Instructor: Karl Hall
Course description: The idea that the universe might be built up exclusively from material atoms was scarcely new to the seventeenth century, but the mechanical philosophy that was so central to the rise of modern science helped change the theological stakes in dramatic ways. Natural philosophy and theology indeed became more entangled in this period than before or since. To the vast majority of natural philosophers (and most especially to Newton and his epigones), it was inconceivable “that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal.” Recurrent struggles against "Naturalists," atheists, deists, Spinozists, “anti-Scripturalists,” and indifferentists were not the inevitable religious backlash against incipient "secular" science, not when pious natural philosophers were nearly as likely to find offense. Where Enlightenment deists pondered a universal and rational order superior to the supposed provincialism of Christianity, prompting even Biblical scholars to re-read the Scriptures in new modes, the burgeoning forms of scientific knowledge in the nineteenth century frustrated the search for unity. The epistemological focus of materialism shifted from celestial mechanics to the realm of life, while at the same time fueling forms of political radicalism scarcely seen before.
Our task in this course is to skirt the edges of grander secularization theses and seek to understand more precisely how the categories of materialism and atheism have acquired their historical contents, from early to high modern times. Throughout the course we will cycle between more canonical Anglophone topics and topics touching more directly on Central and East European concerns. While the bulk of the course is devoted to intellectual history, in later sessions we will nonetheless linger on the broader social history of atheism as state religion, first in the Soviet case, and--assuming adequate student interest--further in the East Bloc. Lurking in the background will be the post-positivist historian's constant dilemma: how to account for the various naturalisms that have contributed to humanist interpretations of modernity.
Course goals: We aim to read and analyze texts that enable us to understand materialism and atheism in interaction with scientific and religious concepts over a span of more than three centuries, with frequent reference to the political and social dangers these were thought to represent.
Learning outcomes: Students will gain familiarity with modern conceptions of materialism and atheism, with the evolving bounds of scientific knowledge as a challenge to religious institutions, and with the methods, sources, leading figures, and institutional contexts that have informed these relationships.
Prerequisites: None. Students who have taken TS Science and Religion will find this course a logical continuation of several of its themes.
Advanced certificates: May be applied to the Religious Studies advanced certificate. [pending approval]
Requirements and assessment: The grade is based on one class presentation [15%], two times serving as discussion leader [10% + 10%], a review essay [50%], and general class participation [15%].
Note on class presentations: For purposes of this course a presentation is neither a formal mini-lecture nor a PowerPoint slide show, but rather an exercise in accountability. Whereas a discussion leader will only be responsible for assigned texts, the class presentation may require modest additional preparation. Decisions about scope will be determined by student interests in prior consultation with the instructor, but will likely be driven by a given session topic.
Review essay due April 9. Topic chosen in consultation with the instructor. Length: 8-9 pages double-spaced.
Regular attendance is mandatory in all classes. A student who misses more than two units (two 100-minute sessions) in any 2 or 4 credit class without a verified reason beyond the student's control must submit an 8-10 page paper assigned by the professor, which as a rule covers the material in the class missed. The paper is due no later than 3 weeks after the missed class.
- Further resources and recommended reading
A. Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (1986).
Gary B. Ferngren, ed., The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (2000).
John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (1991).
Alexandre Kojève, Atheism (1931/2018).
Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013).
Michael Martin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006).
Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions, Osiris 16 (2001).
Please note that these scans are for your personal use only, and must not be posted to any public server at any time in the future.
-  January 4 - Atomick atheists and plastick Nature
Choose ONE text: [excerpts TBA]
Francis Bacon, "Of atheism" (1625)
Henry More, An Antidote against Atheism (1655).
Pierre Bayle, Pensées Diverses (1699)
Pierre Bayle, "Atheism, Atheists," An Historical and Critical Dictionary (1734/1826).
Johann Lassenius, Besiegte Atheisterei (1673)
Richard Bentley, The Folly of Atheism (1693)
Feofan Prokopovich, Рассуждение о безбожии (1784)
Alan Charles Kors, Naturalism and Unbelief in France (2016).
Michael Hunter and David Wootton, Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment (2011).
