by Jim Laycock
In the early days of talk.religion, in September 1986, Jim Laycock of the University of Alberta posted a reconstruction of a debate he had been part of: whether Lucifer, read through a broad received Christian symbolic package rather than through source-critical biblical study, could be treated as the patron saint of science and rational inquiry. The argument is careful, structured, and deliberately provocative, and it preserves the university-centered argumentative style of early Usenet.
Laycock describes himself as an atheist with a purely academic interest in the question. The argument he reconstructs stands near the Lucifer/Satan/Prometheus comparison later named in Gene Ward Smith's reply, though Laycock approaches the matter through science, authority, and knowledge rather than through Romantic poetry.
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 as part of the Good Works Library Usenet archive project, March 2026. Original post sparked a reply from Gene Ward Smith at UC Berkeley drawing on Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, archived separately.