2 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5c5bb91b203ca3ab8802fa5d92729308.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=NNCon7HD0t8QymMMO0NfQ4kcvhxist-81uBFOXHCXzyLPZ-JXF27dW5zi-26RlmjZxxUE4KfiIgo6mLzalvK0B44Qe6uhb0rwsDqlspPLUfmBzBCkSodE7S7wFhAxpvFRqw9wv-3u6U5pgsJjCoF9iKmEzLaMIckkWcd13o6wiV%7EuT4jPZDfacuQ8lPJKA41VScrcp-AhIdN1LzYj9SaMJQwfHoBtYZDTSPQjLpGmW7zi6XE8bfp5sJ3wX039k6dGJUWDMB4rICGOXAP7K6fG1Dc78bmhfkzYsdm31ztzhy8H9FyP%7Eara8BdBzYHOkwu5v0YmiHeDEFhYWyxGv8%7EMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 215c14e35028d04475c16375245daeb0 PDF Text Text Agnosticism or... ^ I admit that the title of this pamphlet is illogical. It suggests an alternative where no alternative exists. My excuse for the title is that this and the succeeding pamphlet represent a single essay broken in halves for no other reason than the matter of publication. The purpose of this first half is to prove that a genuine Agnosticism is Atheism masquerading under a lesser socially objectionable name. As presented by the Agnostic himself, no difference between the two terms is discernible. An Atheist is one who does not believe in God. An Agnostic is one who is without belief in God. The difference between not having and being without is too fine for my dull brain. All important words have a history, and in the present case the history of modern “ Agnosticism ’* throws light on the intention which gave it birth. “ Gnostic ” is a very old term, and in the early years of Christianity gave considerable trouble to the Church. The Gnostics were those who claimed, by the aid of some “ inner light,” to know the mysteries of God and the universe. So did the Church, but the gnosis of the Church differed from the gnosis of the Gnostic sects, and when rivals in the mystery busi­ ness quarrel, the conflict is apt to be very fierce. And it is fiercest of all when neither of the two principals know anything of the matter which divides them. One of the disputants in the quarrel we have in mind has seized hold of this old. war-word, Gnostic, with an addition. He does not claim any knowledge (gnosis) of God or gods, he asserts his ignorance, his irremovable ignorance, in the word “ A-gnosticism.” 2 �Nl3o AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? J He agrees with the Atheist in. not having a belief in God, but he disagrees with him as to how that ignor­ ance should be expressed. The Atheist declines to be led astray by the mere change of a word. So, too, would the Christian if Atheism was not there to bear the brunt of his hostility. But the Atheist insists on an identity underlying the verbal difference. The Agnostic accuses the Atheist of “ coarseness,” of saying more than he ought to say, of being definite where he should be hesitant. To this the Atheist retorts that the Agnostic is thinking “ respectably ” where he should be helping to rid a perfectly honest and completely applicable word of the ill-odour with which religious bigotry has surrounded it. That is the existing position in a nutshell. “ Agnostic ” was brought into vogue by the famous scientist, T. H. Huxley, towards the end of the ’eighties. Examining himself he found that he was without belief in a god. In those days being without belief in a God and spelling it A-T-H-E-I-S-T was a much more serious offence than it is to-day. And it was an offence that was peculiarly English. It was not intellectually wrong, but it was socially undesirable. It was coarse and common; it reeked of quart pots and clay pipes, and had a number of other objectionable connotations with which Christian malignity had surrounded it. So Huxley looked round and found a word that enabled him to spell Atheism in another way. He tacked “ a ” on to gnosticism, and Agnosticism was born. In the interests of clarity let us take a number of pertinent definitions from an authoritative modern dictionary, always remembering that dictionaries do not manufacture our vocabulary, they merely record it, and speculate on origins. Here are the relevant definitions numbered for ease of reference: — �4 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? (i) God. Origin unknown. Probably an Aryan word meaning that to which sacrifice is made. One of a class of powerful spirits regarded as controlling a department of nature or of human activity. ■ (2) Agnostic. One who does not believe in, and who holds that nothing can be known about, God. (3) Atheist. One who does not believe in the existence of God. (4) Agnosticism. The negative doctrine held by Agnostics. (5) Atheism. Disbelief in God. It will be observed that in the first definition “ God ” leaves us completely in the air. It has not the slightest significance by itself. It implies nothing. If I define a thing as wood, I can relate it to wood in general, leaving the particularization of the many forms of wood for after consideration. But “ God ’’ by itself? We cannot say that “ God ” by any other name would mean as much, for it has no meaning whatever. “ God,” we are told, is probably an Aryan word. But an Aryan language and an Aryan people were both invented about the middle of the last century as a working hypothesis, and are now discarded nearly everywhere—except in Germany. The rest of the definition does tell us something of importance, but it is of no value whatever to Agnos­ ticism; the definition tells us something concerning gods, but the whole significance of Agnosticism is that it indicates something of which nothing can be known. I disclaim all responsibility for this last seven words, it is the strict Agnostic position. And the information given us in the latter part of the definition is fatal to Agnosticism. The latter part of the definition, “ One of a class ot powerful spirits regarded as controlling a department of nature or of human activity,” and “ that to which sacrifice is made,” does tell us something about gods. > �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? g It indicates the known way in which the gods have come into existence, and it is what people have in mind when they use “ God ” with honesty and intel­ ligibility. But that information is, again, fatal to Agnosticism. “ The God according to religion,” said the late Lord Balfour, is “ a God to whom men can pray, who takes sides, who has preferences.” In plain words, a magnified man, not a mere unintelligible abstraction. Gods, says the great anthropologist, Westermarck, are made by man, and man “ endows them with rights quite after human fashion, and imposes on himself corresponding duties.” Sir James Frazer says, “ By a God I understand a supernatural being of a spiritual and personal nature, who controls the world or some part of it. . . It has been not unusual to apply the name God to very different con­ ceptions. . . I cannot but regard them as illegitimate extensions of the term, in short, an abuse of language.” Professor F. H. Bradley (author of Appearance and Reality') is more directly con­ temptuous in his language. He says, “ Most of those who insist on the personality of God are intellectually dishonest. They desire one conclusion, and to reach it they argue for another. . . The deity they want is, of course ... a person like themselves. . . What is not this is really nothing.” , There is no need to multiply quotations to this end. What I am driving at is this. A proposition to be affirmed or denied, or about the truth of which we suspend judgment, must be intelligible. If I am asked whether my neighbour is guilty of burglary, I may reply, Yes, or No, or say that I cannot decide one way or the other. But then I have a clear con­ ception of what I mean in any one of the three cases. But if I am asked whether “ sloberkums ” “ corifies ” “ ketcherput,” I cannot say I am agnostical on the matter, I can reply only that I do not under­ �6 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? stand what is the reference of the questions. I may­ look as wise as the most learned fool that ever existed, but my ignorance remains unaffected. In other words, I am saying that a proposition to be understood must be intelligible, its meaning- must be more or less definite. The answer to whether a “ Whoozelum ” exists is not, “ I do not know, I must wait for evidence one way or the other,” the answer, the only intelligible answer, is that I do not know what my questioner is talking about. Has the Agnostic when he says “ I neither affirm nor deny the existence of God,” anything- in mind? Is his declaration of Agnosticism intelligible to him­ self? Does it really contain anything more than a desire to guard against being identified with that terrible thing “Atheism”? Candidly I can find nothing more than this. Even if we pass the very ambiguous word “ spirit,” the Agnostic cannot mean that he is in doubt as to whether there is a number of spirits controlling nature and human activities. That would bring him straight back to fetichism. By some, Agnosticism is described as a case of sus­ pended judgment. Suspended judgment on what? Does the Agnostic suspend judgment as to whether God ” has ever meant anything other than a mag­ nified man? Many modern religionists deny “ God ” the possession of a physically animal structure. He has not the shape of man. He has neither arms nor legs, he has neither a physical head nor a physical structure such as a-man has. But he is still capable of love, anger, wisdom, etc. Yet these are as much animal and human characteristics as arms and legs. Intelligence, love, desire, are as human as red hair and side-whiskers. What is it about which judgment is suspended ? It is no use to keep up a steady chatter, “ we do not say that God is or God is not,” if one has not the least notion of what God is, and would not know him if he were found. Looking for a black �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 7 cat in a black passage on a black night is a very stiff proposition, but at least we do know what “ cat ” and “black” and “passage” stand for. The Agnostic is looking for a “ what-you-may-call-ir " in a “thingumajig ” and a “ whatsisname.” If he ever found it he would never recognize his discovery. The Agnostic warmly declares that he knows nothing about God. That is the foundation of his creed. But if that was all he implied, the statement would hardly be worth making. He obviously means more than this. What he says is, “I know nothing about God.” What he implies as the justification of his own credo is “ Neither does anyone else.” And, as we shall see, when he justifies this, he is justify­ ing precisely the position taken up by the avowed Atheist. Perhaps the most curious attempt to make the Agnostic position intelligible was essayed by the late Sir Leslie Stephen. In his Agnostic's Apology, he solemnly informs us that “ The Agnostic is one who asserts—what no one denies—that there are limits to human understanding.” Of all the apologies that have been put forward this is surely the poorest and the weakest. Where is the necessity to coin a new word to affirm what nobody has ever denied? One might as reasonably establish a society of “ noseites ” and limit the human membership to those who have nasal organs. There might be a certain convenience in adopting a formula that puts one in agreement with everybody, but it is hardly worth while. After all, a definition must define— that is, it must exclude as well as include. And if the meaning of Agnosticism is as given by Sir Leslie Stephen, in what way does it differentiate the Agnostic from the Atheist, or from anyone else ? The Agnostic apparently believes nothing that others do not believe, and says nothing that all others do not say. �8 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? Let us, as the professional evangelist would say, get back to God. And I begin with something that everyone actually does believe. The world as we know it (which is the only world we can deal with) is made up of things, or as some would prefer to put it, of events. But all events, whatever they are like, or wherever they occur, are single in their existence. We have collective terms such as “tree,” “ man,” bird,” and so forth, but there is not a tree separate from particular trees, or “ Man ” distinct from par­ ticular men. I stress this consideration because a great deal of the confusion connected with “ God ” is due to its neglect. There are a multitude of gods in the world, as there are a multitude of trees, and in the earlier stages of civilisation g'ods are contemptibly common. Many of them have passed away, and many new ones have been created; but there is no such conceivable thing as a God ” that is distinct from particular gods. The gods can be collected, tabulated, and their common characteristics noted, just as one can collect different men, brown, red, yellow, white, tabulate them and indicate what features they have. Abstract words are very often useful instruments of thought. Without them human thought could not* get very far. But when we mistake abstractions for concrete existences, confusion is certain to follow. Now the gods of the world are as well known and as well understood as the trees of the world. And if we were to take all the g'ods that have ever existed, and add to them the gods that do exist, the Agnostic would not hesitate to dismiss them one after the other as mere figments of the imagination. In the end he would become a deicide on the most elaborate and comprehensive scale. More than that, in terms of his Agnosticism, he would deny the existence of any other god that any people could ever conceive or worship. The gods of existing savages, the gods of �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 9 the Mohammedan, the Jew,- the Christian, would all go. But if all gods, past and present, and future, are rejected as having no better existence than the ghost that haunts the old baronial castle, what has he in mind when he says that he does not deny the exist­ ence of God. He is denying the existence of any conceivable god, and an inconceivable proposition is just nonsense. Or if, as is said, the Agnostic suspends judgment as to whether “ God ” exists or not, what “ God ” is it he has in mind ? As I have written elsewhere, if I say that I don’t believe in the existence of the only kind of bird, fish, or tree that is known to me, that I believe they are all creatures of the imagination, but add that I will not say that there does not exist any­ where a fish that has not the structure of a fish and does not live in the water, or that I think there may be in existence a bird that is quite unlike a bird in both structure and habits, or that there may. exist somewhere a tree without roots, trunk or branches, etc., I shall quite properly be told