-  January 11 - The natural history of the Bible
"The laws of the Israelites. The first book. [Genesis 1]," from
[Johann Lorenz Schmidt], Die göttlichen Schriften vor den Zeiten des Messie Jesus: nach einer freyen Ubersetzung, welche durch und durch mit Anmerkungen erläutert und bestätiget wird [The Divine Scriptures from before the Times of Jesus: According to a Free Translation which is Completely Explained and Affirmed with Annotations] (Wertheim, 1735). [German original]Jonathan Sheehan, "From philology to fossils: The Biblical encyclopedia in early modern Europe," Journal of the History of Ideas 64 (2003): 41-60.
Jonathan Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (2005), especially chapter 7, "History: The archival and alien Old Testament."
William Clark, "The death of metaphysics in Enlightened Prussia," The Sciences in Enlightened Europe, W. Clark, J. Golinski, S. Schaffer, eds. (1999), 423-473.
Carsten Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern (Copenhagen, 1774-1778). (image above)
Nicolaas A. Rupke, "The Bible and science," The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 4 (2015), 707-724.
Further bibliography related to critical biblical translations:
Czech: The west Slavic translation starting in the thirteenth century was both among the first demotic European translations and the first one independent of the Old Church Slavonic translation, so its textual history has been extraordinarily complicated and controversial. Long thought to be a compilation assembled over more than a century, it has only more recently come to be seen as a more unified translation project. (Josef Dobrovský, a seminal figure of the Czech national revival movement in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, expended great effort collecting and collating many of the related manuscripts.) Numerous subsequent translations appeared in the 16th-18th centuries, some more official than others, some more archaic than others, most still reliant on the Latin Vulgate. The 1533 Optát and Gzel translation was the first to attempt engagement with the ancient biblical languages. Jan Blahoslav first raised more sophisticated questions about principles of translation into Czech a generation later, though he was less concerned about contemporary spoken language. His efforts then fed into the eventual creation of the Kralice Bible (1613), the most scholarly early modern translation, and a literary landmark. Czech exile scholars with ties to Pietist theology then completed the next ambitious translations of the eighteenth century. You can look at the 1722 Halle edition of Genesis 1 here:
Biblia Sacra, To gest Biblj Swatá a neb wssecka Swatá Pjsma, Starého y Nowého Zákona (1722). [page 41 in digital pagination]
It does not have the hyperannotated qualities of the assigned Schmidt translation, but in subtle ways you can see it acknowledging translation difficulties explicitly in the text. The 1766 third edition is quite similar in this portion. On the Catholic side, Pečírková indicates that the 1806 Procházka translation has a full complement of explanations and interpretive notes, but I do not find a convenient digital copy. To get a feel for scholarly treatment of Genesis 1, try this:
Bible česká. Díl I.: Knihy Starého zákona (1917), trans. Jan Hejčl.
Joseph Dobrowsky, "Ueber das Alter der böhmischen Bibelübersetzung," Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Böhmen, zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterländischen Geschichte, und der Naturgeschichte 6 (1784): 300-323; "Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Herrn Vicerektors Dobrowsky die Slavische Uebersetzung des N. T. betreffend," Johann David Michaelis Neue orientalistische und exegetische Bibliothek 7 (1790): 155-167.
Jaroslava Pečírková, "Czech translation of the Bible" (1998).
Hungarian: The early modern Káldi translation proved quite durable, and an annotated version does not come until the 1830s. For a treatment of Genesis 1, see the translation supervised by Bishop Ignác Szepesy,
The Szepesy edition was widely criticized in its day. On the scholarly challenge of updating the Káldi translation:
László Vass, "Szent Irás, vagy is az uj Szövetségnek Szent Könyvei, Magyarul Káldi György után...," Tudományos Gyűjtemény 19 no. 7 (1835): 92-120.
M., "A magyar szentirás javitásáról," Religio 1 (1854), 73-75, 81-83, 89-92, 97-100, 105-107.
Béla Tárkányi, "A legujabb magyar szentirásról," Religio 21-26 (1868): 161-162, 169-170, 177-179, 185-187, 193-194, 201-202.
Tibor Székely, "A magyar bibliafordítások történetéből" (2008).
Zoltán Csepregi, Magyar Pietizmus 1700-1756 (2000).On the earliest Hungarian Bible translations, including a mid-eighteenth annotated Pentateuch that remained only in manuscript, see Miklós Jankovich:
W. J. M., "Biblia tudniillik: A Szent Irás különb és eredeti magyar fordításainak öt példai," Egyházi folyóírás 4 (1834): 79-155.
