STREET STUMBLE ON ANCIENT DISCOVERY BURIED 20 FEET BELOW
"The mint responsible for producing the coins is believed to have been located in the Gotha region, to the northwest."
The Celts were groups of ancient people who lived across much of Europe during the Iron Age, with Celtic languages and traditions surviving today in places such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The coins were originally buried together in a container made of organic material that has since decomposed, archaeologists believe. The coins were found scattered across an area measuring roughly 19 feet by 5 feet — likely a result of plowing.
Officials described the discovery as a "closed find," suggesting that all the coins originally buried together were recovered.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
While just 11 coins may seem like a modest haul to some, archaeologists consider the discovery a treasure trove of information about the ancient world.
"Through the ongoing mapping of discoveries from the same period and cultural background, researchers can draw conclusions about ancient trade routes and production centers," the translated statement added.
"The Singen treasure hoard has significantly expanded our existing knowledge in this area."
Archaeologists also found an ancient Roman coin and a medieval glass bead — as well as a knife fragment, another silver coin and a Prussian uniform button from the 19th or 20th century.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE NEWS
Officials also emphasized the broader significance of the discovery and the importance of proper archaeological practices.
"This once again demonstrates the importance of preserving the archaeological context of discoveries, in contrast to isolated metal finds recovered, for example, through improper or illegal metal detecting without documentation of their original locations," the statement concluded.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Metal detectorists have made headlines for uncovering other ancient treasures across Europe.
Recently, a man using a metal detector in a German field discovered 934 ancient Roman silver coins dating back nearly 2,000 years.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
In Finland, a metal detectorist recently uncovered a massive Viking Age silver hoard containing an estimated 4,000 coins, along with jewelry and other artifacts.
10/21/1919: Abrams v. United States argued.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 21, 1919 appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Darwin wasn’t an agnostic by conviction – he was an atheist who rejected Christianity as immoral.
Join us on Telegram
, X
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Friends were surprised when I described Darwin as the only major scientist who was unequivocally an atheist, given that he considered himself an agnostic. I confess that I tend to erase this label in my memory, because the formal distinction presumed by it—to wit, the idea that an agnostic does not know whether God exists, while an atheist knows that God does not—does not correspond to reality. I am not aware of a single prominent atheist who claims to be able to prove the non-existence of the divine. Even Dawkins, the most stereotypical atheist in the media, does not suggest that this is possible. In The God Delusion (Chapter 2), he describes himself as a de facto atheist, defined by the following stance: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” Thus, if we apply the traditional distinction, the world’s most famous atheist is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
Bertrand Russell held a similar position, as illustrated by his famous “celestial teapot” analogy. Can we prove that there is a teapot orbiting the planet? No. But we have no reason to believe that such a teapot exists. God is like that teapot: while it is impossible to prove that he does not exist, it is not reasonable to believe that he does. For this reason, Russell considered himself an agnostic in theory and an atheist in practice.
Darwin
If the term “agnostic” serves any purpose, it is to describe individuals who truly live in a state of doubt regarding the existence of God. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was born to a deist father and a Unitarian mother. Deism entails the rejection of all institutionalized religion and the assertion that God exists, but takes no interest in humanity. As an 18th-century Englishman, Darwin’s father most likely believed in the Great Architect of Newton and the Freemasons. Unitarianism is a new flavor of Arianism, as it denies the divinity of Jesus, viewing him instead as a great moral reformer—comparable to Socrates. Unitarians took control of Harvard in the 19th century, and Newton was, in fact, a secret Arian. We might say, then, that Darwin did not grow up in a strictly Christian home; yet, he seriously considered becoming an Anglican priest and married a devout Christian woman. Undoubtedly, Darwin experienced crises of faith, which rendered him an agnostic, in the sense that the term describes a psychological state.
As far as we know, the first time he described himself as an agnostic was in 1879, at the age of 70, in a private letter to John Fordyce. According to some accounts, in 1881 he told a group of freethinkers that he had not abandoned Christianity until he was forty (which would have been in 1849). Did he abandon Christianity, adopt his father’s beliefs, and then eventually abandon those as well? I do not know the answer, but it is a vital question for Darwin’s scientific trajectory, since, by today’s labels, Newton would be a creationist or an intelligent design advocate.