that if I run across these things they are certainly not fish, bird, or tree. Can anyone think of a thing existing which is quite unlike any other thing of the same name or nature ? The man who is looking for a god or a bird that is entirely unlike the bird and the god he knows would not know them for either god or bird if he ran across either or both. We have not vet reached the end of the confusion and self-contradictions of the Agnostic. The only helpful definition of “ God ” that we could find was that God began as one of a company of spirits who exercised control over some part of nature. I accept that definition, not because it suits my own position, but because my position has grown out of the anthro­ pological account of the origin of gods. Every god the world has known began existence as a good or evil spirit, and he was dreaded or loved because he �I© AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? was supposed to be capable of exerting a good or bad influence on human affairs. These are incontro­ vertible facts. No competent person seriously dis­ putes them. Many of these gods have come down to us as fairies, goblins, etc., and many of them have died away altogether. The Agnostic has not the least hesitation in brushing aside whole galaxies of known or conceivable gods as figments of the imagination. He says they are the outcome of an unenlightened imagination, and I agree with him. By what rule does he dismiss these dethroned gods, and also all that are still ruling over very diminished territories, but still insists that he cannot deny the existence of something he knows not what, and would be in no better state of mind if he met it ? All my life I have been asking Agnostics to give me some justification for their “ suspension of judg­ ment.” What is there on which we are to suspend! The Agnostic does pass judgment on the spirits he is told about, and in whom other people believe. Is there any better evidence, or any different evidence, for the probable existence of a spirit called God, than there is for another spirit who, instead of being called God, is called Mumbo-Jumbo? There is sin­ cerity of belief with both these gods, and the evidence for the existence of each is of exactly the same character and quality. Why the differentia­ tion? If I may paraphrase a line in Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan, whenever religion is concerned to be intelligible it is found out. Still further. Less than two centuries ago the belief that men and women might hold intercourse with the devil was very generally held. Witchcraft was then a criminal offence, and many thousands of men, women, and children were tortured and killed for intercourse with devils, in whose existence there is the same religious and Christian warranty as there is for the existence of God. This belief in intercourse �AGNOSTICISM OR . . II with devils was killed, for intelligent men and women, by the knowledge of the conditions that gave this belief being and authority. Yet one never heard an Agnostic say that he suspended judgment con­ cerning that deposed god, Satan. Quite definitely he says with the Atheist that so soon as the origin and history of the belief in human intercourse with the spirit, Satan (God) was known and understood it was at once definitely rejected. He does not say I am agnostic on the subject of demoniacal posses­ sion. He says, I deny that any such being as Satan exists; he owes his existence to the imaginings of the uninstructed mind. The belief is condemned by its history. And this is exactly what has happened to the gods. They have been found out. I do not mean that they have been found out in the sense in which we find out that someone is bad whom we have considered good, or as a liar one whom we thought truthful. The gods have been found out, as people discovered ghosts and fairies an*d demons to be mere “ figments of the imagination.” For the past three hundred years this idea concerning the gods has been gaining ground, and, with and since the publication of the epoch-making Primitive Culture, by E. B. Tylor, the gods have been tracked down and their origin exposed with a devastating accuracy. Such primitive peoples as exist have been carefully studied and the process of god-making has been fully exposed. The whole weight of modern scientific theory is thrown upon the side of the conviction that all gods, ancient and modern, savage and civilized, good and bad, have had their origin in the uninstructed mind of man reading his own feelings into nature, personifying them, and then trembling before the creation of his own imagination. There are, of course, divergences of opinion as to the order of the different stages of this development, just as there are differences �12 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? of opinion as to the precise nature and order of that organic evolution which traces the development of living matter from the simplest, to the hig'hest form. From all sides, from that of the study of culture in. general, from the essential nature of such ceremonies as the Christian eating of the god, the incarnate god walking the earth as a man, the general conception of natural happenings as due to! supernatural or superhuman beings, the whole of modern religion can be traced. Now it is possible, although it would be supremely ridiculous at this time of day, for the Agnostic to repudiate the demonstrable findings of the anthro­ pologists. But I have never met an Agnostic who takes up this position. With a lack of logic that runs the Christian Scientist very close for a front place in the race for the absurdity medal, what we find is an acceptance of the scientific account of the origin of the belief in gods, followed by an assertion that one must suspend judgment on the whole question as to whether gods exist. But if one really does accept the account of modern science concerning- the origin of the belief in God, what is there left on which to express doubt? If all the facts of experience, sub­ jective and objective, upon which primitive humanity built the belief in “ spirits ” are otherwise explained, the first interpretation is quite plainly ruled out of court. We cannot, at least we ought not, to accept a conclusion that follows from premises that are demonstrably false. If the mental hesitancy and illogicality displayed by the Agnostic in relation to the idea of God was manifested with regard to the ordinary affairs of life, existence would be impossible. I began this pamphlet with some definitions. I may well end with some more. A correspondent once asked me what reply I would give to a ques- �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 13 tioner who at the end of one of my lectures put the following question: — Do you believe that the universe was created or set going by a personal power? I replied in substance to this question, which was obviously considered clear and simple, that the question needed clarifying because in any important controversy a question should have a definite mean­ ing. Words should have a reference to somethingthat one understands. Take, for example, the three cardinal terms in this fifteen-wo rd sentence. Created. In relation to the question this has two meanings. It may carry the theological implication that the world was made out of nothing. That may be set on one side as pure nonsense. It might be recited as an act of faith, but it could not be believed apart from a first-rate miracle. The second meaning of the term might be that indicated when we speak of the creation of a painting, a piece of music, or the design of a building. But this does not lift us out of the realm of human effort, and so cannot have any bearing on the question of Agnosticism. As used, the word is either nonsensical or misleading. Universe. There is a double sense here, that may very easily mislead. The world, or the universe,' whichever term we prefer, does not refer to one thing, but to a vast number of individual things. There is riot indicated in the word “ world ” an exist­ ence that is separate from particular things. “World ” is a short summing up of the total of individual things. But a whole has never an existence separate from the parts. The world, as I have already said, is a world made up of particulars. They form the material of and for our thinking. But there does not exist these things plus another existence, the world. To think otherwise is to get back to the fallacies of the mediaeval schoolmen. • �M AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? Personal Power. Power means, briefly, the ability or capacity to do something, never any more than this, even though it be spelt with a capital P. Per­ sonal means something pertaining to a person, to a human being, although if anyone chooses to extend it to animals, I should raise no objection. But no “ personal power ” is known or is conceivable that can absolutely originate power. All that happens in nature is the transformation of “ power,” or emerg­ ence of power following from a rearrangement of existing forces. (There is a suggestion of question­ begging here, but it would require a lengthy discus­ sion to put it otherwise, and the reader will, I think, follow my meaning.) If we are to retain a sane meaning to the words we use, the creation of the universe by personal power is simply unthinkable. We are mistaking words for things, which lands us back into the early stages of savage thought. As to how I would reply to one who put the -question given at the end of a lecture I might probably answer as follows : — “ I will put this question into plain English before replying to it. I have been asked whether I believe that every thing has been created by some manlike power—this is what I understand by personal power, because if it means that everything has arisen ent of preceding conditions, the question has no connexion whatever with ‘ God.’ If the first meaning is in­ tended, then I must know what it means. Until then I cannot say I do not know, because even to say that one does not know one must know what it is of which he pleads ignorance. If a question is asked in Greek, how can I say whether I agree with it or not unless I have some understanding of Greek? I do not know and cannot conceive any personal power except that manifested by man. So will you please go home, write out the question you have in mind, giving it an intelligible meaning, so making it a topic for �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 15 probable fruitful discussion, and I will see what can be done. At present all the good that has been done by your question depends upon whether I have made it plain that philosophy does not consist in posing unanswerable questions clothed in non-understandable language, but in properly framing an enquiry resting on a known basis, and to work from that known basis to further understanding, And in doing this it may help to bear in mind the fact that profound truth is nearly always simple. It is only complicated error that looks intellectually impressive—until it meets with exposure.” I will conclude with one more attempt to clear up a confusion, and by asking a question. The confusion is a very common one with modern religious apolo­ gists, and it appears to have fooled a great many who are not religious. Jumbling together a purely arti­ ficial question that belongs to a philosophy that has not yet freed- itself from the influence of religious associations, we are told that neither the Atheist nor the Agnostic can solve the problem of the “ mystery of the universe. ” But the mystery of the universe has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the Belief in “ God ” or gods. It is a heritage from the days when neither science nor philosophy had completely freed itself from theology. Besides, science knows nothing of “ mysteries it considers only problems. And a problem must be stated in intelligible terms; it must have reference to knowable facts, and we can only think of what is unknown so far as it falls into the framework of the possible knowable. To use a horse-breeding term, “ The problem of the universe was born of bad metaphysics out of a weakened theology.” The progeny of that line has been simply awful. The final question I put to the Agnostic is this : — The Agnostic says he does not deny the existence of �i6 AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? “ God ” (this does not include the g'ods of all theologies past and present), but denies that if “ God ” exists he cannot be like the gods of any of the religions, otherwise he would not call himself an Agnostic. So my question is : “ As ‘ God ’ standing by itself has no reference to anything known, or to anything that is conceivably known, how would the Agnostic recognize God as God if he ever discovered him—or it ? In other words, how does anyone recog­ nize something as being what it is, if it is totally unlike anything he has ever seen, or anything he can even think about? ” By the time the Agnostic has carefully recon­ sidered his question, I fancy he will have small use for such a word as Agnosticism. . PAMPHLETS FOR THE PEOPLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1'3. 14. 15. 16. Did Jesus Christ Ever Live? Morality Without God. What is the Use of Prayer? Christianity and Woman. Must We Have a Religion? The Devil. What Is Freethought? Gods and Their Makers. Giving ’em Hell. The Church’s Fight for the Child. Deity and Design. What is the Use of a Future Life? Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to Live. Freethought and the Child. Agnosticism Or ... ? Atheism. Postage One Penny. Twopence Each. Issued for the Secular Society Limited, and Printed and Published by Thb Pioneer Press (G. W. Foote & Co., Ltd.), 61, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.4, ENGLAND. 71 � 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 &amp; 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 Agnosticism or...? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Series title: Pamphlets for the People Series number: No. 15 Notes: "Issued for the Secular Society Limited." Publisher's series list on back cover. Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Pioneer Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1914] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N130 Subject The topic of the resource 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 (Agnosticism or...?), 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 Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/675b9647a6d5d889519f669bef7bfb1b.