Polish: The early modern Wujek translation was in literary and demotic terms highly successful, very much the analog of Luther's German translation. Thanks in part to its durability (despite many subsequent minor revisions), there is not an extensive annotated translation until the 1860s, when Menochiusz supplies commentary for a Latin-Polish edition in Wilno. The fourth edition is available online (link to Genesis 1):
Biblia łacińsko-polska czyli Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu. Podług tekstu łacińskiego Wulgaty i przekładu polskiego X. Jakóba Wujka T. J. z komentarzem Menochiusza T. J. przełożonym na język polski (1907).
Romanian: There was a well-received 1688 translation, one apparently shaped in complicated ways by both the Moldavian and Wallachian literary traditions. For the kind of scholarly annotation apparatus we are studying in this session, one could begin with the 1795 "Blaj Bible" of Samuil Micu (here in OCR facsimile; link to Genesis 1):
Eugen Munteanu, "A brief history of the Romanian Biblical tradition" (2012).
Orest Novitskii, О первоначальном переводе книг св. писания на славянский язык (1837).
I. S. Iakimov, "Критические исследования текста славянского перевода в его зависимости от текста перевода семидесяти толковников," Христианское чтение (1878). (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (This exercise in particular makes a layman like me wonder if most of the critical textual efforts go into discussion of Church Slavonic translations, missing connections with problems of demotic translation.)
F. Eleonskii, По поводу 150-летия Елизаветинской Библии: о новом пересмотре славянского перевода (1902).
(Click on image for larger version.) (Source)
The activities of the Russian Bible Society in the 1810s and 1820s were mostly aimed at demotic translations for the diverse peoples of the empire, Russian foremost, but although the translation program was quite systematic in its principles, these were not sites for explicating critical textual techniques. Subsequent individual translations did not find their way into wider distribution. In particular, G. P. Pavskii presented a partial translation into Russian directly from ancient Hebrew texts in 1841, but its divergences from Greek and Slavonic variants led to its withdrawal by the Synod; Chistovich indicates it was judged to have "an exclusively scholarly academic character," though this does not seem to have included annotations.
For comparison with the Wertheimer Bible the earliest interesting option might be that of Filaret (V. M. Drozdov), the metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, who offered extended commentary on the Book of Genesis:
Only the Synod's official translation project, completed in 1876, yielded a widely used modern translation based on original texts, though still indebted to its immediate predecessors in certain problematic ways. In the 1890s Nekrasov and Glubokovskii each prepare scholarly commentaries on the New Testament from the Synod translation, but these are not readily available. For an early attempt to translate in modern Russian as literally as possible and without archaisms, see the translation of Vadim [V. I. Kel'siev]:
Библия : Свящ. писание Ветхого и Нового завета, пер. с евр. независимо от вставок в подлиннике и от его изменений, находящихся в греч. и славян. пер. : Ветхий завет. Отд. первый, заключающий в себе Закон или Пятикнижие (1860).
Jewish translations of the Pentateuch into modern Russian also play an important role, e.g. Mandelshtam (1872) and Shteinberg (1899), but the online versions lack any commentaries. Various other nineteenth-century translations (in OCR versions without commentaries) are available at the Russian Bible portal. See also a brief translation history for a host of languages.
Further resource: Stephen K. Batalden, Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority (2013).
Ukrainian: Ivan Puluj is fascinating as a working scientist who also happened to collaborate with Kulish and Levitskii on the first modern Ukrainian translation, Сьв. Письмо Старого і Нового Завіту. Переклад П. А. Куліша, І. С. Левіцького і Пулюя (1903). This was not equipped with full annotations, however, so questions of scholarly apparatus would require further investigation. Further biographical references can be found at Ternopil's ELARTU site.
For a view of Old Testament criticism as understood by an instructor at the Kiev Seminary, V. P. Rybinskii, "Библейская ветхозаветная критика," Труды Киевской Духовной Академии (1908).
