2
10
13
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8aff5888c1496de4d45ecf34be57a357.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TrNjJGsD%7EGrkn3ouYwozSx8pVDbXRHx1bEzStvCWFMjccHS1ND4BYJwoIaxKqb0-xWp385crXvDlG2aJGSIbr2uju55rP9VUl4Y5x2eO2K4jqbpEfvZHuZsuhSQvTa4nV1mpnR2DYeXgiJZqK5ThMpxyHdrWW9ITaMOgPj%7E01CIrmP%7EVCDpOaUwzMYSVF-TAf%7EZDO9LU58Ihd5ksF-LkfGsFAf3SqOQ-NnVSBZVowHEkOdjOaS23xt4h65%7EUZTD5na3ZZEFFiG703lPaZAO5FEFurtp49gFjC-y-AEMVnQhFZogqv4k2ot4sEYZh5IX-mCvZ3lnNiS-gge0EC6zsnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7a3b815f360fbc5bb5ab0a8f322cfde5
PDF Text
Text
RAJS 506
Orthodox Criticism Tested I
A REPLY
— TO----
FATHER LAMBERT’S
“Tactics of Infidels,”
---- BY-----
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought,
Author of “ History of Freethought," “ Teachings of Secularism Compared -with
Orthodox Christianity“ Evolution and Special Creation," " Secularism;
Constructive a d Destructive," “ Glory of Unbelief' * Saints and
Sinners; Which?" “Bible Morality" Etc., Etc.
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST*
TWENTY CENTS.
\
��The Critic
of
“TACTICS OF INFIDELS”
CRITICIZED.
For some few years past a certain Father Lambert has devoted
■much of his time to a defense of the Christian religion, mainly by
attacking Col. Ingersoll. Mr. Lambert seems to labour under the
impression that if the Colonel can only be extinguished Chris- »
tianity will necessarily be demonstrated to be true. But the
falsity of a system no more depends upon the assertions of one
man than its truth upon the declarations of another. Christianity
will not stand or fall by the quibbles and sophisms of Mr. Lambert;
so neither will the opposite by the great eloquence of Colonel
Ingersoll. In the following criticism of a book called “ Tactics of
Infidels ”—which appears to have had a very large circulation—
it is not intended to defend either Colonel Ingersoll or Mr. Lacy—
since they are quite able to defend themselves—both of whom are
■made to figure largely in its pages, but simply to show wherein
Mr. Lambert’s reasoning is at fault. We do not care to discuss
men, but only to examine the principles they represent, and the
arguments employed by them to defend their views. It is chari
table to assume that every man is honest in the advocacy of the
opinions he puts forward, unless the contrary be very clearly
proved. It may seem strange to a man brought up under religi
ous influences, and with a strong emotional nature, who has never
read a Freethought work, or listened to a criticism of the evidences
of his faith, that any one should doubt what he holds to be infall
ibly true, but it is no less astounding to one who has freed himself
from the trammels of the orthodox religion that any one can for a
moment believe in the monstrous pretensions of the so-called
Catholic Church. Still so it is, and the sincerity of many such is
■beyond question. In what follows the dialogue form has been
adopted, because Father Lambert seems to prefer that to any
•other ; and to think that it has many advantages, for his side at
�4
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
least. His idea is that our teachings are easily disposed of by this;
method, so we will humour him by submitting his own to the same
kind of test.
It is not intended in this criticism to give a thorough and exhaus
tive reply to Father Lambert, but only to glance at some of the
more conspicuous of his fallacies, and to show that, although he
prides himself so greatly on his logic, he occasionally falls into the
most illogical kind of reasoning.
Ingersoll. The universe, according to my idea, is, always was,,
and forever will be * * * It is the one eternal being—the only
thing that ever did, does or can exist.
Lambert. When you say “ according to my idea ” you leave theinference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to
the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development..
Of course you do not intend to mislead or deceive ; you simply
meant that your “ idea ” of the universe is, like most of our modern;
plays, adapted from the French or elsewhere. * * * The old
originals, from whom you copy, thought it incumbent on them to
give a reason, or at least a show of reason, for their “ idea.” In.
this enlightened age you do not deem it necessary. It is suffi
cient for you to formulate your “ idea.” To attempt to prove it
would be beneath you. Have you got so far as to believe that
your “ idea ” has the force of an argument, or that the science;
of philosophy must be re-adjusted because you happen to have an
“ idea ?”
Lacy. The words “ according to my idea ” are said to imply
primitive conception; because I say “ I have an idea,” I leave the
inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before !
Lambert. There is a difference between an idea and my idea.
To say you have an idea might cause surprise, but to say it is yours
is to claim orginality for it. If Ingersoll were to claim some of
Edison’s ideas as his, he would be liable to prosecution for infringe
ment of the patent laws. The pantheistic theory of the universe
is too old to be claimed by Ingersoll as his idea. In claiming ithe
carries out his usual method of appropriating the thoughts and
speculations of others without giving credit, for which he deservesthe title of the Philosopher of the Purloined. Of course, one may
get at his meaning, but this verbal hypercritic of Moses should try
to say what he means.
pJZaMs. Is it not something like splitting hairs to thus quibble
about the expression “ according to my idea ?” Surely a man
means nothing more by that phrase than that the thing thus pre
sents itself to his mind. There is no necessary claim in it toorginality. Father Lambert would doubtless say, “ according to
my idea Christ is God,” but surely no man in his senses would.
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
5
suppose that to mean that no one before had had the same idea.
The pretended difference between an idea and my idea is not worth
■discussing, for the former is an abstraction. There is no such
thing as an idea that is not, in reference to some person, his idea,
•and it consequently becomes to him my idea. Originality in ideaa
is rare, and surely a Roman Catholic should be the last person to
make complaint on that score. No doubt the Pantheistic theory
■of the universe is old, but that to a Roman Catholic ought to prove
•a recommendation. And as to Ingersoll, it is admitted that his mean
ing may be got at. Well, then, what more is wanted ? Is it not
somewhat unfair to first accuse the Colonel of purloining ideas and
passing them off as his own, and then to admit that the Colonel’s
Slanguage does not mean that. This is hypercriticism with a ven
geance. And shallow enough, too, it is at that.
Lambert. Ideas are the elements or timbers of a judgment, as the
ibricks are the component parts of a house. As the house is greater
than one of its bricks, so is a judgment, an assent or a faith greater
than any one of the ideas composing it. A judgment is, then,
more than an idea, on the principle that the whole is greater than
any of its parts. Your mistake arises from ignorance of the differ
ence between a judgment and an idea. It is another mistake to
•advance this ignorance as an evidence of modesty.
Watts. The difference between one’s judgment and his idea is
another quibble which savours more of nonsense than of metaphysi
cal reasoning. A distinction of course there is in strictly philosophic
language, but this largely disappears in ordinary conversation.
An idea is a representation of a real thing, and a man’s judgment
regarding that is in truth his idea of it. I read that a certain man
was sentenced to death for a particular crime. I judge that the
sentence was just, that is it was just according to my judgment, that
is that my idea of justice corresponded with the sentence. And when
I say my idea I do not mean that the idea originated with me, but
•that it accords with my conception of the things involved in it.
•<i Faith is an assent to truth on the authority of another,” says
Lambert. But that is not a good definition of faith, in fact it is a
very clumsy one. There may be no authority of another in the
case. Faith is, where it is reasonable, largely based upon experi
ence—not authority, and it is just that authority against which we
protest. I have faith that if I sow seed in the spring, I shall reap
a harvest in the fall; that if I sleep when I am fatigued I shall rise
�6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
refreshed, but to no authority am I indebted for this, but to experi
ence. The experience may not be all mine, but a generalization of
other men’s, but there is no authority. We reject the Father’s
definitions in common with his theology, for the one is the out.
come of the other. A judgment is no doubt largely based upon
an idea, but one may surely be allowed to state the idea in connec
tion with the judgment, without being liable to be misunderstood.
Besides, if it be wrong to say my idea, when the same idea is held,
by other persons, it must be equally wrong to say my judgment
unless in such judgment I stand alone.
Lambert. “ That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite,,
because if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it. But that which
is infinite must be infinite in every way. If limited in any way it
would not be infinite. Now, matter is limited. It is composed of
parts, and composition is limitation. Change supposes succession,,
and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore
limitation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience and
common sense. Then—Matter is limited and therefore finite, and
if finite in anything finite in everything ; and if finite in everything,,
therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal. The idea of an
eternal, self-existent being is incompatible in every point of view
with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, un
changeable, impassible, and one. The latter is composite, change
able, passible and multiple. To assert that matter is eternal is to
assert that all these antagonistic attributes are identical—a privi
lege granted to lunatics only.”
Watts. Infinity we cannot conceive of, it is a mere negation, for
it means the not finite. Now, being a negation, how can it possessthe attributes here ascribed to it, or, in fact, any attributes at all ?'
Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest metaphysicians of this
age, and an orthodox Christian, has completely pulverized the logic
of Lambert. He shows that what men absurdly call the infinite
is simply the indefinite, and that to talk of the infinite is to use a
word without meaning. Matter is composed of parts, and there
fore limited. What parts ? Can we conceive of a part of matter
which cannot be further divided ? Is it not infinitely divisible ?•
And if so, here is infinity, that is, the infinitely small, ascribed to
d. If it be not infinitely divisible, then we must reach a portion
■sf matter the half of which is equal to the whole, which is an.
absurdity. But the infinite “ is essentially simple, unchangeable^
impassible and one.” This means that it cannot be divided. Sir
William Hamilton has shown the absurdity of this in regard to
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
7
duration. Eternity and infinity are one, for eternity is infinity of
duration. Now, there is an eternity of the past and an eternity of
the future, that is, an Infinite Duration in the past, and an InfiniteDuration in the future, and these are divided by the present; that
is, your supposed Infinity is cut into two parts. And here is the
reductio ad absurdam. Either these two parts are infinite or they
* are finite. If infinite, then there are two infinites succeeding each
other; if finite, then two finites can make an infinite. This is not
my idea, but that of the greatest Scotch metaphysician ; and
Father Lambert can choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases.
The same argument will apply to space. Take another illustra
tion, also from Hamilton. A foot is infinitely divisible, that is, it
is divisible into an infinite number of parts ; a mile is infinitely
divisible. But, as one infinite must be equal to another, therefore
a foot is the same as a mile. All this goes to show that we have
no conception of the infinite and cannot discuss it. When we
speak of it we simply mean the indefinite.
The human soul, says Lambert, is not eternal because it started
at a certain point, but will live forever. Well, that starting point
was a point in duration, and hence duration itself from that period
is not eternal. The human soul, then, is finite ; but, if so, how
can it last forever ? for that is just what the Father argues that
finite things cannot do.
Lambert. The future life of man is not actual and real, but
potential, and will ever remain potential.
Watts. What in the name of reason does this mean ? If man’s
future life be not real, why trouble about it ? What possible
concern can we have with the unreal ? This is really to
teach non-existence, which is assuredly not in harmony with the
theology of the Vatican.
Lambert. To imagine, or rather to conceive an infinite line is to
conceive a line*to whose lineal value nothing can be added, for as
long as an addition to it can be conceived if is not yet infinite. Is
such a line conceived as a reality ? No. Let us see why.
Imagine your infinite line extending through space in opposite
directions—say north and south. Now this so-called infinite line
is not infinite so long as we can conceive it increased by additional
length. Let us now imagine another so-called infinite line of
equal length with the first, and running parallel to it. If we add
the second to the first do we not increase its lineal value ? Most
certainly. Then the first line was not infinite because it admitted
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
of addition. Nor are the two together infinite, because we may
imagine another parallel line and another addition and a conse
quent increase of lineal value. We may continue this process for
ever and never exhaust the possibilities—never come to a lineal
value that excludes possible addition. From this you will see that
you cannot conceive, much less imagine, an infinite ltne so
“ readily ” as yo< thought.
Watts. Why, certainly. But what does all this prove but that
Sir William Hamilton is right, and that man can form no idea of
the Infinite, and that every attempt to describe it must end in
hopeless confusion and contradiction. The Father has in this
paragraph completely refuted himself.
Lacy. Space is infinite expansion but nothing more.
Lambert. Expansion of what ? Expansion without something
expanded is a mere fiction of the mind, having no real existence
outside the mind. Expansion is a mode of matter, and without
matter it is a non-entity. As matter is finite its expansion is finite.
Herbert Spencer defines space as “the abstract of all co-exist ences,” and by “the abstract” he tells us he means “ that which
is left behind when the realities are absent.” Now, take away all
reality and what have you left ? No reality, nothing. Then, ac
cording to Spencer’s definition space is no reality. But reality,
real being, is the first essential condition of the infinite, therefore
space, having no reality, no real existence aside from matter, can
not be infinite.
Watts. Space is unquestionably infinite expansion, if you sub
stitute indefinite for infinite. Expansion of what ? Well, we don’t
know. It may be an abstraction, as Spencer supposes, but there
are a hundred different opinions on that subject entertained by the
ablest philosophers. But it is certainly as real as eternity, which
word the Father uses glibly enough. At all events, the conception
of space is as clear as the conception of matter, and clearer than
the conception of God. If space be not infinite, as Lambert says
it is not, then it is limited, and we should be glad to be informed
what limits it, and whether the something that limits it exists
outside of space, which, of course, means nowhere. Is there some
place where there is no space ? If not, space is everywhere, in
other words, infinite. If space be the possibility of extended
things, still there can be no limit to that possibility. But Space
and Time are realities, despite the talk of such small and gabbling
metaphysicians as Father Lambert.
All the talk about the infinite line is just an illustration of Sir
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
$
Wm. Hamilton’s doctrine that no clear conception can be formed
of the infinite, but that any discussion of the subject must be in
volved in paradox and contradiction. The Father should read
Dean Mansell’s Bampton Lectures, a book written from a religious
standpoint, and in defence of Christianity. The Dean makes short
work of the nonsensical talk about the infinite. The argument
about Numbers and Duration go to show the absurdity in which
the whole thing is involved, and to illustrate Hamilton’s position.
What the Father is trying to prove it is difficult to make out. No
addition of finite numbers will make an infinite. Of course not.
Whoever supposed that it would ? But, as no number of finites
-can make an infinite, and as we can only conceive of finites, what
becomes of the talk about the infinite ?
Lambert. The incapacity to conceive how a thing can be done is
no proof that it cannot be done.................... The fact that the how
of an act or process is inconceivable is no proof that it has not a
.how, or that it is impossible.................... It is one thing not to con
ceive a thing and quite another to'conceive a thing to be impos
sible.................... I cannot conceive how God created the world,
but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative act. I cannot
■conceive the nature of matter, but I can conceive no impossibility
in it.
Watts. We do not attempt to explain the how of anything, and
■questions with regard to it are childish. And we are not alone
here. Let the Catholic give us the how of the facts of nature, or
•of his own being. But, he says, there is a difference between not
being able to conceive of a thing and the conceiving of it as im
possible. Why of course! It is only Christians who confound
these. “ I cannot conceive,” says the Father, “how God created
the world, but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative
act.” Well, to me such an act seems impossible. Will Mr.
Lambert explain how to him it does not seem so ? Did God create
the world out of nothing or out of pre-existing materials ? If the
latter, these must have been eternal, or there must have been a
prior creation, to which the same argument would apply. If the
former, was not that an impossibility ? How could an infinite make
a finite, i. e., could an infinite cause produce a finite result ? Is
not this an impossibility ? Or, in truth, how could there be space
or time for the finite when the infinite occupied the whole of both ?
Besides, we have been told that there is no change or succession
�IO
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
in the infinite. But, if at some point of duration or eternity he
performed an act which commenced or ceased, then he changed in
time, became related to time and consequently to succession.
Why was not creative power displayed before the creation ? In a
word, it must have been eternal, as God is eternal and unchange
able. If the infinite does not change, then from all eternity it must
have been creating worlds, and in that case these worlds would,
themselves be eternal. We would like an explanation of this. I
am not asking for the how, but for an explanation as to the possi
bility of conceiving of such a process. “ Everything,” says L.,
“ is possible that does not involve contradictory attributes.” Very
well. Then here are the contradictory attributes. God is eternal
and unchangeable, yet he put forth a new exertion a few millions
or so of years ago and created worlds, thereby changing his course
of action. “ Change supposes succession and therefore limitation.”
God changed his action, therefore became subject to succession,
ergo limited, that is, not infinite.
True, a thing may exist of which we are unable to form any
conception, but at least it can have no concern for us. What can
we have to do with that of which we can form no conception ?
It is a waste of time even to talk of it. But we know quite as
well as Father Lambert the difference between the failing to con
ceive a thing and the conception of its impossibility. And it is
just this latter that we urge against his theology. But, says the
Father, “ You must have some conception of the creative act, or
you could not assert that it is inconceivable.” Of course, we have
a conception of what Theologians say in reference to the act, and
we declare their statements to be self-contradictory and absurd.
But this is a very different thing to forming a conception of the
act itself. For we declare such an act to be both inconceivable
and contradictory.
Now, the concession that we must think of God with limitations,
as Lambert maintains, shows how impossible it is for us to con
ceive of the infinite at all. It is clear that our conception of God,
according to Lambert, is not correct. But how can he reach, in
thought, a being that transcends all human conception ? Besides,
if we can only conceive of God as limited, and yet he may be
unlimited, what becomes of the argument that matter cannot be
infinite, because we conceive of it as finite. If God, although
only thought of as finite,, and described as such in the Bible, be
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
II
really infinite, the same argument will apply to matter. This
mode of reasoning is suicidal, and cuts its own throat.
Lambert. As to space, we have seen that it is not a real being,
but only a relation between material beings ; that abstracted from
material beings it is nothing ; that it bears somewhat the same
relation to extended or expanded things that form does to matter
or weight to ponderable things. Annihilate extended or expanded
things and form and space and weight will “ fade away like the
shadows which flit before us and are seen no more.”
Watts. Space, then, is nothing at all; in a word, there is no
space. Things therefore exist nowhere, But that which exists
nowhere does not exist at all: ergo, there is nothing in existence.
The Father confounds the filling of space with its annihilation.
Space is not destroyed by being occupied. It is still there, but no
longer empty. To say that where a body is the space is not, is to
say that a thing exists where it is not,—for it surely exists in spaGe,
—which is egregious nonsense. According to this philosophy
things do not exist in space but outside of it, and where that is we
should like to be informed.
Lambert. Christian philosophers tell us that space, in as far as
it is real, is the distances between extended or spaced things, and
can exist only when extended things, exist, just as form can have
no real existence without things formed. Space in this sense is
limited to extended things and therefore cannot be infinite.
Watts.—Then Christian philosophers have taught nonsense, as the
Father himself has in these pages. But who are the philosophers
that have taught this ? Space is just the one thing whose non
existence or even limitation cannot be even conceived. Let the
Father try if he can accomplish this impossible feat. What about
the Ether ? Scientists tell us that this fills all space, so then there
is no space left and space is not. According to Mr. Lambert, to
fill an empty thing is to destroy the thing itself when it is filled,
which is assuredly something new in reasoning.
Ingersoll. To put God back of the universe compels us to admit
that there was a time when nothing existed but God.
Lambert. It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. The
eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act could
therefore be co-eternal with his being. The end of the act—that
is, creation—could be co-existent with the eternal act, and there
fore eternal. To deny that is to affirm that there could be a mo
ment when the eternal and omnipotent God could not act, which
is contrary to Christian teaching.
�12
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.-
Watts. Here we are told that God ean place a. creative act.
What that means no one can tell. Place it where ? Where it is,
that is, where it took place, or somewhere else. Really, this is
■child’s talk, and not reasoning. God can place anything, but he
must place it somewhere. The Father’s argument, if worth any
thing, is that he can place it no-where, and where that is I presume
even a priest cannot tell. “ His creative act could be co-eternal
with his being.” Well, in that case creation wasjrom all eternity,
hence the created thing was from all eternity, hence matter
was from all eternity, which is just what the Father elsewhere
denies. But to look at this in another light. The Creator
is the cause, the creation was the effect. Is it not a necessity
of thought that the cause must precede the effect ? If not how can
we discover causation at all ? Sequence and antecedence would be
meaningless terms. God created, that is, called into being, the
universe. Then before that occurred there was no universe, which
means nothing existed but God. No, says Lambert, creation is
■eternal. Then the thing made was contemporaneous in existence
with its maker, which is, in fact, to say that it was not made at
•all. To state that a thing is as old as the maker of the thing is
not argument, but downright nonsense, and may serve to bewilder
■children and ignorant Catholics, but assuredly can only be a source
of amusement for educated men.
Lambert. That creation could be co-eternal must be admitted if
we admit that God is eternal and omnipotent, and this we must
admit if we admit his existence. Hence it does not follow that
putting God back of the universe proves that he antedates it.
Lacy. If this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God
■created matter “ out of nothing ?”
Lambert. If he can create from eternity he "can create “ out of
nothing ” from eternity. The dogma is in no danger.
Lacy. Can you conceive of such a creative act, without a time
■or point in infinite duration when it was performed ? Try it.
Lambert. I cannot conceive when it was performed, for the sim
ple reason that if it be an eternal act it could not, because eternal,
•ever have had a “ when.” Any act of which when can be asserted
is not an eternal act.
Watts. But it is not a question of conceiving of the when but of
the fact so called. And that involves a contradiction in terms.
That which was created was clearly an effect. Now an eternal
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
I J:
effect is a meaningless expression. You might as well talk of a
square circle. Every effect must have a cause, and the cause must
in the nature of things precede the effect, or it could be no cause
at all. Moreover, I should like the Father to tell us how we can
know of a cause except through its effect. In Nature we see
cause and effect co-related everywhere. But we know nothing and
can know nothing of a supernatural cause.
That transcends
knowledge. Besides, how can a finite effect be produced by an
infinite cause ? This question has been asked before but it comes
in here too. Does the infinite in its effect become finite ? Effect
is probably nothing but transferred force. And an infinite force
cannot in its transference become finite. Hence an Infinite Cause
cannot exist. Let Father Lambert meet this argument.
Lacy. We are told in the Notes that before creation was, time
was not. This as poetry may pass, but as fact it is inconceivable.
Lambert. If it be conceivable, even as poetry, it is conceivable.
Hence your argument from inconceivability falls to the ground, for
that which is conceivable even as poetry is possible, and that which
is possible is conceivable as fact. I must here again repeat that
inconceivability is not the criterion of possibility, and that therefore
our inability to conceive a thing is no evidence that the thing is
impossible. If sceptics could once get this truth injected into their
skulls, they would perhaps use their unmetaphysical catchword less..
Watts. It is not conceivable either as poetry or anything else,,
save perhaps absurdity and nonsense. The so-called truth which
sceptics cannot get “ injected ” (an injection of truth is surely a
new method of administering that article) “ into their skulls ” is no
truth at all but a whimsey wild as any legend in the holy(?) Catho
lic record of marvellous exploits. Inconceivability may not be the
criterion of absolute possibility, but it certainly is of truth as pre
sented to man. And Christians more than any other class of men
use it as such. It is, in fact, their stock argument against what
they are pleased to call infidel notions. How can any one assert
the truth of that which is inconceivable ? Think of a time when
there was no time, a period when yesterday was to-day, and to
morrow the week before last. It is of no use to say that this,
although inconceivable, might possibly be, for that is to use words
without meaning, which is just what this priest does. Words
should represent ideas, but to use words which have no ideas tocorrespond to them is to play fast and loose with language, and to-
�14
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF IXFIDELS
CRITICISED.
befool men by engaging in a game of battledore and shuttlecock
with phrases.
“ Oh, sense, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.’
Lacy. But if it be true (that before creation was, time was not)
how do we know that it is true ?
Lambert. We know it in this way. Time is the measure of
movement and change in moving and changing things ; it is an
appurtenance of changeable things, and it is evident that an ap
purtenance of a thing cannot exist without the existence of that to
which it appertains. Therefore, without created things, time could
not be. It does not require much profound thinking to see this.
Watts. It certainly does not require much “profound thinking”
to see the absurdity of this. See how adroitly the word “ created ”
is dragged into the conclusion, when it did not appear in the pre
mises. Why may not eternal things be moveable and changeable ?
In fact, are not such conditions essential to all things ? If the
eternal existence—whatever it may be—could not move or change,
then it is clear it could not act. For all action is movement, and
a fortiori change. There can be no action without a movement on
the part of that which acts, and if God does not move, it is as clear
as that two and two make four, that action on his part is impossi
ble. Jesus represents God as working and the Old Testament re
cord of creation is one of activity on the part of Deity. Now work
means change and movement. Nor does the absurd fiction of an
eternal creation remove this difficulty, for the creation of this world
was certainly not from eternity, since we know that in its present
form it had a beginning. The creation of the earth and of the
organic beings upon it involved action, and consequently move
ment, on the part of its creator. As, therefore, there must have
been movement and change to produce that which was not pre
viously existing, or even to alter the form of that which was, there
was movement and change in Deity when such creation took place.