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=LrLEd-EH1iUCBIG-WptIEUQ32vKYNEhlJWjsHFUCVpXhHBtjPtIQXurnu1uR-t4SsRsQTJbIcN3q4iDBxXdY%7ESjeLI28if3yLrx3myNYmROyPnm4m-X0rbR7EYk4pcK5XuAm%7Ej3mc1P6XmMNhFq0ywDuLm3i%7EoAvZohNhXHhhtoqejun5z6Nl7Xe1a1s2do9FaM6sJn%7ERckhKrYlwwpyfsDvdnZjvZLFPe1Ot1gerDA7wlAPHbAm86VE0DBs0vDhIQ7cw3GuauSCZkKjxWtyyfCZLSwn56S3WqhdbcTHVIpyB0YxuHWzQzyiMBE1vrAZcYpA48FC%7EZjyOQav5YJPrw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ea86c81567e681e94a69a7cc9a098528 PDF Text Text By the same Author, “ Life and Times of C. C. Cattell.” One Penny. “ Perils of Genius ” (Illustrious Men who suffered in times past). Published at is., post free, 7d., of C. Cattell, “ Emerson,’’ Boscombe Park, Bournemouth. Agnosticism : AN EXPOSITION AND A DEFENCE. Selected from leading authorities by CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL. Introduction. Long before I heard of Huxley, or Agnosticism, I held that whatever was presented to the intellect de­ manding assent, must have reasonable grounds for its acceptance—rational proof. In forming a judgment on any subject, faith or authority must never be per­ mitted to usurp the place of facts. We find ourselves living among incessant changes called “causesand effects,” interminable in time and space. These changes have been observed to occur in a certain order ; and such are named “Laws of Nature.” Hence we are led to believe in universal causation—a first or a last cause having no meaning. As to why there is one existence we call “ Nature,” or why there ’is any existence at all—Who) can tell ? The idea of one existence includes all that is and all that is necessary for all that happens. Science in some measure explains how things now existing became what they are ; the conditions of existence appear to determine the duration of their varying qualities and forms. These conditions must have been adequate to produce these effects, or the earth in our time would not supply the varied forms and manifestations of life. But why all this has taken �2 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. place—Who can tell? Spencer teaches that the power manifested in nature is inscrutable. Those who do not accept the idea of a power indescribable operat­ ing in nature, resort to the alternative of an external power. This much we know—that all the changes observable take place tn the nature we know; hence, a power assumed external to it explains no more than a power assumed to operate within it. As to the durability of Nature, the indestructibility of matter points to unlimited time, an everlasting existence. Our only scope of inquiry is, therefore, clearly Nature and its laws; the latter term being a name for observed changes, and not in any sense implying causes, such use of the term being misleading, although very common. Law is not a cause, an agent, or an in­ strument, but merely the name of the path or way along which forces travel to phenomena. The subject may be made clear by recalling the fact that while the Theist may affirm a God infinite and eternal, and the Atheist may affirm the same of Nature, Agnostics maintain that these terms do not admit of being thought of at all. At most, they convey the idea of indefinite extent in space and time, while every thought implies a boundary, a limit, something definite. Some perverse people insist that “ Agnostic ” stands for Ignorance, and others contend it is adopted through want of courage to avow what we really are. I hold the name is a fitting title to distinguish one who finds it beyond his mental powers to believe in things that have no relation to common knowledge. In formulating a thought about anything, we dis­ cover it implies likeness, relation, and difference, which cannot apply to the terms “infinite” or “ eternal ”—no such thought is possible ; they have no likeness, relation or difference, although no words are more commonly heard in the religious world. The Agnostic’s position is governed by limits found to rule our intellect in forming conclusions. An examination of the formulation of consciousness about the infinite will reveal the fact that parts of known things have been used in its formation, �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 3 A popular writer maintains that he can grasp all the ideas which the Agnostic deems beyond our powers to grasp, such as self-existence, eternity, infinity, “ although it is only by consciousness, by feeling that we know.” But no explanation is given as to how finite con­ sciousness (and there is none other) can feel infinite self-existence. Although in former years I wrote at length on this subject, I leave the following extracts to represent my views on the present occasion. The term Agnostic and Agnosticism arose as follows:— “ I took thought and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of Agnostic. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘ Gnostic ’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my satisfaction the term took ; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people that knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled. That’s the history of the terms. “ And it will be observed that it does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the Rev. Principal of King’s College, that ‘ the adoption of the term Agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion ; in relation to the Church and Christianity. . . . . The people who call themselves ‘ Agnostics ’ have been charged with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves ‘ Infidels,’ have adopted a new name to escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. . . . Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘negative’ creed, nor, indeed, as a creed of any kind, except in so far as a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. The principle may be stated ir. various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of �4 Agnosticism—An'Exposition and a Defence. any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts, and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propo­ sitions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence ; and that repro­ bation ought to attach to the profession of dis­ belief in such inadequately supported proposi­ tions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows its application, whether in the field of natural or in that of civil history ; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity. Agnosticism is the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Agnosticism says that we know nothing beyond phenomena. . . . . As to the interests of morality, I am disposed to think that if mankind could be got to act up to this principle in every relation of life, a reformation would be effected such as the world has not yet seen ; an approximation to the millenium, such as no supernaturalistic eligion has ever yet succeeded, ior seems likely ever to succeed in effecting.”—Huxley. “ That which persists' unchanging in quantity, but ever changing in form, under the sensible appearances which the universe presents to us, transcends human knowledge and conception, is an unknown and unknowable power, which we are obliged to recognise as without limit in space, and without beginning or end in time. This is in its highest form, the philosophy of Agnos­ ticism. . . . If we ask how came the atoms into existence, endowed with marvellous energy, we can only reply in the words of the poet : ‘ Behind the veil, behind the veil.’ We can only form metaphysical conceptions, or I ought rather �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 5 to call them the vaguest guesses. One is, that they were created and endowed with their elementary properties by an all-wise and allpowerful creator. This is Theism. Another, that thought is the only reality, and that all the phenomena of the universe are thoughts and ideas of one universal all-pervading mind. This is Pantheism.” “ Or, again, we may frankly acknowledge that the real essence and origin of things are ‘ behind the veil,’ and not knowable or even conceivable by any faculties with which the human mind is endowed in its present state of existence. This is Agnosticism. Agnostics do not deny that, in the course of evolution, certain feelings and as­ pirations have grown up which find a poetical ex­ pression in the ideas of God and immortality. They simply deny that we have, or can have, any certain, definite and scientific knowledge respect­ ing these mysteries.”—Laing. “ The Agnostic is one who asserts—what no­ body denies—that there are limits to the sphere of intelligence. He asserts, further, what many theologians have expressly maintained, that these limits are such as to exclude at least what Lewes called ‘ metempirical ’ knowledge. But he goes further, and asserts, in opposition to theologians, that theology lies within the forbidden sphere.” “ ‘Trust your reason,’ we have been told until we are tired of the phrase, ‘ and you will become Atheists or Agnostics.’ What right have you to turn round and rate us for being a degree more logical than yourelves ? You say, as we say, that the natural man can know nothing of the Divine nature. That is Agnosticism. Our fundamental principal is not only granted but asserted. . . . Dr. Newman’s arguments (in * Grammar of Assent’) go to prove that man, as guided by reason, ought to be an Agnostic, and that at the present moment, Agnosticism is the only reason­ able faith for, at least, three-quarters of the race. . . . The race collectively is Agnostic, �6 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. whatever may be the case with individuals. . . There is not a single proof of natural theology of which the negative has not been maintained as vigorously as the affirmative. You tell us to be ashamed of professing ignorance. Where is the shame of ignorance in matters still involved in endless and hopeless controversy ? Is it not rather a duty.”—Sir Leslie Stephen. “ The Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a Superior Existence, from lack of satisfying evidence to warrant affirmation or denial. He is neutral, not because he wishes not to believe, or desires to deny, but because language should be measured by proof of conviction. Huxley’s wise, useful, and honest word ‘ Agnostic ’ has done more to teach theologians to think, and incite in them discrimination and tolerance, than any other word which has been added to the nomencla­ ture of controversy this century.” “ Is it ‘ dodging ’ to refuse to identify yourself with the preposterous presumption of the Theist or the Atheist ? Is it not imposture in any one to adopt a term which implies all-penetrating knowledge, when you know you have it not ? Nature is too illimitable to be conceived, and the past is beyond all human experience. The Agnostic neither decries nor disparages them [Theist and Athiest], but frankly says he is not of their way of thinking. Many now see no distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. It is the wide distinction between knowing and not knowing. Agnosticism means scruplousness and truth.”—G. ]. Hol'joake. “ The contest between Theology and Agnos ticism is like that between a man in a balloon and one on the solid ground. The balloon man shouts down to his enemy, ‘ Come up here and I will give you a good beating.’ The reply is ‘ No ; I cannot leave the solid ground of fact. I cannot float myself with the gas of sentiment and imagination. But, if you come down to terra firma, I will very soon test the strength of your �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 7 balloon. If your silk can stand the sharp edge of my knife—scientific criticism—well and good, you will continue to float above the earth. But if not/and a rent is made, you and your balloon will collapse into nothingness. The balloon man shouts down that his antagonist is a coward, throws some dust into the eyes of the spectators, and so ascends into the heavens. The theologian, so long as he remains in the region of emotion and imagination, is safe from any attack on the part of the scientist; but the moment he touches the ground of fact he must prepare for hostilities ; and it is well that he should understand that such things as miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, etc., are subject to criticism, and will be vigorously combatted.”—John Wilson, M.A. “ If after devoting our best energies and highest endeavours to the investigation of the arguments of Maratheism, Dualism. Polytheism, Pantheism, and Atheism, we find none entirely convincing, there is no cowardice involved in the admission. On the contrary, it becomes our highest duty to confess that all our labour has been without fruit or reward. Though we have fervently sought we have failed to find. We are sceptics or agnostics, and recognise the fact that, even should one or other of these five interpretations of the mystery of existence be accepted as its true solution it is but a proximate solution and thus but removes the essential mystery but a step further back.”—Constance E. Plumptre. “ We get rid of the accursed spirit of condem­ nation, and the setting open wide—as wide as humanity itself—the gates that lead to truth and human progress. For the Agnostic is no narrow pale, on one side of which stand the saved and the other the lost; and no ascription of certain social experiments to a corrupt imaginaand an evil heart......................... “We know nothing of the hereafter—absolutely nothing. But, freed as we are from the trammels of superstition and the strangulation of fear, we �8 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. deny the eternal Hell, and the omnipotent Devil formulated by old-world ignorance and terror. For us the life of man is emphatically his life in the present, and his merits or demerits are determined by his relations to others. He has, in a word, got rid of night and its dreams, and has come out into the light of waking day of which he does not pre sume to foretell the state of the evening, or the conditions of the night that follows after. All he knows is that there must come this evening, when strength will wane and the light will wax dim ; and that then will steal down the night—into which he cannot peer. Whether that night is to be starless, or brilliant with these “ many mansions ” of light, must be left to time to settle. No, the Agnostic does not waste his time in these speculative futilities. He works for the present and in the present, and he leaves the undiscovered future to take care of itself.