The most illuminating account is found in his autobiography, written between 1876 and 1881 for his family. I quote James Moore from “Myth 16: That Evolution Destroyed Darwin’s Faith in Christianity—until He Reconverted on His Deathbed”: “Unwilling to give up Christianity, he had tried to ‘invent evidence’ to confirm the Gospels, which prolonged his indecision. Just as his clerical career had died a slow ‘natural death,’ so his faith withered gradually. But there was no turning back once the deathblow struck. His dithering crystallized into a moral conviction so strict that he could not see how anyone—even [his wife] Emma—‘ought to wish Christianity to be true.’ For if it were, ‘the plain language’ of the New Testament ‘seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’ In later years, the residual theism evident in the Origin of Species became worn down, and now with ‘no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward,’ Darwin felt he must be ‘content to remain an Agnostic.’” Darwin’s father, a pivotal figure in his crisis of faith, died in 1848, a year before Darwin himself turned forty.
Darwin did not die in a state of indecision; he died firmly convinced that Christianity was immoral because it would condemn his loved ones to hell. If the term “agnosticism” applies here, it denotes a state of unknowing that follows the rejection of God as understood within the Abrahamic religions. Darwin knows that the Bible is wrong and that its God does not exist. But as for what God actually is, or what the truth may be—that, he does not know. Certainly, determining Darwin’s final state of mind is not enough to uncover the impact that his shifting religious convictions had on his thinking, given that the writing of On the Origin of Species (1859) spanned two decades.
The origin of the term “agnosticism”
No less than thirty years passed between the onset of Darwin’s disbelief and his first self-identification as an agnostic. A simple reason why he did not use this term earlier is that it had not yet been invented. It is rarely mentioned, but “agnosticism” is a term with a specific inventor and date of origin: in 1869, when Darwin was already 60 years old, Thomas Henry Huxley (known as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” and grandfather to both Aldous, the writer who advocated for opening the mind through drugs, and Julian, the eugenicist who founded the WWF and served as the first head of UNESCO) coined the term during a meeting of the Metaphysical Society, a somewhat secretive group open only to invited members. Darwin was not a member. The aforementioned Bertrand Russell had a deist relative who was a member: Lord Arthur Russell, nephew of Earl John Russell (Bertrand’s grandfather). Arthur Balfour, of the Balfour Declaration, was also a member. I could not have been there because I had not yet been born, but the Encyclopædia Britannica states that the term was coined under these circumstances, so I take believe it.
A public definition of agnosticism by the grandpa Huxley was first presented to the public in 1889, in the magazine Popular Science (or Pop Science), which still exists today. It reads as follows: “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’ [1 Thess. 5:21]; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.”
Based on this definition, there is no obvious connection to a stance regarding the question of divine existence; however, the text as a whole implies a negative position: throughout, Huxley distinguishes himself from Comte, and agnosticism from the Comtian “Religion of Humanity.” He finds it necessary to differentiate himself because they share a disbelief in an Abrahamic God, an adherence to scientism, and a triumphalism akin to the “End of History.” The differences are that Comte and the positivists were mediocre scientists who created a church with a structure inspired by Catholicism, whereas the 19th-century English agnostics were brilliant and had no intention of founding a church.
It is worth noting the Unitarian flavor of this rhetoric, which seeks to trace a rationalist and contrarian lineage—beginning with Socrates, running through the Bible, and reaching its pinnacle in the present day—stripped of any supernatural elements. Another significant 19th-century English figure who adopted this approach was John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty. His wife and collaborator was a Unitarian.
And, of course, we see here an opposition—perhaps historically unprecedented—between possessing a scientific spirit and believing in God. We can say that Darwin’s Bulldog, during Darwin’s lifetime, ostracized Deism from science, since Evolution was presented as a refutation the Newtonian Architect’s existence.