And as God has thus moved and changed, he, too, must be subject
to Time, and consequently Time was eternal. Time and space,
the two great facts in the universe, are not to be shuffled out ofi
existence by the wily—I had almost written silly—sophisms of
this popish priest.
Lacy. We are told that “ God is pure act,’’the source and origin
of all activity and life. How there can be “ pure act,’’ or any other
act, without an actor, is another riddle to which we succumb.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
15
Lambert. Riddles and conundrums seem to buzz about your brain
like blue-bottle flies about a dead horse. You should try to learn
and comprehend that which you do not know and understand, and
not imbecilely yield to gross ignorance and display it as an evidence
of profundity.
An act is the reduction of a potentiality or possibility to a reality.
Pure act is an act of being which excludes all potentiality. A Being
which is necessarily real, which excludes from its essence everything
that implies imperfection or defect of reality, is pure act. Poten
tiality of any kind always and necessarily implies defect or lack of
reality, because it has always something not yet actuated or real
ized in act. Being, therefore, which is necessarily real, with su
preme and infinite reality, excludes all potentiality. Now God is
necessarily and essentially real. He excludes from his essence
everything that implies imperfection or defect of reality. He is
therefore Pure Act.
Watts. Lord Byron once wrote respecting a contemporary of
his, that he went about “explaining metaphysics to the nation,” and
then added, “ I wish he would explain his explanation.” These
ines are most applicable to Mr. Lambejt. He really does make
“ riddles and conundrums ” buzz about onr ears. It is difficult to
imagine him serious in this jumble o'f words, which he calls logical
argument. An act without an actor. You might as well talk of a
walk without a walker, a stroke without a striker, a kick without a
kicker, a thought without a thinker. A being who acts, performs
an act, but without an actor there can be no act. “ Pure act ” is
pure nonsense, without any adulteration, and such as few men but
a Roman Catholic priest would try to throw dust in men’s eyes by
talking about. Moreover, an act requires not only the actor who
performs it, but also an agent upon which it is performed. What
was the agent in this case ? “ God is pure act.” Then the word
God is a name for an act performed by some other being, who is
higher than God, and somewhere there must be an agent upon
which the act is performed. But such unmitigated absurdity is
hardly worth discussing. And we are to be accused of “gross ig
norance ” and “ imbecility” if we fail to understand this meaning
less jargon. Be it so. Truly that proverb about “ blind leaders
of the blind ” has received a verification in the case of Father
Lambert.
Lambert. The difference between murder and killing is determined
by the intention. If a hunter, intending to kill a deer, kill a man
whom he mistook for a deer, he is not guilty of murder because he
�i6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
had not the intention. It will be observed, then, that the moral
nature of an act depends on the nature of the actor, and the good
ness or wickedness of the moral act depends on the intention of
the free moral agent. It is a mistake to suppose that a good act
is a moral one and a bad one is not. Every act of man, good or
bad, done with an intention, is a moral act. We attribute morals,
good and bad, to man alone, because he alone of all the inhabit
ants of the earth is capable of forming an intention and acting from
a motive.
Watts. Man performs thousands of acts with an intention which
are not moral acts. They are neither moral nor immoral, but
simply unmoral. He eats, drinks and sleeps with an intention, but
such acts do not fall within the range of any ethical code in this
world. The regulation of these is, no doubt, subject to moral law,
but the acts themselves per se are neither moral nor the reverse.
A man takes a walk along a country road to relish the scenery, or
sails in a boat on a lake for enjoyment, listens to music, gazes at a
great painting, or reads a poem, all with the intention of amusing
himself, but these are not moral acts. The Father’s notions of
ethics are about as hazy as his philosophical disquisitions.
Lambert. A standard of right, or a measure by which to distin
guish what is right from what is wrong is necessary for man,—
without it all difference between right and wrong, is destroyed.
Men may and do err in the application of this standard, but this
fact does not lessen its value, for the error is not in the standard but
in the application.
Lacy. You say, yes, “ the will of God,” but how do we deter
mine that will ?
Lambert. When a man is called on to act he is obliged as a
moral agent to consider, there and then, whether the act he is
about to do is good or bad. He must determine it by the light of
his knowledge of the will of God. If he does this honestly and to
the best of his ability his act, so far as he is concerned, is good.
He must always follow his conscience and act on his own honest
interpretation of the standard. His knowledge and conception of
it may change but the standard is unchangeable ; because founded
in the will and nature of God. It is man’s duty to act according
to the will of God as far as he knows it or honestly believes he
knows it at the time. His knowledqe of the will of God is the
measure of his merit or demerit.
Watts. The statement that the will of God is the standard of
right and wrong is a gratuitous assumption, a begging of the whole
question. No scintillation of evidence is produced in support of
the assertion. And many very eminent Christians have disagreed
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
17
with it in toto. Dr. Samuel Clarke, a far greater man than Father
Lambert—and, withal, a dignitary of the church—maintained that
the moral law was to be found in the fitness of things. Adam
Smith discovered it in sympathy, and Paley in a sort of utilitari
anism ; whilst, if I mistake not, Cardinal Bellarmine placed it in
the decisions of the Pope of Rome, and held that should the head
of the church decree that acts now considered moral should hence
forth be immoral, and vice versa, the moral law would be changed.
We deny that the will of God has aught to do with the standard of
right and wrong among men, and demand the proof. Let that
be forthcoming.
But, in the next place, where is this will of God recorded ? Surely
if it were to be discovered anywhere it should be in Nature. And
yet no one can gather from natural phenomena, what is right and
what is wrong. For, as Mill has shown, Nature does every day
that which men are imprisoned and hanged for doing. She is, and
can be, no guide in morals. Mr. Lambert will no doubt reply that
the will of God is to be found in the mandates of his churchand
the Protestant will tell you it is in the Bible. But here again we
want the proof, which is not forthcoming.
Moreover, the teachings of both the church and the Bible are so
contradictory that no formulated moral code can be obtained from
either one or the other, or both combined. The church has en
joined repeatedly the performance of acts atrocious in their cha
racter and pernicious in their results, and anathematized and
excommunicated those who had too high a moral nature to perform
them,—whilst the moral code of the Bible is such a heterogeneous
mass of contradictions that there is not wanting a text to justify
any act, however outrageously immoral.
Lambert. Protestants, like Catholics, hold that the will of God
is the standard, and they value the Bible only because they believe
it to be a revelation of that will.
Watts. Exactly, but that only shows how blind they all are.
The will of God, according to one, is in the Bible, and according
to the other, in the church ; and these two are in flagrant oppo
sition to each other. What is the use, therefore, of talking about:
an abstract will of God, which no one can discover, and about which
those who believe in it are at sixes and sevens ? If there be such,
a will it is perfectly useless to man as a guide in life, because na
one knows where it is to be found. And the moral code which
�18
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
society recognizes is found neither in the Bible nor in the church,
but based upon the general experience of mankind, as. to what is
best for the happiness of the race. Surely Father Lambert must
be aware of this.
Lacy. The standard of right and wrong, whatever rule may be
professed, is in the mind and heart of man and has varied from age
to age, as he advanced from the barbarism of the past to the com
parative enlightenment of the present.
Lambert. The standard is certainly in the mind of man, for all
peoples in all times have recognized a supreme will as the standard.
Catholics, Protestants and Jews call it the will of God; Pagans
call it the will of the gods—but all recognize a supreme, super
natural will as the standard of right and wrong. You say truly,
then, that it is in the mind of man. But it is not always in his heart,
for men often do what they know to be wrong. This standard has
never varied, though men’s know edge of it may have increased or
diminished, or their application of it may have differed.
Watts. It is assuredly a most astounding statement to make to
say that the standard of right and wrong has never varied. Why
it has never remained the same for a century at a time, and hardly
any two nations think alike about it. Moreover, where is the stan
dard ? What is the use of saying that different people call it the
will of God ? No two of them agree as to what that supposed will
enjoins. Unless the said will of God can be found written some
where in a plain and unmistakeable form, it amounts to nothing
more than “ a will-o-th-wisp.” The Roman Catholics say it is in
the Church, the Protestants in the Bible, the Parsee in the ZendAvesta, the Mohammedan in the Koran, the Hindoo in the Shaster
and Vedas, and the Pagan in none of them. And all these records
of the will of God teach different systems of morality. No doubt
men often do what they know to be wrong, but they also often dd
wrong believing it to be right. When Christians persecuted and
burned each other they did it most conscientiously, believing firmly
that they were obeying the moral law, acting in accordance with
the will of God, and therefore doing right. What has taught us
now that these acts were wrong ? Not the will of God, but the ad
vancement of human knowledge. The Roman Catholic would
think he was doing wrong in eating meat on a Friday, whilst the
Protestant laughs at this as a silly superstition. Where is the will
<of God, then, which both profess to take for their guide ?
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS- OF INFIDELS*' CRITICISED.
19
Lacy. Our knowledge of the rules of morality has come to us by
<slow degrees, and is not perfect yet.
Lambert. If so, we cannot say that murder, theft and adultery are
wrong. We must wait for developments ! Some new discovery
may yet prove that vice is virtue and virtue vice, that honesty is a
superstition, decency a prejudice and duty an illusion.
Watts. That is a non sequiter. Because we have not yet attained
to a perfect system of ethics, it does not follow that some questions
in connection with it are not settled. “ Murder, theft,” etc., are
known to be wrong, not because they conflict with some imaginary
■divine will, but because they are prejudicial to the well-being of
society. It would be very difficult, in fact, to prove that “ murder,
theft and adultery ” were contrary to the will of God, for all are
sanctioned in the Bible, and have been defended by the Holy
Catholic Church. That Church has committed murder on a very
large scale, has practised robbery in the confiscation of the pro
perty of heretics, and even Popes have been the fathers of illegiti
mate children, and, in some cases, the very personification of im
purity, lust and uncleanness. Yet these Popes were infallible, and
•the vehicles of the divine will. Is not this the height of absurdity?
Lacy. Christian theology also affirms that there are three Gods,
•co-equal and infinite in every divine attribute, although declaring
that the three are in some inexplicable sense, one.
Lambert. This is the kind of stuff infidel writers feed their credu
lous dupes on. It is difficult to understand how one brought up in
a Christian community, and pretending to know anything about
even the simplest elements of Christianity, could honestly make
■the above statement. ... A Sunday school boy of ten years
■who, after studying the first three chapters of his catechism, should
make such a statement as Mr. Lacy makes, would richly deserve
to be spanked for inattention or pitied for his stupidity....................
“ Christian theology affirms that there are three Gods ! ” The
man who makes such a statement sacrifices all claim to considera
tion as a scholar, or to having the most ordinary knowledge of the
subject he elects to talk about. Yet this is the kind of people who
are most flippant and noisy"ab'but theology, the Bible, and Moses.
They are always as ready, as a self-cocking pistol, to give their.
“ honest ” and ignorant contents. Here is the author of a book,
who undertakes to treat of philosophy, revelation and Christian
theology, and who attributes to Christians a doctrine they not only
do not hold, but which they have m all times conrfmned / And this
ignorant upstart states it as if it were a matter about which there
is no doubt whatever. Can any language be too severe for such an
�20
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’’ CRITICISED.
offence ? If he be ignorant of the Christian doctrine on this sub
ject he is too ignorant to discuss Christian theology in a cross road
grocery; and if he be not ignorant of the Christian doctrine of the
unity of God, and yet made in cold type the above statement what
are we to think of him ? Does not his statement justify me ’in dis
missing him as too ignorant or too dishonest to deal with in discus
sing the great question at issue ?
Watts. Here is a storm in a teacup. The Father’s holy ire is
like that of an incensed Jove. But he should remember that not
only is abuse not argument, but that, as a rule, it proves the lack,
of argument. To call an opponent ill names, apply to him such
complimentary epithets as “ ignorant upstart,” and rave about
his unfitness for the task he has undertaken, is, no doubt, quite in
keeping with the priestly intolerance of the popish hierarchy, but.
it is not likely to carry conviction to the calm and impartial reader..
The Father should remember the story of the dispute about the
body of Moses, recorded in “ sacred scripture,” between the devil
and an archangel. Verily that archangel would have been silent
had he encountered Father Lambert, and it is even questionablewhether the other disputant would have had much chance with
him. And, after all, what is the matter ? What is all this commo
tion about ?
Lambert. Christian theology affirms that there are not three
Gods, but one God, one divine nature, and that in this one divine
nature there are three persons. The unity is asserted of the divine
nature, tri-unity of the divine persons, and it does not require more
than average brains to understand that nature and personality are
not one and the same thing.
Watts. But personality surely implies a distinct and separate
consciousness. One Bishop, in fact—Sherlock I think—said that
the three persons in the Godhead were “ as distinct as Peter, James
and John.” That either means three Gods, or three persons of
whom each is one-third of a God. Which is it, Father Lambert ?
Don’t try to escape by calling out “ mystery.” There is no mystery
at all, but simply a use of words without meaning, which is thesynonym of nonsense. In fact, the mass of absurdity that has
been written on this question is astounding. Three Gods yet onlyone God.
Lambert. It is inexplicable how one can be one and three at thesame time and in the same sense, but that is precisely what Chris
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
21
tian theology does not affirm. When it affirms unity and trinity or
God it does not affim them in the same sense. It asserts that the
■divine nature is one; the divine persons, three.
Watts. Is that so, friend Lambert ? I must ask you whether
you are not familiar with a mass of nonsense called “ The Creed of
St. Athanasius.” Have you not subscribed to that creed ? Now
what does it say ? “ The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”
Now, tell me, does not this predicate that they are three and one in
the same sense 1 If not, then words have no meaning. Nothing can be
more clear and plain. And the absurdity is repeated a dozen
times or more in different ways—and always to show that these
existences are three and one in exactly the same sense. Who is
the “ ignorant upstart” now ? The tables are turned, Father, as
any one can see with half an eye.
Ingersoll. He (God) authorized the murder of millions.
Lambert, He never authorized or ordered the murder of anyone
from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and
those He places on this earth He can remove at His will No man
has a right to live one instant longer than his Creator wills him to
remain, be he born or unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of
God we are absolutely His and can have no right whatever as
against Him.
Lacy. The proposition embraced in the Father’s comment
raises two questions : ist, Has God a “ right ” to do whatever He
arbitrarily might will with His creature man, moulded in His
image, whom He made a little lower than the angels, and thought
worthy of a crown of glory and honour ? Has He the right, for
instance, to inflict wanton punishment without any moral aim
whatever ?
Lambert. Yes. He has the right to do whatever He wills with
His creature man, first, because being infinitely perfect He wills
rightly and justly, and secondly, because man is His creature. To
suppose God to will unjustly or punish wantonly is to suppose Him
to be imperfect, but you cannot suppose this since you have ad
mitted Him to be perfect. God being infinitely perfect and just
His will is infinitely perfect and just; and an infinitely perfect and
just will has a right to will what .it wills to will. This does not
need demonstration, it follows from the admitted existence of a
perfect Being.
Watts. This bit of Jesuitical sophistry is worthy of a priest. It,
in fact, begs the question in dispute. How are the perfections ot
�22
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
any being to be learned but by the acts of such a being ? God is.
assumed to be a perfect being and then all kinds of what, under
other circumstances, would be deemed not only imperfect but very
vile and atrocious acts, ascribed to Him, are said to be perfect
because He performed them. This is logic with a vengeance. The
acts of God prove His perfection, and His perfection makes the
acts perfect. There is, then, no absolute distinction between per
fection and imperfection. A man declares that he has a command
from God to commit murder, and he slays most brutally many of
his fellow men. This is not a crime, because of the assumption
that a perfect being ordained it to be done. But no, the man may
have been a deceiver, or himself deceived, and thus his act not of
God at all. Exactly. And to-day no one would believe his story
about his having received such a command from God. Why, then,
should not the same common sense be used when discussing thepretensions of men who lived in earlier times ? Assume, if you
please, that God is perfect and just. Then it follows, as clear as
that two and two make four, that He could never have commanded
any human being to perform acts which are unjust. But the Bibleascribes such commands to Him. Therefore the Bible is, so far
at all events, false. The atrocious murders and vile licentious acts,,
which are said to have been commanded by God in the Old Tes
tament, were either ordered by Him or they were not. If they
were, then He is unjust; if they were not, the story is untrue. Let
Father Lambert choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If
there be a God He has given to man the faculties by which justice
can be distinguished from injustice, benevolence from malignity,,
virtue from vice, and by those faculties the acts ascribed to God
himself must be judged. To believe otherwise is to make thejustice and goodness of God terms without meaning.
Lacy Has He (God) the right to inflict wanton suffering with
out any moral aim whatever ?
Lambert. This is an absurd question. It is as if you should ask,.
Has the perfect Being the right to do wrong ? Has the perfect
Being the right to be imperfect ? A question that supposes im
perfection in the perfect Being involves a contradiction and requires
no answer. God, being perfect, has a right to do as He wills.
Watts. But can He will to do wrong ? If not, then we err when
we ascribe wrong to Him. And that is iust what the Bible does.
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
23
To say that an act which would be wrong in man is right in God,
is to deny that there is any absolute distinction between right and
wrong. Or, if the will of God makes an act right and just, then
there is no meaning in saying that God acts rightly, or justly, and,
moreover, such acts as murder, theft, etc., having been decided to
be right because God commanded them, then it is only right that
men should so regard them. And on this principle the Holy (?)
Catholic Church has acted again and again in the history of the
past, when she resorted to the fire and faggot argument to con
vince heretics. Such sophistical quibbling as this priest indulges
in is pitiable.
Lambert. The difficulty is not in conceiving divine justice, but
in understanding its application. Our ignorance of all the condiditions, circumstances and divine purposes disables us from judg
ing the acts of God in any given case. But, knowing that he is
the perfect Being, we must conclude a priori that his every act is
just, without reference to how it may appear to us whose minds
are rendered impotent by ignorance. To know what justice is and
to discern the justice of a particular act are different things. Man
is capable of the former but not of the latter in all cases, for the
latter depends on conditions of which he is ignorant.
Watts. But what is this but saying that we know nothing at all
about God ? What nonsense to talk of God’s perfections, when
we are unable to judge of what perfection in him would con
sist. We can only judge of any act, whether of a man or a God,
by such faculties as we possess, and if these are useless for the
purpose in the case of God, how absurd it must be to talk of the
justice of God at all. 'If justice in God means something totally
different from justice in man, it is only misleading to say that God
is just. I am told that God is love, but that may, upon this prin
ciple of reasoning, mean something totally different from what I
understand by the term, from its use amongst men; it may in
fact mean the very opposite,—hate. But all this goes to show how
idle it is to talk at all about that which no one can understand.
All the adjectives which Mr. Lambert uses to describe God, may
mean something entirely different to the ideas they convey when
applied to men, and therefore only serve to make “ confusion more
confounded.”
Lacy. If God be God, he is no Nero, no Herod, no Gessler,
but a Father lifting up his children to himself.
�24
the CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
Lambert. This is true, and therefore you and Ingersoll slander
him when you make him out a tyrant.
Watts. 'Why, it is you who make him a tyrant, by declaring
that tyranny is not tyranny when practised by him. Your entire
argument is, in fact, a defence of his tyranny by an endeavour to
show that his most tyrannical acts are right.
Lambert. If it (the Bible) is inspired by God, its pre*cepts and
commands must be just and right, however they may appear to
us. It will not do to say the Book commanded unjust things to
be done, and therefore it is not inspired. This is to beg the ques
tion, for if it be inspired those things which you imagine to be
unjust are not and cannot be unjust.
Watts. Well, but does not the fact that this book commands
unjust acts, or what we should call unjust acts under any other
circumstances, prove that it is not inspired by a just God ? And
if it be inspired, then we ought to take our ideas of justice from its
pages, and completely revolutionize our present ethical code.
But even Father Lambert dares not do this. Acts are com
manded, or said to be commanded, by God in the Old Testament,
which Mr. Lambert, with the fear of the law before his eyes,
dares not to perform in America. He might plead that they
were right because they had been approved of by God. But a
judge—even a Christian judge—would make short work of all such
nonsense, and the Father would soon find himself where he could
write no more books on the “ Tactics of Infidels.”
Lambert. He who has the absolute right to take life cannot be
guilty of murder in taking it ; for murder is. an unjust killing, and
there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the
absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning
except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this
but by denying God’s existence ; for on the hypothesis that he
exists, he is creator, and being creator, the absolute right of dominion
over his creatures necessarily follows, * * * to deny this
right is to deny God’s existence.
Lacy. If by absolute dominion he meant to govern without
regard to the principles of justice, written by God’s own finger on
the human heart, we fail to see it.
Lambert. Inasmuch as absolute dominion does not . mean to
govern without regard to the principles of justice, your if is of no
consequence. No one thinks of asserting that the perfect Being
can govern without reference to his own essential attributes, of
which justice is one. When I assert the absolute dominion of God,
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
25
I simply assert that he is accountable to no one but himself, and
that whatever he does, merely because he does it, is beyond human
criticism.
Watts. This begs the whole question. We maintain, as Mr.
.Lambert must know, that the book is not true which ascribes
unjust acts to God. He assumes that God did act as here repre
sented, and then declares the acts recorded to be good, because
they were done by God.
But if our sense of justice is to be considered a guide for
our own conduct, we have the right to criticise, by means of
the same faculty, the actions of others. And when we are
told with one breath that God is good and with the next that
lie is the author of acts at which humanity shudders with
horror, we simply say that no one but a born fool can believe
both statements.
Either God is not good, or else it is fake
to say that he performed, or ordered to be performed, the acts
which are ascribed to Him in the Bible. The only other alterna
tive is to assert that we are incapable of judging of what is just
and right. But that is a more fatal position still to the Christian,
for it involves the fact that we have no guide for our own conduct.
Hence, we ourselves may kill and torture, inflict pain in the most
brutal form, and declare it wise and good to do so. In truth this
is what the Church has done in all ages, and no wonder, with such
pious examples before them ascribed to their God. If we are at
all capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between
justice and injustice, then we say boldly that such cruel acts as are
ascribed to God in the Bible are most terribly unjust. Nor is it
any answer to say that God did them, for that is to say he has no
sense of justice himself and is not good. We have rights even
against God himself, for, if he exists, it was he who gave us the
faculties by which his own acts are condemned. Our position,
However, is this, that the book which ascribes acts of horror, deeds
of blood and fierce cruelty to God is not true. Father Lambert,
with all the audacious effrontery of his class, assumes the truth of
the record and then proceeds to raise a superstructure of argument
upon the assumption. And this miserable quibbling he calls logical
reasoning.
Lambert. The Hebrew military laws did not abandon captive
women to the insolence and brutality of captors. On the contrary
�16
THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
they made special provision forbidding the first familiarities of thesoldier with his captives. If you study the 21st chapter of Deuter
onomy, verses 10 to 14, you will learn that the soldier was obliged,
to make the captive his wife.
Watts . But to compel a woman to marry a man whom she
loathed and detested, a foreign invader of her country, the
slaughterer of her kindred and friends, does not mend the matter
much. What was such a marriage but another form of foul
licentiousness ? This explanation leaves the case nearly as bad as
it was before. Compulsory marriage of people who detest each
other, solely for the purpose of gratifying the lust of the man, is
brutal, unjust, and loathsome.
Lambert. As further proof you quote from Numbers: “But all
the women children who have not known man by lying with him,.
keep for yourselves,'1' and add :—
Lacy. Female innocence to be offered on the altar of lust!’
Noble trophies of victory !
Lambert. A Comanche Indian would probably interpret the
verse that way. But what is there in the words to justify the
inference that the captives were devoted to the lusts of the captors ?
The captives were to be adopted into the nation and subsequently
to intermarry with the Jews in accordance with the law of
Deuteronomy quoted above. It is only a libidinous imagination
that can give the words any other interpretation. The United
States government “ keeps for itself ” the children of those Indianswhom it destroys. Are we to infer that those children are to be
offered on the altar of lust ?
Watts. But to charge your opponent with having “ a libidinous,
imagination,” although a very Christian argument, does not get rid
of the difficulty. The text, interpreted by common sense, and not
by theological hocus pocus, clearly means that these young women
were kept alive for purposes of debauchery. Otherwise, why thequalifications stated ? The case of the children of the Indians is
not analogous, for there both sexes are preserved and treated in
, the same way. Here it was the females only, and they of a par
ticular age, and in their virginity. The sophistry of this wily priest
may be able to do much in the form of hood-winking his credulous
dupes, but it is inadequate to the task of explaining away the plain
meaning of this charming and delicious text.
Lacy. In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that
slavery is an evil and polygamy a sin ?
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
2/
Lambert. He does most emphatically require those who reject
revelation to prove the wrong or sinfulness of slavery and poly
gamy. Those who believe in revelation believe they are wrong be
cause they are forbidden. But on what principle do you, who re
ject revelation, believe they are wrong ? Oh, they are slimy and
filthy. There, there, we have had enough of that kind of talk ; it
proves nothing.