—Mrs. Lynn Linton. , “ The essential principles of Agnosticism were known and recognised before the name was in­ vented ; but the introduction of a definite name arrested the attention of the reflecting classes. Their attention once fixed on the subject, people began to say this was what they always thought. The unseen and unknown presents an ample field for speculation, and by contemplative minds must always be viewed with reverence and awe. A con­ sciousness that the sphere of known and knowable phenomena, when expanded to its utmost limits, is very far from embracing the whole universe, very far from exhausting the possibilities of thought and feeling, while the Beyond is, to the upright man and pure in heart, an unfathomable abyss into which he looks with much ground for hope and very little for fear.—Dr. BitheU. London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C. ONE PENNY. � 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 &amp; 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 Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities... Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cattell, Charles Cockbill Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [W. Stewart & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N118 Subject The topic of the resource 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 (Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities...), 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 Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4f0c71ebc0e72adef0c2fd6bedf8fb75.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=FTfmhuntG7XnmjytsbGQPUpWX6BiJOwsDjb35PUIGVNMz5hP1IWkzkGEBXbCCfMptt%7E9zWQOZC9NeaKlkE4W4j9pINoW0DiloaPVz9%7ETM3bHf634P6Zvgrv5QfbsBjlsIzi1NL0OVSDOCpN%7E2J9lzMgsiGZrdQPRw2yZ1U3t9tTUulPvEdoKp38rqnbZPXAWv0yItxTCNfUQbJs4eMW%7EpIFds0kx12YT6-SevMgGuTfGrKWJE%7EyeyRGXcflJCR3mgM4uzeOs7pEkIjJyzewExYV6s6GkIeHyuQsYAXqGXzhGMCMLuRz4yN246PGq6ZvKbX%7ET21KFIQQvgAv3pdt9lA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a2000903cee70a690ada280668102e6e PDF Text Text NOTZ The following appeared in the “ Clarion ” of March 25th last:—■ r | A BRISTOL MINISTER ON “GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR.” •_ AN OBJECT LESSON. t , , ( (By ROBERT BLATCHFORD.) A Bristol reader sends me a pamphlet, by the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace, containing, I am sorry to say, some spiteful and ill-considered per­ sonal attacks on me, and asks me to say “a few words in defence.” No defence is called for. My life and work are my defence. Neither is Mr Wallace’s pamphlet worthy of notice, .except as a regrettable manifestation of' littleness of mlind and bitterness of spirit which are, unfortunately, too common amongst pro­ fessing Christians. T'he pamphlet is entitled “ ‘ God and My Neighbour’: a Criticism of iMr Blatchford’s book, by Hugh C. Wallace.” It would have been more correctly described as “ A Personal Attack on Robert Blatchford, by one whoneither knows nor understands him.”, Now, although it .is perhaps advisable topoint out io tin Christian ministers who have descended to the level of personal recrimination, the error of theiir ways, .it is not easy to deal with a case like this without seeming to be severe. And I do not want tobe severe, nor to give pain to Mr Wallace, nor to any other Christian. My .sole desire is, to say a few words for the -cause of toleration and human kindness, and, -at the same time, to convince my assailants, if that is possible, that their conduct is mistaken and indefen­ sible. On page 5 of his pamphlet Mr Wallace says:— . One is disposed to ask, “ How has socialism affected ‘ Nunquam ’ ? ” He is no longer a ■private in the army 'b-ut the editor an in­ fluential ■and largely circulated paper. What effect has his infidelity had upon his position ? Instead' of going down-, the “Clarion” cir­ culation has gone up since he commenced his series- of attacks upon the Christian faith. In the- light of that I -am perfectly prepared' to believe his statement on page 190 that: — “ My attack is not. wanton, but- deliberate ; n>ot purposeless, but very purposeful.” Here Mr Wallace tacitly charges' me with attacking religion for the sake o.f making money. And he makes this charge, not hastily and in anger, but- deliberately and in cold! ■ blood. Now, I submit to Mr Wallace that even if he knew for*a certainty that his charge was true,, he ought, as a Christian minister to have ex­ pressed it more, gently, -and with more dignity. But he has chosen to be deliberately sarcastic and bitter. / �2. And I submit to him that as a matter of commom honesty and manliness he ought not to have made so gross and so offensive a sugges­ tion until he had taken great pains to make sure of its truth. But if he had taken even a very little trouble he would have found tout, that his suspicion was not only unfounded1, but grotesquely un­ true. I conclude, then, that Mr Wallace—a professed Christian and a minister of the gospel.—has allowed his anger and his pre­ judice ito mislead! him into' charging with base eoniducib a man of whose life1 and character he is utterly ignorant. But, besides being uncharitable and unjust, Mr Wallace’s personal attack on me is mani­ festly unwise. For even if what he insinuates were true, even if I were as contemptible a creature as he represents me, what 'bearing would that have upon the question at issue between us? Would the fact that one Agnostic was a rogue prove Christianity to 'be true? If so, the easy task of finding a professed Christian who is a liar or a thief might be alleged as a proof that Christianity is false. Mr Wallace, in his pamphlet, suggests that I am mercenary, insincere, incompetent, con­ ceited, frivolous, irreverent, and devoid of spirituality and the saving grace of humour. Suppose I am all that, I am what thousands of other men are, and -amongst them some ministers of the Gospel. But what has that to do with the case? A man writes a book in which he argues that the Christian religion is not true. Mr Wallace retorts 'by saying that infidelity pays. Is that a wise, or a dignified, or an effective reply. The question of truth or untruth of the national religion is a very serious public question. Mr Wallace iis trifling with the sub­ ject and with the public when he offers them a pamphlet in which personal attacks upon Robert Blatchford waste the space that -should be devoted to answering the arguments brought by Agnostics against Christianity. On page 14- of his pamphlet Mr Wallace says: A few years ago there lived at Bowdon a prosperous Christian man; he was clear­ headed, far-sighted, a genius and inventor; at the bidding of the Spirit of God he gave up his fine house and grounds, and went to live in one of the darkest slums of Man­ chester, Ancoats; he did this that he might redeem it from its vice and make it part of the Kingdom of God. iHis name was -Frank Crossley. There was another man who, by sheer force of character and by honest hard work, climbed up the ladder step by .step from being a, private in the army to an influential and responsible position in the newspaper world; and then he went to live in a snug little villa in a London suburb. His name was Robert Blatchford. Nothing .more need be said. I think a good deal more need be said', for I think Mr Wallace is very superficial in this matter. He honours Mr Crossley for going tolive in a slum, and he suggests that I am to blame because I do not live in a. slum. Am I right in assuming that the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace does not live in a slum? Am 1 right �in assuming that such popular religious leaders as Dr Horton, Dr Clifford, the Rev. R. J. Campbell, a*nd the Archbishop of Canterbury do not live in slums, but actually live in better houses than I can afford, and are better paid; for preaching the Gospel than I am for preach­ ing Socialism? I cannot see' that it is my duty tO' go and live in a slum, nor to take my wife and children to live in such an unlovely and un­ healthy place. Doubtless Mr Crossley was jus­ tified in his action, but is Mr Wallace sure that I am not justified in mine? No human being ought to live in a slum. The best way to help those who are. doomed to confinement in such miserable surroundings is by helping to- abolish such surroundings, 'by helping to remove the evil and the injustices which cause the slums. This I have tr:ed to do. in the only way in which it can be done, by preaching Socialism. And, although I may be wrong and- Mr Wallace may be right, I think I have done more good in the past dozen veai's ,by my public work than I could have done by going to live in a slum. The more especially as I should probably have died there, and done no good at all. Of course Mr Wallace wishes to convey the impression that Christianity makes men altruist's, and that Agnosticism makes them selfish. He might have taken a more logical and a less offensive' way of advanc:ng that ■claim. .But stated in any form I dispute it. During the recent discussion on religion in the “Clarion ” I could not help seeing that my Christian opponents were less generous- and less 'courteous to me than I was to them; that whereas I only attacked dogmas and arguments they attacked me- personally. Can Mr Wallace explain this difference ? I account for it by assuming that my philosophy is better than the Christians’ religion. Finally, I assure Mr Wallace that he1 has misunderstood' and misrepresented me, and I ask him to confine himself in the future- to answering his opponents’ arguments and to refrain from recklessly maligning their char­ acters. Anyone who- knows: me- or my work would convince Mr Wallace in a few minutes that he has acted unwisely, and has brought discredit upon himself in. hi-s desire to- injure ■me. Of course Mr Wallace: know no better, but a man in his position should be more careful -and discreet. On page 7 of his pamphlet Mr Wallace1 says: I judge him largely by his- preface. He finds his fellows: so “ amusing.” He walks along the Strand peopled, on his- own con­ fession, by thieves, gamblers, and prosti­ tutes, and he finds them “amusing”; and this is the kind of man who sets himself up to criticise a religion that teaches “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This remarkable reading of the preface- to “ God and My Neighbour,” and thi® astounding picture of the frivolous author laughing at the misery of his fellow creatures proved my con­ tention that Mr Wallace does not know nor understand the -man he ha® attacked. To quote Mr Wallace—“ There is no more to- be said.”' �4. THE REV. HUGH C. WALLACE’S REPLY TO ROBERT BLATCHFORD’S BOOK, “ GOD AND 'MY NEIGHBOUR.” It has been thought well to issue in leaflet .form Mt Blatchford’s notes, which appeared in the “<£larion,” of 25th March last, on the pamphlet published by the Rev. Hugh C. Wal­ lace, of David Thomas Church, Bristol. As Mr Wallace's attack is mainly personal, stigmatising Mr Blatchford as unfit for the task undertaken, and representing him to be actuated by base and mercenary motives, it is but right that those interested should have a true .statement concerning these matters. Mt Blatohford has been for many years an earnest reformer, with a deep passion for the welfare and ennoblement of humanity, and has made this cause his life work. He has had a brilliant literary career, and is recognised as an. acute and logical thinker. He is the author of many books, amongst which are “Merrie England” and “Britain for the British.” The former obtained a circula­ tion of over a million, and has been translated into many languages. He is certainly aslfit for the work entered upon as were William ■ Cobbett and Shake­ speare for the services' they so brilliantly per­ formed. Previous to founding the “Clarion,” Mr Blatchford was receiving a salary of £1000 per annum for 'his services to .a. well-known paper. On this paper his advocacy of the cause he espoused was hampered, -and he voluntarily sacrificed the position rather than abandon his principles, and! launched the “■Clarion” for their free advancement, despite the fact, then known to him, that no. paper previously issued, for the same humanitarian purpose had paid. And, although the paper was not remunerative for m'any years, and Mr Bliatchford had received numerous outside offers for his services, greatly .superior to any­ thing the “ Clarion ” could provide in a financial sense, he has not abandoned ■his task. When .about, to. undertake the criticism of theology, Mr Blatchford was earnestly urged by friends of the paper to desist from so doing, in the interest of the circulation of the “’Clarion.” To this Mr Blatchford replied that he would not sacrifice what he believed to' be true to monetary con­ siderations. Such are the facts. It is dis­ tasteful to refer further to these matters, but it should be known that although Mr Blatch­ ford is a brilliant novelist and a. popular writer, with an international reputation, that, in consequence of allying himself with a.p unpopular cause, he is not 'So well paid for his public work as is the Rev. Wallace for his professional religious duties. Indeed, it is very., very probable that Mr Blatchford has sacrificed more in the furtherance of his principles than, even the Rev. Wallace. However, placing these matters aside, it is important that any further discussion should be confined to 'dealing with fundamental facts and essential argument. w >5 � 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 &amp; 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 A Bristol minister on "God and my neighbour" : an object lesson Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Blatchford, Robert [1851-1943] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 4 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: At head of title: "The following appeared in the "Clarion" of March 25th last." P.4, apparently written by the editor of The Clarion, justifies the "issue of Mr Blatchford's notes [...] on the pamphlet published by the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace of David Thomas Church, Bristol." Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Clarion Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N077 Subject The topic of the resource 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 (A Bristol minister on "God and my neighbour" : an object lesson), 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 Agnosticism NSS Robert Blatchford https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/144333907e0df5166510fb57b643e074.