A Matter of Terminology
Ultimately, Thomas Huxley was what we would today call an atheist—as was likely Darwin, given that he chose the term coined by his friend to describe his own position. Curiously, even Comte did not call himself an atheist. It seems that the spirit of atheism and scientism was widespread among the 19th-century intelligentsia, yet the willingness to embrace the label was confined to radicals such as Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx (whose 1841 dissertation focused on Democritus and Epicurus, the fathers of materialism), and Mikhail Bakunin. In that era, the distinction between the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” likely amounted to little more than one’s willingness to shock society. Neither the French positivists nor the English evolutionists sought to shock; the communists and anarchists, however, did.
Over time, by the 21st century, being an atheist no longer shocks anyone; in more intellectual circles, it is the norm. Hence the tendency to discard the term “agnostic,” or to reserve it exclusively for those who are in a state of genuine doubt. Another semantic issue concerns what we mean by “God.” Some people say things like, “For me, God is energy”—which leads one to wonder: does it make sense to claim that God is the very same thing that makes my electric fan spin and subsequently shows up on my utility bill? In the United States, one of the few Western nations where declaring oneself an atheist can still cause a stir, it is common for people to label themselves “spiritual, but not religious.” Such individuals often gravitate toward esoteric practices—crystals, horoscopes, Zen meditation, gurus who are as ugly as they are hungry for sex, and so on—without committing to any specific religion. This is likely a legacy of deism; after all, Freemasonry played a significant role in the nation’s founding and is rooted in deism. It is no coincidence that this 21st-century deism can, much like its Renaissance precedents, the libertins, become blurred with atheism. Sam Harris himself, for instance, is an atheist who embraces New Age ideas.
It is a historical irony, then, that one of the coiners of the term “psychedelia” (Greek for “revelation of the mind”) happens to be the grandson of the man who coined the term “agnosticism.” It seems that a segment of humanity cannot relinquish the pursuit of ecstatic experiences and revelations, even after abandoning the notion of divine transcendence—leading them, instead, to seek such experiences within the material realm. The distinction between a “sober” atheist and a New Age atheist appears to be more a matter of temperament than of philosophy—much like the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic in the 19th century.
Mar Yvette
I'll admit it: I love shopping and the thrill of getting something new.
But ever since my husband and I started doing extended stays in Paris and other cities throughout Europe, I've surprised myself with how little I actually need.
We never check luggage because it's such a hassle, so whenever we get home after living out of carry-on suitcases for three months, I'll look around our apartment, open my closet, and think, "Wow, I forgot about most of this stuff."
Even though I'm a lifelong declutterer and keep our space tidy and organized, I've come to realize that getting by with only what fits in a carry-on has changed my definition of "enough."
Mar Yvette
It's kind of ironic that going to Paris, the fashion capital of the world, is where I've ended up with the smallest wardrobe. But as it turns out, having fewer options saves me a lot of mental energy and has made me more creative and intentional about what I wear.
I pack versatile pieces that work together so I can mix and match, rewear the same few pairs of pants, and do laundry every week. Even winter trips, when I have to pack bulkier clothes, have proven that I can get by with much less than I ever thought possible.
I have dozens of sweaters at home since I'm a bit of a collector, but all I really need are just a few Quince cashmere fisherman turtlenecks.
Mar Yvette
I also love jewelry, hats, and sunglasses, and usually have multiple options based on my mood. But being away for months at a time has made me realize that I'm perfectly fine with having just a few accessories to rotate through.
Whenever I get back from one of our trips, I end up editing my closet because I realize there's so much I don't wear. Yes, it's nice to have all my clothes and accessories, but it also gets easier each time to give stuff away to friends, family, neighbors, or donation centers.
Mar Yvette
It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios where I might need certain things, especially when traveling. (Should I pack a pair of heels in case we go to an ultra-fancy dinner? Or what if I suddenly need that scarf I haven't worn in five years?)
News flash: I've never needed something I didn't pack. It's a lesson that has made me less likely to shop on impulse.
I still love going on a T.J. Maxx run and filling up a cart while browsing my favorite sites. However, before I make a purchase, I ask myself if it's something I'll genuinely use or just something that I might hypothetically need one day.
If it doesn't pass the reality check, I don't buy it.
Mar Yvette
Because we're on the move so much, being at home feels even more comforting. I love that our space is decorated with objects that spark joy, but over the last few years, I've become less interested in accumulating stuff.
