Can an atheist be a “noahide”?

Can an atheist be a noahide?

This has to be one of the most irritating questions I see, probably alongside “can noahides keep sabbath?” And it’s one of the reasons why I sometimes hate the word “noahide.” I remember seeing a headline to an article that said something like “How a former atheist became a noahide.” I’m guessing he wasn’t a noahide beforehand. I’ve seen a series on youtube called “living the noahide life.”

Things like this make me glad I don’t live around people who use the term “noahide” religiously, as if it’s an adherent to a religion.

The problem with the question that started this article is that it uses a fuzzy word, a label that is carelessly thrown around by too many, Jew and Gentile, but not pinned down and defined before the question was asked. And once that term is defined, then it can be seen whether the question is valid or not. I believe that if the question includes a fundamental contradiction, then it is no longer a valid question.

One example of an invalid question.

“For how long was the bachelor married?”

The definition of bachelor, a man who has never been married, contradicts the premise of the question, that he’s been married for some time. The concepts of “never been married” and “been married” contradict each other so the question is meaningless, invalid.

Here’s another example of an invalid question that is helped by the ambiguity of a word. So anti-theists and God-rejectors will ask the question, “if the universe needs a creator, and God is the creator, then who created God?” The ambiguous term here is “God” since it means different things to different people, the English word being used for entities with different qualities and descriptions.

But once the question is asked to a classical theist or a Torah-keeping and Torah knowledgeable Gentile or Jew, the description of “God” becomes a lot more specific. How is this “God” described? As a causeless, eternal, first cause, or primary being, “first” in the sense that nothing preceded it. This being is not the universe, but created the universe.

So let’s input this description into the anti-theistic question to see if the question is valid when directed to the classical theist.

“If the universe needs a creator, and an uncreated being made it, then who created the uncreated being?”

As you may see, the premise of the question, when directed to a classical theist, is contradictory, that a being who was not created was created, therefore the question is meaningless, invalid.

Now, let’s get to the irritating question that is asked, whether a “noahide” can be an atheist. What’s the first question to ask? “What is a noahide?” You see, we’re using a fairly modern English word that is used in different ways, thrown around carelessly by religious Jews, including some of their rabbis, and by various Gentiles of differing mindsets. But once we nail down what a person thinks they mean by “noahide,” then it can be seen whether the question is valid.

So how is “noahide” used?

Now I’ve seen people use it in terms of a person who accepts the God of Israel and who claims to knowingly keep the seven laws because of their divine source. This meaning is reflected in the words of the following rabbis.

Noahide (ben Noahh) refers to a non-Jew who abides by the Seven Noahide Laws, especially one who does so because of the Torah given at Sinai. (Section A, The Seven Noahide Commandments, Guide for the Noahide, Kindle version, by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron) From this was born the name of Noahide. Noahide means a non-Jew who has taken upon himself or herself to follow the 7 mitzvos specifically because of a belief in HaShem and Torah including the Rabbinic traditions.(Introductory Remarks – Noahide, by rabbi Moshe Shulman, found at https://torasbn.blogspot.com/2017/10/introductory-remarks-noahide-ger-vs.html?m=1)

These rabbis spread this meaning of “noahide”.

But this explanation is not the only meaning. It may not even be the main one.

The term “Noachide” is used in the rabbinic literature to denote anyone who is not Jewish. See generally Rashi, Nedarim 31a and R. Aaron Kirshenbaum “The Covenant with Noachides Compared to the Sinai Covenant” Dinai Israel 6:31-48 (5735). (footnote 1, The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noachide Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review, by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde found at http://jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html

The Gemara below will discuss the various laws that were given to Adam and his descendants. They are called “Noahide” laws because of all of humanity descended from Noah after the Flood. Indeed, many Scriptural references to these laws are found in God’s communication to Noah after the Flood … (footnote 31, Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 56a, Schottenstein edition, digital edition)

“Noahides” is the term for all mankind except Israel. Noahides are not bound by the laws of the Torah (“Halachah”), but by “the seven Noahide laws. (footnote 18, page 231, Graff-Rand edition of Ramban’s commentary)

So the term “noahide” can just mean Gentile, a person not Jewish.

So we have at least two meanings of “noahide:” 1) just a non-Jew, and 2) a non-Jew who keeps the seven laws because God gave it in the Torah at Sinai.

So with this info, let’s plug it into the initial question to see if it has any sense to it.

Definition 1: Can an atheist be a non-Jew?

Definition 2: Can an atheist be someone who acknowledges that God gave the Torah at Sinai and keeps those laws for that reason?

Well, it’s reasonable easy to see which question is utter nonsense. When it comes to definition 1, sure, a non-Jew can be an atheist and vice versa.