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Ht3dygEVztTqu8K5YrtE3o65UMtwEjKPeYV6DPSRkcJThb6nTx49ROKrc980bLOU9dbWQl6FEUNBr%7E28mzp5kpX1nCyMXxekNj4qN7pWYGJDmlIaXT5VbGHBlK-duEIjNVl5yD4gFBuHBhmblKoi1EY9CWso2BWcfF%7ElKJiIuX5eUG0-ZNTO8NPzfRQ85fDOedBaOC7KAxjEIU61qiw8fFgW9S158zpxvvr8m8mGIIKljYiGs9obnPXLXvMb3cZgwXRBdK41U0dkd6q41gfLYSmWp-hb33licAl5quqafNTAU0ZhHjuEOer9TRguYjXSqg%7EEzzVbpbEYJuVhkvVySA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c4fe65c4f321c6538774d95c70ac2a8 PDF Text Text B 2a>9 KSt>S£ NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY GOD. Being also a Bsiet Statement ot Arguments Against agnosticism. BY “TIUM ANITAS.” Author of “ Is God Heaven”, Commons “ Christ’s Temptation”, “ Jacob the Wrestler”, “Jonah and the Whale”, the First Cause?”, “Follies of the Lord’s Prayer”, “ Though's on “Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath Question”, “How the British House of Treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”, “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation”, “ Socialism a Curse”, “ Against Socialism”, etc. QoclIm? PldxT \ LONDON: FEEETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9. COMPANY, �LONDON : PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BKSANT, 63 ELEET STREET, E;C. �GOD. BEING ALSO A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST AGNOSTICISM The following observations were suggested to me by a remark—or rather, by a question put to me in the shape •of an argument—by an intimate and, I believe, a true friend, under rather peculiar circumstances. He is not •only a Christian—and I will do him the justice of believing him to be a sincere one—but a “ minister of the Gospel ”, having qualified himself in what should have been his hours of rest from daily toil, under the auspices of Mr. Spurgeon. We chanced to be inside a very important Catholic •church in the City of Dublin. It was upon a Saturday evening, a favorite time for going to confession amongst the poorer Catholics. The interior of the place presented the appearance usual upon such occasions, being only partially and dimly lit up ; making the small red lamp burning in front of the high altar [indicating the presence of the “Host”—i.e., a small piece of God’s “ very flesh ” in the form of the “ wafer ”, which is made of flour and water] more remarkable and mysterious. Groups of penitents kneeled and prayed, beads in hand, in front of one or other of the numerous altars, either waiting their turn to disappear into one of the many confessionals, or saying a few prayers—perhaps a portion of their penance—after coming out from them. Occasionally a priest would glide quickly and silently past in that well-known conventional and prof essional manner peculiar to them and their calling; bowing to the very ground in solemn fashion as he passed the “Adorable Host”. Pictures of the “Stations of the �4 GOD. Cross”; highly colored and decorated statues of “Our Saviour”, the “Blessed Virgin”, “ St. Joseph”, and various other saints ; stained glass windows, looking strangely and weirdly indistinct in the dim light, and helping the gene­ rally mysterious glamor which prevailed; people in various stations of life, but chiefly the poor, sprinkling themselves with holy water, blessing themselves and making the sign of the Cross as they passed, or almost crept, in and out; the curious odor so dear to the olfactory nerves of the faithful, caused by the burning of incense, and which never seems to leave the building: these, together with many other features peculiar to the Catholic Church, seen by my friend for perhaps the first time, inspired him with much curiosity, but withal much contempt. I think it likely that he experienced some such feelings, as did the simple honest Scotchman when he, for the first time in his life, got a glimpse of a bishop in the full blaze of his glory and paraphernalia, officiating in a Catholic Church upon the occasion of its being opened for public worship, and exclaimed : “Ah! mon, but it’s the deil!”. However that may have been, he is, as I say, a Christian minister, and of course fervently believes in the existence of God. In fact, he went so far as to declare—and I believe in all sincerity—that he did not believe one single human being existed who thought for a single moment there was no God. This being so, and whilst we stood opposite the high altar, he appeared to be suddenly struck with an idea: he thought he saw a favorable opportunity of driving home an argument, and thereby eventually saving my soul from the awful doom which he felt sorrowfully confident was hanging over it. For, turning to me, with much solici­ tude, he asked the question to which I have alluded, viz., “ Does not that fine piece of work ”—pointing to the high altar—“ show design ? Does it not bespeak thought, intelligence: in short, does it not show mind on the part of the maker ? ” Of course I at once saw at what my friend was driving; and there, in the centre of mystery and mummery, with the Faithful, and, as we both thought, foolish devotees, bowing and scraping, and blessing and mumbling and crawling about us, we two, a Baptist minister and an avowed Atheist, held an argument as to whether there existed a God or- not. Of course it was held in undertones ; but more than once we were �GOD. 5 suspiciously glanced at; and, wonderful to relate, the walls did not fall in upon us, nor did the floor open and swallow us up! I believe, Atheist as I am, and holding the Church of Rome—with its host, its mutterings, its tinsel and trappings, its celibate (?)' priesthood, and its large and lucrative trade done in departed souls—to be all delusion and pretence, that my friend’s disgust at what was passing around us, was greater than mine. Yet he, in turn, finds no difficulty in subscribing to such things as the “Trinity”, the “Fall”, and the “Atonement” (embracing as the latter does, the pre-ordained tragedy of the murder of God No. 2); the doctrine of eternal torment, and the usual orthodox miracles ascribed to Christ, etc., ■etc. With these few observations as to the origin of the pre­ sent paper, I will at once proceed with my task. In dealing with my subject, I shall hold that “God” means, not only the “Sovereign Lord”, the “Supreme Being”, the “Maker of heaven and earth”, etc., which terms all convey pretty much the same meaning or idea ; but that it must necessarily mean the beginning of all things; in fact, the First Cause. I take this to be the primary meaning of the term; and to be the centre of nearly all the definitions put forward. [I shall, in concluding this paper, make some remarks upon the question as to whether an Atheist can reasonably hold that the term God conveys no meaning to him. “Creator”, “Maker”, “First Cause ”, etc., seem to me to be fairly definite, and to convey the idea that the person who uses them, or the term (God) for which they stand, holds that he exists.] Christians generally certainly hold God to be the begin­ ning of all things. They all, with perhaps slight varia­ tion, teach what is conveyed in : “ Before all things were, God was ”. And the Theist, pure and simple, holds that he in some fashion or other made, or caused the universe. I shall, as a matter of course, endeavor to show that this is erroneous. My friend’s contention, as will have been observed, amounts to nothing more nor less than our old familiar friend the design argument: that because an altar, a building, or a piece of machinery, indicates mind on the part of the constructor, therefore the universe must have had a constructor who possessed that attribute. I do not, �6 GOD. however, think that either he or they who hold the sama opinion are sufficiently logical to admit that, inasmuch as the universe, like the objects referred to, showsgreat imperfections, therefore its maker, like theirs, must necessarily have had only an imperfect mind. To make this logical confession would defeat the object of the comparison and inference drawn. My first objection to the theory that the universe wasconstructed or made is that it pre-supposes a period when a universal nothing prevailed ; that there was a time when this world, with its sun and its planets, and the other millions of worlds, compared with which this is quite insignificant, did not exist; and when matter in any form was not. The thing is simply unthinkable. It is pure assumption. It used to be assumed and enforced—by death if necessary—before the shape, dimensions, laws, etc., which govern this world (not to mention the others) were known, that the very matter of which it is composed was made—called into existence by this intelligent God, about 6,000 years ago. But science having rendered that position untenable, a compromise is made: what was inspiration then is not inspiration now; and it is therefore held that the raw material only existed previous to that period, and that creating simply means fashioning, or working into shape, which again was not accomplished in the good old-fashioned six days—upon one of which we are enjoined to rest from our labor—but perhaps (and mark the perhaps) took six incalculable lapses of time. But this latter-day shift does not touch upon the question of the previous making of the matter. It leaves it exactly where it was : impossible to suppose, and a most un­ necessary assumption. But it is further contended that the world was not only made, but that its maker must have possessed intelligence, must have had a mind. It ought not to be necessary to point out that intelligence, or mind, is the result of brain power. It is impossible to conceive or think of mind except in conjunction with organism. And God is claimed by those who insist upon his existence to be a pure spirit without either body or parts. "What can be really known of a pure spirit ? And how can you couple mind with it ? Mind is a faculty of, and belonging to, certain animal organisations, having its seat in the brain; and intelli­ �GOD. 7 gence is the result of the greater or lesser supply, quality, or exercise of that essentially animal organ. How then can a pure spirit, which cannot be conceived as having any functional power or conditions whatever, be said to possess mind ? As well might you speak of God’s mouth, or God’s any other part, as speak of his mind. Indeed, the folly to which I point is actually reached in such phrases as “his all-seeing eye”, “the finger of God”, etc., which are the common cant of Christians. I suppose I shall be told these are but figures of speech ; but I see no more reason for making them such than for doing a like thing with God’s intelligence, which is the pivot upon which the argument for design turns. There are many Theists who do not venture upon a description of God, simply contending that he does in some fashion exist. Well, that is certainly much safer ground, but of course it does not find favor with those who, whilst holding him to be pure spirit, yet contend for his personality. No less a person than Archdeacon Farrar1 is just now triumphantly asking by way of a death blow to Atheism, where motion and life came from ‘1 save the finger tips of omnipotence ? ” It might be remarked, by the way, that when the venerable Archdeacon is asked, Whence came omnipotence ? it becomes his turn to take his own advice, and, giving the “Rabbi’s answer”, say “I do not know”. But the cream of the joke is, the Archdeacon thinks he has solved the problem. It is doubtless very pretty and off-handed, to talk about the world coming from God’s finger tips: but why did he not say from his toe ends ? For my own part, I do not think it matters much which limb or end of omnipotence you make use of, either as matter of fact, or figure of speech. Omnipotence could, when he had the world, or worlds, rolled up into round lumps, as easily have tipped them off with his foot, as with his hand. I am curious to know upon what he rested the rough lumps when at work upon them. Did he climb all over them, or rest them in his lap ? Can God who is without form, body, or parts, have a lap ? Get behind, 1 See the National Reformer of August 5th, 1888, containing his seven questions, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s replies. Also Ernest Ferrol’s reply in Secular Review of August 25th, 1888, and “Julian’s” scath­ ing remarks in same journal of a week later. �8 GOD. ye of little faith!—or go to Archdeacon Farrar, and he will tell you that God, being God, can have many laps, and no lap, at one and the same time. What does the Archdeacon say to this ? He speaks of the finger tips of omnipotence : then why not of the nether end ? One were as foolish as the other : and yet he deemed those who do not come to the same conclusion as himself, to be talking “ stupendous nonsense ”. I believe that the idea of God working upon the worlds cobbler-fashion is not, however, the orthodox one: a much more sublime view is taken. God is made more of a necromancer, or wizard : he did his work by his word :— “ Heigh presto ! ” and it was done. “ Let there be light ”, etc. “And it was so”, notwithstanding that there had already been three mornings and evenings, and, shall I be profane if I conclude, also nights ? How very omnipotent this God—formless, yet fingered and eyed—must have been ! And it will not avail to argue that those terms really are figures of speech, because having refer­ ence to the particular attribute—mind—which we are mainly considering ; it is implicitly believed that he is not only possessed of intelligence, but is the fountain-head of all wisdom. And there is logically no more reason why eyes and fingers, or any other functional condition or term, should be held to be figurative, than intelligence. . Seeing is certainly as much the result of function as intelligence, and intelligence is not less the result of function than see­ ing. No doubt this figurative idea is extremely useful. The inspired Scriptures are held to be both figurative and literal, as occasion and the needs of this and that particular doctrine or dogma may require. Of course it goes for nothing that those who thus ring the changes, do so to prove each other wrong,—both, too, being under God’s Divine Providence! Now, looking the argument fully in the face, that because work done by man shows him to be possessed of a mind, therefore the universe shows it must also have been produced by a personal power—or even power other than personal—possessing that quality ; I reply that nothing of the kind necessarily follows, especially when it is contended that the power or person so acting is pure spirit, producing its work out of nothing. I think no one will be guilty of holding cause and effect to be contained in such a pre­ �GOD. 9 posterous contention. And the case is even worse when it is further contended that its work demonstrates supreme power as well as supreme intelligence. It does not follow that, because a piece of music or a steam engine is the result of brains, therefore the universe is also the result of brains: much less of brains dwelling in what could not possibly be a dwelling-place