An unexpected student of Biblical criticism in the broadest sense was Ivan Franko, who, in the course of revisiting the nature of his religious convictions in his fifties, wrote a survey of the latest scholarship on the Bible (albeit mostly New Testament). Keenly aware of the religious rivalries in Europe that gripped the imagination of intellectuals and laymen alike, Franko detected a broader religious revival which might touch the life of the Ruthenian people. Concerned about the place of mysticism and fanaticism in this process, he probed scholarly understandings as an antidote, intending that Ukrainians not be "passive" when the movement arrived, but rather "armed with the weapons of healthy criticism." Though he gestures back to Erasmus, it is telling that the earliest figure who captures Franko's interest in the history of Biblical criticism is Lessing (cf. Sheehan's discussion).
Ivan Franko, "Сучасні досліди над святим письмом," in Твори в 50-ти томах, v. 38 (), 403-439. [djvu]
Bulgarian: I cannot really offer proper guidance here, but a starting point would be the so-called Tsarigrad translation led by Petko Rachov Slaveikov and published in Constantinople in 1871:
D. Ivanova, "Традиция и преемственост в новобългарските евангелски преводи," Paleobulgarica 4 (1993), 89-106.
Serbian: Similarly, the 1866 Old Testament translation by Đuro Daničić published in Pest would a place to start for Genesis 1 (OCR version), but this is not annotated. I would imagine that his extensive correspondence with Franz Miklosich would yield interesting insights into the translation process. Though it is not biblical commentary per se, Pavle Kengelac discusses the origin of the earth and Genesis 1 in Estestvoslovie (1811).
Croatian: Apparently several translations were completed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but they either remained unpublished or were suppressed. In 1831 Matija Petar Katančić publishes a translation with parallel Latin text in Buda:
Sveto pismo Starog' i Novog' zakona. (minimal annotations in Latin)
A translation with extensive annotation by Ivan M. Skarich comes out in 1858 in Vienna:Sveto Pismo staroga i novoga uvita iz Latinskoga s obzirom na matične Knjige.
Slovenian: For a modern translation see Josip Stritar, Svetega pisma prva knjiga Mojzesova (1885), though it lacks annotations. I would guess that Franz Miklošič was involved in the production of any related scholarly apparatus in that generation, but I lack the expertise to pursue this further.
Dutch: Perhaps Jacob van Nuys Klinkenberg's free translation would be of interest.
De Bijbel, door beknopte uitbreidingen, en ophelderende aenmerkingen, verklaerd (1780).
-  January 18 - Theology is no more than Reasoning applied to the Facts revealed
Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (1732). (excerpt)
David Hume, "The natural history of religion," Four Dissertations (1757), 17-22 (beginning with "There is a universal tendency..."), 42-46.
Joseph Priestley, Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit (1782 ), i-vi, 257-271.
Bernard Fontenelle, "On the origin of fables," in The Rise of Modern Mythology, B. Feldman and R. D. Richardson, eds. (1972), 10-18.
Julien Offray de La Mettrie
Baron d'Holbach, System of Nature (1770)
Bulman and Ingram, eds., God in the Enlightenment (2016). [on campus]
Frederick Gregory, "Theology and the sciences in the German Romantic period," in Cunningham and Jardine, eds., Romanticism and the Sciences (1990), 69-81.
F. S. Ornatskii on Schleiermacher (1884).
Frederick Gregory, Nature Lost? Natural Science and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century (1992).
-  January 25 - Geology and the decline of sacred history
Martin J. S. Rudwick, "The shape and meaning of earth history," from God and Nature, 296-321.
Charles Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (1951).
Mott Greene, "Genesis and geology revisited," in When Science and Christianity Meet (2003), 139-160.
Martin J. S. Rudwick, Earth's Deep History (2014).
Benjamin Silliman, "Consistency of geology with sacred history," editor's supplement to Robert Bakewell, An Introduction to Geology (1833), 389-466.
-  February 1 - The specter of materialism
Ludwig Büchner "Value [dignity] of matter," Force and Matter (1918 ), 46-57. (original German) (Czech translation) (Hungarian translation) (Polish translation) (Russian translation) (Ottoman Turkish translation) (French translation) (Italian translation) (There is also an Arabic translation in 1884.) (In addition to original German and Russian translation copies of Force and Matter available in Riga, Büchner's Die Macht der Vererbung und ihr Einfluß auf den moralischen und geistigen Fortschritt der Menschheit was translated into Latvian in 1909.)
Victoria Frede, "Materialism and the radical intelligentsia: The 1860s," in A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830-1930, eds. G. Hamburg and R. Poole (2010), 69-89.