Watts. Can anything be conceived of equal to this in reckless
and impudent audacity ? Revelation forbids slavery and polygamy ?
Where ? Let us have chapter and verse. Both are pretty gener
ally referred to in the Bible, and always without a single word of
condemnation. Had any unbeliever made an assertion of this
character, Mr. Lambert, with his excessive politeness, would have
called him a “ liar.” The entire statement is simply truth reversed.
Those who attach no importance to so-called supernatural revela,tion are the men who have always been first and foremost in con
demning polygamy and denouncing slavery, whilst the Christian
Church defended at least one of these monstrous evils up to quite
recent times. Why are they wrong ? Because they sap the founda
tion of all society, and are out of harmony with the best interests
of mankind. That is why, Mr. Lambert, and not because they are
condemned or forbidden by your so-called revelation, which they
most assuredly are not. Such an attempt to hoodwink the ig
norant dupes of a miserable superstition has rarely been witnessed
as is presented in the pages of this cunning priest’s book.
Lambert. The apostles claimed a divine communication and mis
sion. They worked miracles.
La,cy. Here again is a begging of the question by one who was
to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is assumed
that miracles were wrought, the very statement denied in the con
troversy.
Lambert. There is the same evidence to prove the miracles of
Christ and the apostles that there is to prove the existence and .
acts of Alexander and Csesar, namely, history and tradition. If
we rej( ct the former we must on the same principle reject the latter,
and if we adopt this principle we cut ourselves off comparatively
from all the events and personages of the past. The miracles of
Christ and His apostles are historic facts or events subject to the
same rules of historic criticism that other facts are.
Watts. But it should be borne in mind that this is just what we
deny, and for which we demand and wait for proof. Is there the same
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
historic evidence of the Christian miracles that there is for the ex
istence and actions of Alexander and Caesar ? If so, it is marvel
lously strange that it is never forthcoming. Why does not this
priest produce it ? We are tolerably familiar with the sort of evi
dence that his Church deals in. It is manufactured for the pur
pose, and is no doubt very conclusive to the poor dupes who are
bamboozled by an objectionable class of ecclesiastical dictators
who preserve their authority and their pay by lording it over their
victims. But rational men, who are not in bondage to the most
iniquitous hierarchy that has ever disgraced the earth, are not to
he fooled in this way. We assert boldly that no such evidence can
be produced, nor such evidence as would satisfy a legal mind and
convince an intelligent jury in a court of justice, even were the
issue the conviction of a prisoner for stealing a brass-headed nail.
But does not Mr. Lambert see that the cases are not at all analo
gous ? In the first place, it is of no great importance whether
Csesar lived or not, or whether Alexander performed the acts
ascribed to him. The question is not a very momentous one.- The
world would not be much affected whatever decision was arrived at
regarding it. But on the belief in the miracles of Jesus our eternal
salvation, it is said, depends, and evidence should therefore be ob
tainable about which no mistake could be made, and which no rea
soning could overturn. And secondly, everyone knows that the
strength of evidence tendered in support of any event should be in
proportion to the commonness or uncommonness of the event it
self. That which would suffice to prove an ordinary event would
be perfectly inadequate to show that an extraordinary one had
taken place. If I am told that such a man as Csesar lived, I have
no reason to doubt it, because there is nothing improbable in the
alleged fact. But if I were informed that he worked miracles, and
* came to life again after he was dead, the highly improbable char
acter of the circumstance would render much strong evidence ne
cessary before I should be convinced. There are stories told in
fact, which no amount of evidence could establish as true. The
testimony of a million men could not prove that which, by the very
nature of things, is impossible. And although I am not saying that
the miracles recorded in the New Testament are impossible, I do
say that they outrage all the laws of probability, and can only,
therefore, be believed on the production of an amount of evidence
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
2q
ten thousand times greater than that which would suffice to show
that Csesar had lived and written the commentaries ascribed to
him, or that Alexander had been a great warrior.
Lucy. The sceptic says, along with miracles we read of witch
craft and demoniacal possessions.
Lambert. And the merchant says, along with gold coin he meets
with counterfeits, but he is not so asinine as to reject all money
on that account. He takes care, however, to test each piece or
note, and rejects the false and accepts the true.
Watts. ' So, so, Father. There is the same difference between
miracles and such cases as those of witchcraft and demoniacal
possession, as between good coin and counterfeit money. Be
it so. But both the Bible and the huge ecclesiastical estab
lishment which you call the church, treat all three with the same
authority. Then, miracles are true, and demoniacal possession
and witchcraft spurious. It is quite refreshing to find a Romish
priest writing like this. It seems after all that there is a good deal
of counterfeit in the Bible and in the Church, which is just what
we have always maintained. Surely this was a slip of the pen on the
part of the priest. Witchcraft spurious ! Yet the Church has
put to death many thousands of persons for practising it. Demo
niacal possession a sham ! Yet the Bible teaches it, and the Church
maintains its truth. Be careful, Lambert, or you will be indicted
for heresy by your own church, and may be compelled, like poor
Gallileo, before any ignorant tribunal of the same hierarchy, to
eat your own words and recant.
Lacy. A crazy man was supposed to be possessed by the devil.
Lambert. Supposed by whom ? Where did you acquire this
piece of information which you impart so gratuitously ? We find
in the Scripture that certain persons were said to be possessed, but
we do not find that crazy men were supposed to be possessed. This
is an inference of your own which is not justified by the premises.
As a matter of fact the Scriptures themselves make a distinction
between demoniac possession and insanity, and recognize the exis
tence of both.
. Watts. The Scriptures “ recognize the existence of both.” Quite
so. Then please, Father Lambert, tell us how you reconcile this
with your former statement, that demoniacal possessions were
spurious and stood in the same relation to miracles that counter
�30
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
feit does to genuine coin. We know perfectly well that in the Bible
a distinction is made between insanity and the being possessed by
devils, but we contend that this shows the ignorance of those who
wrote the Bible. No scientific man to day believes in demoniacal
possession, and Christians of education use their utmost endeavours
and the most ingenious and sophistical arguments to explain away
the meaning of those passages in the New Testament, where it is
mentioned. But to be serious, is such childish nonsense worth dis
cussing ? The fact is, Christianity in its orthodox form is obsolete,
and the wretched old wbrn out despotism, called the Church of
Rome, out of place in the midst of modern civilization. It could
only flourish in an age of ignorance, darkness and superstition and
must disappear before the light of science as clouds before the
noonday sun. That any man of intelligence can be found in this
age to defend its audacious pretensions, its absurd dogmas, its
puerile mummeries, its despotic proceedings, its persecuting spirit,
its illiterate and ignorant priesthood, its ridiculous claims, its
false and mischievous teaching, is perfectly astounding. But
so it is. Delusions die hard, and the greater the delusion, some
times the harder the death. Demoniacal possession ! What would
be thought of any man who should talk about that absurdity in a
meeting of men of science ? He would simply be laughed at, and
no one would deem it worth noticing, nor his opinions worthy of
discussion.
Lacy. We hear the Bible called “ God’s Book,” as if it had been
written as a unit.
Lambert. If you heard that you must be in the habit of keeping
•strange company. If you had asked an intelligent Christian for
information on the subject, he would have told you that it was
written by many authors and at long intervals of time; that its
present arrangement, chaptering and versification are a matter of
convenience.
Watts. It is a quibble, and a very poor one at that, to say that
the Bible is acknowledged by Christians to be composed of many
different books which were written by various men at different
time£, therefore, it is not spoken of as “ a unit,” or one. Mr. Lam
bert knows perfectly well that according to Christian belief these
were simply instruments in the hands of God, in fact, vehicles
through whom the divine teaching flowed down to mankind, and
that their own private views are not found at all in what they wrote.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
31
The book had one author and that author was God, the men em
ployed being simply amanuenses, writing down what they were
inspired to put on record. Everywhere, therefore, amongst Chris
tians this volume is spoken of as a unit, under the name of the
Word of God. The teaching in its various parts—in whatever
age written—is believed to be of equal divine authority, and pass
ages from every book are frequently preached from in the pulpit,
and quoted in every-day life as applicable to the affairs of human
existence as we find it at the present time. The Romanist, of course,
puts the authority of his church above the Bible, but no Protestant
will for a moment allow this to be done. With both the Bible is
the word of God, and the latter takes as his motto, “ The Bible,
the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The “ strange com
pany,” therefore, was Christian company. Strange enough, no
-doubt, but Christian still.
Lacy. The Pope is in his own sacred person also infallible.
Lambert. Here as usual in presenting Catholic doctrines you mis
represent. Had you consulted any of the many books which treat
of the decrees of the council of the Vatican you would have learned
that they do not teach that the Pope personally, or as a private
individual, is infallible, but that he is infallible only in his official
■capacity, as supreme head and judge of the church. As a lawyer
you should understand this distinction. You know the decision of
one of our judges given as a private individual, and unofficial, has
no weight in law ; while the same decision given formally in his
public and official capacity, is decisive.
Watts. If anywhere in the world a prize should be given for
quibbling this priest would certainly take it against all comers.
He is surely the champion hair splitter. How adroitly he intro
duces an analogy, which is no analogy at all, and thus throws dust
into the eyes of his readers, and then winds up with a flourish of
trumpets as though he had achieved a great victory over his
antagonist. The Pope is infallible only in his official capacity,
whatever that may mean. He is infallible as head of the church.
.But is he not always head of the church? If yes, then he is
always infallible, if no, who is head of the church when he is not ?
Or is the church sometimes without a head ? There is no analogy
-in the case of the judge dragged in neck and crop. The opinion
of a judge will be just as sound and just as accurate in private as
an public, only if given in the one case it has authority, whilst in
�32
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
the other it has not. But infallibility cannot be laid aside then,,
for it is an individual and not an official quality. An infallible
being must be always infallible, no matter where and to what his
infallible power is applied, and if the Pope be really infallible, heis quite as much so when giving orders about his dinner, choosing
his servants, selecting his stockings, or scolding his menials, or
when delivering his decrees ex cathedra in the conclave of Bishops.
To maintain the contrary is to ascribe the infallibility to the chair
in which he sits or to some of his official surroundings, which
would be too absurd even for a Roman Catholic to maintain, which
is saying a great deal.
This infallibility doctine has been the curse of mankind in all
ages where it has been taught. It has deluged the world with
blood, and stopped the onward march of progress by fire and
sword. Superstition is its twin brother, persecution is its offspring,
and cruelty of the most damnable kind the weapon it has ever em
ployed. The Protestant ascribes infallibility to his Bible, and the
Romanist to a common-place old man in the Vatican. We say “ a
plague on both your houses 1 ” Infallibility is not within the reach
of human beings, and they who pretend to have it cannot avoid
arrogating to themselves superiority over their fellows, and treating
better men than themselves as inferiors. The arrogant and often,
impertinent and insolent tone of the author of “ Tactics of Infidels ”
bespeaks the true papist in every line. He is a priest of an infal
lible church, which church is unparalleled for the mischief it has
done in the world by any organization in ancient and modern times,.
It has everywhere championed despotism, ignorance and priestly
intolerance, and has seldom, if ever, been found on the side of free
dom, benevolence, and justice. But its end is near. It is out of har
mony with the institutions of this country, and with the aspirations
of modern thought. When it is gone, the people will breathe more
freely, and feel that a horrible night-mare has been removed.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. At head of title: 'Orthodox criticism tested!'
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1856
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9da8cdbd3edb18aa2c5be0b3afe02111.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XeWyjo5rHh2x5gDgGt7rvS-tGDOzDbYQVO3Ny6qNg5iYdFj68wyyiPUaXgu1y4clfVRw2I4dEIE9bEWPkHa8ZM96KrwyfYgNGlU-iH-2xQb49A6kQH8ZvNKqUK2zuIlRMW72ewl7nVEQjAVA8UnlX55t2dVaoQVC7hjroW6tZy9sSo94glI%7EEEGwDwhY26l%7ECctmfx32cGBZy6sFjtBVi0uSEFEHqZjKU1-67YVP4VU9qZQ%7EV2lPylrIPoLG31BTgHchl2WLFdq1PWiXujzdZKcRb4XLJxIrovhAxZb0KKGQbajjh4Q6mVwPkszgQUeSAR9zNDbH6QANhv2q2kvZTg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3297c1449aebe6cd8a2da5c1fb866b82
PDF Text
Text
Is It Founded
on
Reason, and Is It Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
and
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
H.
GARBENER
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
- 25
CENTS.
��PREFACE,
The following discussion was conducted during 1889, the paper
of each ^disputant appearing both in the Halifax Evening Mail
and in Secular Thought. The debate originated in the Editor
of the Mail issuing, in his paper of July 3rd, 1889, the sub-,
joined challenge to Mr. Watts, which, it will be seen, contains
also the conditions that governed the controversy:—“ If Mr.
Watts is anxious to present his views to the public, the Evening
Mail offers him an audience larger than could by any possibility
be packed in any public building in Halifax. The Evening Mail
denies Mr. Watts’ affirmation : ‘ That Secularism is based on
human reason and is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.’
To the discussion of this question we challenge Mr. Watts to a
controversy, he to take the initiative. Mr. Watts on his part
will have the privilege of publishing three articles in our col
umns alternately with three articles written by the Editor of
the Evening Mail, Mr. Watts to close the controversy in a fourth
article one-third of a column in length, in which he shall be
allowed to introduce no new, matter.” On July 10th Mr. Watts
sent the following reply : “ To the Editor of the Evening Mail:
Sir,—My attention has been called to an editorial in your issue
dated July 3, in which you invite me to discuss the proposition,
‘ That Secularism is based on human reason, and is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind.’ This you deny, and challenge me
to affirm the proposition in your columns. Your invitation is
given in such courteous language, and accompanied with stipu
lations so fair, that I accept your challenge upon the following
conditions, viz.: That my opening article appear first in Secular
Thought, from which you can copy it in the Mail, wherein you
will also insert your reply, which I will reproduce in Secular
�iv
PREFACE.
Thought; the subsequent articles in the debate to also appear in
a similar manner in each of the above-named papers.”
The conditions mentioned above being mutually agreed upon,
the discussion commenced in Secular Thought August 3rd, 1889.
That what has been advanced by either disputant may be
carefully read and studied is my earnest and sincere wish.
Charles Watts.
February 27th, 1890.
THE OPINION OF THE “ FATHER OF SECULARISM.”
“ Mr. Watts’ statement of Secular principles and policy, in his
debate with the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail is the best
I have ever seen. He distinguishes clearly and boldly that the
Secularist moves on the planes of Reason and Utility.
“ George Jacob Holyoake.”
(In his letter to the Toronto Secular Convention, 1889.)
�V
PREFACE.
COLONEL INGERSOLL’S OPINION.
400 Fifth Avenue, Feb. 9th, 1890.
My Dear Mr. Watts,—I have just read the debate between
yourself and the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail, N. S.
Your statement as to what Secularism is could not be improved
and your definitions of certain terms are accurate and lucid. I
have never read better. The Editor of the Mail does not under
stand you. He has not enough intelligence to grasp your
meaning. When you ask for a better guide than Reason, he
does not see that he cannot even deny that reason is the best of
all guides without admitting that it is. Suppose he had said
that the Bible is a better guide than reason, he would have been
compelled tc have given his reasons for the assertion, and in
doing this would have admitted that reason had been his guide.
I can hardly call this a debate that you had with the editor of
the Mail. In a debate there ought to be arguments on tooth
sides All the argument is on your side. Your antagonist refused
to come into the ring. He kept outside the ropes and even in
that place threw up the sponge.
You are doing a great and splendid work in Canada. Every
Freethinker ought to stand by you, and no one can afford to do
without Secular Thought. Best regards to Mrs Watts from
us all and to you.
Yours always,
R. G. Ingersoll.
�I
�INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN H. GARDENER.
When Mr. Charles Watts told me, about four years ago, that he
was going to Canada to start a Freethought paper I made up my
mind that he had taken leave of a large part of his usual good
judgment and was about to fly in the face of providence—so to
speak.
Canada and a Freethought paper impressed me as elements
that would refuse to mix. I thought I knew the characteristics
of both, somewhat intimately. I expected to hear of the arrest
of Mr. Watts and the discontinuance of his paper by the end of
the first month. I did not believe that Canada was ready for
his sturdy, vigorous style of advocacy of Secularism.
It appears, however, that I mistook the temper and trend
of the times and things in Canada, and that the past ten
years have made a vast change, not only in the States, but over
the border as well. And so to-day we see Mr. Watts not only
successfully conducting an able and fearless Freethought journal
in Toronto, and lecturing throughout the provinces ; but, also,
able to induce one of the editors of a leading daily paper to en
gage in a debate on the relative merits of Secularism and Chris
tianity, and to publish the same in the columns of his paper—the
Halifax Evening Mail. Thus Mr. Watts reaches not only the
avowed Liberal thinkers, but the conservatives also.
In reference to the debate, it is not necessary for me in this
Introduction to go into the merits of the case and attempt to point
out the defects in the argument of the Editor of the Mail. Mr.
�viii
INTRODUCTION.
Watts has proved himself fully able to do that. Indeed, the first
time I heard Mr. Watts debate in public I was so sorry for his
opponent that I felt almost inclined to take his side of the ar
gument. Mr. Watts gave him such an unmerciful intellectual
drubbing that it seemed to me every mental bone in his body
must have been broken, and that when Mr. Watts should let go
of his collar—as one might say—he would sink into mere pulp.
Yet it was all done with that courtesy of language and manner
which distinguishes Mr. Watts in debate.
Mr. Watts does not find it necessary to “ call names ” in lieu
of argument. He has facts on the tip of his tongue and logic
always “ on call.” He is not compelled to dodge the issue and take
refuge in vocal pyrotechnics—mere mental and verbal gymnastics
—to befog the minds of his readers and so cover his own retreat.
In short, I have always looked upon Mr. Watts as a masterly
debater, and I know’of few people—if any—who would not be
running a very serious danger of defeat in venturing to join
issue with Mr. Watts on the platform. There is one point to
which I wish to call especial attention touching this discussion.
It is to the splendid fact that the day is past when such a debate
as this can be suppressed. Only a little while ago not only Mr.
Watts would have “ found his occupation gone,” but the editor
of the Evening Mail would not have dared to give an honour
able, honest hearing to his opponent through the columns of his
paper. He could not have ventured to give Mr. Watts an open
field and to print ungarbled what was said by his antagonist in
belief. Canada is to be congratulated that she is now free
enough to do this and that some of her editors dare give the real
arguments and opinions of the unbelievers in organised supersti
tion. Until the Press is wholly free to do this; until it cannot
be boycotted or intimidated for it, there will be no such thing as
a free Press, and without an absolutely free Press all liberty is
in constant danger. This debate, therefore, serves a double
purpose. It not only enables Secularism and Christianity to try
conclusions ; but it gives the measure of liberty and freedom of
speech and Press to which Canada has attained in the year 1889.
�INTRODUCTION.
ix
The daily papers are a reflex of the public pulse. It is the easiest
and surest way to determine the stage of civilisation at which
we have arrived to simply watch the daily papers and read
between the lines.
If any subject or class is refused an honest hearing we may
be very sure that there is an iron hand on the throat of some
body. The grip is loosening when an editor here and there
•dares to give space to both sides—to all sides. The measure of
manhood is lengthening. The power of superstition is broken.
A better day is dawning. The Press no longer crawls at the
feet of dogmatic belief chained io the dead and ignorant past.
No honest cause ever needed suppression as an ally. The truth
is not afraid to measure conclusions with a mistake and give the
mistake an open field. Any argument that can hold its own
only by silencing its antagonist by force, thereby proclaims itself
built upon falsehood and sustained by fraud.
The pioneers of this new and real liberty of speech and Press
are, therefore, the landmarks in the new era. For this reason I
feel like congratulating Canada that the Halifax Mail and its
•editor as well as Mr, Charles Watts chose homes within her
borders. I think we may say that all thoughtful people will be
interested in the arguments of the Christian editor, who not only
has the courage of his own convictions, but the courage and
manliness to present to his readers the ungarbled convictions
•of his opponent also. Courage is a noble quality, and when it is
mental and moral as well as physical its possessor is well on his
way to a high order of civilisation.
I need not commend Mr. Watts and what he says to the
Liberal public. He has done that for himself; but I want to
repeat that there are other reasons than admiration of his ability
why such a debate as this should be- welcomed and widely read
by both sides. It shows which way the wind is blowing in more
ways than one. It shows what thoughts and opinions are on
the down grade. It is a landmark of our progress toward fair
play, and there is something for both parties to be proud of when
neither one skulks behind silence and suppression. Which ever
�X
INTRODUCTION.
argument the reader finds to his liking, therefore, he need not be
ashamed to say, “ This is my champion. He has come to the
front like a man for our cause and he has refused to take advan
tage of ‘kis adversary.” This is a proud boast, and it could be
made of few debates where a representative of organised super
stition had charge of one end of the arrangements and of an
organ which printed the discussion.
Therefore let us congratulate Christianity that she has at last
reached a point where she feels herself capable of fairness and
possessed of sufficient courage to be honest. And let us felicitate
Secularism that she had within her ranks the right man to ably,
courteously, and with the self-poise of the veteran, conduct her
side of the debate on a plane of thought and with a dexterity of
touch which all who know Mr. Watts so greatly admire.
Helen H. Gardener.
�SECULARISM:
A DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OE THE HALIFAX,
N.S., “EVENING MAIL” AND CHARLES WATTS.
The Proposition : “ Secularism is bastd on human reason, and is suffi
cient to meet the needs of mankind.”
Mb.. Watts affirms;
the
Editor of the Evening Mail denies.
Opening of the Debate.
BY CHARLES WATTS.
In supporting my affirmation of the above proposition, I have
been requested by my opponent to do three things : First, to
explain what Secularism is ; secondly, to define the leading terms
in the proposition ; and, in the last place, to show in what way
Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.
What is Secularism? In its etymological signification, it
means the age, finite, belonging to this world. Secularists, how
ever, use the term in a more amplified sense, as embodying a
■philosophy of life and inculcating rules of conduct that have no
necessary association with any system of theology. By this is.
meant that, while there are some phases of theology to which a
■Secularist could give his assent, it is quite possible to live noble
and exemplary lives apart from any and all theologies. For in
stance, Theists who are not orthodox can belong to a Secular So
ciety, as can also Atheists, although Secularism does not exact
either the affirmation of the one or the negation of the other. The
word Secularism was selected about 50 years ago by Mr. George
Jacob Holyoake to represent certain principles which recognized
“ the moral duty of man in this life, deduced from considera
tions which pertain to this life alone.” Such a selection was
deemed desirable, in order to enable those persons who could not
accept orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to
find elsewhere principles to direct and sustain them in the cor
�4
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
rect performance of their respective duties. Secularism is as far
as possible, the practical application of all knowledge’to the
regulation of human conduct, and apart from speculations and
beliefs which are unfounded, or unproved, or opposed to reason
Secular Principles. These, as Mr. Holyoake has frequently
-explained, “ relate to the present existence of man and to methods
of procedure the issues of which can be tested by the experience
of this life. . . . Secular principles have for their object to fit
men for time. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by
'Considerations purely human. Its principles are founded upon
mature, and its object is to render men as perfect as possible in
this life,” whether there be a future existence or not. The Six
great Cardinal Principles of Secularism, as officially taught
by the Canadian Secular Union (incorporated under the general
Act of Parliament in 1877-1885), are briefly as follows:—
1. That the present life being the only one of which we have
any knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention. 2. That
Reason, aided by Experience, is' the best guide for human con
duct. 3. That to endeavour to promote the individual and
general Well-being of Society to the best of our ability is our
highest and immediate duty. 4. That the only means upon
,-which we can rely for the accomplishment of this object is
human effort, based upon knowledge and justice. 5. Conduct
is to be judged by its results only—what conduces to the general
^Vell-being is right, what has the opposite tendency is wrong.
6. That Science and its application is our Providence, or Pro
vider, and upon it we rely in preference to aught else in time of
need.
Secular Teachings.—(1) That truth, justice, sobriety, fidelity,
honour and love are essential to good lives. (2) That actions
are of more consequence to the welfare of Society than beliefs
in creeds and dogmas. (3) That “prevention is better than
curewe therefore, as Secularists, seek to render, as far as cir
cumstances will permit, depraved conditions impossible. (4)
That the best means of securing this improvement are, self-re
liance, moral culture, physical development, intellectual disci
pline, and whatever else is found necessary to secure this object.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
5
provided our actions do not, unjustly and unnecessarily, infringe
upon the rights of others. (5) That the disbelief in Christianity,,
or in other systems of theology, may be as much a matter of:
honest conviction as the belief in it or them. (6) That persecu
tion for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of theology is acrime against society, and an insult to mental freedom. (7) That
the Secular good and useful in any of the religions of the world
should be accepted and acted upon, without the obligation of'
having to believe in any form of alleged supernaturalism.