Instead, I find myself appreciating what we already have — from our shelves full of books and framed photos of our family and travels to my houseplants that our wonderful neighbors take care of while we're away.
Funnily enough, though, the more I appreciate the things we own, the less attached I've become to most of them. I don't even feel much of an urge to buy things for our apartment because I know we'll be leaving again soon.
Mar Yvette
Whether it's my wardrobe, household items, or even food, I've realized I don't need endless options. Like, do I really need 12 types of tea in my cupboard at any given moment? Often, I'm fine with just a few bags of my go-to blends.
Traveling with just a carry-on has made me realize that day to day, I tend to stick to my core favorites and don't really need a million choices for everything. I get plenty of variety when I'm out exploring.
At home, I'm happy to keep things simple and enjoy what I already have. That's more than enough for me.
Simon McGill/Getty Images
As a registered dietitian who helps busy parents lose weight — and as a mom of three myself — I know the struggle of trying to make just one dinner that works for everyone at the table.
In many cases, kids want something fun and familiar, while parents aim for somewhat nutritious meals that support their weight-loss goals.
Fortunately, you don't have to cook a bunch of separate dinners or settle for "kid food."
Here are eight family-friendly meals I swear by that allow for simple swaps and add-ons to make them lighter, more nutrient-dense, and better for balancing blood sugar.
EBGraphix/Getty Images
This works well as a buffet-style dinner option where everyone can fill their plate to fit their food preferences.
Start with pulled rotisserie chicken as the main lean protein, and add side dishes of black beans and brown rice for fiber-rich carbohydrates.
Chopped lettuce, salsa, and avocado are great additions for more flavor and nutrients. Kids may prefer having tortillas available to make their own burritos.
Vanessa Imus
Fire up the grill, and while the kids enjoy hot dogs, swap yours for a leaner chicken sausage. They're typically higher in protein and lower in fat, making them a better fit for weight management.
Load yours with gut-friendly toppings like sauerkraut and grilled onions, and pair it with a side of slaw or grilled veggies and antioxidant-rich berries.
This way, you can have a balanced dish while your kids enjoy a classic.
Luca Melo/Getty Images
The best meals for weight loss tend to be high in protein and contain a lot of bulky veggies or fruits. So, make a few extra chicken strips for yourself and use them as a protein source in a satisfying Cobb salad.
Add chopped chicken strips to romaine lettuce, tomato, bacon bits, sliced boiled egg, and a sprinkle of blue-cheese crumbles. Pair the salad with a light portion of dressing.
A Cobb salad is great because egg, bacon, and chicken can add enough protein to the meal to help keep you satisfied. Meanwhile, produce like romaine and tomatoes adds nutrients, bulk, and variety to the meal without making it high in calories.
Simon McGill/Getty Images
It's easy to customize cheese quesadillas to be as simple or as intricate as you and your kids prefer.
To upgrade your own, add lean ground beef or ground turkey (protein), nonfat refried beans (fiber), and roasted peppers or onions (vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants).
The protein and fiber combo in this meal can help you feel full faster and longer, helping avoid the urge for late-night snacks.
As a bonus, serve everyone a side of cucumber or jicama slices for an extra dose of fruit or veggies that provide a crunchy, fiber-rich addition.
Vanessa Imus
Tacos are a weekly staple in our house. The kids love theirs with ground beef or turkey, topped with shredded cheese, all stuffed inside a crispy taco shell.
Fortunately, it's easy to transform these sorts of ingredients into a hearty, protein-rich, nutrient-dense taco salad.
Start by filling a bowl with chopped romaine, cherry tomatoes, black beans, salsa, avocado, and lean ground turkey or beef. Sprinkle a crumbled taco shell on top for crunch, then add a little dressing if desired.
This way, you can enjoy the same taco flavors, just way more veggies and fewer carbs to help you stick to your daily calorie goals.
Vanessa Imus
A basic ramen recipe can be upgraded with lean protein, such as diced chicken and a hard-boiled egg, and leafy greens, like spinach or bok choy.
Aim to fill one side of your bowl with protein and vegetables, reserving the noodles and broth for the other half.