for them. Because in order to produce your power, your brains, your mind, or your intelligence, you have to travel out of nature into something indefinable, something in which neither •one nor the other could exist—in reality into nothing. Talking of “omnipotence” does not explain anything; neither does accounting for nature by supernature. Many shallow Christians besides Archdeacon Farrar have made •merry over what it is pretended the Atheist believes as regards chance ; while they themselves maintain that law and order were produced by miracle, which is a negation •of all law, and that nature, which is an endless chain of cause and effect, was caused by an uncaused cause ! This is less logical than chance. If a cannon ball chanced to come into contact with a man’s head it would speedily produce an effect. But your uncaused cause is simply a contradic­ tion of terms, or a logically impossible arrangement of terms, and kills itself. Those who so argue resemble the poor man who, thinking he had no further use for his brains, got a friend to knock them out for him; or the little boy who, having opened all his cockles by means of •each other, was at a loss how to proceed on coming to the last one, and so smashed it. As a matter of fact the materialist is the last to subscribe to a belief in “ chance ”. He must necessarily hold to law and order ; it is the corner stone of his position. He cannot even indulge in the luxury of a temporary reversion or cessation of law, either through the instrumentality of prayer or otherwise. Perhaps the main difference upon this point between, say, an advanced scientific Christian Theist and an Atheist is that the former, arguing that the fact of the existence of the world is insufficient, will insist upon going behind it to find a cause. But he will then stultify himself and cut the throat of his own argument by asserting the said cause to have been itself uncaused: thus of a verity straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel. �10 GOD. The Atheist and Materialist, on the other hand, at once admits that he knows nothing, and can know nothing, beyond the universe. He takes it as he finds it. And one of his highest aims is to become acquainted with it: to understand the laws which govern and pervade it. But he cannot suppose a time when it did not exist, nor a time when it will cease to exist. Change it may, but it will be in obedience to laws inherent in itself. Nature perpetually changes, but it does not cease. And there is no more reason to suppose that it began to be, than that it will cease to be. Let anyone seriously try to think a period in which there existed nothing — not even the atmosphere; that all the millions cf orbs, suns, or systems —for we cannot confine ourselves to our own comparatively small system—did not exist, were not made; and that somewhere out in space there did exist, and always had existed, an incomprehensible something, formless, brain­ less, and without substance, and yet possessing the intelligence and power to produce all these millions of worlds out of nothing, as if by magic. Let him attempt to think it, and he will not only be lost in the folly of the effort, but also in that of the reasoning it implies. If the fact be candidly recognised that the world bears down in its depths, and upon its surface, unmistakable proofs of its incalculable age; and if it also be admitted that there cannot be gathered one single scrap of evidence that it once did not exist—that, as I have pointed out, a time when it and all nature, of which it is but part, was not, is unthinkable—the logical conclusion which affirms the eternity of nature and her laws—by which I mean all that happens in nature, and that is necessary for the happening—will have to be conceded : thus shutting out, or allowing no room for God. Nature therefore being all-sufficient and eternal, necessarily could not have had a supernatural beginning, nor indeed any beginning. If I am told the world bears evidence of having had an intelligent maker, I reply that such is not the case. It bears evidence of vast and perpetual change ; of lapse after lapse of time so great as to almost annul our sense of what time means; but nowhere does it point to an intelligent maker, and therefore a beginning. Nor does it give evidence of an ending. In fact it gives evidence of its own eternity. And least of all does it give evidence of �GOI). 11 having had a beginning in a something which of a neces­ sity must have been foreign to the laws and principles which are part and parcel of itself. Of tho intelligence of the alleged maker, as evidenced by his work, I will speak presently. The Theist, in his anxiety to find a beginning for what it is impossible to conceive as having had one, travels out of tho universe, beyond the real and knowable into the regions of fairyland; and seems to havo invented—and the Christians, with various additions and modifications to have adopted—a kind of fabulous monster combining all the good and bad qualities of his predecessors rolled into one ; with the difference that while as a rule the Gods which he replaced, or who went before him, took, and were worshipped in, some particular shape or form, the Jew-Christian God is said to be entirely without form ; but is at the same timo capable of assuming all shapes and forms, and also of assuming no shape or form what­ ever, as time and occasion may require. Ho is accredited with other peculiarities, perhaps not common to his more savage and less manipulated precursors and contemporaries : such as being a pure spirit without parts, but nevertheless able to see, walk, talk, and sit; and possessing memory, will, and understanding. According to Dr. Cross, an enlightened and Christian member of tho Liverpool City Council,1 God actually has a “ snout ” capable of receiving a “ slap ” “ with tho back of the” municipal “hand”. Which statement another even more Christian councillor, not relishing the profanity of his civic brothor, indignantly interpreted as “giving the Almighty a bloody noso ” ! But tho most amusing part of this incident was that the latter gentleman had to withdraw, whilst the former statement was allowed to stand unchallenged. So that by the decision of these exports in Christian and Doistic niceties, it is fail’ enough to speak of giving tho Almighty a “back-hander” on the “snout”; but the line must bo drawn at bloodying his nose. These arc not my vulgarities, bear in mind, but are those of Christian gentlemen who would not desecrate the Sabbath by giving their sanction to tho means of educating working people upon that awful day. 1 See “Summary of News” iu National Reformer, August 12th, 1888. �12 GOD. Having regard to the traits and characteristics which go to make up the Christian Deity, one cannot help thinking that he would form a most interesting and unique addition to the God Department of the Exhibition of Religions newly opened at Paris. The only difficulty I see would be as to shape. A pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke would not be quite so tangible, and perhaps God-like, as some of their divine majesties already placed. The form of man is, I venture to think, too commonplace; and to give him his great characteristic, no form at all, is of course quite cut of the question. Hence the difficulty in representa­ tion. It is possible that, if appealed to, he might deign to signify to the promoters of the Exhibition in what par­ ticular guise he would wish to appear amongst his rival high-and-mighties. In speaking of the shape or image of God, it is curious to note that the portion of man which he is said to have made in his own image and likeness is that particular portion—?■'.<?., his mind—which is imageless, and which he possesses, though in a larger degree, in common with all creatures whose systems include brains. Therefore it would be quite as true to say that he made cats and dogs in his own image as to say it of man; or, in other words, one statement is equally as foolish as the other. It might not be out of place here to remark what I have more than once pointed out—viz., the extreme reluctance displayed nowadays by defenders of Christianity to discuss or to touch upon the God of the Bible, and his doings as therein related. They either evade or refuse point blank to deal with the subject, pretending that it has nothing to do with Christianity, etc., etc. Well, if not altogether logical, it is yet good. It is well they are ashamed of the root of their tree, and it gives hope that they will eventually entertain a similar feeling with regard to the fruit thereof. But I ask seriously and pointedly how Christians—and I allude especially to Trinitarians—can hold Christ the Son —who is co-equal with God the Father, being not a separate God, but the second person of the God-head, practically one and the same—to be innocent, or in any way not responsible for all the acts said and done, as related in the Old Testament ? The weak attempt at evasion anent the New Dispensation, etc., does not suffice; and cannot make bloodshed, deceit and lying, �GOD. 13 obscenity, and profligate barbarity, other than they are. Whilst admitting that Judaism taken alone is not Chris­ tianity, I urge that it is the foundation upon which it is built, and that a Christian, whilst accepting the super­ structure, may not reasonably eschew the foundation. Man in building up a civilisation may reasonably subscribe to the present-day result, whilst at the same time admitting that many of the events which went before were not, as now viewed, right or moral, man can but use his brains, and he necessarily and often blunders. Frequently he knowingly commits crime, which must be condemned, although future generations are influenced and compelled to shape their course by reason of it. Indeed the blunders and crimes, as well as the great achievements and virtues in the direction of truth and acknowledged right, of those who go before, shape the course of those who follow. But a God building up a religion—giving to man the actual standard of right—is altogether another question. He is not at liberty to blunder and commit crime, other­ wise he is not God. Man cannot conceive (I admit some men can) a God leading his people through bloodshed, pillage, and rapine to a righteous goal. Man cannot conceive a God doing and saying such things, and establishing for centuries foolish fables regarding natural facts, as not only to constrain his “ enemies ”, but his very disciples, either to denounce or evade him. But such is the case, for it would seem now that God has in part changed his skin, and that number two portion is much whiter than number one. Bible Theism is not now deemed sufficiently respectable to go hand in hand with New Testament Theism. The Son is ashamed of the Father, and I look forward to a time when the enlightened will be ashamed of both ; by which I mean, ashamed of being —or rather of pretending to be—bound down and ruled by such books of fable as both the Old and New Testa­ ments admittedly are. Going back again to the folly of hunting for a God, it really is interesting to note how, in obedience to what he believes to be a logical necessity, your believer in his existence, after he has left the land of science and fact, entered that of imagination and myth, and secured, as he thinks, his origin for the land he has left, will, without �14 GOD. scruple, disregard what he conceived to be the logical necessity which sent him there. He opines that there must have been a beginning to all things, falls down before the indescribable creation of his own brain, damns his brother if he does not do likewise, proclaims that he has found the beginning, and thus ignores the very principle which sent him in search of it. All things must have a beginning, except, forsooth, his God. That were a child’s method of solving the difficulty. It is also a child’s method of shirking it. It may be contended, in fact it was so put by my friend, that it is enough if the necessity for a maker of the world is demonstrated, without going behind that maker : that it is enough for man to know there is a creator, without pushing the enquiry as to how be came about. I reply that it is not enough. First, because that would be a good argument against his existence, and for the allsufficiency of nature. But I reply further, and principally, that the argument which insists upon the necessity of a God, when carried to its fair and legitimate end, simply annihilates him. If you insist that the universe—all nature—must have had a cause (of .course an intelligent one) equal to the effect, you must in common sense admit that your cause is the effect of an antecedent cause also equal to the effect. And so on, ad infinitum. Where then is your first cause? I say that, according to your own showing, your God is not a respectable half-way house to the first cause. His very existence, as created by man, logically kills him. The truth is, he does not, and so far as we are able to reason, could not exist. It may be argued that it were as reasonable to hold that God always was, and therefore had no beginning, as to hold the same thing of the universe and of nature. But I reply again: first, that the God theory, whilst being in no way a solution of the real difficulty, merely aggravates it. It is a large and a gratuitous addition, and simply piles difficulty upon difficulty. It assumes as a basis of its existence, what the need for its existence says is impossible; and so either evades or strangles the principle it evokes. And I reply secondly: that man cannot travel beyond nature. If ever he finds a first cause it must be a natural one. To him super-nature is nil, he can know nothing of it; and, therefore, to endeavor to account for nature upon �GOD. 15 what must necessarily be not only pure assumption, but the assumption of something to which you have no means of applying a test, is simply nonsense. Let us suppose that it is admitted that the beginning of nature is an im­ penetrable mystery. Do we gain anything by creating another and a more impenetrable mystery ? We know the universe exists, but we do not know how it came to exist; and in our simplicity we create a Aow, which must be logically beset with the same impenetrable mystery and necessity for an origin as that for which it is made to account. Thus, whilst going very cunningly round the smaller pit, we fall headlong into the larger one, com­ placently belauding ourselves the while for our great sagacity.1 When a person argues that, inasmuch as the world could not have made itself, it must therefore have had a maker ; but that the said maker—let it or him be what­ soever you please—is free