(8)«
That a well-spent life, guided and controlled by the highest,
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and?
happy death. (9) That the principle of the “ Golden Rule ”
should be observed in all controversy, and that courtesy, good
will, kindness, and a respectful consideration for the opinions
of those who differ from us should characterize our deal
ings with opponents. (10) That from a domestic standpoint
there should be no attempt at superiority between husband
and wife; that equality should be the emblem of every home,,
and that the fireside should be hallowed by mutual fidelity, affec
tion, happiness, and the setting of an example worthy of chil
dren’s emulation. These principles and teachings form the basis
of the Secularists’ faith—a faith which rests not upon conjec
tures as to a future life,'but upon the reason, experience, and
requirements of this.
Basis of Secularism. The exercise of Freethought, guided by
reason, experience, and general usefulness. By Freethought is
here meant the right to entertain any opinions that commend
themselves to the judgment of the honest and earnest searcher
after truth without his being made the victim of social ostracism
in this world, or threatened with punishment in some other.
The law of mental science declares the impossibility of uniform
ity of belief upon theological questions, therefore, Freethought
should be acknowledged as being the heritage of the human race.
Secular Morality. This consists in the performance of acts
that will exalt and ennoble human character, and in avoiding
conduct that is injurious either to the individual or to society at
large. The source of moral obligation is in human nature, and
�f)
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
the sanctions of, and incentives to, ethical culture are the pro
tection and improvement both of the individual and of the
community.
Secularism and Theology. The relation of Secularism to the
great problems of the existence of God and a Future life is that
of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying. If a person think
that he has evidence to justify his belief in a God and immor
tality, there is nothing in Secularism to prevent his having such
a belief. Hence, Atheism should not be confounded with Secu
larism, which is quite a different question. The subjects of Deity
and a Future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if
possible, for themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to
dogmatize upon matters of which it can impart no information.
Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistical profession as
the basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists, but it is
not considered necessary that a man should accept Atheism to
enable him to become a Secularist. The Secularist platform is
sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists or non
orthodox Theists. Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds ; it only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to
pursue aprogressive career independent of all speculative theology.
Negative Aspect of Secularism. Secularism is positive to the
true and good in every religion, but it is negative towards that
which is false and injurious. Our destructive work consists in
endeavouring to destroy that which has too often interfered
with our constructive efforts. Our negative policy “has been
to combat priests and laws, wherever priests or laws interfere
with Freethought—that is, our mission has been to act as a John
in the wilderness, to make way for science, and to make silence
for philosophy.”
Definition of Terms. Reason we define as being man’s highest
intellectual powers, the understanding, the faculty of judgment,
the power which discriminates, infers, deduces, and judges, the
ability to premise future probabilities from past experience and
to distinguish truth from error. Reason, says Morell, is that
which gives unity and solidarity to intellectual processes, “ aid
ing us at once in the pursuit of truth and in adapting our lives
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
7
to the state of things in which they exist” (“Mental Philosophy,’’
p. 232). “ It is the guide and director of human activity ” {Ibid.,
p. 235). Hooker, in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” says reason de
termines “ what is good to be done ; ” and Chillingworth, the
eminent Christian writer, in his “Religion of Protestants,” ob
serves :—“ Reason gives us knowledge; while faith only gives us
oelief, which is a part of knowledge and is, therefore, inferior to
it. . . .it is by reason alone that we can distinguish truth from,
falsehood ” * (quoted by Buckle in his “ History of Civiliza
tion ”). Bishop Butler remarks, “ Reason is indeed the only
faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even
revelation itself ” (“ Analogy of Religion,” p. 176).
Experience. This represents knowledge acquired through
study, investigation, and observation in the broadest sense
possible. We do not use the word in the limited form, as
Whately employs it, simply as individual experience, but as
comprising the world’s legacy of thought, action, scientific appli
cation and mental culture, so far as we are enabled to avail our
selves of these intellectual agencies.
Intuition. This I regard to be a mental recognition of an
impression or sensation as being the truth without the process
of reasoning. Intuition, therefore, differs from rehson and ex
perience inasmuch as it excludes the possibility of correcting a
mental impression by reflection and philosophical investigation.
The nature and value of intuition depend upon the intellectual
condition of the person who has it, upon his training, and the
surroundings which have formed and moulded his conceptions
or beliefs. The intuition of a savage is very different from that
of a civilized person, and the same difference obtains among the
devotees of the different religions of the earth. Moreover, my
opponent’s intuition may suggest to him that a certain thing
was right which my intuition in all probability would consider
wrong. In such cases, what is the factor that is to decide which
is the correct decision ? Secularism says that although Reason,
when assisted by Experience, may not be a perfect guide, it
* The italics are mine.
�8
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is the best known to us up to the present time. If the
editor of the Evening Mail has a monitor superior to the one
^elected by Secularists, let him produce it, and then we can
judge which is the better by comparison.
The terms Needs and “ Sufficient.
I place the following
interpretation upon these words in connection with the proposi
tion under debate. By needs is meant that which 'is actually
necessary, essential to the physical intellectual moral and emo
tional development of the human family. In this controversy
needs should be distinguished from wants, inasmuch as in many
cases a want is only a desire caused by habits not necessary tn
the well-being of society. I regard that as being sufficient the
nature of which is adequate to meet the requirements and to
satisfy the demands of the needs of mankind.
The request of my opponent has now been complied with, so
far as the space allowed me would permit. I have stated what
Secularism is, and have given a brief intimation of its principles,
teachings, and ethical basis. A definition has also been furnished
of what we mean by the terms reason, experience, intuition,
needs and sufficient. A statement of what human needs are and
wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them must be reserved
for my next article. In the meantime I shall read with consid
erable interest whatever my respected opponent may have to
say in reply to what is herein set forth.
THE “ EVENING MAIL’S ” FIRST ARTICLE, IN REPLY TO CHA REFS
WATTS.
In consenting to this debate we desired such a precise definition
of terms as would enab.e us both at the outset clearly to com
prehend the subject matter and scope of the discussion. Though
Mr. Watts’ thesis bears the stamp of sincerity, its definitions are
laboured and involved, vague or tautological; and the difficulties
which perplex his mind and unnerve his hand are manifestly
those which have for the most part entirely disappeared before
the enlightened thought of these more modern days.
We asked Mr. Watts for a clear and precise definition of
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
“ Secularism ; ” but he responds with numerous variations and
repetitions which only serve to confuse the reader’s mind, while
demonstrating beyond a doubt that Mr. Watts has never yet ob
tained a clear and comprehensive conception of the tenets of the
so-called Secularist faith. • For instance, under “ Secular prin
ciples,” we are furnished with “ the six great cardinal principles
of Secularism as officially taught.” But not content with this
official” statement, Mr. Watts reinforces it with a statement of
“ Secular teachings,” six [ten] in number, which differ more or less
from the preceding principles as they are “ officially taught.”
Then, as if fearful that “ Secular principles ” as “ officially
taught,” even though combined with “ Secular teachings,” might
not convey a clear conception of what “ Secularism ” is, Mr
Watts proceeds to state “the basis of Secularism” and to define
*
“ Secular morality,” as if these were different and distinct from
confusion, although under “ Secularism and theology ” we are
*
informed that “ Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds,”—a purely negative aspect,—Mr. Watts proceeds to de
fine under another head “ the negative aspect of Secularism.”
All this serves to convince the reader that even Mr. Watts, the
professed exponent of this new faith, is in the unfortunate pre
dicament of having no clear and definite conception of his own
beliefs, and that, as a result, his attempts at elucidation only
serve to bewilder, confuse, and perhaps amuse those who intelli
gently strive to follow him through his illogical and labyrinthine
meanderings.
Equally unhappy is Mr. Watts in his antiquated allusion to
reason as a faculty of the mind, more especially as it is coupled
with the affirmation that “ Secularism is based on human reason.”
As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy all human needs, could
be based on a faculty of mind ! But our purpose is not to raise
mere quibbles in this debate, but rather to tear aside the covering
of antiquated verbiage with which Mr. Watts has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all
their naked reality. It is gratifying to us, therefore, that Mr.
Watts has not been completely bewildered by his wide knowledge
�10
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
of philosophical antiquities, but that his sound common «ense
leads him to reject the discarded conceptions of Butler, and more
correctly to define reason as “ the understanding, the faculty of
judgment, the power which discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges.” With this view we are more disposed to coincide, and
therefore, for the purposes of discussion we will consent to per
sonify reason as that which “ discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges; ” in a word, as that which weighs evidence.
Even Mr. Watts appears to have been convinced of the absurd
ity of his own affirmation that the Secularist faith is based on a
faculty of mind, and to have inclined to his other view that
reason is that which weighs evidence; for he immediately pro
ceeds to define Experience and Intuition as two sources of evi
dence, although these terms had hitherto been utterly foreign
to the controversy.
Ip closing Mr. Watts says: “ A statement of what human
needs are and wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them
must be reserved for our next article ”; and therefore we are
forced to restrict ourselves for the present to Mr. Watts’ first
affirmation “ that Secularism is based on human reason ”; in a
word, that Secularism is based on evidence.
What then is Secularism ? Its first principle is, we are told,
“ that the present life being the only one of which we have any
knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention.” But herein
lies the assumption that our present individual existence is the
only life of which we may be cognizant. Where is the evidence
to support that assertion ? The “ concerns ” of this life “ claim
our earnest attention ! ” What evidence is there of the validity
of this claim ? What obligation is there to live at all ?
2. “ That reason aided by experience is the best guide for
human conduct.” Then reason alone is not the sole basis of
Secularism! And again we are told that “ although reason,
when assisted by experience, may not be a perfect guide, it is
the best known to us up to the present time.” Again we call for
evidence to substantiate this statement. Surely . Secularism
would make no assumptions ?
3. “ That to endeavour to promote the individual and general
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
11
well-being of society, to the best of our ability, is our highest
and immediate duty.” Again we ask what right has Secularism
to assume that there is any “ duty ” obligatory upon us ? Can
we impose such a “ duty ” upon ourselves ? If not, who has
imposed these duties upon us ?
4. Thus we might go through the list of “ Secular principles,”
and ask if “ knowledge and justice,” as alleged, are alone suffi
cient to promote the highest well-being of the individual and of
society. Are not benevolence and self-sacrifice equally essential ?
5. What claim to validity has the suspicious statement that
conduct is to be judged by results alone ? The doctrine of
these “ expediency moralists ” has been rejected by the vast
majority of men since it was first propounded over twenty
centuries ago. What evidence is there forthcoming to show that
this principle is based on reason ?
6. That we should rely upon Science as our Providence or
Provider in preference to aught else ! Science may provide food,
drink and apparel. But it depends upon the nature of the man
as to whether these provisions are complete and satisfactory.
The Hottentot knows few scientific appliances, and discards fine
raiment as well as savoury viands. Neither Hottentot modes of
life nor Hottentot morality may be expected to satisfy the needs
of this nineteenth century civilization.
These six Secular principles are assumed by Mr Watts, who
furnishes no evidence whatever as to their validity. The ten
teachings of Secularism must also be proved on grounds of utility
alone, since Mr. Watts accepts without evidence the utilitarian
tenet that “whatever conduces to the general well-being is right,
whatever has the opposite tendency is wrong.” But if Mr, Watts
will only furnish evidence of our personal obligation to speak
the truth, it may, perhaps, surprise him to find equally reliable
evidence of his obligation to believe in the existence of a God.
But these Secular teachings are of slight importance to this con
troversy. They are not new to Christian morality. That actions
are of more consequence than beliefs may, doubtless, be disputed,
since beliefs may be the ultimate source of actions. The third
teaching that “ prevention is better than cure ” cannot be accepted
�I
12
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
a Secularist novelty, seeing that centuries ago it passed into a
proverb. The fourth teaching is the theme of every Sunday
school teacher as well as of the Secularist; and what is more to
the point, the Sunday school teacher may make a claim of
priority to this teaching. The fifth teaching that disbelief may
be as much a matter of honest conviction as positive belief makes
against Secularism as much as against Catholicism.
As
for persecution, it is not now upheld in this free country.
And as for the prejudice which Mr. Watts has against “ alleged
supernaturalism,” that would doubtless be allayed if he would
but persist in making a closer study into the deepest of these
problems. The dividing line between the natural and the
supernatural was always an arbitrary one, and is now scarcely
recognized. What more natural than thought ? What more
supernatural than the existence of the thinker ? The “ golden
rule” and the rule for domestic government make up the ten
teachings of Secularism ? The body of these teachings is
accepted by all ? They are chiefly more or less crudely expressed
tenets ef an ethical system which is recognized by the majority,
and to which Secularism can make no special claim.
Nor is there any novelty in the basis of Secularism, which is
defined as the exercise of “ the right to entertain any opinions
that commend themselves to the honest and earnest searcher.”
That is, in exactly the same sense, the basis of politics, of
journalism, of digging drains or breaking stones. Nor does this
basis find any support in what is here crudely expressed as “a
law of mental science.” No “ law of mental science ” declares
the “ impossibility of uniformity of belief upon theological
questions.” We simply find from experience that men think
differently about the same thing, whether it be theology or the
best methods of drainage.
Nor is “ Secular morality ” more properly so described. The
doctrine, that the end of life consists in the perfection of individual
character and the good of the race, is as much a part of
“ Methodist morality ” as of “ Secular morality.”
Here then is the conclusion of this prolonged investigation.
“Secularism ” Is an arbitrarily selected part of our prevalent
as
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
13
moral beliefs. Such additions as are made are of very dubious
validity. The emendations are made without authority; and
the selections are accepted without evidence. For if evidence
were forthcoming it would be found to make the belief in God
as the belief in the morality of truth or justice. Herein is Mr.
Watts’ dilemma. He accepts in part a system of morality which
all accept; or else Secularism is Scepticism, or Agnosticism, pure
and simple. Scepticism which rejects one portion of our moral
beliefs will find no validity or obligation in the other portions
which Mr. Watts accepts. On the other hand, the evidence by
which Mr. Watts could establish the validity of one portion,
gives a like support to all. Secularism must be either identified
with orthodox morality or with scepticism; it cannot be differ
entiated from them both.
But, Mr. Watts adds, by way of excuse for the anomalous
position which he has assumed, “ the subjects of deity and a
future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if possible,
themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise
upon matters of which it can impart no information. ” But
herein lies the abject weakness of Secularism. Kant has said
that we cannot assume an air of indifference toward God, free
dom of the will, and immortality, which are always of deepest
interest to mankind. Mr. Watts refuses to think of these
problems which are of deepest interest to mankind; so other
men might determine to give up thinking altogether and live the
life of the brutes; but could they expect the majority of man
kind to follow their example ? Secularism refuses to inform us
upon these problems, and very properly so! So might the
sayage refuse to inform us of the moral principles which obtain
even in Mr. Watts’ meagre system of ethics.
In conclusion we scarcely need to ’remind Mr. Watts that it
yet remains for him to establish that Secularism “ is sufficient
to meet the needs of mankind,” a proposition which he has
elected to deal with in his second article. But before entering
upon that discussion it will be pertinent to the enquiry upon
which we have already entered for him to establish the validity
of those ethical principles and teachings which even Secularism
�14
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is found to uphold. Mr. Watts professes to reject unreservedly
the Theistic system of ethics, and yet holds to certain of these
very same ethical teachings. He can only satisfy the needs of
this discussion by bringing forward evidence of the validity of
these accepted teachings, which evidence must, if he is consistent,
be found to have valid authority, even though the Theistic belief
be utterly rejected.
MR. WATTS’ SECOND ARTICLE.
In times before science had demonstrated the folly of the belief
in witchcraft and in the existence of a peregrinating devil,
there lived, it is said, a great magician.
He claimed to have a
secret by which he could at any moment summon King Beelze
bub and compel him to do his bidding. The magician had an
apprentice who one day listened at the keyhole of his master’s
sanctum, and learned the great secret of raising the Devil. The
next day during the absence of the magician the boy performed
the necessary incantations, and, lo and behold the devil came
up at his bidding. But, horror of horrors ! the boy got terrified
and he wanted his satanic majesty to retire again by the way
he had come. But this could not be accomplished, and the devil
remained, sadly to the discomfort of the poor lad.
This story aptly illustrates the present position of the
Editor of the EvcTt'i'tiQ Alciil in this debate. Enamoured by
certain theological incantations, he probably thought that he
could call forth such definitions that would paralyze the force of
the affirmation of the proposition. But, lo and behold when
the said definitions appeared they so terrified him as to “ perplex
his mind and unnerve his hand,” and he could take no definite
exception to any of them but the first, and with this one he
actually imagined “ difficulties which have for the most part
entirely disappeared before the enlightened thought of these
more modern days.”
My opponent in issuing his challenge to debate this question
very properly made the “demand ” that I should define Secular
ism and give its “ basic element ” ; that I should explain “ reason
�DERATE ON SECULARISM.
15
as distinguished from intuition and from experience ”; that I
should present a “statement of the ethical teachings of Secularism,
and the grounds of their validity.” Furthermore, he requested
a specification of the interpretation to be placed upon the terms
“ sufficient ” and “ needs.” To these fair requirements I readily
acceded in my opening article. Unfortunately, however, in doing
so I failed to please my opponent. Frankly, this did not surprise
me; still, it might, perhaps, have been more dignified on his
part if, instead of finding so much fault with my style of writing,
he had tried to answer my arguments.
According to my opponent I do not understand Secularism.
He says that “ beyond a doubt ” I have not a clear and com
prehensive conception ” of Secular tenets; and he charges me
with “ repetitions,” ignoring the fact that he does the same thing
himself in repeating, in almost the same words, this very charge.
But it is significant that he does not once make an effort to sub
stantiate his allegation; neither does he offer any other definition
of Secularism than the one given by me. In a debate of this kind
mere assertion is not enough, therefore, I await the proof for the
statement that “ Mr. Watts is in the unfortunate predicament of
having no clear or definite conception of his own beliefs.” It
•may also strengthen my opponent’s position if he can verify his
assertion that the Secular teachings which I mentioned “ differ
more or less,” from the Secular principles as “officially taught.”
The gentleman is also premature in charging me with affirming
that “the Secularist faith is based on a faculty of the mind.”
The term “ mind ” is not used by me in any of my definitions,
but as my opponent has introduced the word perhaps he will
define in what sense he employs it, and then I may deal with
his exclamation, “ As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy
all human needs, could be based on a faculty of mind ! ” We are
next told that Experience and Intuition are terms that had
hitherto “been utterly foreign to the controversy,” and yet my
opponent demanded in his challenge that I should define these
very terms. Is not this “verbiage,” and a fair specimen of
“ illogical and labyrinthine meanderings ? ”
As I am pledged to deal in this article with the second part of
�16
DEBATE ON SECULARISM^
our proposition, namely, the sufficiency of Secularism to meet
the needs of mankind, I am compelled to reserve for my third
article a review of my opponent’s remarks upon Secular prin
ciples and teachings. These remarks, though bearing “ the
stamp of sincerity,” appear to me to be exceedingly “ laboured,
vague, and tautological.”
In order that I may not misrepresent the position of my no
doubt well-intentioned antagonist when I further reply to his
criticism, will he kindly answer in his next article the following
questions ? (1) Does the first Secular principle necessarily involve
the “ assumption ” that there is no future life ? (2) What better
guide is known for human conduct than that which Secularism
offers ? (3) Where does Secularism teach that “ knowledge and
justice alone ” are sufficient to promote the welfare of society ?
(4) What does my opponent understand by the term “ expedi
ency moralists ” ? (5) In what part of Christian morality is it
taught that any or all of the theological systems of the world
can be rejected by the honest searcher for truth, without his in
curring the risk of punishment hereafter ? (6) In what way *
does the fifth Secular teaching, as given in my previous article,
“ make against Secularism ” ? (7) What evidence is there that
the “ existence of the thinker is supernatural ” ? (8) Did Kant .
admit that by reason the existence of God and the belief in im
mortality could be demonstrated ? (9) Where is the proof that
" Mr. Watts refuses to think of these problems ” ?
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity
consists in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human
needs ? In the second paragraph of my opening article I men
tioned one fact to prove the necessity of Secular philosophy,
namely, that inasmuch as moral conduct is indispensable to the
well-being of society, Secularism has been found necessary to
enable those persons who could not accept orthodox Christianity
as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere principles to direct
and sustain them in the correct performance of their respective
duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto remained
silent.
/
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
17
I will now show in what way Secularism is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind. What are these needs ?
(1.) Development of Man’s Physical Organisation. This is
regarded by Secularists as being the first important need, inas
much as upon the due observance of the laws of healtend,h dep
not only personal and general physical soundness, but also, to a
large extent, mental vigour and intellectual usefulness. To
satisfy this need Secularism urges the necessity of studying and
adopting the best means possible to secure sound bodies and
pure surroundings. Experience proves that health has obtained
and life has been prolonged, in proportion to practical attention
being given to the facts of science. This truth establishes the
reasonableness of the Secular principle that applied Science is
the Providence of Man.
(2.) Cultivation of our Moral Nature. To put it plainly and
briefly, by moral action we mean the performance of deeds that
will encourage virtue and discourage vice; that will foster
truth, honour, justice, temperance, industry, and fidelity; and
that will enhance the welfare both of the individual and of
society. Secularism teaches that the source of morality is in
human nature, and that its inspiration is in the happiness, pro
gress, and elevation of the human race. Experience furnishes
the means that enable us to judge of the ethical superiority of
some actions over others, and reason is the standard whereby we
can discriminate and judge right from wrong.
(3.) Cultivation of our Intellectuality. Secularism alleges
that such cultivation can be effectually acquired only by the
possession of knowledge and its correct application, which con
stitutes true education. This, as Taine remarks, “ draws out and
disciplines a man ; fills him with varied and rational ideas : pre
vents him from sinking into monomania or being exalted by
transport; gives him determinate thoughts instead of eccentric
fancies, pliable opinions for fixed convictions; replaces impetuous
images by calm reasonings, sudden resolves by the result of re
flection; furnishes us with the wisdom and ideas of others;
gives us conscience and self-command.” Surely such a course of
�18
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
training as this must be admitted to have its source in reason
and to be justified by experience.
(4.) Fostering of domestic happiness. Secularism alleges that
happiness and just contentment in the home are of paramount
importance. Domestic misery destroys the usefulness of indi
viduals, robs life of its sweetest charms, and wrecks the peace
smd comfort of whole families. To avoid this deplorable evil,
Secularism teaches that purity, love, fidelity, mutual confidence,
and connubial equality should reign in every household; that
between husband and wife there should be no claim to superi
ority in their matrimonial relationship; that “ a man possessing
the love of an honourable and intelligent woman has a priceless
treasure, worthy of constant preservation in the casket of his
affections.” It is, therefore, but just that the wife should main
tain her position of equality in the domestic circle, for without
this the blessings of unalloyed happiness and the inestimable
advantages of pure love will never adorn the “ temple of home.”
(5.) Promotion of social harmony. This, according to Secu
larism, consists in the human family living peaceably and amic
ably together upon the principle of the brotherhood of man.
The strong should help the weak, and the wealthy should respect
the interests and rights of the poor. Benevolence and self-sacri
fice should be ever ready to bestow a service when and where
necessity calls for their aid. Personal pleasure should never be
had at the cost of the public good, and the utmost individual
freedom should be granted, provided that in its exercise the rights
of others are not invaded. To fully realize such harmony, there
should be no forced theological belief and no persecution, or
social ostracism, for unbelief. Other things being equal, the sin
cere sceptic should be regarded with the same degree of respect
and fairness as the honest Christian. No one system has all the
truth, and no one religion can command universal assent; there
fore Secularism says that differences of opinion ought never to
be allowed to sever the ties of love andffriendship, or to mar the
usefulness of mutual fellowship and co-operation.
(6) Religions aspirations and emotional gratification. To
meet these needs, Secularism would substitute personal liberty
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
19
for theological dictation. It is not claimed even by theologians
that religious aspirations are uniform in all nations and among
all peoples. Such aspirations depend for their distinctive features
upon climate, organization, birth, and education. They assume
very different forms among the Chinese, the Buddhists, the
Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christians. Recognising this
diversity of feeling, Secularism deems it right that each person
should be permitted to believe or to disbelieve as he feels justi
fied, and to worship or not to worship as his reason dictates.
The Secular motto is, Freedom for all and persecution for none.
The emotional part of human nature is to the Secularist a reality
to be regulated by cultivated reason and to be controlled by
disciplined judgment. Where this is the case pleasure will not
degenerate into licentiousness and religion will not be degraded
into fanaticism.
The affirmation of the proposition under discussion has now
been stated. In the remaining two articles which by arrange
ment I am to write, my duty will be to analyse my opponent’s
objections to Secular philosophy, and in doing so (to use my
opponent’s words), my object will be “ not to raise mere quibbles,,
.... but rather to tear aside the covering of antiquated verbiage
with which ” the Editor of the Evening Mail “ has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all their
naked reality.”