If your kids are a little picky, just serve components of the dish separately and adjust the ingredients you use. Serve noodles with some of their favorite fruit, so they can pick and choose what they like.
Vanessa Imus
With some adjustments, pizza night can still be great for parents trying to manage their weight.
First off, using a cauliflower crust is a great way to reduce the carb count of a typical pizza dinner while adding more vegetables.
More veggies means more fiber for gut health and extra nutrients that help support your metabolism and overall health.
I also like to serve a salad or raw veggies on the side to help me fill up on lower-calorie foods, so I can stick to smaller portions of pizza while still feeling satisfied.
Be sure to also add protein to your pizza to create a more balanced meal. Chicken is a great lean option, but I also understand if you're more of a sausage or pepperoni fan.
Aarthi Arunkumar/Getty Images
There are several ways to enjoy pasta regularly without disrupting weight-loss efforts.
First, swap out your noodles. Regular pasta is high in carbohydrates, which can spike blood sugar when eaten in large portions or without being balanced by protein and fiber.
Instead, use noodles made from lentils or chickpeas. They contain more fiber and protein, slowing how quickly carbohydrates are absorbed and helping keep blood sugar steadier — which can help with weight management.
Once the noodles are coated in sauce, your kids may not even notice you've made the swap.
Skip high-fat, calorie-laden cream sauces and top your pasta with marinara, which is naturally low in calories. Top with prepackaged frozen meatballs for an easy protein boost.
Don't forget to mix spinach or roasted broccoli into your dish for extra fiber. For pickier eaters, you may want to serve it on the side.
This story was originally published on November 3, 2025, and most recently updated on October 20, 2026.
A diferença entre um ateu sóbrio e um ateu New Age parece ser mais uma questão de temperamento do que de filosofia, assim como a diferença entre ateu e agnóstico no século XIX.
Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
Amigos estranharam a minha qualificação de Darwin como único grande cientista inequivocamente ateu, pois ele se considerava agnóstico. Eu confesso que tendo a apagar esse rótulo da minha cabeça, porque a distinção formal entre ateísmo e agnosticismo presumida por ele – a saber, que o agnóstico não sabe se Deus existe, enquanto o ateu sabe que Deus não existe – não tem correspondência na realidade, pois não tenho notícias de um único ateu famoso que pretenda provar a inexistência divina. Nem Dawkins, o ateu mais caricato da mídia, diz que isso é possível. Em Deus, um delírio, cap. 2, ele se consideram um ateu de facto, definido pelo mote: “Eu não tenho como saber com certeza, mas acho que Deus é muito improvável, e vivo segundo a premissa de que ele não existe.” Assim, se levarmos em conta a distinção tradicional, o ateu mais famoso do mundo não é ateu, mas agnóstico.
Outra figura com postura similar é a de Bertrand Russell, com sua famosa analogia do bule voador. Podemos provar que não há um bule em órbita dando voltas ao redor do planeta? Não. Mas não temos nenhum motivo para acreditar que tal bule exista. Deus é como esse bule: não dá para provar que ele não existe, mas não é razoável acreditar que exista. Por isso, Russell se considerava agnóstico na teoria e ateu na prática.
Darwin
Se o termo “agnóstico” tem serventia, é para descrever as pessoas que de fato vivem em estado de dúvida quanto à existência de Deus. Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) era filho de pai deísta e de uma unitarista. O deísmo consiste em negar toda religião institucionalizada e afirmar que Deus existe, porém não se importa com a humanidade. Sendo um inglês do século XVIII, o pai de Darwin muito provavelmente acreditava no Grande Arquiteto de Newton e dos maçons. O unitarismo é um novo sabor do arianismo, pois nega a divindade de Jesus e tem-no como um grande reformador moral, equiparável a Sócrates. Os unitaristas tomaram Harvard no século XIX, e Newton era secretamente arianista. Podemos então dizer que Darwin não teve um lar propriamente cristão; ainda assim, ele pensou muito em ser pastor anglicano e se casou com uma cristã fervorosa. Sem dúvida, Darwin passou por crises de fé, o que fez dele um agnóstico nesse sentido que descreve o estado psicológico.