Taking 1848 as your approximate starting point, identify one response to the problem of materialism in the following generation, in the language of your choice, and prepare a brief summary of the author's position for class. (For longer works, it is understood that you are describing something of interest for further research; you will not be expected to have mastered the entire text.) If you don't feel like choosing your own source, here are a few possibilities:
Czech: J. V. Diviš, "Materialismus přírodnický," Osvěta 1 (1871): 137-143.
Otto Zöckler, "Materialismus und Spiritismus: Zwei weitere Hauptkrankheiten heutiger Naturphilosophie," in Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, vol. 2 (1879), 397-416.
Hungarian: "Liebig és a materialisták," Budapesti Hirlap (31 January 1856).
Alajos Frecska, "Szélsőségek," Religio 16 (23 February 1856): 121-124.
Károly Zilahi, "A philosophia ujabb iránya Németországon," Budapesti Szemle 4 (1858): 365-379.
Sámuel Almási Balogh, "A philosophiának physiologiai fordulatáról Némethonban," Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő (1859): 151-172.
Ágost Greguss, "A materialismus hatásairól," Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő (1859): 570-591.
József Spannágel, "A materializmus, mint modern evangélium és annak tévedései," Protestáns egyházi és iskolai lapok 42 (1899): 25-27.
Polish: Stefan Pawlicki, Materjalizm w obec nauki (1870).
English: Paul Janet, The Materialism of the Present Day. A Critique of Dr. Büchner's System (1867). (original French) (Russian translation)
James Martineau, Modern Materialism: Its Attitude Toward Theology (1876).
Friedrich Albert Lange, History of Materialism and Critique of its Present Importance, vol. 3 (1881). (original German) (Polish translation) (Russian translation) (Hungarian essay review; part 2) (a Czech view of Lange)
Michael Heidelberger, Nature From Within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and His Psychophysical Worldview (2004).
Victoria Frede, Doubt, atheism, and the nineteenth-century Russian intelligentsia (2011).
Richard G. Olson, "The rise of materialisms and the reshaping of religion and politics," in Science and Scientism in the Nineteenth Century, 122-163.
Frederick Gregory, Scientific Materialism in Nineteenth Century Germany (1977).
Şükrü Hanioğlu, "Blueprints for a future society: Late Ottoman materialists on science, religion, and art," in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elisabeth Özdalga (2004), 28-116.
Nadeem J. Z. Hussain, and Lydia Patton, "Friedrich Albert Lange", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
-  February 8 - Darwin as secular tribune
Once we have identified the language skills and regional interests of the course participants, we will survey and present to each other various non-Anglophone texts related to the post-Darwinian controversies.
Dénes Péterfi, "Darwinizmus és a vállas," Kerestény magvető 18 (1882), 251-261.
Josef Durdík, "O nauce Darwinově," O pokroku přírodních věd (1874), 219-233. [Not a terribly strong option, but see the last couple of pages.]
Polish: Władysław Zaborski, Darwinizm wobec rozumu i nauki (1886).
Władysław Chotomski, "Darwin i darwiniści," Tygodnik Wielkopolski 4 (1874): 105-107.
Russian: А. Н. Кудрявцев, "Телеологическое доказательство," Краткий курс лекций по православному богословию (1889), 20-23. [Survey some of the rest of this textbook as well.]
С. С. Глаголев, "Дарвинизм" (см. "Религия и естествознание"), Из чтений о религии (1905).
German: Otto Zöckler, "Der Darwinismus und die Religion," Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft (1877), 734-743.
French: Clémence Royer, "Préface" to her translation of Darwin, De l'origine des espèces par sélection naturelle.
Max Müller, "The comparative study of religious beliefs," in Natural Religion (1889). [as an English-language fallback] [Polish translation] [Cf. Goldziher's essay on this topic (Hungarian), or Slavophile Samarin's letter (Russian).]
Marwa Elshakry, Reading Darwin in Arabic (2013). (And see her essay "Knowledge in motion")
Sander Gliboff, H.G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and the Origins of German Darwinism: A Study in Translation and Transformation (2008).
Giuliano Pancaldi, Darwin in Italy: Science Across Cultural Frontiers (1991).
Robert J. Richards, "Ernst Haeckel and the Struggles over Evolution and Religion," Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 10 (2005).