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” SECOND ARTICLE
IN REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
It will have been made clear to thoughtful readers of the pre
ceding articles that, stripped of all extraneous matter, the vital
issues at stake in this discussion are those which Mr. Watts has
deemed it expedient to avoid as much as possible in his second
contribution to the controversy. At the same time, our opponent
manifests an altogether undue anxiety to win unmerited prestige
by intimating that in calling him forth from the quietude of his
sanctum we have succeeded in “ raising the Devil.” We were
very suspicious at the outset, and this second article has only
�20
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
served to confirm the impression, that Mr. Watts is a far less for
midable adversary. For, if the traditions brought down from
the olden times may be relied upon as accurate, his satanic
majesty, though equally clever at begging the question, had
nevertheless the courage of his convictions, and was withal ever
.ready to give a plausible reason for the faith that was in him.
Without being intentionally offensive, we must confess at the
outset that Mr. Watts appears to have coloured the whole reli
gious, moral and social life of man with the false light of his
own personal prejudices. He appears most apprehensive lest his
free expression of opinion should subject him to religious perse
cution, to moral obloquy or to social ostracism. While sym
pathizing deeply with Mr. Watts, if it has been his misfortune
to experience such indignities, we may declare at the outset that
for the sincere seeker after truth, no matter where his investi
gations may lead him, we entertain the most profound respect.
Though educated in the Christian faith, we have the same
respect for Francis Newman, whose deep erudition drove him
into scepticism, as for his brother, John Henry Newman, whose
equally undoubted conscientiousness and profundity of thought
drew him within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church.
Secularism, as somewhat crudely defined by Mr. Watts, em
braces nothing more than a few arbitrarily selected tenets of our
prevailing moral beliefs. Christianity finds the authority and
validity of its ethical code, and an explanation of the personal
obligation of man, his sense of duty, in the existence of a per
sonal and intelligent God, who has a purpose concerning man, in
accord with which he has committed to man’s care an immortal
soul, a personality and consciousness that survive the death of
the body. The Christian religion which prescribes these ethical
teachings as the direct commands of God, gives a meaning to
this sense of duty, of personal obligation, by directly appealing
to our fear, our hope, our love, the most potent passions of the
human heart. Secularism, on the other hand, says Mr. Watts,
assumes the attitude of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor deny
ing the existence of God nor the immortality of the soul. In a
word, it declares that there is no evidence for such beliefs; and
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
21
therefore the moral code which Secularism arbitrarily selects
from the Christian code is by that affirmation denied the author
ity for its validity which Christianity finds in the Theistic belief.
Secularism Mr. Watts has defined as “embodying a philosophy
of life and inculcating rules of conduct which have no necessary
association with any system of theology.” If we would question
the authority of this Secularist code of morals, we are told by
Mr. Watts that “ the sanctions of and incentives to ethical culture
are the protection and improvement both of the individual and
of the community.”
So far as morality is concerned, Mr. Watts practically denies
the existence of God, at least he would exclude all such consider
ations from the discussion of his fragmentary moral code, and
would find in considerations alone affecting the well-being of
society and of the individual, the meaning and authority of
duty which Secularism declines to derive from theologic religion.
On first analysis it will be found that the underlying assumption
here is that society is constantly improving and approaching
perfection; and that this consummation, devoutly to be wished,
is sufficient to incite men to live moral lives, purely from a desire
to accomplish this end. But Professor Huxley, the leader of this
Agnostic school, has himself shown that this theory is wholly
inadequate and ineffective. Instead of finding such progress
exemplified in history as would incite men to worship humanity,
to live for humanity for humanity’s sake, the results of his study
are declared by himself to have proved unutterably saddening;
and, whatever their real merits may be, his words will doubtless
have due weight with Mr. Watts:
“ Out of the darkness of pre-historic ages man emerges with
the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute,
only more intelligent than the other brutes; a blind prey to im
pulses which, as often as not, lead him to destruction; a victim
to endless illusions which, as often as not, make his mental exist
ence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren
toil and battle. He attains a certain degree of physical comfort,
and develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such
favourable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and
then, for thousands and thousansd of years, struggles with vary-
�‘22
DEBATE ON SECULARISM,
ing fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, bloodshed and
misery, to. maintain himself at this point against the greed and
the ambition of his fellow-men. He makes a point of killing or
otherwise persecuting all those who try to get him to move on;
and when he has moved on a step foolishly confers post-mortem
deification on his victims. He exactly repeats the process with
all who want to move a step yet further. And the best men of
the best epoch are simply, those who make the fewest blunders
and commit the fewest sins.....................I know of no study so
unutteiably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity as
it is set forth in the annals of history 5 . . . . £and] when the
Positivists order men to worship Humanity—that is to say, to
®,dore the generalized conception of men, as they ever have been,
and probably ever will be—I must reply that I could just as
soon bow down and worship the generalized conception of a
‘ wilderness of apes.’ ”
But let us admit that from a scientific study of the history of
mankind—in a word, that from human experience it has been
ascertained that certain lines of conduct must be adhered to in
order to conserve the best interests of society as a whole. Society
may enact certain laws embodying that code of morals, and affix
pains and penalties for their transgression ; yet our conception
of the necessity for such laws is very different indeed from our
sense of duty, of personal obligation to pursue a certain line of
conduct in strict conformity with them. The “ must ” and the
“ ought ” are nowise identical. Passive obedience to an external
law differs altogether from a voluntary and active obedience to
a law that is internal. The Secularist fails utterly to give any
satisfactory account of duty; and we make bold to assert that
no satisfactory account ever has been found beyond the pale of
Theism.
But before proceeding further we must congratulate Mr. Watts
upon having radically improved his Secularist code since the
composition of his first article. Benevolence and self-sacrifice
have now for the first time in the discussion found a place among
the Secularist virtues. The Secularist code is without doubt ap
proaching completeness ! To Mr. Watts some credit is due for
having accepted the Christian code as his own, even though his
ethical system is deficient in all that energises and ennobles its
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
prototype. Does Mr. Watts deny that his is, in the main, the
Christian code ? We repeat, as an historical fact, that Christian
teaching first stamped benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the
moral consciousness of the race. It was Christ who first taught >
that he who loseth his life shall find it, that life should consist not in getting for self but in doing for others. For the duty of
benevolence and self-sacrifice, Secularism has, and can find, no
satisfactory explanation. Acting the part of an intellectual
Ananias it cloaks itself in the garb of Christian ethics, while.
dishonestly refusing to pay the only possible price, belief in the
existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe. Secularism
virtually admits that we ought to do something which many
leave undone, and which involves in the doing a painful struggle,
amounting even to self-sacrifice to do. We enquire, when and
why should we undertake this struggle ? Whenever necessity
calls, says Mr. Watts. Which merely amounts to the declaration
that when it is necessary that others should be happy, it is ne
cessary that I should be miserable. But of this necessity Secu
larism gives no satisfactory explanation ! On the one hand is
the way of self-indulgence and of pleasure, on the other the way
of pain and struggle, self-sacrifice, yea, even to the death. Though
human experience may say that it is necessary for the good of
the race that I should follow the path of pain, yet Secularism
leaves unexplained the crucial mystery—that I feel that I ought
to follow this path, not for the public good so much as for my
own good—that though in the struggle I lose my life I shall
nevertheless find it again. The mystery of that word “ ought ”
has never yet been fully explained outside the pale of Christen
dom. Secularism, profiting from prevalent Christian teaching,
may point out what its duties are ; but it fails utterly to create
an all-powerful desire to do them.
And just here it is admissible to revert to a question which Mr.
Watts propounds: “ Did Kant admit that by reason the existence
of God and the belief in immortality can be demonstrated ? ”
Certainly not. He did not admit that these facts could be de
monstrated any more than that the law of the uniformity of
nature can be demonstrated, or than Mr. Watts can demonstrate
�24
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
that his own father once had an existence. Mr. Watts must
know that he cannot, without making a vital assumption, demon
strate to me the fact of his own existence. All existence is
supernatural; phenomena, as made known to the consciousness
through the senses, is alone natural. What Kant did admit is
briefly this: “ My moral nature is such—I possess such a sense
of obligation and feel such imperious calls to holiness—that
unless there be a God and an immortality of the soul I can find
no explanation for it.” Nor does such a method of demonstra
tion differ essentially from that pursued by the natural scientist.
Prof. Huxley has told us that from the nature of ratiocination
it is obvious that it must start from axioms which cannot be
demonstrated by ratiocination, and that in science it must start
from “ one great act of faith ”—faith in the uniformity of
nature.
“ If there be a physical necessity,” says he, “ it is that a stone
unsupported must fall to the ground. But what is all that we
know and can know about this phenomena ? Simply that in all
human experience stones have fallen to the ground under these
conditions; that we have not the smallest reason for believing
that any stone so circumstanced will not fall to the ground ; and
that we have, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it
will so fall.”
From the experience of a stone falling we, by “ one great act
of faith ” in the uniformity of nature, a belief that is neither
demonstrated nor demonstrable, we reach the law of gravitation,
an axiom of natural science. The scientist finds that only by
assuming the fact of the uniformity of nature by this “ one
great act of faith,” can the universe of nature be satisfactorilyexplained. Theologic Religion, to use the pertinent words of
W. H. Malock, replies in like manner : “ And I, too, start with
faith in one thing. I start with a faith which you, too, profess
to hold—faith in the meaning of duty and the infinite import
ance of human life ; and out of that faith my whole fabric of
certainties, one after the other, is reared by the hand of reason.
Do you ask for verification ? I can give you one only which you
may take or leave as you choose. Deny the certainties which I
declare to be certain—deny the existence of God, man’s freedom
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
25-
and immortality, and by no other conceivable hypothesis can you
vindicate for man’s life any possible meaning, or save it from the
degradation at which you profess to feel so aghast.” There is
no other way by which the dignity of life may be vindicated!
Our beliefs in the existence of God and in the immortality of
the soul are facts ascertained by the same method and accepted
for the same necessary reasons, and by an act of faith, in like
manner as the law of the uniformity of nature is ascertained
and accepted.
If Secularism accepts the teachings of natural science, it is only
by exercising Huxley’s “great act of faith.” This Christian law
of self-sacrifice which Secularism enjoins, finds its validity and
authority only in a similar act of faith. Does not all meta
physics serve to show that the belief in the existence of nature,
as well as in our own existence, rests on a similar act of faith ?
In fact, no less profound a philosopher than Berkeley has said
“ I see God as truly as I see my neighbour.” What I know
is that I have certain sensations which I call sights and sounds..
What I infer or reason is the existence of a being—my neigh
bour. In fact, does not that very act of reason rest upon the
assumption, an ultimate unreasoned fact, of the existence of my
self ? It is precisely here in self-consciousness, that Descartes,
Sir William Hamilton' Jacobi, and others, have found the
fulcrum for the demonstration of the divine existence. In like
manner by faith alone we choose the right and shun the wrong.
I see that A is higher and better than B, and has the right to
me; and I surrender myself to it in reverential obedience,
though no science proves it, or no expediency makes it a duty
to me. By faith alone Mr. Watts accepts the teachings of
natural science. By faith alone can he accept the Christian law
of self-sacrifice. What we demand to know now is, by what
authority and on what evidence Mr. Watts would thus determine
and limit the bounds of faith to science and to Secularist
morality ?
To Mr. Watts’ general description of the needs of mankind
we are not disposed to take special exception. Man’s physical
needs no doubt find their satisfaction in food, drink, sleep, exer
�26
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
cise, etc,
Man’s intellectual needs find their satisfaction in
science, that is, knowledge in its widest signification. Man’s
aesthetic needs find their satisfaction in art. Man’s social and
political needs find their satisfaction in the family, in society,
and in the state. Man’s moral needs find satisfaction in right
living. Man’s religious needs are satisfied by religion. But the
significant fact is that Secularism, which has proposed to satisfy
all the needs of mankind, finds no place in Mr. Watts’ category.
In our opinion the omission is clearly vindicated by the fact that
Secularism, as a distinct form of science, or as a distinct faith,
has no proper place, either in the economy of knowledge or in
the economy of religion. To declare that Secularism can satisfy
our religious aspirations, and gratify our religious emotions, is
an obvious disregard for the meaning of the terms. A man’s
clothes may remain after his body has mouldered away, but
religious emotions, apart from a belief in God, are but the shrouds
of a ghost. The laws of heredity may transmit them to the
second or third generation, yet, except their object be revived,
their ultimate extinction is inevitable. But are we to understand
that Mr. Watts would substitute Secularism for theologic religion?
With equal authority and no less presumption would another
substitute sensuality for science. For a truth, our intellectual
needs require for their satisfaction the focussing of the results of
all science, of all knowledge. Such satisfaction theologic religion
supplies in the conception of God. This is the ultimate intellec
tual principle as the law of gravitation is the ultimate physical
principle. Secularism accepts the latter, but it utterly destroys
its usefulness in rejecting the first.
MR. WATTS’ THIRD ARTICLE.
In my last article, being anxious to give my reasons for affirming
the latter clause of the proposition in debate, I was necessitated
through the limited space at my disposal to omit a reply to many
of the criticisms offered by the Editor of the Evening Mail in
his first article. The reader is particularly requested to again
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
27
read that article and then note my answer here given. For the
sake of brevity the paragraphs containing the criticisms will be
taken in order. First, as to what my opponent has said upon
Secular principles:—
1. Herein there is no “ assumption,” but a definite declaration
“ that the present life is the only one of which we have any
knowledge.” If my opponent possess a knowledge of another
life, I shall be glad to ascertain what it is. The existence of
belief upon this subject is not denied ; but many persons are un
able to discover sufficient evidence to justify their acceptance of
such belief. If to some individuals the doctrine of immortality
appears true, Secularism does not interfere with their convictions.
The “ validity ” of our claim that the “ concerns of this life ”
should command “our earnest attention” consists in the fact
that its duties are known and their results are apparent in this
world; whereas, if there be a future existence, its duties and
results can only be understood in a “ world that is to come.”
Our•“ obligation ” to live is derived from the fact, that being here
and being recipients of certain advantages from society, we deem
it a duty to l'epay by life-service the benefits thus received. To
avoid this obligation either by self-destruction, or by any other
means, except driven to such a course by “ irresistible forces,”
would be, in our opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable.
2. It is true that “ reason alone is not the sole basis ” of the
Secularist’s guide; hence, we avail ourselves of the aid of experi
ence allied with moral and intellectual culture. The “ evidence ”
that these constitute, although not a perfect guide, the best
known to us, is shown in the absence of a better one. If my op
ponent is aware of a guide that is superior to the one we offer,
let him mention it, but until he does we are justified in claiming
ours as the “ best.”
3. By “ duty ” we mean an obligation to perform actions that
have a tendency to promote the welfare of others, as well as that
of ourselves. The phrase “ self-imposed duties ” is not mine.
Obligations are imposed upon us by the very nature of things
and the requirements of society.
4. Secular principles nowhere teach that “ knowledge and
�28
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
justice are alone sufficient” to secure the well-being of the indi
vidual and society. I have never made such an assertion either
in this or in any other debate. Certainly, benevolence and
self-sacrifice are, as Secularism teaches, sometimes “ essentials ”
in the battle of life.
5. The “ validity ” of this principle appears to me to be ex
ceedingly clear, in the fact that actions which conduce to general
and personal improvement must be a benefit to the human race.
All modern legislation that is approved by the general public is
based upon the usefulness of actions. Even Christ is said in the
New Testament to have taught a similar principle. [See Matt.
7 : 16-20 : 25 : 34-40; 1 Tim. 1: 8.] To borrow an idea from
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, that which is good both for the
swarm and for the bee must be of reasonable service to the com
munity, and, inasmuch as the fifth Secular principle inculcates
such service, it is “ based on reason.”
6. No doubt it depends upon “ the nature of the man” as to
how far scientific appliances “ are complete and satisfactory.”
This is one reason why Secularists recognise the necessity of
moral and intellectual cultivation. It enables individuals the
better to receive the application of science. Secularism does not
by any means recommend the regulation of life by “ Hottentot
morality,” with which science has little or nothing to do. The
Hottentot is a specimen of the influence of some other <c Provi
dence ” than that of science.
So much for my opponent’s criticism of Secular principles.
Now, as to his comments upon our teachings in the same article.
1. The Secular “ obligation to speak the truth ” is obtained
from experience, which teaches that lying and deceit tend to
destroy that confidence between man and man which has been
found to be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian intercourse. It would indeed “ surprise ” me to find that
the same reason makes it an “ obligation to believe in the exist
ence of God.” Truth fortunately is not the monopoly of Theism.
2. If it could be shown that Secular teachings were “ not new
to Christian morality,” it would not thereby invalidate their
force from a Secular standpoint. It should be remembered that
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
29
Secularism is eclectic, and selects from many sources whatever is
good or useful. The truth is, however, that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only “ new to
Christianity,” but they are the very opposite to what is taught
by orthodox Christians.
3. Of course it may be “ disputed that actions are of more
consequence than beliefs; ” but to dispute a fact does not neces
sarily destroy it. While “ beliefs may be the ultimate source of
actions,” it is the actions, nevertheless, that affect society.
4. True, the proverb that “ prevention is better than cure ” is
no “ Secular novelty.” Secularism adopts that which experience
has proved to be useful rather than that which is novel.
5. If persecution “ is not now upheld in this free country,” it
is because the Secular tendencies of the age will not permit it.
Where the Church has the power, even now, it practises perse
cution, as my opponent would speedily discover were he a
Secular propagandist. If he has any doubt upon this point,
numerous instances can be given him where unbelievers in
Christianity in this “ free country ” have had to encounter a
variety of petty acts of persecution in consequence of their hold
ing heretical opinions. Not long since in Halifax, where my
opponent resides, efforts were made by the Christian party to
prevent me having a hall to lecture in.
6. I admit that “ thought is natural,” but again I ask for evi
dence that the “ thinker is supernatural.” Why does my opponent
remain silent upon this point, introduced by himself ?
7. Exception is taken to my phrase, “ law of mental science,”
but my opponent admits the very point for which I contend in
this matter. He says experience teaches “ that men think dif
ferently about the same thing.” Exactly, and from the same
monitor, assisted by the process of reasoning, we learn that uni
formity of opinion is impossible, and why it is so, and this con
stitutes a part of “ mental science.” The philosophy of Secularism
comes in here and says all honest and intelligent opinions
should be welcomed as an advantage, and no penalty for unbelief
should be inflicted either in this or in any other world.
8. It is misleading to assert, as my opponent does, that, accord
�30
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ing to Methodist morality, “ the end of life ” is human improve
ment. Methodism goes farther than this and teaches that the
true object of life is to secure the belief in and hope of a future
life of blissful immortality. It also inculcates that mundane
affairs are only to be regarded as being of secondary importance.
For such teachings the Methodists have the sanction of the NewTestament. [See Matt. 6 : 19-25, 31-34; 16 : 26 ; Col. 3:2; 1
John 2: 15.]
9. In the application of the eclectic process to existing systems
of morality, “ Mr. Watts’ dilemma ” is not apparent. He does
“ accept in part a system of morality which all [many] accept.”
The validity of such selection is found in its usefulness, while
the invalidity of the portions he rejects is discovered in their
uselessness, and in some instances their positively injurious
character for the practical purposes of life.
10. Mr. Watts does not “ refuse to think ” of the problems of
the existence of God and a future state. He has thought of
these subjects seriously and impartially for nearly forty years,
and as a result he has come to the conclusion that the Secular
position in reference to both questions is the logical one. Being
unable to inform, Secularism does refuse to dogmatise upon
matters in reference to which it can impart no information, and
for the same reason as my opponent’s “ savage ” would “ refuse ”
to inform us of the moral principle, namely, that he knows
nothing about it, although the said savage belongs to a race said
to have been created “ in the image of God.” The position of the
Secularist here is that of the Agnostic: he neither affirms nor
denies, and in not denying the Secularist remains open to con
viction, being ever ready to receive whatever evidence may be
forthcoming. In the meantime, if there be a God of love and of
justice, and a desirable immortality, Secularism prescribes such a
course of action during life as should win the approval of the
one and secure the advantages of the other.
We now come to the consideration of the last article by the
editor of the Evening Mail, and without “ being intentionally
offensive,” I “ must confess ” that, as a controversial document it
is exceedingly defective, being very assertive and, in many in
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
31
stances, irrelevant to the proposition under discussion. I was
“ very suspicious at the outset ” that in his opposition to Secu
larism my opponent would not prove a's formidable adversary,”
and his “ second article has only served to confirm the impres
sion.” It is rather difficult to decide which is the more conspicu
ous in his “ reply,” his sins of omission or those of commission.
The attentive readers of this debate are requested to note the
persistent silence of my opponent in reference to most of the
questions put to him in my last article. The questions there
submitted involved “ the vital issues at stake in this discussion,”
and yet he has avoided noticing nearly the whole of them. Has
he discovered that silence is the better part of valour ? In my
previous article, paragraph four, proof was requested of the
assertion that I had misrepresented Secularism, and that its
teachings differed from its principles; a definition was also soli
cited of the term “ mind in the sixth paragraph, nine import
ant questions were submitted; and in paragraph seven, proof was
given of the validity of Secular principles. To all these, with
two exceptions, be it observed, ray opponent has not even at
tempted a reply.
Instead of grappling with “ the vital issues at stake,” what
has my opponent done ? After a misapplication of the incident
of “ raising the Devil,” and a few, probably unintentional, mis
representations, he indulges in some well-known Theistic and
Christian platitudes, which by his own request should have been
excluded from this debate. As to the jest of “ raising the Devil,”
if my opponent will again read my application of the story, he
may see that the monarch of the lower regions was not induced
to appear through my being called from my sanctum, but in con
sequence of the force of the definitions that were presented at
the command of my antagonist. This slight correction, to use a
humorous phrase, “ plays the devil ” with what no doubt was
intended by my opponent to be a harmless joke. True, I am a
“less formidable adversary” than his “ Satanic Majesty,” for “if
the traditions brought down from the olden times may be relied
upon as accurate,” that gentleman would have soon settled the
Editor of the Mail, by giving him a warm reception in apart
�-82
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ments where he would have had no opportunity for cool reflection
upon the errors he had made and the shortcomings that he had
manifested.
But, to be serious. Will my opponent name what “ extraneous
matter ” has been introduced into this debate upon my part, and
wherein I have “ deemed it expedient to avoid as much as pos
sible ” the “ issues at stake.” Will he also state in what part of
my last article I appeared apprehensive lest my free expression
of opinion should subject me “ to religious persecution,” etc. ? It
must be repeated that proof, not mere groundless assertion, is
required in debate. Perhaps, when my antagonist penned these
allegations, he was not quite free from the influence of the “ arch
deceiver.”
It is to be regretted that my opponent, in his last article, did
not confine himself to Secularism, as he agreed to do. In his
original challenge to debate with me he wrote : “ Secularism, and
not Christianity, is on trial before the bar of public opinion, and
it is obviuosly out of place to introduce irrelevant discussions of
the merits or demerits of Christianity,” etc. {Evening Mail, July
16th, 1889.] It would be interesting to learn why this change
of front has taken place. Let it be distinctly understood that I
have not the slightest objection to discuss the irrelevant matter
that has been introduced by my opponent, at the proper time.
At present, my business is to show the reasonableness and suffi
ciency of Secularism. When this debate is finished I shall be
ready to do my best to demonstrate that Christianity is thor
oughly unreasonable and quite inadequate to meet the modern
needs of mankind; also that Agnosticism is preferable to Chris
tian Theism. If my opponent, or any of his representative
colleagues, will accept an invitation to discuss these two ques
tions, either orally or in writing, I am at their service. Nothing
would be more easy, in such a debate, than for one to prove the
complete fallacy of the supposed validity of the Christian’s
ethical code, that the obligation of man and his sense of duty
find an explanation in the “ direct commands of God,” and the
very reckless statement that “ Christian teaching first stamped
benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the moral consciousness of the
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
33
race.” There is not a particle of truth in these wild assertions,
and to me it is marvellous how any man of intelligence could
entertain such palpable delusions.
My opponent says that Secularism teaches that, because society
is constantly improving, “ this is sufficient to incite men to live
moral lives.” Secularism enjoins more than this, namely, that
during the process of improvement truth, justice, love, and ethi
cal purity should adorn men’s lives. Such nobility of character
would enable us to make the best of this life, and at the same
time to secure the felicity of a future life if there be one.
I perfectly agree with the point that Prof. Huxley enforces in
the extract given by my opponent. What the Professor says is
no argument against Secularism, but it rather tells against
Theism. Furthermore, the Professor contends in his works,—
his “ Lay Sermons,” for instance,—that during the progress of
the human race theology and orthodox teachings have been a
mighty obstacle to its onward career.