from such necessity, he does but shift from what he considers one insurmountable barrier to another and a more insurmountable one. It is like saying ten must be composed of a sufficient number of units, or their equivalent, but that twenty need not. But such a method of reasoning brings you no nearer the beginning : You are no nearer the First Cause. This method of arguing back to Grod, and then killing your argument, is very like that contained in the following dialogue :— “ Mother, who or what made that little gooseberry ? ” “ That big one, my child.” “ But mother, who made the big one ? ” “My dear child” (this rather severely), “the big one never was made ; it always existed.” “ But mother, how could a big gooseberry exist without having been made, any more than a little one ? ” “ Hush I child ” (this time quite sternly); “ that is a foolish and a wicked question.” But why is it foolish ? Why does the Theist strain at 1 If those who believe in the mystery called God, did nothing worse than pat themselves on the back, there would be very little harm done. But they have ostracised and even burned alive their brother, for but saying or doing something which pointed in a contrary direc­ tion. �16 GOD. the smaller difficulty and swallow the larger one ? Why endeavor to account for a seeming impossibility by accepting, without question, a greater ? Materialists see in this universe an endless chain of cause and effect; and are not only willing but anxious ta investigate these changes and conditions, down to the remotest and most minute data. To them there is no dread of encountering some awful nightmare in scientific study, which will possibly shatter the fabric upon which they build their theory. That such fear does exist amongst Christians is evidenced by such statements as the following: “How can we expect men of science, who do not neces­ sarily believe in God, to be impressed by us, if we, who do profess to believe in a spiritual creator, recoil from much they tell us about the creative methods as if it would undermine our faith1? ”1 (Italics mine). And, “why does the scientific dread of first causes alarm us, if we heartily believe ? ” etc. Why, indeed! The non-supernaturalist—who does not 11 believe in a spiritual creator”—can have no fear or alarm in unveiling nature; it is his interest and desire to study her laws, and to become familiar with them, and, when proven, to admit them as facts, preconceived doctrines and revealed religion notwithstanding. But he is not prepared to travel out of nature in order to find a super­ natural origin for her existence. There is indeed no reason for such a proceeding, nor necessity for it. Mother nature is sufficient, is all in all. You cannot go beyond her, nor get outside her influence. Super-nature is not. And this fact is painfully evident in the efforts made by men to dabble in the supernatural. Their gods, who may always be regarded as the personification of their particular myth, are generally disfigured with the passions, loves, and hates which sway themselves. They are, physiologically —if I may so misapply the word—made up of the legs and wings of the animal world, after the manner of your approved nondescript, which, whilst being unlike anything in “the heavens above” or in “the earth beneath”, must necessarily be built of such limbs and parts—no matter how uncouthly thrown together—as are familiar to man. ’ See J. R. Hutton’s address upon “Atheism” at the Church Congress, held at Manchester, October 3rd, 18S8. �GOD. 17 The Gods always reflect the physiological and intellectual condition of the people, for the time being, who set them up; but must necessarily change as man’s condition and surroundings change. They are at once the idols of the age which gives them birth, and the laughing stock of succeeding ages. Being ever made by man, they ever bear man’s impress. Trie Christian God is no exception to the rule. He is perhaps the biggest oddity of them all, and before being Christianised simply revelled in blood. Indeed, the Christian Church has done some bloody and revolting work in his name. But he is now less ferocious, and is satisfied with much milder holocausts than of old. This change is, however, due to the fact that ‘‘heretics” and “Atheists” have, either in con­ formity with his will or in defiance of it, curtailed the power of his priests. They may not now do what, under God, was as holy as it was horrible and infamous. I have elsewhere dealt more fully with God’s charac­ teristics—his composition, his tripleness, his mother, his father (poor Joseph), etc., etc. I have also said that it would be more correct to say man made God than to say God made man. I will now supplement that statement by another, made by the some-time Bev. Parker Pillsbury, who said : “ An honest God is the noblest work of man ”. But I would further add that man has not yet produced him. Gods indeed he has produced in abundance and variety ; but as far as I know an honest one has yet to appear. All Gods are jugglers ; or perhaps it would be more correct to say all priests juggle in the name of their Gods, which is practically the same thing. It would appear to me that man’s failure in the art and craft of God-making necessarily arises from two causes. First, his own im­ perfections and his natural and inevitable tendency to endow his creation with them; and, secondly, the materials upon which he has to work—taken, of course, as showing the character of the God he is manipulating. The world as we find it does not bespeak an honest God; the folly lies in the attempt to manufacture one. If any Christian Theist objects to this, I ask him if it was honest to foreknowingly curse the human race with corrupt souls, or, if he prefers, with corrupt natures, and then to damn it for eternity because it either will not or cannot accept the proffered salvation by reason of its corruption ? And I �18 GOD. ask the ordinary Theist, who may or may not believe in the existence of hell—mostly, I think, they do not, although I believe nearly all hold to a belief in some sort of future existence—whether it is just or honest to curse millions of living bodies with horrible diseases and imperfections, inherited or not ? As regards the making of Gods, doubtless our friends the Christians think they have succeeded in producing the genuine article, forgetting that they are under the neces­ sity of supplementing him with the devil, and of counter­ balancing his wondrous home of superlative bliss with the dismal abode of unutterable woe in which the devil is, by way of contrast, located. This, although I will give them the credit of not knowing it, is the only possible outcome of the conditions under which they must labor. Black and white, sunshine and storm, joy and misery, peace and love, hatred, war, and revenge, fair justice and benign mercy, crushed innocence, and unmerited suffering, etc., accounted for upon the God theory, naturally give birth to twins, one fair and the other foul, one good and the other its antithesis—in a word, God and the Devil, or their equivalents. The great difficulty from the Christian point of view, consists in God having to share his sceptre with his black and discredited brother ; having to wield one end, as it were, leaving the other to the devil—who, indeed, fre­ quently annuls his co-partner’s God-ship most completely by wielding both ends. God is not God all round. It is at best a case of turn about between himself and the devil. God is God to-day, but the devil is God to-morrow —and very often the day after. God makes the world to-day, declaring it to be good ; and the devil damns it the next. God later on sends a Savior (one-third of himself I don’t smile) to repair the mischief ; but the devil so contrives matters1 that, after the lapse of nearly 2,000 years, a mere handful have heard his name; and the bulk of those who have heard it, either fail to accept him, or to be influenced for good by him. And so on to 1 You may hold that God does this—which, indeed, to be consistent you ought to do—and so make him do the devil’s work if you please. In which case, make your exit, Mr. Devil; God can do his own dirty work without your assistance. �GOD. 19 the end of the piece. God, the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things, the Sovereign Lord, etc. etc., is ■so limited, thwarted, and hopelessly circumvented by a power which he either purposely created, or which exists* without having been created, and in spite of him, that he ■can. in no sense be held to be God : the very term becomes a misnomer. To glance again for a moment at what is called creation —and I think I am justified in making these occasional digressions, because they bear upon most important matters, •said to have been done by God, or at least by what may be termed the nowaday most important personification of the idea. It is the common belief and tradition of the Christian Churches that this particular planet was called into existence by God, to be a kind of nursery ground for a large quantity of angels whom he required to fill up the gaps in the heavenly ranks, caused by the rebellion and consequent expulsion of Satan and his confederates. (Note the idea of coming to grief even in heaven.} But Satan,1 although hurled into the bottomless pit, found 1 It might be worth remarking that the Bible, in its account of the ■creation does not say one single word to lead you to suppose that the devil took hand or part in the apple-tree fable. It speaks of “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil ”, and says (Genesis iii, 1) : “Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which God had made ”, etc., and is actually headed “The Serpent’s Graft ”, and further states (verse 4) that God curses the serpent ‘ ‘ because thou”—the serpent—“hast done this thing”. If the unfortunate .serpent was in Satan’s hands, where the necessity of his superior ■cunning ? And why curse it for being made use of ? Is it held that the serpent, being a reptile, was yet morally responsible for the part the devil made it play, or that he himself played through its instru­ mentality ? It would appear to me that in this case the devil was the monkey, the serpent the cat, Adam and Eve the chestnuts, and the Garden of Eden the fire. And bear in mind, if you take away the Christian gloss, and rely upon the ‘1 unvarnished tale ’ ’ as given in the text, the case is no better. You are bound to conclude that the serpent as such, took an active intelligent part in the business, even to the extent of making use of its powers of speech, etc., for w’hich God held it morally responsible, and for which he deliberately cursed it. What villanous trash it assuredly is, take it which way you will! I am here deliberately ignoring the idea which seems to be held by some of my critics (see Watts's Literary Guide, May, 1888), viz., that ■one should read the Scriptures, disregarding the common meaning of language, and fishing, as it were, for renderings which might perhaps completely metamorphose the entire text or story. Or as they put it, ■one ought to take note of the different aspect which these “ miraculous �20 GOD. occasion by means of the first couple of intended angel­ progenitors, to convert the world into a regular market­ garden of devils; a huge cradle for blasted souls I So that God—otherwise he is not God—is, by the instru­ mentality of the devil, filling up the ranks in hell, rather than in heaven ! Passing by the singular notion of putting pure souls through this worldly ordeal, with a fore­ knowledge of its fatal consequences, I cannot but think that God, every time he places these pure souls into his now vile and be-devilled bodies, must feel sadly humbled and disappointed at the continued success of the cast-out rebel, and at his own impotency. That he will finally assert himself and be revenged, battening the devil and his victims down for ever in an eternal stew-pan, is, whilst being a melancholy outcome of omnipotence, one of the most ferocious and relentless intentions that any sane set of people could dream of imputing even to a God. Besides which, if God be God, it is but another way of saying that it was ever his will and intention that this dire conflict between good and evil should drag its sad and awful length through ages upon ages, with the shocking consummation of eternal and unmixed woe for nine-tenths of the creatures created. (I am here referring exclusively to man.) So far we have almost entirely dealt with that part of the question which has reference to the supposed necessity of a world maker. We have principally confined ourselves to the consideration as to whether a God can logically be held by man to exist; and have endeavored to show that he cannot. Now, leaving that portion of the case, and surveying the world as it exists, what kind of a maker should we have to judge him by the evidence of his work ? All powerful, all wise and good—or even just? Most certainly legends bear, when considered as indications of religious and mental evolution, and as crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart ”, etc. The Scriptures are not put forward as “ miraculous legends ”, nor as “imperfect endeavors of the pious heart”, etc., but as God’sdirect word to man. I conceive it to be right and best to tight the Bible as being what it is put forward to be. If it were placed in the same category as other books of fable and legend, there would be no need of fighting it. It is because it is not so, but is held to be God's truth, permitting of no doubt, that the necessity of opposing it arises. And to fight Christianity by means of a rendering of the Scriptures which Christians do not hold, appears to me to be the height of folly. �GOD. 21 not. The world as we find it and know it teems with misery, wrong, pain, suffering and death. Nay, further: it is full of unmerited and unpreventable suffering; and this applies to all living creatures. It often applies with more force to what is called the brute creation than to man. Life, throughout nearly all classes of the animal world, is an endless chain of destruction and consequent suffering. Life for one creature means death to many others ; each in turn falling a victim to the general slaughter, or ending its existence in the painful throes of a prolonged death from disease or starvation. Out in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, down in its depths, and in the seas and oceans, the work of destruction goes unceasingly on. Talon, tooth, claw, and poisoned fang are ever doing their deadly work; and, in addition, each creature is tormented with a parasite peculiar to its kind. Is this the work of a perfect being? I do not