Alexander Vucinich, "Rejection," Darwin in Russian Thought (1988), 240-271.
Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick, eds., The Reception of Darwin in Europe (2008).
Katalin Stráner, "Science, translation and the public: the Hungarian reception of Darwinism," PhD diss., CEU (2013).
-  February 15 - Naturalistic ethics and society: Spencer, Huxley, Haeckel, Kropotkin
Everyone: Matthew Stanley, "How the naturalists 'won'," Huxley's Church and Maxwell's Demon: From Theistic Science to Naturalistic Science (2015), 242-263.
Depending on the configuration of student interests, individual assignments will be distributed among some or all of the following options:
Herbert Spencer, "Political retrospect and prospect," chapter 19 of The Principles of Sociology, vol. 2 (1876/1898).
Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics (1893).
Ernst Haeckel, Der Monismus als Band zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft (1892).
Daniel Todes, "Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid," in Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (1989), 123-142.
Bernard Lightman, ed., Global Spencerisms (2015). [on-campus access]
Paul Lawrence Farber, The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics (1994).
-  February 22 - A weapon from the iron arsenal of materialism: Pavlov's physiology as ideology and method
 February 22 - A weapon from the iron arsenal of materialism: Pavlov's physiology as ideology and method
Ivan P. Pavlov, "The Scientific Investigation of the Psychical Faculties or Processes in the Higher Animals," Science 24 (1906): 613-619.
I. P. Pavlov, "The Science Institute in memory of 27 February 1917," Free Association for the Development and Dissemination of the Positive Sciences (1917), 25-28. (Russian source)
Vsevolod Pudovkin, "The mechanics of the human brain" and the film, The Mechanics of the Human Brain (1925) (partial screening in class)
Daniel P. Todes, “Pavlov’s physiology factory,” Isis 88 (1997): 205–246.
Daniel P. Todes, Pavlov's physiology factory : Experiment, interpretation, laboratory enterprise (2002).
Daniel P. Todes, Ivan Pavlov: A Russian Life in Science (2014).
-  March 1 - Freud and religionAssigned reading:
Sigmund Freund, "The relation between religion and science," The Future of an Illusion (1927). (original German)
Choose ONE of the following contemporary critiques to relate in class:
H. Schutz and F. Navrátil, review of Budoucnost jedné iluse, Nová svoboda 6 (1929): 385.
A. F., "A kultúrát építő és romboló ösztönök Freud megvilágításában," Századunk (1930): 303-306.
M. Kanler, "O 'neuroze' naszej kultury," Nowy dziennik (3 March 1930): 5.
Rudolf Urbantschitsch, review of Die Zukunft einer Illusion, Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift (1928): 365-366.
Ellis Freeman, review of The Future of an Illusion, American Journal of Psychology (1929): 126-128.
J. E. Turner, "Freud and the illusion of religion," The Journal of Religion 11 (1931): 212-221.
-  March 8 - The militant godless
James T. Andrews, "Transforming the spirit with science: Evolution, anti-religion, and the Soviet state in the 1920s," Science for the Masses: The Bolshevik State, Public Science, and the Popular Imagination in Soviet Russia, 1917-1934 (2003), 99-120.
Victoria Smolkin, A Sacred Space is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism (2018).
Richard Stites, "Godless religion," in Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (1989), chapter 5.
Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (1998).
R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, London, 2006, esp. ch. 5.
A. McGrath, Dawkins’ God, Oxford, 2005.Michael Bourdeaux and Alexandru Popescu. “The Orthodox Church and Communism,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 5: Eastern Christianity, edited by Michael Angold, 5:558–79. Cambridge History of Christianity (2006).
(click on image for larger version)
-  March 15 - State socialism and its antireligious institutions
Jan Tesař, The History of Scientific Atheism: A Comparative Study of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union (1954-1991) (2019). (introduction)
For this class we will identify primary sources relevant to the students' regional interests and discuss them in light of Tesař's comparative agendas.
-  March 22 - The Big Bang and cosmic narrative
Helge Kragh, "Religion, politics, and the universe," in Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe (1996), 251-268.
Thomas Ryckman, "'A believing rationalist': Einstein and 'the truly valuable' in Kant," The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, eds. Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner (2014), 377-397.
Loren R. Graham, "Cosmology and cosmogony," Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union (1987), 380-427.
- Further resources and recommended reading