1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6de107ecb6cb1c012e8ef8d4e1665667.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IRmrDNyeO8nvhN0hrOP2B-SxD5uNs1UJt77Att6C98z-92rCiUaKXQ2o2%7EQlo01lkp-MSv%7EsFA9ZwZqISBDtacI-1-GKGwIdtY7weQShS4IUGT-5dZ31O50F4aEUGtWCYUTMRX-SnbRBZ7VcWj9egcG%7EWF0xIOy4GRiLq2d4bP8ExkeTziNFtvrhVyGUBNd912H1X8ggcb4wZMD8DXGw4ltMWzcx5Z8jvgAhnQk8cpxR8Jd%7EBNqJTV%7EcfT9a99iT1bLt3dXYsaJhohU7YH8iP5BDsIdSy9iOgqsmN2sSR9pMFlvE1KxkX5nIl8eMTL20MvDhPw-cl1uVRkn1gLje3w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7c494523eee86ac7949e014048d24231
PDF Text
Text
national secular scc7^
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE
AN AGNOSTIC’S VIEW.
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY G. W. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�V9 0-73 0
M374-
During November and December, 1889, the North
American Review printed a number of articles by repre
sentative men on the subject of Divorce. The editor
framed a series of four questions, which the various
writers replied to. Colonel Ingersoll answered them
seriatim and fully, without the least evasion or reserve,
having a habit, not only of meaning what he says, but of
saying what he means. His article is now reproduced
for the benefit of English readers. It is a very important
contribution to the literature of the marriage question,
and it is to be hoped that those who are privileged to
read it will circulate it amongst their friends and
acquaintances.
��MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Question (1). Do you believe in the principle of divorce under
any circumstances ?
The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and
the living are tyrannised over by the dead. Old ideas,
long after the conditions under which they were produced
have passed away, often persist in surviving. Many are
disposed to worship the ancient—to follow the old paths,
without inquiring where they lead, and without knowing
exactly where they wish to go themselves.
Opinions on the subject of divorce have been for the
most part inherited from the early Christians. They
have come down to us through theological and priestly
channels. The early Christians believed that the world
was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified
by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the
good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord
—to remain there, in all probability, until the earth was
prepared as a habitation for the blessed. With this
thought or belief in their minds, the things of this world
were of comparatively no importance. The man who
built larger barns in which to store his grain was re
garded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his
greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded
prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the
unfortunate, the wretched, and diseased, as the favorites
of God. They discouraged all worldly pursuits, except
the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry or
to be given in marriage ; no time to build homes and
have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the
heaven they expected to inherit. Business, love, all
secular things, fell into disrepute.
�6
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of
the Apostles ; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of
home; nothing about the necessity of .education, the im
provement and development of the mind. These things
were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the pre
sence of the expected event, was considered of any
importance, except to be ready when the Son of Man
should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were
offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their
wives and children. Human love was spoken of with
contempt. “Let the dead bury their dead. What is
that to thee ? Follow thou me.” They not only believed
these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as
a consequence, all the relations of life were denied or
avoided, and their obligations disregarded. Marriage
was discouraged. It was regarded as only one degree
above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only in
consideration of human weakness. It was thought far
better not to marry—that it was something grander for
a man to love God than to love woman. The exceedingly
godly, the really spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held
the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And
yet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theo
logians, marriage was held to be a sacrament. The
priest said to the man who married: “ Remember that
you are caught for life. This door opens but once.
Before this den of matrimony the tracks are all one
way.” This was in the nature of a punishment for
having married. The theologian felt that the contract of
marriage, if not contrary to God’s command, was at least
contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to
suffer in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that
there could be no divorce, that a mistake could not be
corrected, was held up as a warning. At every wedding
feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards
bride and groom.
Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea
that the world is about to come to an end. . They do not
now believe that prosperity is a certain sign of wicked
ness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure, certificates
of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should
have been sent to hell simply for being rich, or that
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
7
Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his
poverty. We now know that prosperous people may
be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We
have reached the conclusion that the practice of virtue
tends in the direction of .prosperity, and that a violation
of the conditions of well-being brings, with absolute
certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.
There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an
individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or
the nation to which he belonged. It was then thought
that if a man or woman had made a vow to God, and had
failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire com
munity ; therefore it was the business of the community
to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been
abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual
are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern
that there are no rights higher than the rights of the
individual. There was a time when nearly all believed in
the reforming power of punishment—in the beneficence of
brute force. But the world is changing. It was at one
time thought that the Inquisition was the savior of
society; that the persecution of the philosopher was
requisite to the preservation of the State; and that, no
matter what happened, the State should be preserved.
We have now more light. And standing upon this
luminous point that we call the present, let me answer
your questions.
Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, con
tract that human beings can make. No matter whether
we call it a contract or a sacrament, or both, it remains
precisely the same. And no matter whether this contract
is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest, it is
exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord
and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not
even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one
seems to exist; all other considerations are lost; the
present seems to be eternal. In this supreme moment
there is no shadow—or the shadow is as luminous as light.
And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true
marriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the
altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of
witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has
�8
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
already happened within; it simply testifies to a union
that has already taken place—to the uniting of two
mornings that hope to reach the night together. Each
has found the ideal: the man has found the one woman of
all the world—the impersonation of affection, purity,
passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has
found the one man of all the world-—her ideal, and all that
she knows of romance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is
realised in him. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and
obligation are instantly changed into desire and joy, and
two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one. Nothing
can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obliga
tion and duty of each to each. There is nothing in the
ceremony except the desire on the part of the man and
woman that the whole world should know that they are
really married, and that their souls have been united.
Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be
public, should be recorded, should be known; but, above
all, to the end that the purity of the union should appear.
These ceremonies are not only for the good and for the
protection of the married, but also for the protection of
their children, and of society as well. But, after all, the
marriage remains a contract of the highest possible
character—a contract in which each gives and receives a
heart.
The question then arises, Should this marriage, under
any circumstances, be dissolved ? It is easy to understand
the position taken by the various Churches ; but back of
theological opinions is the question of contract.
In this contract of marriage the man agrees to protect
and cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect;
that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he
wed. What is her redress ? Is she under any obligation
to him ? He has violated the contract. He has failed to
protect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild
beast. Is she under any obligation to him 1 Is she bound
by the contract he has broken ? If so, what is the con
sideration for this obligation ? Must she live with him for
his sake ? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must
she remain his wife for his sake ? No intelligent man will
answer these questions in the affirmative.
If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
9
husband’s sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the
marriage was a sacrament ? Is there any obligation on the
part of the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the
sake of God ? Can her conduct affect in any way the
happiness of an infinite being ? Is it possible for a human
being to increase or diminish the well-being of the Infinite ?
The next question is as to the right of society in this
matter. It must be admitted that the peace of society
will be promoted by the separation of such people.
Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining
with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh.
Even married women have a right to personal security.
They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the
right of self-preservation; this they share in common,
to say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures.
This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies
of divorce; but they will insist that, while the wife has
the right to flee from her husband’s roof and seek
protection of kindred or friends, the marriage the
sacrament—must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest
of society that those who despise each other should live
together ? Ought the world to be peopled by the children
of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and loathing, or
by the welcome babes of mutual love ? Is it possible that
an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists that a
helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch 1
Can this add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one
harp in tune ? Can anything be more infamous than for a
Government to compel a woman to remain the wife of a
man she hates—of one whom she justly holds in abhor
rence ? Does any decent man wish the assistance of. a
constable, a sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife
in his house ? Is it possible to conceive of a more con
temptible human being than a man who would appeal to
force in such a case ? It may be said that the woman is
free to go, and that the courts will protect her from the
brutality of the man who promised to be her protector;
but where shall the woman go ? She may have no
friends; or they may be poor ; her kindred may be dead.