I have already given the Secularist’s account of duty, and
when my opponent asserts “ that no satisfactory account ever has
been found beyond the pale of Theism,” he repeats an orthodox
error which has been discarded long since by the leaders of
modern thought. Duty involves morality, and it has been ad
mitted again and again, even by eminent Christians, that the
moral actions of a man do not necessarily depend on his belief in
God. Atheists have been and are as good and useful members
of society as Theists. Jeremy Taylor, Blair, Hooker, and Chal
mers have all admitted that it is possible for a man to be moral
independently of any religious belief; and the Bishop of Here
ford, in his Bampton Lectures, says : “ The principles of morality
are founded in our nature independently of any religious belief,
«!,nd are, in fact, obligatory even upon the Atheist.”
As to the word “ ought.” The only explanation orthodox
Christianity gives to this term is pure selfishness. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through him
you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand, Secularism
finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very nature of things, as
involving duty, and implying that something is due to others.
�34
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
As Mr. J. M. Savage aptly puts it: “ Man ought—what ?—ouo-ht
to fulfil the highest possibility of his being; ought to be a man •
ought to be all and the highest that being a man implies. Why ?
That is his nature. He ought to fulfil the highest possibilities
of his being; ought not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because
there is something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he ought to
be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust the possibilities
of his nature: he is capable of being something more, something
fhigher than a brain. We say he ought to be a moral being.
Why ? Because it is living out his nature to be a moral being.
He ought to live as high, grand, and complete a life as it is pos
sible for him to live, and he ought to stand in such relation to
his fellow-men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this and this
only is developing the full and complete stature of a man, and
he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest sense of the word
.until he is that and does that; he is only a fragment of a man
■so long as he is less and lower.”
Of course Secularists accept the “one great act of faith,”
because experience teaches the necessity of such. There is, how•ever, this great difference between Secular and theologic faith,
the one is based upon experience and the other on conjecture,
the one upon what we know and the other upon what we
surmise. Secularism accepts the first for the reason that it has
an experimental basis for its “ authority ” and utilitarian “ evi
dence ” as to its results.
From a Secularistic standpoint sensuality could not be substi
tuted for science “ with equal authority ” that Secularism could
be put in the place of theologic religion. Sensuality encourages
the lowest of human passions which are injurious to society,
while Secularism fosters the noblest aspirations of our nature,
which are beneficial to the general good of all.
My opponent’s objections to Secularism have now been
answered, and an invitation has been tendered him to discuss his
system based on Christianity and Theism. It remains for him
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
to accept or to refuse the opportunity now offered him to defend
his faith, as I have endeavoured to defend mine.
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” THIRD AND LAST
REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
Although the Evening Mail had considered this debate at an
end in view of Mr. Watts’ delay in replying to our last article
(Sept. 6th) it is nevertheless with pleasure that we publish his
reply at this late date, more especially as we are personally
■assured that the delay on his part was owing to unavoidable
circumstances.
In the limited space at our disposal it would not be possible
and probably not profitable, to follow out every side issue that
may perchance have been raised during this discussion, though
we will endeavor to pay due attention to those of Mr. Watts’
arguments which are not altogether irrelevant to the vital ques
tion : Is Secularism sufficient to satisfy the needs of mankind ?
Mr. G. J. Holyoake is quoted by Mr. Watts in his second article
as saying :
“It is asked will Secularism meet all the wants of human nature.
To this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe in
it, else it would never exist. . . . We have no wants and wish to
have none which truth will not satisfy.”
But this is merely reasoning in a circle in the first instance
and begging the question in the second. When Secularism is
boldly offered to the Christian world as a substitute for preva
lent religious beliefs, with the express declaration that “Secular
ism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind,” it is an obvious
avoidance of the issue to meet the doubting enquirer with an
illogical argument such as this :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it, else it
would not exist.
Secularism is an existing system.
Therefore Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind
�36
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
This is obviously a non sequitur. It would be quite as conelusive to assert that:
Buddhism is an existing system.
Therefore Buddhism is sufficient to meet the needs of man
kind.
Or to syllogise thus :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it.
Die Schopenhauerische Philosophio is a system.
Therefore Schopenhauer’s pessimism is sufficient to meet.the
needs of mankind.
In the second instance, the reasoning of my Secularist friend
is equally inconclusive, involving as it does a glaring petitio
principii such as this :
Truth will satisfy all the wants (needs?) which we have in the
present or wish to have in the future.
Secularism is Truth.
Therefore Secularism will satisfy all our needs.
Yet it is obvious at a glance that right here Messrs. Holyoake
and Watts make the unwarranted assumption that Secularism is
Truth—the very point at issue. For what we demand to know
at the outset is, by what criterion can the Secularist discriminate
between the true and the false, in order that we, by this same
standard, may measure the truth or the falsity of Secularist prin
ciples and teachings ?
Again, when pressed on this point, Mr. Watts replies in his
second article:
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular ■ principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity consists
in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human needs ? In
the second paragraph of my opening article I mentioned one fact to
prove the necessity of Secular philosophy, namely, inasmuch as moral
conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society, Secularism has
been found necessary to enable those persons who could not accept
orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere
principles to direct and sustain them in the correct performance of
iheir respective duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto
remained silent.”
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ST
This reasoning is far from conclusive. The argument em
ployed by Mr. Watts resolves itself into a syllogism such as the
following:
Moral conduct -is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Orthodox Christianity cannot be accepted by a society of Secu
larists, so-called, as a moral guide to direct and sustain them
in the correct discharge of their duties—i. e. in moral con
duct.
Therefore the teachings and principles of Secularism are suffi
cient to satisfy all human needs.
Or: Therefore orthodox Christianity should forswear its beliefs
and accept Secularism as a guide to moral conduct.
The Secularist argument might also be stated thus:
A body, called Secularists, have accepted certain principles and
teachings as their guide to all moral conduct.
Moral conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Therefore, all members of society should embrace the Secularist
guide.
So, we repeat, with equal authority- and no less presumption,
might a South African native contend that Hottentot modes of
■life and Hottentot morality are sufficient to satisfy the needs of
this nineteenth century civilisation.
Now, we desire it to be clearly understood that we do not seek
to disparage the motives of any body of men who, finding that
they can no longer accept Christianity and its doctrinal teach
ings, and yet conscious that “moral conduct is indispensable to
the well-being of society,” resolve, after due consideration, to
place before themselves certain “principles to direct and sustain
in the correct performance of their respective duties.” In one of
his early discourses with Charles Bradlaugh, Mr. Holyoake, to
whom Secularism owes its name, admits that he was not unin
fluenced by such considerations of expediency in formulating the
Secularist principles and teachings. He said :
“ They were principles which we had acquired by the slow accretion
■of controversy, by contesting for them from platform to platform all
over the country; and, when they were drawn up, I submitted them
�88
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
in the aggregate form, many years after they had been separately for
mulated, to Mr. J. S. Mill, and asked him whether or not, in his judg
ment, we had made such a statement of Secular principles as wereworthy to stand as self-defensive principles of the working class, as an
independent mode of opinion which would no longer involve them in
the necessity of taking on their shoulders the responsibilities of an.
Atheistic or Infidel propagandism, except when it suited the purpose
of a member to do it.”
This desire to protect the working classes against the dire
consequences that too often issue from a rash espousal of Agnos
tic or Atheistic views, which led Mr. Holyoake to formulate a
body of arbitrarily selected principles for their guidance in tho
correct performance of certain duties, was without doubt a
commendable one. And so long as the Secularists confine their
energies to constructive efforts of this nature, we heartily wish
them “ God speed ! ” Though their methods may be less effi
cacious than those employed by Christian philanthropists, their
efforts in this direction will, though their sphere is circumscribed,
no doubt conserve the interests of morality. But when with a
presumption that is not born of knowledge and discretion,
Secularism impudently declares that its trite teachings—which
were arbitrarily selected and arranged at a particular crisis, to
administer, even though inadequately, to the needs of a limited
class who had been seduced from their early faith—are suf
ficient to meet the intellectual, moral, religious and aesthetic
needs of the whole human race, we may be pardoned if we find
ourselves unable to treat so preposterous a proposition with be
coming seriousness.
However, upon examination of the ten teachings of Secularism
which Mr. Watts has kindly outlined for us in his first article
we were forced to conclude that they were, of themselves, of
slight importance to this controversy, inasmuch as they containvery little that is new to Christian morality, and were chiefly
more or less crudely expressed tenets of an ethical system which
is recognised by the majority of the Christian world, and to
which Secularism can make no special claim. To invalidate-
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
39
this argument, and, ostensibly, to show that Secularism is a,
more excellent system, Mr. Watts retorts that the following five
Secularist teachings are not only new to Christianity but the
very opposite of what is taught by orthodox Christians:
“4. That the best means of securing this improvement (i. e. render
ing depraved conditions impossible) are self-reliance, moral culture,
physical development, intellectual discipline, and whatever else is
found necessary to secure this object provided our actions do not
unjustly and unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of others.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“ 5. That the disbelief in Christianity, or in other systems of the
ology, may be as much a matter of honest conviction as the belief in
it or them.”
“ 6. That persecution for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of
theology is a crime against social and an insult to mental freedom.”
“8. That a well spent life, guided and controlled by the highest
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and happy
death.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“10. That from a domestic standpoint there should be no attempt
at superiority between husband and wife; that equality should be the
emblem of every home; and that the fireside should be hallowed by
mutual fidelity, affection, happiness and the setting of an example
worthy of children’s emulation.”
“ The truth is,” says Air. Watts. “ that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians.” Mr. Watts’ statement is worthy
of a denial as emphatic as can courteously be conveyed in the
language of debate. With regard to the 10th teaching of Secu
larism it is only necessary to refer to 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 ; Eph. 5:
22-33; Col. 3 : 18-19 ; Titus 2 : 4-5 ; 1 Peter 3. And if there is
found to be any discrepancy between the teachings of Mr.
Watts and those of Paul, we are disposed to accept the apostle’s,
even on the ground of utility solely. With regard to the 8th
teaching, we need only to say that Christ taught the highest
�40
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
morality. With regard to the 6th, that Christ never counten
anced persecution, except to turn the other cheek when first
smitten on the right! With regard to the 4th, that these virtues
are not only taught, but repentance and forgiveness for past
sins, and pureness of heart and holiness of life are inculcated
by the Christian, and accredited by personal experience, as the
only efficacious means of “rendering depraved conditions im
possible.
The 5th is more difficult of discussion in the limited
space at our disposal. Christ taught no “ system of theology.”
But it is clear that positive disbelief in the cardinal doctrine of
the existence of God, for instance, can never be a matter of
honest conviction. Even though unbelief may, in exceptional
eases, be justified, yet there can be no grounds for positive dis
belief. That there is no God is a negative that is incapable of
proof. The verdict may be that the existence of a God is not
proven; it can never bethat it is disproven. ' Even Mr. Holyoake, of whom Mr. Watts is proud to be known as a disciple,
has admitted (Reasoner xi., 15,232) that “ denying implies in
finite knowledge as to the ground of disproof.” The human
mind may be reduced to the dreary condition of saying “ there
is no knowing whether there be a God or not,” “ it doth not yet
appear.” Yet we repeat that positive, active disbelief in this
cardinal doctrine can never be a matter of honest conviction.
And furthermore it is clear that no sooner does the unbeliever
undertake to undermine the positive Atheistic belief of another
mind than he takes upon himself the terrible responsibility of
presuming to say in his heart that “ there is no God !”
We have thus far examined the five teachings which are alleged
to be “new to Christianity,” and which are, in fact, alleged to
be “ the very opposite to what is taught by orthodox Christians.”
From the analysis which we have made it will appear, we think,
to every reader of ordinary intelligence—that the Secularist
claim that its principles are new to Christianity and opposed to
Christian teaching is utterly untenable, if we except its affirma
tion that disbelief may be an honest conviction—an affirmation
•on the part of Secularism which is a self-evident absurdity. This
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
41
then is the proposition that Secularism makes to Christianity.
“ It is our peculiar glory that we admit to our fold all who deny
the existence of God. Do ye then forswear Christianity, for
swear your positive belief in God, and become partakers with
Atheists of this glory of unbelief !” And to make his meaning
clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, Mr. Watts has closed his
third article with the bald, bold affirmation that Christianily is
quite inadequate to meet the needs of mankind, and that Ag
nosticism is preferable to Christianity ; though the sole claim as
to the superiority of Secularist teachings, is made on the ground
that it recognises positive disbelief. The basis of this strange
and unnatural fellowship between the Theist and the Atheist, the
believer and the infidel, is thus set forth in Mr. Watts’ first
article :
“ Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistic profession as the
basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists ■ but it is not con
sidered that a man should accept Atheism to enable him to become a
Secularist. The Secularist platform is sufficiently broad to admit the
fellowship of Atheists or non-orthodox Theists.”
If Secularists who believe in God, actually associate themselves
with Atheists—pardon us if we decline to accept an affirmation
to that effect!—they must be prepared to subject themselves to
the restraints which society in self-preservation is compelled to
place upon the active propagandists of Atheism. For “what
concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel ?” For if Mr. Watts in his definition
of the ‘ basis of Secularism,” and in his declaration in his
second article—that there should be no persecution, or social
ostracism for unbelief—means to assert that society has no right
to protectitself from the hopeless national ruin that the triumph
of Atheism would bring in its train, then we must most em
phatically dissent from his views so expressed. Yet the penal
or social prohibition of an active propagation of Atheistic views,
which is necessary for the protection of society, should be care
fully distinguished from religious or any other form of persecu
tion. Such 'a distinction is recognised by the common law of
�42
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
England, as Mr. Bradlaugh has had the temerity to discover, and
is certainly justifiable on grounds which are recognised even in
Secularist morality—the preservation of the social organism.
This then is our reply to Mr. Watts: All the positive truth of
your Secularism, all the science, all the social duty is mine no
less than yours, though I utterly reject all that is peculiar to
your Secularism, and maintain that man has no higher duties
than those which I owe to God, and to the Moral Idea which
commands my unconditional obedience ; and that it is sheer folly
for a man to live as if death were the end of all.
But what is the criterion by which Mr. Watts would discrimi
nate between right and wrong, the moral and the immoral ? Let
us examine the point more closely ? Mr. Watts says in his
second article that: “Reason is the standard whereby we can
discriminate between and judge right from wrong.” And, al
though he has thus made Reason the standard
w
* hereby
we dis
criminate, he has also said in his first article that Reason is “ the
power which discriminates,” “ the ability * * * * to dis
tinguish truth from error.” Yet, herein, Mr. Watts claims for
human reason those absolute functions which Theists assert of
the Divine Reason. Human reason, he would have us believe,
discriminates between right and wrong by the sole aid of its
own supreme light. Yet herein there is affirmed of the human
mind an attribute which is declared to be inconceivable when
predicted of the Divine Mind ! Nay more! Mr. Watts in open
ing the debate endorsed Hooker’s saying that “Reason gives us
knowledge,” and that “itis by reason alone that we distinguish
truth from falsehood.” Absolute reason, it is clear, cannot be
predicted of the human mind; since human knowledge is ad
mittedly very imperfect. But whence this idea of absolute
reason, of perfect knowledge, of truth unmixed with error,
which Mr. Watts, wittingly or not, assumes to exist ?
Again in his last article, Mr. Watts refers to “ truth, justice,
love and ethical purity” and “ nobility of character,” absolute
and infinite, to the realisation of which we are impelled. The
reference does credit to his heart, but not to his intelligence 1.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
43;
For what are these but attributes which are predicated by the
Theist of the Divine Ideal, the Deity, towards whom Mr. Watts,
as a Secularist, affects to assume an attitude of utter indiffer
ence, neither affirming or denying his existence ?
Again, Mr. Watts quotes with approbation a passage from Mr.
Savage, which we too most heartily endorse ; but which finds no
place in the tenets of consistent Secularism. Read that passage !
Man ought to fulfil “ the highest possibilities of his being ! ”
What are these but the capacities which are gradually realised
by us in time, by means of a.progress of personal character to
personal character—which capacities are eternally realized for
and in the Eternal Mind ? What are these possibilities toward
which we are impelled, but the realisation of the Moral Idea of
our own moral perfection ? But why ought man to fulfill these
possibilities ? Let Mr. Watts’ own quotation answer ! “ Because
there- is something in him more than animal ?
Because “ he
is capable of something more, Something higher than brain !”'
What is this occult and mysterious something, “more than
animal ” and “ higher than brain ? ” What can it be but the
human soul within us, with its infinity of moral and spiritual
possibilities, and its deep yearnings after God and an immortality?
Who, that has experienced the agony of soul that permeated the
very centres of our being in the more memorable crises of this
human life, can sincerely say with the Secularist that the needs
of his intellectual, moral and spiritual nature are satisfied by
assuming an attitude of indifference toward God and immortality?
Who can disregard that soul’s divine relationship, order his con
duct, as the Secularist prescribes, by “ considerations which
pertain to this life alone,” and yet develop his manhood “in the
highest, truest, deepest sense of the word ? ”
We might proceed with the reflections which Mr. Savage’s
words inevitably suggest; or we might discuss at length the
minor issues that Mr. Watts has raised. But for the present let
this suffice.
Is Secularism, then, sufficient to satisfy tbe needs of mankind ?
We reply that it offers nothing to satisfy the needs of that
�44
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
SOMETHING in our nature, which is “more than animal,” and
“ higher than brain,” the human soul. Secularism in-Mr. Watts’
category of needs, recognises “ religious aspirations and emotional
gratification;” but it fails utterly to satisfy what, as human
experience in all ages will conclusively attest, is one of the
supreme needs of the soul of man,—divine consolation. Secular
ism, gives no satisfaction to our faith, our hope, our reverence,
our love, and completely severs itself from all that will develop
the higher emotional principles of human nature. Secularism
not only fails to satisfy our reason, but it is, as we have
shown, inconsistent with itself and a gross violation of
the conditions of rational belief. Moreover, it affects, toward
God and immortality, an indifference which mankind must, by
reason of the very nature of man, find it impossible to maintain.
Secularism thus ignores not only our religious, moral and intel
lectual needs; but as it fails to energise the moral and spiritual
nature of man, so in like manner it affords no inspiration to art
and literature of an elevating and purifying character. “ All
epochs,” wrote Goethe, “ in which faith, under whatever form,
has pravailed, have been brilliant, heart elevating, and fruitful,
both to contemporaries and to posterity. All epochs, on the
contrary, in which unbelief, under whatever form, has maintained
a sad supremacy, even if for the moment they glitter it with a
false splendour, vanish from the memory of posterity, because
none care to torment themselves with that which has been
barren.”
Mr. Watts in closing challenges the editor of the Evening Mail
to a second discussion of the relative merits of Christianity and
Agnosticism; but while this proposition may be entertained at
some future day, when Mr. Watts is visiting this province, its
acceptance at the present time is not practicable. In fact, unless
Mr. Watts can assure us that, having received new light on the
subject, he is prepared to advance more reasonable arguments on
behalf of Agnosticism than he has thus far presented on behalf
of Secularism, a second debate would appear quite unnecessary
and unprofitable.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
45
MR. WATTS’ CONCLUDING ARTICLE.
After a delay of over six weeks since my last article in this de
bate appeared, my respected opponent has penned his final reply
in the present discussion. I have good reasons for believing that
the delay which has arisen was caused by circumstances beyond
his control.
The reader is particularly requested to again read carefully
the whole of the debate and note in how few instances my
opponent has grappled with the main issues between us. I regret
that while I have answered every important question put to me
by the Editor' of the Mail, he has treated most of my requests
with either silence or evasion ■ and instead of combatting my
arguments he has indulged in good-natured generalisations of a
very indefinite character. He has made no attempt whatever to
verify his assertion that I did not understand Secularism, neither
has he given any other definition of that system than the one I
furnished. He has also omitted to show that Secular teachings
“ differ more or less ” from Secular principles, and in what sense
he used the term “ mind.” In my second article nine most im
portant questions were submitted to him, but with the excep
tion of one he has not taken the slightest notice of them. A
demand was made that I should deal with the word “ ought’’
and the question of duty from a Secular standpoint. I did so,
and showed that with Secularists these terms have a higher and
nobler meaning than is attached to them by orthodox Christian
ity. Furthermore, I indicated our “ one great act of faith ” and
upon what it was based ; also why sensuality could not be sub
stituted for science “ with equal authority.” To all these points
my opponent has given no attention, neither has he adduced any
proof that Secular morality, with its basis and incentives, is
defective, or that the Secular conception of human needs is
wrong. How far such an evasive mode of procedure will make
good the negative side of the proposition that we should have
discussed, the reader is left to decide for himself.
The Editor’s “ last reply ” is a peculiar specimen of contro
�-46
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
versial ingenuity, which may do “ credit to his heart, not to hi#
intelligence.” His syllogistic comments present a sad confusion
of logical precision and a lack of philosophical reasoning. The
limited space at my disposal prevents me showing the want of
harmony between the premises and the conclusions drawn. But
iperhaps such a course would be unnecessary, inasmuch as, be the
nature of the conclusions what it may, it would in no way affect
■either my quotation from Mr. G. J. Holyoake or my statement
as to moral conduct. Mr. Holyoake says that “ every system
meets the wants of those who believe in it.” It should be re
membered, however, that the adherent of the system in question
is supposed to decide for himself what his wants are. Such
wants may differ from those deemed necessary by the believer#
in other systems. Undoubtedly Buddhism is thought by the
Buddhist to be sufficient to meet his wants, just as Secularism is
regarded as being the truth by the Secularists. It is not correct
to assert that “ with equal authority and no less presumption [as
fthat of the Secularist] might a South African native contend
that Hottentot inodes of life and Hottentot morality are suffi
cient to satisfy the needs of this nineteenth century civilisation.”
No sane person within the pale of civilisation would contend
that the mode of living and the morality of the Hottentot are
sufficient for the requirements of the civilisation of the present time.
While certain human needs are universal, some “ wants,” being
the result of habit, are limited. That which may supply the
“wants ” of one race or class of persons would probably be found
inadequate in other cases. In my second article six needs were
cited which pertain to human nature in general, and to these
my opponent says that he is “ not disposed to take special excep
tion.” It was further shown in the same article wherein
Secularism was deemed sufficient to meet these needs. Instead
of meeting what was advanced upon this point, my opponent
substitutes for general needs particular “ wants ” acquired
through special training and introduces his poor Hottentot as an
illustration. Clever evasion, but most fallacious reasoning !
It is pleasing to know that the Editor of the Mail regards our
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
47
constructive efforts ” as being “ commendable,” and in my
opinion it would be well if no other mode of advocacy were ne
cessary. Unfortunately, however, theological exclusiveness and
bigotry compel us sometimes to do destructive work, in seeking
to remove from our midst all fancies, creeds and dogmas that
obstruct the carrying out of our constructive work. While shams
are regarded as realities, and falsehood is worshipped as truth, this
phase of our advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have
lost all vitality, except for evil, need to be broken up ; and theo
logies, which have hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require
to be refuted. The theologians claim to have “ the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and unless we walk in
their paths, unless we accept their authority, unless we believe
implicitly in all their teachings, we are at once condemned as a
rebel against their God, as an outcast from society, and as an
enemy of our fellow-men. While this cruel injustice exists, de
structive work will be necessary.
My opponent says that my statement that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians, “ is worthy of a denial as em
phatic as can courteously be conveyed in the language of
debate.” Let us test the value of this bold denial. The fourth
teaching enjoins self-reliance, which is the very opposite to what
is taught by Christianity. (See 2 Cor. 3:5; John 6: 44.) It
makes belief in Christ an absolute necessity and threatens
damnation for non-belief. (See Acts 4:12; 16:31; Mark 16 : 16.)
The fifth teaching proclaims the right and honesty of disbelief.
Christianity denies this (1 Tim. 6 : 3-5; 2 Cor. 6 : 14, 15 ; 2
Thess. 1 : 8), and my opponent endorses the denial, as far as the
existence of God is concerned. The sixth teaching condemns all
persecution in consequence of the rejection of any theological
doctrines; Christianity, on the contrary, enforces such persecu
tion. (See Matt. 10 : 14, 15 ; John 15 : 6; 2 John 1 : 10 ; Gal.
1 : 9.) The tenth teaching alleges that between husband and
wife equality should exist in the domestic circle. This could
�48
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
not be if the injunctions found in Eph. 5: 24 ; 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35;
1 Tim. 2 : 11, 14 ; Col. 3 : 18, were obeyed. Herein the husband
is made the master and the wife is required to obey and submit
“ in everything, ” which is not equality but abject serfdom.