Até onde se sabe, primeira vez em que ele se descreve como agnóstico é em 1879, aos 70 anos, numa carta privada a John Fordyce. Segundo relatos, em 1881 ele afirmou a um grupo de livres pensadores que nunca abandonou o cristianismo até os quarenta anos de idade (o que seria o ano de 1849). Teria ele abandonado o cristianismo e adotado as crenças do pai e depois abandonado até mesmo ela? Não conheço a resposta, mas é uma questão vital para a trajetória científica de Darwin, pois pelos rótulos de hoje Newton seria um criacionista ou defensor do design inteligente pelos rótulos de hoje.
O depoimento mais iluminador é o da sua autobiografia, redigida entre 1876 e 1881 para a sua família. Cito James Moore em “Mito 16: Que a evolução destruiu a fé de Darwin – até que ele se converteu novamente no leito de morte”: “Não disposto a abrir mão do cristianismo, ele havia tentado ‘inventar evidências’ para confirmar os Evangelhos, o que prolongou sua indecisão. Assim como sua carreira como ministro religioso havia sofrido uma lenta ‘morte natural’, sua fé também foi mirrando gradualmente. Mas não houve retorno após o golpe de morte. Sua hesitação se cristalizou em uma convicção moral tão forte que ele não via como alguém – nem mesmo [a esposa] Emma – ‘pudesse desejar que o cristianismo fosse verdade’. Pois se fosse, ‘a linguagem pura e simples’ do Novo Testamento ‘parece mostrar que os homens que não creem, e isto incluiria meu pai, irmão e quase todos os meus amigos, serão punidos por toda a eternidade. E esta é uma doutrina maldita.’ Em anos posteriores o teísmo original evidente em As Origem das Espécies se desgastou, e agora, ‘sem crença segura e persistente na existência de um Deus pessoal ou na existência futura como retribuição e prêmio’, Darwin sentia que deveria ‘se contentar em permanecer agnóstico’.” O pai de Darwin, marco para a crise de fé, morreu em 1848, um ano antes dos quarenta anos.
Darwin não morreu indeciso; ele morreu decidido de que o cristianismo era imoral porque mandaria seus entes queridos para o inferno. Se o termo “agnosticismo” se aplica, é para estabelecer um estado de ignorância após a negação de Deus tal como as religiões abraâmicas o reconhecem. Darwin sabe que a Bíblia está errada e que seu Deus não existe. Mas o que é Deus ou qual a verdade, ele não sabe.
Por certo, o descobrir o estado final de Darwin não é suficiente para descobrir o impacto de suas cambiantes convicções religiosas sobre seu pensamento, já que a redação de A origem das espécies (1859) durou duas décadas.
A origem do termo “agnosticismo”
Entre o início da descrença de Darwin e sua primeira autodeclaração como agnóstico, passaram-se nada menos que trinta anos. Uma razão simples para ele não ter usado esse termo cedo é que ele não tinha sido inventado. Pouco se menciona isso, mas “agnosticismo” é um termo com inventor e data de nascimento: em 1869, quando Darwin tinha já 60 anos, Thomas Henry Huxley (vulgo “Buldogue de Darwin”, avô de Aldous, o escritor apologista de abertura da mente via drogas, e de Julian, o eugenista fundador do WWF e primeiro UNESCO), inventou o termo numa reunião da Sociedade Metafísica, uma sociedade algo secreta da qual só participavam membros convidados. Darwin não era membro. O supracitado Bertrand Russell tinha um parente deísta que era membro: Lord Arthur Russell, sobrinho do Conde John Russell, avô de Bertrand. Arthur Balfour, da Declaração Balfour, também era membro. Eu não podia estar lá porque eu não era nascida, mas a Enciclopédia Britânica diz que a invenção ocorreu em tais circunstâncias, então eu acredito.
