by Jim Laycock
In the early days of talk.religion, in September 1986, a philosophy student at the University of Alberta posted a reconstruction of a debate he had been part of: whether Lucifer, not as a figure of evil but as a figure defined by his three great Biblical acts, deserved to be the patron saint of science and rational inquiry. The argument is careful, structured, and deliberately provocative — the kind of piece that could only have emerged in the intellectual free-for-all of early Usenet, where engineers, theologians, and philosophers argued across institutional boundaries on equal footing.
Jim Laycock was in his final year of a philosophy degree. He describes himself as an atheist with a purely academic interest in the question. The argument he reconstructs draws on the same Lucifer-as-Prometheus comparison that Percy Bysshe Shelley had made in the preface to "Prometheus Unbound" — though Laycock approaches it from a different angle, interested not in poetry but in the sociology of knowledge.
The post sparked a notable reply from Gene Ward Smith at the University of California, Berkeley, who brought Shelley's own verse to bear on the comparison.
What follows is a reconstruction of a discussion I was involved in recently. I do not consider myself a biblical scholar, nor is my interest in this matter any more than academic (i.e. I'm an atheist), but I was curious as to what sort of response the following claim would evoke.
The Claim
Lucifer is (or should be) the patron saint of science and technology.
The Argument
Lucifer is credited in the Bible for the following three acts:
- Rebelling against God and being cast into Hell.
- Tempting Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit (knowledge).
- Confronting Christ on the issue of faith vs. uncertainty.
In the first act, Lucifer can be said to have rebelled against the dictatorship of God. His act of dissention was motivated by interests and opinions which conflicted with those of God. Historically, this is the stuff of which great men are made (American founding fathers, Lenin...). The list is huge.
In the second act, Lucifer can be superficially compared to the titan Prometheus for his act of giving knowledge (fire) to mankind. Satan's gift was much more potent, however, for it included free will — the capacity to recognize and choose to perform both Evil and Good acts — and rational thought.
His third act is of questionable import. Personally, I acknowledge that no knowledge is certain and I look disparagingly upon those who place a greater value in "faith" than in rational thought. I'm afraid I'd side with Lucifer on this debate as well.
So if these are Lucifer's three major acts in the Bible, why is it that he's received so much bad press? Scientists and philosophers should praise him — were they to believe in him — for the tremendous gifts he has provided us. Look well around you, for you work in a temple erected for the pursuit of knowledge and the employment of scientific inquiry: Satan's most wonderful gifts to mankind.
Colophon
Written by Jim Laycock, philosophy student at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Posted to talk.religion on September 3, 1986. Message-ID: [email protected].
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original post sparked a reply from Gene Ward Smith at UC Berkeley drawing on Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, archived separately.
🌲