It is to be regretted that my opponent condemns the “ un
natural fellowship ” of the co-operation of Secularists, Atheists
and Theists, and he actually justifies “the restraints which soci
ety in self-preservation is compelled to place upon the active
propagandists of Atheism.” Here is the old spirit of theological
persecution, which the Editor of the Mail defends by quoting
scripture, and yet he denies that Christianity teaches persecu
tion. Oh ! consistency, where is thy blush ? As to the relative
danger of Atheism and Theism, if that were the subject for
debate, I would shew that under the influence of Theism, not
Atheism, the worst crimes have been committed, the bitterest
hatred engendered, the greatest injustice perpetrated, and utter
ruin produced; and, further, that such wrongs, cruelties and
crimes were done and committed upon the authority of the
Bible.
Yes, I do say that cultivated reason aided by experience is the
standard by which we test right from wrong. If there be a
higher one, why has it not been produced ? To talk of “ divine
reason ” is to speak of that of which we have no knowledge.
Besides, if such reason did exist, how would it be judged if not
by human reason ? In case two guides for human conduct are
presented, what but human reason decides which is the better ?
It is not true that as a Christian my opponent has all the
truth and advantages of Secularism. Our system teaches that
man is not by nature necessarily depraved; that his salvation
does not depend upon Christ, that man is not bound to believe
in one particular person under penalty of eternal perdition, and
that he should have no fellowship with the unbeliever. Ac
cording to Secularism, reliance upon science is of more import
ance than having faith in the alleged supernatural; that supreme
attention should be given to the duties of this life, rather than to
the speculations in reference to any other existence, and that
�DEPATE OX SECULARISM,
49
morality is of mor consequence than belief in any of the theo
*
logical systems of the world. These are truths that no orthodox
Christian can, to be consist--nt, accept.
I am not surprised that the Editor of the Evening Mail refuses
to a -cept my invitati n co discuss Christianity and Agnosticism.
Possibly in this deba e he has learned a lesson that will induce
him in future to be more cautious both in his offensive and defen
sive policy. When, however, he intimates that he would require
“ more reasonable arguments” to deal with he reflects upon his
own lack of ability. If my arguments in this debate have been
inferior, and remaining as they do unanswered, what chance
would my opponent have with better arguments ?
In conclusion, I wish to say that as Secularists we do not treat
the existence of God and immoitality “with indifference.” We
endeavour to get all possible light upon the subject, and in the
meantime we try so to live that if God exist our conduct shall
meet with his approval, and if there be a future life, we do our
best to deserve what advantages it may possess. While many
Secularists believe both in God and immortality, others are
unable to do so, and with them moral conduct is deemed of
paramount importance, because the welfare of society demands
it, and experience proves that mankind is the better for adopting
it. If they have no “ God to fear,” they have man to love, and
rega’d for his welfare is sufficient to inspire them to seek to
perform useful deeds. Christianity—which mainly urges each
one to look after the Salvation of his own soul, since it will not
profit him if he gains the whole world and loses this—is far
inferior to Secularism in this respect; the more so as it often
engenders hatred and cruelty for difference of belief, while
Secularism has no stark creeds into which it would make all
alike compress themselves. It simply says in a purely practical
tone, Come and let us work together for the good and happiness
of us ail, whatever our speculations may be. Seculaiism does
not require the motive Christianity thinks necessary. It finds
what to its adherents appears a stronger and better motive in
the love of our fellow creatures, whom we know, than in the
�50
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
fear of God, whom we do not know. This is the essentia]
question, Shall I work in love of myself and my fellows fortheir
good and my own, or shall I work in fear of a Supernatural
Biing unknown to me ? I answer, I love those whom I see and
know, and will work with and for them ; I cannot love one whom
I neither see nor know and if he is, as my opponent believes,
almighty, he can want neither me nor any one else to work with
or for him ; and his purposes, moreover, must be quite beyond
our guessing. We might work dead against him, thinking we
were working for him, as Christian persecutors have done when
they thought, in punishing and putting to death heretics, that
they were doing God service.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secularism: is it founded in reason, and is it sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: x, 50 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: The editor of the Evening Mail is not named; name from Amicus record is J.J. Stewart.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Holyoake, George Jacob, 1817-1906
Ingersoll, Robert G.
Gardener, Helen H. (Helen Hamilton), 1853-1925
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890?]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Secularism</span>: <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> <span class="highlight">founded</span> in <span class="highlight">reason</span>, and <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1857
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4571ffc366e80992b0c3c87a686e6c76.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UHqyN9Y7pmqPSzhzGpXwXv%7EE9eC-wKZ-2LWWsHjdiO4jDUIksaUOSgJrS4UKNt-a5%7ECFU4zeoYj-Cd2KFXfxprzZxrAp07UKaIrncS6J2JnppZGCcuR%7Eut9xEuImxdL4cnFmzrgAOQU89Z25TiCS3GA7jccETO0jVyKj9g0iFKhZSLbhcErKZ%7EqCgDZZ2cGc1xr4rQBUcxo4b9iA-yI%7EhZgVQSZOCObcYmDHFFZ7Prp8p3QPKpXEPEAh2JJCG2ExxfCImUsakREvhAFAK24SEf2S6Hex24a4ootUPrjFdYCX1zxek1dmnc-UG1kanrK5TcdlN1pax5poIgYWFpwtgw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfa74e648a725242d26ce7a1de3a9aae
PDF Text
Text
Wherein they Differ.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought/’
f th or of “ Teachilu/s of Secularisin Compared with Orthodox Christutn ityf'
**- F&dntum ami. Special Creatim^'1' Seeidarism: Ctn^tpuchiveand L>estmG^'e,” u Glori[^<jf Unbelieff “ Saints and Sinners: Which?"
J^ible 'Morality,’
Chrinanity: J ts Origin, Nature and;
- ii^lumtcef “ Agrwsticjgm and' Christian Theism: Which. is
the Metre Reasonable
“ Reply ta Father La'tnbert,"
- • ■
‘■‘■The Superstitionof the Christian Sunday: A
, i'iti ,' .■ Plea for Liberty wyd J> nd ice, ’ ‘fc The JSeprors
WfU,. d- ~ • of the French Rerohiidm," ttec., <£•«.<
■ t.
_
CO^EJ^S.
The Potency of Scienge.
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man..
Creation/, Time and* Mate
rial^ •
6. The BubEb Account
TTONg.
Soropto :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE, *
'5 Adelaide,- St. East?
, /PRICE
of the
Qrigin of Death.
7. The I&ble Deluge.
8-. The Mosaic Account of the
FlooI) : Scientific Obj ec-’
15 CENTS.
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN. THEY DIFFER.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“ Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence," “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism : Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,"
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice,''’ “ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” de., de.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONTENTS:
Science.
6. The Bible Account
The Potency of
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man.
Creation: Time and Mate
rial.
ofthk
Origin of Death.
7. The Bible Deluge.
8. The Mosaic Account of the
Flood : Scientific Objec
tions.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
15 CENTS.
A
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
The Potency of Science.—The distinguishing characteristic of this
age is science; it is essentially an age of invention, experiment
and discovery. Knowledge is pushed into the field of physical
nature on all hands to such an extent that each day brings to light
something both new and unforeseen. We are ever on the alert for
wonders in the field of discovery which will not amaze, simply
because they are not unusual. All thought to-day is more or
less influenced by natural science. Old opinions, not only in the
domain of the material, but also in the intellectual and moral,
have to be remoulded or abolished in obedience to the dictates
of the higher knowledge that we have attained of the workings
of natural law. That which cannot reconcile itself to science
must disappear as out of harmony with the genius of the epoch.
We do not, of course, allege that physical science covers the
entire field of knowledge, but we do contend that there is no
phase of thought that is not very largely moulded by modern
discoveries. Scientific truth can no longer be successfully op
posed, even by the most dogmatic theologian, and it is now too
powerful and too widely known to allow itself to be even
ignored. Hence, whatever opinions are advocated, the pretence
put forward in their favour usually is that they are in harmony
with science. The difficulty too often lies in making good this
claim.
Science may be defined as being an investigation into the
phenomena of nature, and the best application of the lessons de
rived thereby to the requirements of life. It may be further
described as meaning facts reduced to a system ; not a fixed,
cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. “■ Science is the enemy
of fear and credulity. It invites investigation, challenges the
�4
SCIENCE AND THE BIRLE:
reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the unbeliever. It
seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, education and liberty
to the human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It
has furnished a foundation for morals, a philosophy for the
guidance of man......................... It has taught man that he cannot
walk beyond the horizon—that the questions of origin and
destiny cannot be answered—that an infinite personality cannot
be comprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any
system of religion based on the supernatural cannot by any
possibility be established—such a religion not being within the
domain of evidence. And, above all. it teaches that all our duties
are here—-that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that
intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom
and that ‘ man believes not what he would, but what he can.’ ”
It has been said that we can have no complete system of science.
To some extent this is true ; for no science is perfect, if by per
fection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But
sufficient information of a positive character has been obtained
in many fields of enquiry to justify conclusions that may be re
garded as reliable. Science has stamped its valuable impress on
the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore
hitherto unknown regions; by its aid we can descend into the
depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological
errors that have too long held captive the human mind; by its
aid we can not only avert many of the diseases which “ flesh is
heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its
gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its mani
fold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the
strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations
from a state of barbarism to partial civilisation, and stimulated
man to emancipate himself from the curse of degrading super
stitions. That which was hidden from the gaze of the ancient
world has, by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us
in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the
broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com
municate with our European friends by that cable which connects
nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
5
we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very
length and breadth of the land. As the late Prince Consort of
England said in 1855 : “No human pursuits make any material
progress until science is brought to bear upon them............. Look
at the transformation which has gone on around us since the
laws of gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and the expansive
power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the
whole state of existence—one might say, the whole face of the
globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While
■contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is sadden
ing to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages
long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth
was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine
purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or ignorant
misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual
conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too
frequently its usefulness has been impaired, and its exponents
have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own
senses. True, from a theological standpoint we could not expect
aught else. A study of the histories of orthodox Bible believers
will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in
those discoveries which show so unmistakably the errors of their
faith.
The potency of science over the influence of theology was
never better presented than in the following eloquent language
by Col. Ingersoll : “ Science, thou art the great magician ! Thou
alone performest the true miracles. Thou alone workest the
real wonders. Fire is thy servant, lightning is thy messenger.
The waves obey thee, and thou knowest the circuits of the wind.
Thou art the great philanthropist! Thou hast freed the slave
and civilised the master. Thou hast taught men to chain not
his fellow-man, but the forces of nature—forces that have no
backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat—forces
that never know fatigue, that shed no tears—forces that have
no hearts to break. Thou gavest man the plough, the reaper and
the loom—thou hast fed and clothed the world ! Thou art the
great physician ! Thy touch hath given sight. Thou hast made
�6
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
the lame to leap, the dumb to speak, aud in the pallid cheek thy
hand hath set the rose of health. ‘ Thou hast given thy beloved
sleep’—a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing
nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence of man—
preserver of light and love ! Thou art the teacher of every
virtue, the enemy of every vice. Thou hast discovered the true
basis of morals—the origin and office of conscience—and hast
revealed the nature and measure of obligation. Thou hast
taught that love is justice in its highest form, and that even
self-love, guided by wisdom, embraces with loving arms the
human race. Thou hast slain the monsters of the past. Thou
hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou hast read the
records of the rocks, written by wind and wave, by frost and
flame—records that even priestcraft cannot change—and in thy
wondrous scales thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars.
Thou art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the
very Christ, the only saviour of mankind. Theology has always
been in the way of the advance of the human race. There is
this difference between science and theology—science is modest
and merciful, while theology is arrogant and cruel. The hope
of science is the perfection of the human race. The hope of
theology is the salvation of a few and the damnation of almost
everybody.”
Notwithstanding the value, potency and grandeur of science
it is only of comparatively recent date that its usefulness has
been fairly acknowledged and its power duly appreciated.
Formerly new discoveries were tested by the Bible and encour
aged or discouraged according to their agreement or disagreement
therewith. Fortunately, the Bible test is no longer accepted as
the standard of appeal but the question of utility has taken its
plaqe. Science now holds its undisputed sway although many
of its revelations contradict the teaching both of the Hebrew and
Christian Records.
The Bible and Science.—The Bible has hitherto occupied
in the world a very exceptional position, and there is still
claimed for it “ divine authority and unerring accuracy.” In
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
7
the multiplicity of tests to which its claims might be sub
jected, the one above all others which it must face to-day, isthat of science. By this it must stand or fall. If true, it
should not fear this mode of examination, but whether it does
or not it must submit to this tribunal.
That modern science has demonstrated as fallacies much that
the Bible contains is now recognised by many professing Chris
tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach
science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the or
thodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to
contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate
that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general im
provement. The national and individual condition of society
would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science..
For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science,
is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal
wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to*
have been written under divine inspiration for the guidance and.
instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, butshould expound its truths in such a concise and practical manner,,
that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should also
commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest
of the land. But it is not sufficient to say that the object of the
book was not to teach science ; that it had a far higher and5
nobler purpose. There might be some weight in such an allega
tion if all its teachings were confined to regions that lie outside
the domain of modern research, though even then such teachingscould not escape being tested by the influence which science hasexerted over every form of thought, indirect if not direct. Un
fortunately, however, for those who take this view, the Bible
does refer to scientific subjects, and deals quite largely with
matters that fall within the region in which science reigns
supreme. This being so, we are certainly justified in ascertain
ing whether or not the two are in harmony. That such subjects
are.dealt with no one can doubt who is at all acquainted with
the teachings of the book. Kalisch says, “ The Bible is not silent
upon the creation ; it attempts indeed to furnish its history \
�8
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
but iii this account it expresses as facts that which the researches
of science cannot sanction.” But the subject of creation is not
the only topic upon which the book states the very opposite to
what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the
phenomena of the solar system, and the mode by which disease
and death entered the world, are scientific questions. These,
with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a
reference to its statements thereon will show that science and
the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. The fact is there
have been but few discoveries of any magnitude in science that
have not exhibited in some way the fallacy of portions of the
Bible. That which in the days of Moses might have been con
sidered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science
has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as
natural laws, subsequent experience has shown to be in opposition
to scientific discoveries. The antiquity of man has been proved
to be considerably greater than Moses alleges; geology has
demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years before
the time of creation stated in the Jewish account; the theory that
all mankind descended from one primeval pair is now given up
as unreliable ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded ;
the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific sup
porters ; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed
in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded superstition; the teach
ing of the New Testament that the world and its contents are to
be destroyed by fire, has but few believers ; a burning hell for
the “ wicked souls of the departed ” is deemed too revolting and
absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction ; hence science has
practically killed the belief in the devil and firmly closed for
ever his supposed illuminated habitation. The Bible teaches
that mankind has degenerated from a state of perfection;
science, on the contrary, indicates that the career of man has
been progressive, and that each age, profiting by experience, has
been superior to its predecessor. The Bible affirms that at a
certain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares
that such an event could never have happened. The Bible asserts
that all the kingdoms of the world were exhibited from a cer-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
9
tain high mountain; geography teaches that there are many
parts of the world totally invisible from any one elevation. The
Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the water;
experience proves this to be impossible. In almost every field
the “ sacred writings ” appear to be the very antithesis of the
teachings of science.
The entire account of man’s early history as given in the
Bible is flatly contradicted by scientific research. Many attempts,
indeed, have been made to harmonise the two, but without suc
cess. Sophistry, equivocation, denunciation, all the engines, in
short, of polemical warfare, have been brought forward to dis
prove the well-attested facts of science; while those who have
been honest enough to restrict themselves to argument have
usually ended by accepting the facts and giving up the theory.
The great strength of a scientific theory lies in the cumulative
proof of which, if it be a scientific theory, it becomes capable ;
while a fact of science may be attested in many ways. For in
stance, while the geologists have bden at work tracing the
history of the earth from its earliest beginnings, and in so doing
have discovered evidence of the co-existence of man with many
of the extinct animals, of whose remote antiquity there can be no
doubt, the archaeologists have been busy in another field of en
quiry, and proving the same fact in another way. When the
same fact is thus arrived at by independent enquirers, and
different sciences force the mind to the same conclusion, the evi
dence of its truth is such as to be irresistible. Now the very
converse is the case with the orthodox defenders of the Bible.
Working in the same field, on the same subject-matter, they
arrive at various conclusions, and the best we have is a number
of conflicting theories, and if they were to be accepted a means
of harmonising the harmonisers must be found. Of course they
serve their purpose for a time by deceiving the uninformed and
misleading the unenquiring. But for the intelligent and logical
enquirer a study of the Hebrew Records themselves is quite
sufficient to discredit theology, and to show beyond all reason
able doubt that the Bible and science do not agree ; the one is
stationary, the other is progressive ; the first is bound by the
�10
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
ignorance of the past, the second is guided by the knowledge of
the present. Modern thought has neither hesitation nor regrets
in giving up the Bible as a monitor in the practical duties of life,,
for we have science remaining, and its light will shine with an
ever increasing brightness as the years roll on, until theological
ignorance and folly shall be replaced by a knowledge of natural
forces and a wisdom based on the experiences of a more un
fettered intellectual development.
The Bible and Creation.—The supposed creation of theworld and the origin of man as narrated in the Bible fur
nish striking evidence of the contradictory nature of the
teachings of that book to the revelations of science. If wo
accept the chronology of the Hebrew records as being correct,
there is no difficulty in ascertaining how long it is according
to the Bible since the world and man were created. For in
stance, in Genesis, we read that when Adam was 130 years old
his son Seth was born; when Seth was 105, Enos was born;
when Enos was 90, Cainsn was born; when Cainan was 70,
Mahalaleel was born ; when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born ;
when Jared was 162, Enoch was born; when Enoch was 65,
Methuselah was born ; when Methuselah was 187, Lamech was
born; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these
dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah. 1056yearr; 600 years after this the flood appears, making from the
creation of man to the flood, 1656 years. Then reckoning from
the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the
present time, 1890, we have a total of 6047 years since man first
appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus 20 it is said that “ in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is,” and in Genesis 1 we read that “ God created man on
the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days
after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this
adequate proof that the Bible teaches that "the world and man
have existed only a little over six thousand years ? This was
really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford,,
who, in his famous lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
11
of the Old and New Testaments,” delivered on behalf of the
Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really
historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture
is the shortness of the time into which all history is (or at any
rate appears to be) compressed by the chronological statements,
especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews is fixed by
many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century
before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus,
according to the numbers of our English version, but a very little
exceeds a thousand years. Consequently, it has been usual to
regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all man
kind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six
centuries of the Christian era ; and, therefore, that all history,
and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races
of men were formed, by which languages developed into their
numerous and diverse types, by which civilisation and art
emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within
the narrow space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our
Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insuffi
cient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms,
which reach back (according to the most moderate of modern
critical historians) to about the time at which the numbers of
our English Bible place the deluge. Considerable diversities of
language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly
different physical types appeared not much subsequently ; civili
sation in Egypt had, about the pyramid period, which few now
place later than B.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts existed
in the shape in which they were known in the country at its
most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted
anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of
Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show
to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our
English Bible do not allow ”
Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geo
logical lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage
—a Christian writer—that “ the mass of evidence which com
bines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irre-
�12
sciteNcfe
and the bible
:
Sistible and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but
those who ate alike incapable of observing the facts and appre■ciating the reasoning can for a momeut conceive the present
state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of
existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent
their lives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclu
sion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the
-earth’s first formation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to
be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all com
petent persons that the formation even of those strata which are
nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably
millions of years, in arriving at their present state.” In reply to
this, two different theories have been put forth in defence of the
Bible records with a view of bringing them into harmony with
science. The first theory is that a long period—countless ages,
in fact—elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd
verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first
two chapters of that book was only a re-adaptation of the chaos
of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is
made to animals or plants as being in existence before the time
referred to by Moses ? Is it not said by this writer that light
was created on the first of. the six days, and the sun on the
fourth ? Admit this to be true, and then, previous to that time,
there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which
science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological
investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants
found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the
-earth, indicating thereby that no new creation took place 6,000
years ago ? Clearly theie was and could be no such break in
the continuity of the chain of geological events as this theory
assumes. The remains of animals and plants found in the tertiary
are identical with those living to-day, and there was, therefore,
no new creation of fauna and flora at the time at which the
writer of Genesis declares the origin of the whole to have taken
place. If such had occurred evidences of it would be found in
those old records written in stone, which cannot err as docu
ments may do that have been produced by human fingers.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
13‘
Besides, does it not look very much like a childish work of
supererogation to create by a special supernatural act a new set
of plants and animals, exactly like those already existing, who
would, as a matter of course, have propagated their species in
the ordinary natural way as they had been doing for generations
before ? Nor is there the slightest intimation in the book that
any sort of an interval of long duration occurred between the
. creation described in the first verse and that enumerated in the
subsequent account. It is evidently one continuous record, the
whole extending over just six days. The second theory is that
the days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days, but long
periods extending probably over millions of years. This is the
more popular of the two theories amongst orthodox Christians
at the present time. But, like the other, it is beset with insur
mountable difficulties. The light and the darkness are stated to
be synonymous with day and night, which alternate regularly
with each other. Epochs of light and equally long epochs of
darkness we know did not occur, for such darkness would have
been fatal to the vegetation which existed. Then the keeping
of the Sabbath day is enjoined on the principle that God worked
for six days and rested on the seventh, leaving the inference
conclusive that the days in the one case were the same as those
in the other. The most fatal objection, however, of all to the entire
theory is that the order of creation as described in Genesis and
that discovered by geological science are not at all the same. The
vegetable kingdom was not in its origin separated by millions of
years from the beginnings of animal life, as this theory would
make it appear to have been, one entire day or epoch coming
between them ; neither did the higher and lower forms of land
animals make their appearance at the same time. From any
point of view, no reconciliation between the Bible and science
appears to us possible, at least upon this point.
The Origin of Man.—Whatever lack of information may
exist as to the precise time when man first appeared on
the earth, it is as certain as anything can be that the
human family have been in existence much longer than
�14
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the time stated in the Bible. Professor Huxley writes:—
Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption that man co
existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a
barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared
together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles
Lyell supports the statement, that “ North America was peopled
more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr.
Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the
delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen
■claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years
prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire
■of hereditary kings to 5413 B.C. “ It is now generally conceded,”
observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which
we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon
•earth; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or
millions of years.beyond our reach. The spurious systems of
Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the
Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by
prejudice, to the monumental records of Egypt as our best guide.
Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primitive state of
man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages ; for the Egyptian
Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before
'Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and
surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from
the barbarous stage...........These authorities, in support of the
extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though
startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a
few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the
leading geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so ex
treme for man’s existence on earth may shock some preconceived
opinions, it is none the less certain that the rapid accumulation
of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific
world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have alreadycarried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and
when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to
attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This
•conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such arch-ae-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
15
ologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt,
etc., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick,
Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have
really mastered the monuments of Egypt. Nor do these monu
ments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full
tide of civilisation, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the
same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold
intercourse with Egypt at the present day.......... In short, we
know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it
now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a
dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period
going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to
the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the world.” The
two magnificent works of Nott and Gliddon, entitled “ Types of
. Mankind ” and “ Indigenous Races,” are too little read at the
present time. They contain some few errors, no doubt, but on
the whole they abound in erudition and furnish overwhelming
evidence both of man’s early appearance on the earth and of the
impossibility of supposing all the races to have had the same
origin. The Adam and Eve theory is shattered into fragments
by the facts produced in such abundance. No answer to these
books has been put forth, and we fail to see that any is possible.
“ The theory,” say Nott and Gliddon,“that all nations are made
of one blood, is entirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that
all mankind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of
Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could
trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distincion characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the
case. “We know,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ of no archae
ologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver
that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and
scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as dis
tinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this
moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes,
Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monu
ments, of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the
paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age.
�16
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the
multifarious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock ; because
the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were
absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they
are now; just as they all were then from co-existent Negroes.
Such a miracle, indeed, has been invented, and dogmatically
defended ; but it is a bare postulate, and positively refuted by
scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there
must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian
races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr.
Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt prove
beyond all question that the Caucasian and the Negro races
were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years
ago as they are now. If, then, the difference which we find ex
isting between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced
by external causes, such change must have been effected accord
ing to Bible chronology in about 1,000 years. This theory is
decidedly contradicted by science and experience.” Now, no
external causes are known that are capable of producing all
the varieties of mankind as we see them to-day. They appear
to be separated from each other by broad lines of demarcation
which nothing that we are at present acquainted with can bridge
over. No consideration of the influence of sun, climate, or geo
graphical position will aid us in solving the problem. If man
kind all sprang from the same stock, which of course is very
questionable, it must have been tens of thousands of years before
the time at which Adam is supposed to have lived. For, as Pro
fessor Draper observes :—“ So far as investigations have gone
they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote
from us by many hundreds of thousands of years......... We are
thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years
of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date
for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of
years, and human existence antedates that. But not only is it
that this grand fact confronts us, we have to admit also a primi
tive animalised state and a slow and gradual development. But
this forlorn, this savage condition of humanity is in strong con-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
17
trast to the Paradisiacal happiness of the Garden of Eden, and
what is far more serious, it is inconsistent with the theory of
the Fall.” [“ Science and Religion,” pp. 199-200.] It is evident,
therefore, that the Bible is at fault in reference to man’s origin,
and no sophistry of explanation will make it agree with the
records of science.