Uma definição pública do agnosticismo pelo vovô Huxley foi oferecida ao público pela primeira vez em 1889, na revista Popular Science (ou Pop Science), que existe até hoje. Ei-la: “O agnosticismo, de fato, não é um credo, mas um método, cuja essência reside na rigorosa aplicação de um único princípio. Esse princípio é de grande antiguidade; é tão velho quanto Sócrates; tão velho quanto o escritor que disse ‘Examinai tudo, retende o que é bom’ [1 Tess. 5,21]; é a fundação da Reforma, que simplesmente ilustrou o axioma de que a todo homem deveria ser dada uma razão para a fé que está nele; é o grande princípio de Descartes; é o axioma fundamental da ciência moderna. Positivamente, o princípio pode ser expresso assim: Em questões intelectuais, siga a razão até onde ela lhe levar, sem se preocupar com nenhuma outra consideração. E negativamente, assim: Em questões intelectuais, não ter a pretensão de que as conclusões que não são demonstradas ou demonstráveis são certas. Isto eu tenho por fé agnóstica, que, se o homem mantiver íntegra e incorrupta, não há de se envergonhar em olhar o universo face a face, independente do que o futuro lhe reserve.”
Por essa definição, não há nenhuma relação óbvia com uma postura perante à questão da existência divina, mas o conjunto do texto deixa implícita da negativa: de cabo a rabo, Huxley diferenciar a si próprio de Comte, e o agnosticismo da Religião da Humanidade comteana. Ele precisa se diferenciar porque são iguais a descrença em um Deus abrâmico, o cientificismo e o triunfalismo à la Fim da História. As diferenças, que Comte e os positivistas eram cientistas medíocres e criaram uma igreja de estrutura inspirada no catolicismo, ao passo que os agnósticos ingleses do XIX eram brilhantes e não tinham nenhuma intenção de fundar uma igreja.
Cabe apontar o sabor unitarista da retórica, que visa a traçar uma linhagem racionalista e contestadora que surge em Sócrates, atravessa a Bíblia e chega ao seu pináculo na atualidade, destituída de sobrenaturalidade. Outra figura importante do XIX inglês que a adotava era John Stuart Mill, em Sobre a liberdade. A esposa e colaboradora dele era unitarista.
E, é claro, vemos aí a oposição – talvez, sem precedentes históricos – entre ter espírito científico e crer em Deus. Podemos dizer que o Buldogue de Darwin, durante a vida de Darwin, ostracizou o deísmo da ciência, já que a Evolução era apresentada como refutação da existência do Arquiteto newtoniano.
Questão de termos
No frigir dos ovos, Thomas Huxley era o que hoje entendemos por ateu – e provavelmente também Darwin, já que ele escolheu o termo criado pelo amigo para designar a própria posição. O engraçado é que nem mesmo Comte se dizia ateu. Ao que parece, o espírito do ateísmo e do cientificismo eram generalizados na intelectualidade do XIX, mas a disposição a assumir o rótulo se limitava a radicais como Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx (cuja dissertação, de 1841, foi sobre Demócrito e Epicuro, pais do materialismo) e Mikhail Bakunin. Provavelmente, a diferença entre os termos “ateu” e “agnóstico” naquela época se limitava à disposição de chocar a sociedade. Nem os positivistas franceses, nem os evolucionistas ingleses, queriam chocar. Já os comunistas e anarquistas queriam.
Com o tempo, no XXI, ser ateu não choca mais ninguém; nos círculos mais estudados, é a norma. Daí a disposição a enterrar o termo “agnóstico”, ou reservá-lo às pessoas que estejam num real estado de dúvida.
Outra questão semântica é o que entendemos por Deus. Há quem diga coisas como “para mim, Deus é energia” – daí a gente se pergunta se faz sentido dizer que Deus é isso que faz o meu ventilador girar e depois aparece na conta de luz. Nos Estados Unidos, um dos poucos países ocidentais no qual ainda é possível chocar dizendo-se ateu, é comum as pessoas se rotularem como “spiritual, but not religious” (espiritual, mas não religiosa), e tipicamente essas pessoas vão atrás de esoterismos – cristais, horóscopo, meditação zen, gurus tão feios quanto tarados etc. – sem aderir a nenhuma religião particular. Isso só pode ser herança do deísmo, até porque a maçonaria tem uma grande importância na formação do país e é deísta. Não à toa, esse deísmo do século XXI pode se confundir com o ateísmo, como os seus predecessores renascentistas, os libertinos. Sam Harris mesmo é um ateu adepto do New Age.