Has she no right to build another home ? Must this
woman, full of kindness, affection, health, be tied and
chained to this living corpse ? Is there no future for
�10
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
her ? Must she be an outcast for ever—deceived and
betrayed for her whole life ? Can she never sit by her
own hearth,, with the arms of her children about her
neck, and with a husband who loves and protects her ?
Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the bene
fit of society ?—or is it for the sake of the wretch who
destroyed her life ?
The ground has been taken that woman would lose
her dignity if marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary
to lose your liberty in order to retain your moral
character—in order to be pure and womanly ? Must a
woman,, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a
serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a
master, or with a phantom for a master ?
If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract,
is it not the duty of this being to see to it that the con
tract is carried out ? What consideration does the infinite
being give ? What consideration does he receive ? If a
wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband
has violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life,
is it possible for her to feel towards him any real thrill of
affection ? If she does not, what is there left of marriage ?
What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living
force ? She cannot sustain the relation of wife, because
she abhors him ; she cannot remain under the same roof,
for fear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only
the relations of hunter and hunted—of tyrant and victim.
Is it desirable that this relation should last through life,
and that it should be rendered sacred by the ceremony of a
church ?
Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under
such circumstances ? Are we in need of children born of
such parents ? Can the virtue of others be preserved
only, by this destruction of happiness, by this perpetual
imprisonment ?
A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage
for wealth or position is low enough; but what shall we
say of a marriage where the parties actually abhor each
other 1 Is there any morality in this ? any virtue in
this ? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or
husband, without the real and true relation ? Will any
good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true,
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
11
loving woman should be compelled to be the mother of
children whose father she detests ? Is there a good
woman in the world who would not shrink from this her
self ; and is there a woman so heartless and so immoral
that she would force another to bear that from which she
would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink ?
Marriages are made by men and women, not by society;
not by the State; not by the Church; not by supernatural
beings. By this time we should know that nothing is
moral that does not tend to the well-being of sentient
beings j that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not
good. We know now, if we know anything, that all the
reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing
wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination
enough to put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man
suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal
husband—would he advocate divorces then ?
Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of
women and children, of the number of wives who tremble
when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband, of the
number of children who hide when they hear the voice of
a father. Few people know the number of blows that fall
on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know the
nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their
breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of
poverty borne by those who love each other are as
nothing. Men and women truly married bear the suffer
ings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console
each other. In the darkest night they see the radiance of
a star, and their affection gives to the heart of each
perpetual sunshine.
The good home is the unit of the good government.
The hearth-stone is the corner-stone of civilisation. Society
is not interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of
homes where husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and
cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good women
should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that
they should become mothers by husbands whom they hate.
Homes should be filled with kind and generous fathers,
with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled
the world will be civilised. Intelligence will rock the
cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the
�12
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
legislative halls; and above all and over all, like the dome
of heaven, will be the spirit of liberty.
Although marriage is the most important and the most
sacred contract that human beings can make, still, when
that contract has been violated, courts should have the
power to declare it null and void upon such conditions as
may be just.
As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her
youth, her beauty, her love—with all she has; and from
this contract certainly the husband should never be released,
unless the wife has broken the conditions of that contract.
Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the
marriage should be solemnised. Every marriage should be
known, and there should be witnesses, to the end that the
character of the contract entered into should be understood;
the record should be open and public. And the same is
true of divorces. The conditions should be determined,
the property should be divided by a court of equity, and
the custody of the children given under regulations pre
scribed.
Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not
of itself create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain
of love. Law should protect virtue, and law should protect
the wife, if she has kept her contract, and the husband, if
he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the end of
marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns
and will forever burn the sacred flame. There has been no
time in the world’s history when that torch was extin
guished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there
has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a
ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed,
there were true and perfect marriages. Back of public
opinion is natural modesty, the affections of the heart; and,
in spite of all law, there is and forever will be the realm of
choice. Wherever love is, it is pure; and everywhere,
and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to that
which has happened within the temple of the human heart.
Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry
under any circumstances 2
This depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it
is not a crime, why should any penalty be attached ? Can
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
13
anyone conceive of any reason why a woman obtaining a
divorce, without fault on her part, should be compelled as a
punishment to remain forever single ? Why should she be
punished for the dishonesty or brutality of another ? Why
should a man who faithfully kept his contract of marriage,
and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished
for the benefit of society ? Why should he be doomed to
live without a home ?
There is still another view. We must remember that
human passions are the same after as before divorce. To
prevent remarriage is to give excuse for vice.
Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity
of the family 2
The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real
divorce is back of the decree. When love is dead, when
husband and wife abhor each other, they are divorced.
The decree records in a judicial way what has really taken
place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract
already made.
The true family is the result of the true marriage, and
the institution of the family should above all things be
preserved. What becomes of the sacredness of the home,
if the law compels those who abhor each other to sit at
the same hearth ? This lowers the standard, and changes
the happy haven of home into the prison-cell. If we
wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we must
preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism
of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband
and wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no
spectre of fear. The mother must not remain through
an order of court, or the command of a priest, or by
virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute
freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own
soul and of her own body. Real homes can never be
preserved through force, through slavery, or superstition.
Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no altar purer
than the hearth.
Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where
it exists, contribute to the moral purity of society 2
We must define our terms. What is moral purity ?
The intelligent of this world seek the well-being of them
�14
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
selves and others. They know that happiness is the only
good; and this they strive to attain. To live in accordance
with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest
sense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the
highest ends is our highest conception of the moral. In
other words, morality is the melody or the perfection of
conduct. A man is not moral because he is obedient
through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of
perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance
with perceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality
is not the child of slavery. Ignorance is not the corner
stone of virtue.
The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must
see to it that he does not become a burden upon others.
To be self-respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining.
If by his industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin,
then he is under obligation to do with that margin all the
good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he
can. In true marriage men and women give not only
their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal marriage;
this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their
souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be;
this is immoral.
If this be true, upon what principle can a woman
continue to sustain the relation of wife after love is dead 1
Is there some other consideration that can take the place
of genuine affection 1 Can she be bribed with money, or
a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain
a virtuous woman ? Is it for the good of society that
virtue should be thus crucified between Church and State ?
Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of
the human race 1
Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where
divorce is prohibited than in those where it is granted 1
Where husbands and wives who have ceased to love cannot
be divorced there are mistresses and lovers.
The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice.
The world looks at the wife who has been abused, who
has been driven from the home of her husband, and the
world pities ; and when this wife is loved by some other
man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot
live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused.
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
15
Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than
for a husband to insist on living with a wife who has no
love for him ? Is not this a perpetual crime ? Is the wife
to lose her personality ? Has she no right of choice ? Is
her modesty the property of another ? Is the man she
hates the lord of her desire ? Has she no right to guard
the jewels of her soul ? Is there a depth below this ? And
is this the foundation of morality ? this the corner-stone of
society ? this the arch that supports the dome of civilisa
tion ? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacri
lege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven ?
To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most
pathetic fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around
this sacred word cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies
and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother walks in
the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon
the altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the
world is civilised, no wife will become a mother against her
will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to
imprison himself.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll,
of Moses.
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
6d.
The Gods. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
Some Mistakes
God and the State. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic
Part I. 2d.
Why am I
an Agnostic ?
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert andGrov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. An
Agnostic’s View. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake, id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
COL. INGERSOLL’S NEW LECTURE,
ABOUT THE
HOLY
BIBLE.
Price Sixpence.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER,
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
■Published every Thursday. Price Twopence.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
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
Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: No. A5 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by Stein). Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Reproduced from the North American Review. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N374
Subject
The topic of the resource
Marriage
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Divorce
Marriage
NSS
-
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