Creation: Time and Material.—The’ disagreement between
the Bible and science as to the time occupied in the al
leged creation of the world is exceedingly clear. According
to the account in the Bible, this event occurred in six days.
There it is distinctly stated that the heavens and the earth and
all that in them is, were created in six days (Ex. 20 : 11). “For
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord
blessed the seventh day and hallowedit.” The Jews understood
the word “day” as embracing a common day of twenty-four
hours. From the 20th of Exodus it is perfectly certain that it
is to be understood literally. God commands the Jews to “ Re
member the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,.
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid
servant, nor thy ’cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”
Why ? Because—“ For in six’ days the Lord made heaven andi
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh
day ; wherdfore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed
it.” “ Now,” remarks S. J. Finney, “ if the word ‘ day ’ is an in
definite word, embracing a long and indefinite period of time,
how could the Jews know when to work or when to rest, and
how do we know when to keep the Sabbath at all ? If it means,
according to Dr. John Pye Smith, many thousands or even
millions of years, the Sabbath has not yet begun; men are fooling
away one seventh of their time on a false notion that it is
‘ holy.’ ” But it has already been shown that the epoch theory
entirely breaks down when tested by facts. Mr. Priaulx says
“ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division
�18
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined
hy any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless,
no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twentyfour hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent
the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six
natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation
by a chaotic period. Geologists, on the conti ary, declare that
■the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous
periods of time during their formation, and that even in the
■vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of
species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual
■change in the organic world.
Equally at fault is the Bible with reference to the sequence of
events. So diverse, in fact, are the accounts as furnished by
the Bible and by science up©« this zpoint that all attempts to
reconcile them must prove to be time wasted and labour thrown
away. Many years ago Dr. Sexton, who although now a Chris
tian is still & scientist, and would find some difficulty in replying
to his early writings, wrote as follows in his “ Concessions of
Theology to Science ” :—“ The greatest objection, and one which
is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first
chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days
as including all the ages that have passed away, during which
those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their
appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the
rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not
the same in the two cases. According to geology, there is a
gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and
animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being
found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more
recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of
the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all
the inhabitants of the waters in another—the two separated
from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created
but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the
organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as
creeping things, and as high as man,, which certainly does not
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
19
accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which
are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of
existence, are represented as having made their appearance with
the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also
contrary to fact. The sun, too, does not exist till the epoch after
the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as
the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must
have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is
a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the
theory that light had been previously formed, and that there
fore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s
rays is equally as indispensable to vegetation as the luminous
portion that we call light.”
The Bible statement of the material from which man was
made differs from the facts discovered by scientific investigation.
We read irt Genesis that man was made from the dust of the
earth ; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved that
dust does not contain the elements found in the human organ
ism. The late Dr. Herapath, one of the leading chemists of
the day, wrote thus boldly upon this subject:—“ From our days
of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us ‘ that man
was made out of the dust of the earth ; ’ and, ‘ as dust thou
art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion, if literally
true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as one of the
elements of organised structure, for no soil or earthy material
capable of being employed by agriculturists can be found with
out alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot
be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests
against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as
geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical
sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits
by those who have neglected the study of true science, but still
profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That
man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organic
material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated
by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves
to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of
�20
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this
fluid certainly cannot be found in dust, for we only apply that
ter<n to earth that is dry. Dust mixed with twice its own weight
of water would cease to be described as dust. Yet there is no
escape from the statement made in the Bible that of such ma
terial as dust man was formed. The literal reading of the ori
ginal, as all scholars agree, is “ dust from the ground,” that is,
ordinary dust such as we meet with on the ground. Now, it is
certain man was not made from any such material, and by no
legitimate stretch of language can it with anything like accu
racy or truth be said that he was. The principal elementary
. substances to be found in human bodies are oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen and carbon, but these are not to be found in ordinary
dust, with the exception of a very trifling modicum of oxygen.
Silicon, one of the main ingredients of dust, can hardly be de
tected in the human organism. The Lamaic creed supposes man
is the production of water. Priaulx suggests that, had the writer
of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat
nearer the truth.
The Bible Account of the Origin of Death.—The Bible
alleges that “by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; ” that is, that through the supposed disobedi
ence of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the
alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a
punishment, i« to many “a consummation devoutly to be
wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of
corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a
curse upon man not to die. Are there not thousands who suffer
a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or
opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of
nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a
welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis,
how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into
realms of bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead
of remaining in this “ vale of tears, ought certainly to be
accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his condition.
�WHERMN THEY DIFFER.
21
But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of
death involves many difficulties. If death had not been intro
duced, could the world contain its ever-increasing inhabitants ?
And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient
to support such an immense multitude ? Suppose the serpent
had not played its “little game,” could a man who had no know
ledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the
chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in
a furnace and not be burned to death ? Or if he were in a coal
mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further,
did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ?
If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read,
“ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If,
however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of
theij; kind took a prominent part in what is termed “ the fall of
man ? ” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death
is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man
cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an
universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law.
As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to
that change until we progress to a given point; then our organ
isation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely
•exhaust life’s power, and death ensues as certainly as a fire will
cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition
•of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But
the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” death was not
.a necessary consequence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic
statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted
similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the con
trary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure,
how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ
in their nature from those whose offspring they are. Certain it
is that man’s constitution is such that he cannot avoid the
liability to death. He is so organised that all the influences
operating upon him, while for a time and under certain condi
tions they afford him sustenance and support, may yet, diverted
from their normal purpose, cause him to cease to live. Indeed,
�22
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
it is impossible even to conceive of a human body which is pos
sessed of immortality. The phrase is used glibly enough, but let
one reflect upon it, and ask himself what is the meaning that he
attaches to the expression “immortal man.” A human being lives
by taking food, and that very food diverted from its proper pur
pose may cause death; anyhow, its absence will produce that
effect. Excretions of a poisonous character are continually being
eliminated, and should the glandular organ whose function it is
to remove these deleterious substances cease to act, then the
result is as fatal as though a poison had been swallowed. If it
be said that this would not occur because there would be no
disease, we reply that there is still the impossibility of supposing
an organism, whose existence is dependent on something outside
itself, being at the same time independent of all else.
Then there is the important fact that death was in the ^orld
millions of ages before the supposed existence of Adam and
Eve. There are, indeed, few persons of any education now who
can doubt that at least the lower animals died long before man
was created. Geology has brought to light their fossil remainsentombed in the various rocks which go to make up the crust
of the earth. They came into existence, played their brief part
on life’s stage, and passed away, not simply individually, but
in whole races, long before the era dawned which gave man bis
birth. They preyed on one another then as now, the carnivora
devouring the less ferocious tribes ; and both together becoming’
buried in the earth, their remains were preserved to tell their
history to future generations of men. Race followed race in long
succession, each to pass away as its predecessor bad done whilst
as yet man had not made his appearance upon the scene.
But it was not simply the lower animals that died before the
time assigned to the creation of Adam, It is now demonstrated
beyond the shadow of a doubt that man had shared the same
fate ages before. If our fabled first parents resided in the Gar
den of Eden six thousand years ago, they came far too late in
the history of the world to be the progenitors of the whole
human family. Whole races had flourished and had passed
away long before that time. Death had existed whilst the per-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
petrator of original sin was not yet born. In no sense, there
fore, can it be a fact that Adam’s sin was the cause of death.
The Fall itself involves contradictions to science. Take, for in
stance, the curses pronounced on the ground, the woman, and
the serpent : the merest tyro in science knows that all these
are simply non-existent. Thorns and thistles are not accursed ,
on the contrary, they are highly useful plants. Moreover, they
were in existence long before the time at which the Fall is said
to have occurred. And they most unquestionably made their
first appearance, not as the result of any curse of God, but by
the ordinary laws of nature. Then the so-called curse on woman
is by no means universal. The pains referred to occur in their
severe form only amongst civilised peoples, and always as a re
sult'of artificial modes of living and the violation of natural
laws. Savage women are almost exempt from such pains, and
suffer no more than do the lower animals. The curse upon the
serpent is still more absurd : “ On thy belly shalt thou go,” as
though serpents ever practised locomotion in any other way.
Nor were serpents changed in their organisation at this time—
as some have suggested—for the remains of those found in
geological strata, whose existence dates back to a period pro
bably a million years before man appeared, show precisely the
same kind of organisation as their modern descendants. Thesecurses are, to say the least, very childish, and place the charac
ter of the Being who is said to have uttered them in a very
contemptible and degrading light. Fortunately, however, ac
cording to science, the whole story is regarded as fiction, not as
fact.
The Bible Deluge.—Modern researches have unmistakeably
established the fact that between science and the Mosaic ac
count of the flood there is an absolute antagonism.
The
Bible statement is, that less than five thousand years ago, God
discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.” Not two thousand years before
this, so the book relates, God had made man pure and
�24
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine super
intendence, and subsequently the edification of the preaching of
Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the
Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind from degenerating so rapidly
that the Lord repented “ that he had made man, and it grieved
him at his heart.” God possessed, it is .-aid, infinite power, wis
dom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise
a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead
upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all except one
family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment
of justice and to every feeling of benevolence. No being with a
spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily
exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the
agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent
God could have found other means to correct the work of his
own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and a warning, the cold water pro
cess proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better
after the deluge than they were before it.
If this deluge were a fact, what can be said of the God who
was the chief actor in it, and who was entirely responsible for
the great calamity—an event so fearfully cruel and so revolting
that one “ cannot think of it without horror nor contemplate it
without dismay.” How can we reconcile the drowning of a
whole world with the justice and goodness of the Almighty
One ? Say that the wickedne-s of man was great upon the
earth, was that any reason for destroying any chance of repent
ance ? What should we say of an earthly despot who acted in
a like manner ? The cruelty and supreme wickedness of the
action thus attributed to God has never been paralleled or even
approached by the greatest monster the world has ever seen ;
and on the part of infinite power the action mu-t partake of the
character of the actor and become infinite in its utter depravity.
Say that men were wicked, was it therefore just to overwhelm
in a common destruction the son with the sire, the little child
who had not yet learned to sin with those who were the real
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
25
sinners ? In the presence of this narrative, we can only say
that, if men were wicked, the being who destroyed them was
more wicked still.
Again, according to the orthodox version of this fearful
tragedy, man had fallen, Adam for his sin had been cast out of
Eden, and the redemption of man was impossible through any
efforts of his own. The Redeemer who was necessary had not
yet been sent. How, then, could it be consistent with infinite
goodness to punish for wickedness which was unavoidable, to
destroy man that he was sinful when he could not by any possi
bility be otherwise ? Moreover, be it observed that this narra
tion is a libel upon the character of God in other ways. By
this universal deluge a great change was effected, but no im
provement. The new generations were as wicked as those which
had gone before ; nay, the very man Noah, who had found grace
in the sight of God, was drunk in his tent immediately, and his
son Canaan, another of the saved ones, maketh shame of his
father. In the 9 th chapter of Genesis the whole disgusting ac
count may be found. The God who drowned the world to cure
the evil in it with no better results than this could not be a God
of any foreknowledge. Or, if it be said that he knew this
would be so, then the utter malignity of the drowning becomes
only proportionately increased.
Our present object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman
character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in
Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern investigations
and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palp
able that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of
the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was
only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in
error, inasmuch as it clearly teaches the universality of the
deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, ch. 6
and 7 : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have
created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and
the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me
that I have made them'” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a
flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is
�26
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the breath of life, from under heaven ; and everything that is
in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I havemade will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living
substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of
the heaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah
only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
Bishop Colenso says that the Flood described in Genesis, whether
it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in
credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his
work, “The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that
Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have
doubted the universality of the deluge......... I need not refer
more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood ; this
seems to me even more astonishing than the universal.” Pro
fessor Hitchcock observes: “ I am willing to acknowledge that
the language of the Bible on this subject seems at first view to
teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the
supposition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to
know what prevented the water from finding its level. More
over, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion
of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that
no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found.
Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals
if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family,
together with “ two of every sort,” could have emigrated to
those parts which the deluge was not intended to visit.
In speaking of this flood, “ Julian,” one of the ablest Biblical
scholars in England at the present day, in his excellent .work,
“ Bible Words : Human, Not Divine,” has the following valuable
remarks upon the account as given in Genesis chapters 6, 7,.
and 8 :
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
27
“ Two of Evtry Sort.—Chapter 6 is Eloistic: the word ‘God’
is used. In verses 19, 20, we read: And God said to Noah he
was to take into the ark ‘two of every sort,’ to keep the race
alive; the two were to be a male and its female : ‘ Of fowls after
their kind, and of cattle after their kind; of every creeping
thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come
unto thee. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten,,
which thou shalt gather together for thee and them.’’
“ This writer evidently supposed that wild beasts and birds of
prey could feed on hay and eat ‘ straw like an ox ; ’ that the
number of animals was so small that two of every sort could be
stalled in an ordinary-sized church ; and that four men would
suffice to feed all the animals and remove the filth from the ark.
Why, a small travelling menagerie requires more attendants to
feed the collection and keep the place clean.
“ The writer supposed that wild beasts would consort with
their lawful prey—serpents with doves, hawks with sparrows,
owls with mice, and insectivorous birds with insects ; for, though*
daily food was to be taken into the ark, only two of every
sort of animal were to be saved, just enough to keep the race
alive.
“ Seven of Clean Animals and Birds.—‘ Two of every sort,’
Elohim says, and repeats the injunction—two of every sort,
remember; only two, and no more ; one male and one female of
each species of beast, bird, and reptile. The-next chapter (7) is
a Jehovistic one; for, instead of God, we read ‘Lord,’ or the
‘ Lord God ; ’ and here a distinction is made between clean and
unclean beasts, and between quadrupedsand birds. Mark what
is said : ‘ Of every clean beast (7 : 2, 3) thou shalt take to theeby sevens, the male and the female; and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls of the air by
sevens, the male and the female.’
“Here the direction is seven clean beasts and seven of all
species of birds, ‘ a male and its female.’ Now, as seven is an
odd number, it was plainly impossible to pair seven animals ; sothe writer must have meant seven pairs, or fourteen of every
clean beast and every fowl of the air. This, of course, would
�38
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
require a much larger ark, and would greatly increase the daily
labour of Noah and his family.
“ This wise and sagacious writer saw plainly that birds and
beasts of prey could not live upon seed, so he increases the num
ber of animals for food. He also wanted Noah to offer sacrifice
after the Flood ; -and, had he killed one of his two clean beasts,
he would have extirpated the race ; so he makes Jehovah coun
termand the order of Elohim, and tell Noah that Elohim made a
mistake ; that he did not mean ‘ two of every sort of beast and
bird and creeping thing,’ but only of unclean beasts. All clean
beasts and all birds wTere to be collected by sevens (a sacred
number); but why seven pairs of eagles, vultures, condors,
toucans, parrots, lyre-birds, mocking-birds, cranes, owls, and so
on, is a mystery of mysteries.”
<
Scientific Objections to the Mosaic Account of the Flood.—
Among the many scientific objections to the account of the
Flood as given in the Bible are the following :
1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demonstra
tion that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the
result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The
evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progress
ing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection
to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Bev.
Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many
leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c, who once referred
the diluvium to the one period of the historic deluge, have now
publicly, withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh Miller, in his “Testi
mony of the Rocks,” says: “ In various parts of the world, such
as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna,
there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes,
which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian
deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent ma-'
terials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calcu
lations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have
passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve
thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
29
provinces of France, Kalisth, in his Genesis, observes: “Distinct
mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and
animal life, bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition
of our planet.......... That extraordinary region contains rocks,
consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits; one of
the rocks is sixty feet in thickness ; and a moderate calculation
shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that
single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote
than the date of the Noachian flood ; they show not the slightest
trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge;
their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology
irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has been subject
to many floods, it has never been visited by such an one as that
described in the Bible.
The evidences of the Flood that have been sometimes quoted
are really funny. Not long ago Talmage declared that the flood
was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction by the fact
that sea shells and other remains of marine animals were often
found on the summit of the highest mountains. He forgot to
mention that the Flood was said to have been caused by fresh
water, and that consequently marine animals could have had no
place in its waters. These remans found on mountain tops are
due to other and well known causes. Geologically there is not
only no evidence that such a flood occurred as that described in
the Bible, but there is a mass of undoubted evidence to the con
trary. “ Julian ” observes : “ Such a cataclysm as the Flood
must have left its marks on the earth ; but geologists have not
succeeded in finding a single trace—no confusion of animal
relics, no huge water gullies, no stratum of alluvial earth, which
such a sweep of water would produce. We find relics of marine
animals inland, it is true, and on the tops of high mountains;
but these fossils are all in order, each in its own stratum. There
is no confusion of animals in these rocks, as if a world had been
stamped out in forty days.”
2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says: “And the
waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high
i
�30
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
thills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further,
“ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount
Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, there
fore, required to cover this mountain would be, in the estimation
■of Dr. Pye Smith, Professor Hitchcock, and many other eminent
writers, eight times greater than what already existed. From
whence then came the tremendous mass of water required to
produce the Flood, and what became of it afterwards ? These
.are questions which Biblical students should answer or con
fess their inability to do so and admit the absurdity of the
.record.
3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have been
not more than 600 feet long, 100 feet broad, and 60 feet high ;
yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but
“ two of every living thing of all flesh.” According to Hugh
Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of
birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that
so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have
furnished accommodation for this vast congregation ? Space,
too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the
Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob
tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to some
forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for
so long a period the carnivorous and herbivorous animals—the
swallows, ant-eaters, spiders, and flies ? The Black Hole of Cal
cutta would have been a paradise to it. It is monstrous folly to
suppose all the animals of the earth, by twos and sevens, could
be squeezed into such a space. It is no less folly to suppose that
they would not all have been suffocated before one day had
passed. There is a little difficulty also about the light. There
were, it appears, three storeys in the Ark, and but one window.
Now, where was the window positioned ? In the upper storey ?
Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two storeys of the Ark
were in the dark, where many of those have since been who
have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of
science.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
31
4. The Collecting the Animals. The difficulties attending the
narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are
thus aptly put by the Rev. T. R. Stebbing, M.A.: “ To achieve it
he (Noah) must have gone in person, or sent expeditions, to
Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North
for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ;
the hippopotamus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the
apteryz, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought
together by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game,
caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas and titmice must
all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be em
ployed to secure them uninjured. They must be fed and cared
for during a journey, perhaps of thousands of miles, till they
reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one ano
ther while the search is continued for rats, and bats, and vipers
and toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch,
specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace,
would naturally wish and naturally be selected to transmit as a
boon to his favoured descendants.”
5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that,
after the waters began to subside, the inhabitants of the Ark
existed for nearly eight months in the temperature prevailing at
a spot “ 3,000 feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely
will not be contended that this statement harmonises with sci
ence any more than does the reeord of an olive tree retaining its
life after being under the pressure of several tons’ weight of
water for nearly three-quarters of a year. “ Naturalists tell us
that sun and air are needful for vegetable life; but neither sun
nor air could get to trees buried seven miles deep in water. And
even supposing the trees to have been in leaf, a wind sufficiently
high to dry up seven miles of water in 110 days would certainly
have stripped the trees, if it had not rooted them up altogether.’
Colenso says :—“ The difficulty, that so long an immersion in
deep water would kill the olive, had, no doubt, never occurred
to the writer, who may have observed that trees survived ordin
ary partial floods, and inferred that they would just as well be
�32
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
able to sustain the deluge to which his imagination subjected
them.” Kalisch observes : “ It is agreed by all botanical autho
rities, that, though partial inundations of rivers do not long or
materially change the vegetation of a region, the infusion of
great quantities of salt water destroys it entirely for long
periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine imme
diately after the cessation of the Deluge.”
�* Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WWH
Orthodox Christianity, 96 pages.’ Price 25 cents.
Contents.—Physical Teachings. Intellectual Teachings. Present Condition of
Society. Morality. Ethics pf Religion Secularism and the Supernatural. Secu
larism at the hour of Death. Secularism in ^Toeory
Secularism in Practice,
Secularism more reasonable than Christianity. /‘Secularism more noble than Christ
ianity. Secularism more beneficial than Christianity. Secu'ariSm Progressive.
Secularism, its Triumphs. Secularism, its Service to Mankind. Secularism, its
Struggles in the Past. Secularism in the Future. Summing up.
SECULARISM
«
IS IT BOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND I- jslebate between the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Chai les Watts. With
Prefatory Leiters by Gemge Jacob Htflyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an.
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents,
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S
20 cents, post free.
TACTICS of INFIDELS.”’
*v.V’
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
ContsNTS.—Christianity rf'Human Origin—Not Original^-Tndefinite, Im'
practicable and Contradictory in its Nat use— Its Influence Tested by‘Histpiy apd the
Admissions of Christian Writers
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THEIR
CAUSES 24 pages, price to cents
.
Contents.—Atheism and Social Order—Indications of a Great Struggle - Or
thodox Misrepresentation—The'Horrors of the French Resolution—The Causes
of the Excis es
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
pages in.cover ; price 10c.
22
Contents.—What is Secularism? Bible Idolatry—The Secularist's Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man and his
supposed redemption through Christr Reason and Experience the true guide in
human actions Why supreme attention should be given to the duties of this life.
Science more trustworthy than reliance upon any supposed Supenja ural power.
Morality is of natural growth, haying no necessary connection w thT/tflogy. Tne'
consistent carrying out of Secular teaching in every day life the best preparation for
any future exis’ence,
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
Contents.—Bib|e Morality, Bible Teachings, Tqe Christian’s Theory of the j
Bible, The Bible as a Guide.
AGNOSTICISM AND € HRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price lO cents.
Contents.—(1) What is Agnosticism ? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and to
Chi istian Theism. (3) Is it sufficient to sati.-ify man s" intellectual fequirements.
The batural and the Supernatural.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
10 cents. '
Contents.—What is Evolution ? The Formation of Worlds. Tee Beginning
Life upon the Earth. Origin of Man. Diversity of Living 1'nings. Physical
Powers. The Future of Man on Earth.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH1
24 pages in cover : price 1 Oc.
Contents. —The orthodox division of mankind in*o only two classes an error
Who are the Saints? Catholic and Protestant Saints. Pre-ordained and
Free-will Saints The Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily and HalfandJHalf Saints. Who are the >pipers, and what is 'in,? The relative value
of the servic&rendered to the world py Saints and finders,
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE’ CHRISTIAN SUNDAY:^ A
Plea for-Liberty and <Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
Contents.—Introduction The Sabbath : Its Origin. Tne Institution - of Sun
day. Sabbatarian Inconsistency r- Sabbatarianism and Morality. A Free Sunday
and a Day of Rest.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF?* 22 pages in cover; price 10e.
Contents.—Wnerein does the Glory of Unbelief consist? dUnbehef widespread
amongst all classes, Wnat is Unbelief? Its true nature defined- Can it be dis
pensed with ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done for the world.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL;
or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE, 24 pages, price io cents.
Content^.—I. Whatjdowe Know of.Nature-? IL Th^Grandeur ind Potency
of Nature. III. The Supernatural. IV. What is the Supernatural ?■ V. Belief
and Knowledge. VI; Religion ; Natural and Supernatural.
.
i
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the-Justice^ of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to.Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages iif cover; price 10c.
p
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.'
Dr R. F Burfis, of Halifax, N.S, 16 pages, jtfricb 5c.
In this letter the following subjects are dealt with ". I. Why do the Clergy Avoid
Debate? 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towards Christianity. 3. Freethopgbt
and Men of Science. 4. The Difference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ
and Heroism. 6. Christianity and Slavery.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
last published/
CHRISTIANITY: DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARYKate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price to cents.
-By
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? fl.“ Our Father Which art in
Heaven.” lit Tfae FaiJ and the Atonements fV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity. V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT:
(The Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union).
A. Journal of
TTiomglit.
CHARLIES WATTS - - Editor
Secular Thought is devoted mainly to the promulgation of Cqnstructive Sh3ularisin in the affairs of everyday life and is purely
Agnostic in reference th all phases of Alleged Supernatural ism.
Secular Thought is published every SATti'iDAY, at Millichamp’s
Buiiding, 31 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, OnL
Terms : $2.00 a Year (paid iff advance); $1.00 for six months.
Single copies, 6 cents
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE
-----
TORONTO, ONT
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Science and the Bible : wherein they differ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Spine title: Pamphlets by Charles Watts. Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Science</span> and <span class="highlight">the</span> <span class="highlight">Bible</span> : <span class="highlight">wherein</span> <span class="highlight">they</span> <span class="highlight">differ</span>), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA840
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Science