Agora, não deixa de ser uma ironia histórica que um dos inventores do termo “psicodelia” (do grego, “revelação mental”) seja neto do inventor do termo “agnosticismo”. Parece que uma parcela da humanidade não desiste de experiências extáticas e de revelações mesmo quando abandona a transcendência divina e, assim passa a procurá-la na matéria. A diferença entre um ateu sóbrio e um ateu New Age parece ser mais uma questão de temperamento do que de filosofia, assim como a diferença entre ateu e agnóstico no século XIX.
-/AFP via Getty Images; Michel SETBOUN/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
France is experiencing one of its largest riots and protests in years.
What began as peaceful demonstrations over school conditions culminated in nationwide cost-of-living protests and, subsequently, riots.
French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said Tuesday that curfews imposed on Monday contributed to a calm night, though more protests are planned, according to Reuters.
The riots and protests echo many in France's long history of mass demonstrations. From nationwide strikes to student demonstrations, several have brought the country to a standstill, in some cases prompting France's leaders to announce a state of emergency.
Take a look at some of France's biggest and most impactful protests and riots over the past 100 years.
Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
Veterans and right-wing demonstrators took to the streets following a government corruption scandal. At least 15 people were killed.
The French Prime Minister at the time resigned the following day, stoking fears of a fascist coup.
AFP via Getty Images
Alongside an economic crisis, fears of a fascist coup after the 1934 riots helped unite left-wing parties and trade unions. Mass strikes and factory occupations in May and June 1936 led to major labor reforms, according to France's National Assembly.
-/AFP via Getty Images
In 1948, 300,000 French coal miners went on strike to protest economic conditions, per The New York Times. There was a heavy government crackdown, where some striking miners were killed, and another 3,000 were fired, according to AFP.
AFP via Getty Images
About 30,000 Algerians peacefully demonstrated against a curfew and in support of Algeria's independence, according to the BBC.
French police brutally cracked down. Historians estimate that at least 120 Algerians were killed, though some estimates put that number closer to 300, Al Jazeera reported.
Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
What started as a student movement demanding university reforms turned into millions of people striking after trade unions joined the uprising.
Between the protests and rioting, the demonstrations brought the nation to a standstill. To restore order, then-president Charles de Gaulle dissolved the National Assembly and called early elections, which his party won in June.
In this year's student protests, many banners referenced "May 1968," Time reported.
Michel SETBOUN/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
Hundreds of thousands of students protested proposed university reforms they feared would restrict access to higher education.
Three weeks of violent clashes with police left hundreds injured and 22-year-old Malik Oussekine dead, forcing Prime Minister Jacques Chirac to withdraw the reforms, Time reported.
Anne-Christine POUJOULAT / AFP via Getty Images
Between October and December 1995, public-sector workers went on strike against proposed austerity measures and pension reforms, bringing the country to a standstill, per the Global Nonviolent Action Database.
Then-prime minister Alain Juppé withdrew the proposed changes to public-sector pension plans, though other parts of his reform package went ahead.
Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
After two teenagers died while hiding from the police, riots began in Clichy-sous-Bois, a Parisian suburb, which then spread to other cities, the BBC reported at the time.
The government declared a state of emergency as unrest spread. The riots lasted about three weeks, while the state of emergency ended after about two months.
MEHDI FEDOUACH/AFP via Getty Images
"Les Gilets Jaunes," or 'the yellow vests' in English, was a 2018 protest movement against a planned increase in fuel taxes that evolved into broader anti-government demonstrations, leading to deaths.
The French Prime Minister, Édouard Philippe, froze the tax hike in December that year and then fully canceled it days later.
SAMEER AL-DOUMY/AFP via Getty Images
Hundreds of thousands of people protested and went on strike against President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reforms, which raised the retirement age from 62 to 64, according to Le Monde.
Macron's government enacted the reform despite the protests; the retirement age began rising in September 2023 and is scheduled to reach 64 by 2030.
10/20/1973: The Saturday Night Massacre occurs.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 20, 1973 appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login