But with definition 2, its premise includes contradictory ideas, a person rejecting God (the atheist) and accepting the same God (the “noahide” according to definition 2). So the second version of the question is nonsense. Or at least the answer to the question could be, “of course not, what a silly question!”

Here comes the objection.

“But, David, I’m sure that when the innocent person asks that question, they really mean whether an atheist can keep the seven laws. So, David, can a Gentile who is atheist keep the seven laws?”

Can I be blunt? I’m gonna be blunt. I think too many people are so sloppy with their language, they can say some stupid things. Maybe people are so clueless about what they are saying that they use a term they don’t understand, “noahide,” to try to gain understanding about a subject they are clueless about. I should be understanding. It happens to me too. But it still can be frustrating.

So, does an atheist, simply by living the life that says there is no God, break the seven laws? And what does it mean to keep the seven laws?

Too many people have it in their heads that to keep a law, you have to know, respect the source of the law, as if I have to respect the government of the UK and accept their authority to keep the laws they’ve created. I know full well that such logic is bullcrap. I don’t have to give two hoots about the politicians in the UK for me to keep the law. The problem with the ideas of certain people is that words that have a normal meaning are given special definitions. So I’m gonna throw out the “special meaning” dictionary.

In English, the language Jews use to tell me and other English people about the seven laws, to keep the law means to conform to the demands of the law, to do or perform what the law instructs. As long as you do as don’t do anything the law forbids, or do what the law instructs, you’ve kept the law, regardless of knowledge or acceptance of the lawgiver.

And you know what some Jews will do now, right? “Well, that’s in English (the language we’re using to describe our foreign concepts to you), but in Hebrew, blah blah blah …” But at least, in this case, I have evidence against the idea of trying to bring such special pleading into this. In an article I’ve written previously, I show that the word “tzadiq,” commonly translated as “righteous,” refers to someone innocent of judgement, someone who has not broken the laws given, and this was used in reference to Noah and thus has validity for non-Jews like. So there is evidence that keeping the law does mean not breaking the laws given.

So in order for the question, “can an atheist keep the seven laws,” to be valid, there must be a law amongst the seven that the atheist breaks simply by being an atheist.

Here, too many bring up the two laws amongst the seven, that of blasphemy and that of idolatry. I’ll say now that they don’t really apply to these laws , but rather to ideals that they value that they attach to these laws. The actual law of blasphemy is summarised by Maimonides as follows.

A gentile who curses God’s Name, whether he uses God’s unique name or one of His other names, in any language, is liable.

An atheist simply by rejecting God doesn’t curse God’s name. There is nothing intrinsic to atheism that necessitates vocalising a curse against God using his name. So the people accusing atheists don’t really mean this actual law, but rather they see an atheist as not “fearing God,” an ideal that they attach to the law or they presume to be an intrinsic part of the law. You may see that the problem is that the actual law simply governs actions and is a means that righteous courts and communities can judge actions, but some, the religious and the philosophers, try to remove it to some abstract value.

It’s the same with the law of idolatry. To again use the summary from Maimonides which coincides with the Talmud,

A gentile who worships false gods is liable provided he worships them in an accepted manner. A gentile is executed for every type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would consider worthy of capital punishment. However, a gentile is not executed for a type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would not deem worthy of capital punishment.

Again, the law governs actions, not beliefs. And there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that involves the specific acts that fall unders this law. There is no god for him to give divine worship to or serve as a god. So once again, the law itself fails to indict the atheist. But, as I’ve shown in my other articles, too many try to insert their religious values here of the importance of knowing or worshipping the True God although that is not the law.

When this sort of falsehood, and it is falsehood, finds its way into popular books that teach the seven laws, normally written by religious Jews sometimes too unaware that they are simply overwriting our divine laws with there, then that is a cause for concern.

So to go back to the secondary question of whether an atheist can keep the seven laws, then it is wholly dependant on what you think the seven laws are. If you think, in contradiction to the older sources, that the seven laws includes positive commands to fear God and worship or know him, then you will think an atheist has broken the seven laws. But if you stick to the older sources, understanding the nature and quality of the seven laws, namely being mainly prohibitions against certain actions which are capital crimes, then it’ll be obvious that an atheist can keep the seven laws.

I can add that even Maimonides states that a Gentile can perform and do, meaning to keep, the seven laws for reasons other than their divine source. This means that atheists can perform, do, and keep the seven laws.

I’ll stop there with regards to the main article. But I hope you can see something strange about those who believe “noahide” means a certain type of Gentile with specific beliefs about God, Torah and rabbinical tradition, which, by nature of the wording, excludes all other Gentiles. Think about this with me. The seven laws are often called “The Seven Noahide Commandments.” That means they are laws for “noahides.” But if “noahide” only means a certain, insignificantly small group of Gentiles who happen to hold a belief, then is there no law for the rest of humanity?

“But the seven laws are for them too but … but …”

Oh, shut up!