mind whether he can sit without the wherewithal to sit upon, walk without legs, or see without eyes. Neither do I mind whether he tipped them off with his fingers or kicked them off with his foot. I am entitled to ask why, if he be perfect, he did not at least make the helpless brutes free from the suffering they endure. Countless thousands of birds annually die of starvation alone, because the almighty designer has covered the food upon which he designed them to subsist with frost and snow­ bound it up hard and fast with an atmosphere by the inclemency of which they must perish, even should they escape the starvation which it heralds. Does this show intelligence of design? Would it do so on the part of man ? How then can it do so on the part of a God ? Must man annihilate his own sense of justice and mercy as well as his intelligence, to discover them in a deity ? Every stroke of the spade, every plunge of the plough, means mutilation and death to numberless insects. And if you do not kill the insects, the snails, slugs, and lice, they will disfigure and kill your plants and your crops. In fact, to kill is a necessary condition of life. I would fain dwell upon the unpreventable, and what may be called natural sufferings which the lower order of creatures must endure, because they are not considered responsible creatures, nor to be so suffering by reason of fault committed: but space will not permit. They are �22 GOD. precisely creatures of nature; nothing' else. I am not; now alluding to those which have been brought under the sway of man; their sufferings are simply unspeakable; which fact, though degrading to man in the highest degree, does not help God’s case as the designer of the whole. My remarks have reference to the animal kingdom at large. They are, in the language of the deist, exactly what God made them ; and, as such, stamp him as being, if Almighty, most heartless and ferocious. Do I hear some miserable apologist repeating the wretched question-begging cant, that it is necessary, and that he does all for the best ? Does he ? Does he set two creatures which he has already made savage, to deadly combat, sometimes by reason of their passions—as in the rutting and breeding season—and sometimes by reason of their prolonged hunger, all for the best ? Does he set fire to vast tracts of land and burn all before him, scorch­ ing and flaying alive all living creatures who cannot escape the sea of fire as it is swept irresistibly onward by the wind, all for the lest ? This point could be persisted in to an almost unlimited extent, but I think enough has been said to show that, even in the matter of the animal world, God either would not or could not avoid the misery which prevails.1 Turning to the elements and to the surface of the globe, where do we find evidence of this wonderful combination of power, wisdom, and love ? Does the world and its surroundings display the perfect work of a perfect mind ? Do storm, hurricane, landslip, or deluge—devastating large sections of country ; destroying homes and lives by the hundred; and dealing out want, sickness, and number­ less consequent horrors wholesale; smiting the infant and the old and helpless, the good and brave, as well as the undeserving—evidence a good and mighty creator ? Are the recent blizzards which perished and shrivelled up the people as they plied their daily toil, marks of perfect design ? Were the many hundreds of people’s heads 1 It may be remarked by the way, that in either case it is difficult to see how he comes up to the God standard ; and the same remark applies to the sin and misery existing all over the world. And bear in .mind, I have but touched the subject, as it were, with my pen’s point. The full measure of what I am but pointing to, must remain, for ever untold. �GOD. 23 which have been recently crushed in various parts of the world by the weight of the hail-stones falling upon them, designed to be so crushed ? And in any case, how does it show the love and wisdom of the designer ? Did the lightning which awoke the poor little affrighted child, as she lay sleeping upon the sofa, and injuring her so much that she died from the effects a few moments after in her sorrowing father’s arms, show the exquisite perfection of design which is urged ? I am not giving day and date for these things; indeed it is not necessary ; they are the daily record of what has not unfitly been called, ilie tear of the elements. But here is a brief and graphic account, taken from a newspaper,1 of some of the horrors of the recent volcanic eruptions in Japan, which comes to my hand altogether unsought, and which I will give in full, as showing how truly awful are some of the results of this design, which is said to denote perfect power and wisdom. It runs as follows : “ Advices received yesterday from Japan, via Honolulu and San Francisco, bring additional particulars regarding the recent volcanic eruptions in Japan, which resulted in the loss of several hundred lives. The villages of Kishizarve, Arkimolo, and Hosno, in Hinok-Hara, Mura, were covered with sand and ashes, and the sites on which they stood thrown into a mountain, the inhabitants, numbering 400, being buried alive, none escaping. At Alina, forty-five residences were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Shibuza, seventeen residences were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Nagazaka, twenty-five residences were destroyed, and ninety-eight persons killed. And at Horekel, thirty-seven residences were destroyed, but no one was killed. The people fled.” This, I think, needs no comment. But worse follows. The account goes on : “The Datlii News Yokohama Correspondent telegraphs: Further details have now reached here of the eruption of Bandal Sau. The place where the disaster occurred has been and is greatly changing, mountains having arisen where there were none before, and large lakes appearing where once there were only rich corn-fields. Landmarks are obliterated. The con­ dition of the wounded is terrible : some have fractured skulls, the majority broken limbs, while others are fearfully burned. The state of the bodies recovered resembles the appearance of 1 Evening Mail. �24 GOD. victims of a large boiler explosion. Many of them are cut to pieces, and others are par-boiled, so that it is difficult to distinguish sex. But the most ghastly sights which met the eye of the helpers were bodies dangling on the branches of blackened and charred trees, thrown into the air by the awful violence of the eruption. Their descent had in many cases been arrested by the trees, and there the victims hung, their bodies exposed to the cruel and well-nigh ceaseless rain of hot cinders and burning ashes. From appearances, death speedily relieved them from their agony; yet, short as the time was, their sufferings must have been past belief. In other places the flesh hangs from the branches of the trees, as paper from telegraph wires. In one case a woman fled from the eruption with her child upon her back, and while flying, a red-hot stone fell upon the infant’s head, killing the little one and deluging the mother in her child’s blood. She escaped, and reached Wakamutsu, where she fell exhausted, with the mangled remains of her child still tied to her back.” This graphic and most appalling account may he truly said to be written in letters of blood. And yet it must be claimed by the design advocate as showing the fitness of his design. It would perhaps appear superfluous to comment upon the above awful refutation of the fitness of things as displayed by the universe, upon which the design argu­ ment is mainly built. But awful and calamitous as it assuredly is, it is a very small affair compared with very many events of a similar nature which have preceded it. I only mention it here because it comes to my hand as I write. It is indeed a bit of touching up and remodelling of the old “ design ” with a vengeance. One would think that if the almighty architect desired lakes and mountains to appear where stood cornfields, gardens, meadows, and homesteads, he would have removed—or at least have mercifully killed by painless process—those whom his own providence had placed in his way. But he did not. He saw fit to burn, scald, suffocate, and mutilate them in the shocking manner stated. OhI the perfection of design here displayed is most exquisite ! Yet would I ask if the burning stone which crashed into the head of the little creature, covering its wretched mother with its life blood as it clung to her back, was designedly hurled? Had the “finger tips of omnipotence” anything to do with it? Or did the unhappy mother’s run for life carry her little �GOD. 25 one beyond providence ? If you say that the mother had a providential escape you must also admit that the child met a providential death. Those who believe in Provi­ dence cannot get outside of it; neithei’ can they find room in it for accidents. God accidentally knocking the brains out of a child cannot be thought of. Therefore it must be admitted by those who believe in his providence that he not only providentially shattered the head of this particular little creature, but that he equally providentially burned, boiled and mangled the life out of the other victims. These questions and considerations are part and parcel ■of the God question ; and need much answering. I am tempted to ask if Mr. Balfour had some of these horrors in his mind, when at Manchester, in his new •character of semi-cleric he said: “There is no human being so insignificant as not to be of infinite worth to the maker of the heavens”, etc. Did the “infinite worth” of these particular human beings consist of their fitness for decorating charred trees with their livid and literally living flesh ? What grim and hideous satires these pious inanities become when contrasted with actual occurrences ! Drop the orthodox snuffle, and the thing said becomes meaningless. Atheists are twitted by Theists, and es­ pecially Christian Theists, with holding a belief in “blind •chance ” ; but here we have something worse than “ blind chance”: we have blind brutality, especially and design­ edly so; and yet of a most undiscriminating kind. We have pain and suffering inflicted without reference to age, sex, innocence, or guilt. I make the inventors and patentees of “ Blind Chance ” . a present of this, and all other calamities, as work especially and designedly done by their God to whom they childishly pray : “ deliver us from all evil ”. The Rev. Dr. A. W. Momerie, speaking at the Church ■Congress upon the subject of Pessimism, contended that pain is necessary both for “men and animals” ; and this notwithstanding God’s superiority to law, and his admission that pain is the result of law which God made. He also gave some reasons (?) why it is necessary, one being that “ if pain had not been attached to injurious habits, animals . and men would long ago have passed out of existence ”. This, if true, is only another way of saying that God made �26 GOD. the necessity for pain, which is the very kernel of the com plaint. He further says : “ If tire did not hurt, we might easily be burnt to death before we knew we were in any danger ” ! Does he forget, or ignore, the fact that we are frequently burnt to death before we know we are in danger, notwithstanding that fire hurts ? Does he mean that we should be more easily burnt to death only for this wise precaution of God’s in making fire hurt ? If that be his meaning, I make free to tell him, it is but a poor crutch for himself and God to hobble upon; for, as I have pointed out, it frequently does hurt us to death; and therefore, at best, the warning but partially succeeds. But will he drive his argument fairly home, and affirm that the pain by fire and boiling water to which I have been referring, was necessary ? Or does he mean that some pain existing by necessity, these dire results of excessive pain could not be avoided ? And if so, what sort of an almighty God does he believe in ? Is it necessary that the human race must not only taste small pain in order to avoid greater, but must also perish frequently in maddening and unendurable pain ? Does this rev. philosopher mean that it is necessary for “men and animals” to actually pass out of existence in most intense pain as a preventive, by means of small pain, to their passing out of existence? Because this, viewed in the light of what does occur, is about what his contention comes to. To give him the greatest possible latitude of which his contention will admit, he can but claim that it is by means of what I am calling smaller pain—-which frequently outgrows itself—that the animal world (including man) is enabled to exist, and eventually perish in greater or lesser pain as the case may be. Well, that is poor enough, but poor as it is it leaves all pain caused by sudden and unexpected convulsions of nature completely out of the question. Take lightning for in­ stance, which often does such sudden and fearful injury that no forethought—not even aided by the knowledge that it hurts—could possibly prevent. From the doctor's mode of reasoning it would seem that it is necessary for the electric fluid when disturbed to blast and shrivel up 11 men and animals ” instantaneously, so that they may know it will blast and shrivel them up, before they know they are in danger. May I ask this rev. and learned doctor to �GOD. 27 show how the pain, which is meant not only to the victims but to those who hold them dear, in the premature death of one half the people born, before they reach the age of seventeen years, is necessary ? Is it to prevent them from passing out of existence? “To form character”? Or to teach them that fire burns ? This arguing for the necessity of pain is only another form of arguing for the necessity of evil, and therefore—from the parson point of view—of the devil. But does the Rev. Dr. Momerie forget or ignore the creation and fall' as told in the opening chapters of his Bible ? Or does he agree with me in regarding them as amusing fables ? And if he does, has he taken his flock into his confidence ? For my own part, I am curious to know how God considered pain necessary to keep “men and animals” from destruction, and from passing out of existence when he bade them to be fruitful and to multiply before pain came into the world. If he thought pain necessary why did he tell Adam and Eve not to do the thing which brought it about ? And why were the poor serpent’s legs conjured off for doing what was necessary ? Of course this is all figurative. I will do the learned doctor the justice of believing him to so regard it; but then he ought not to be a Church of England parson. I 1 I have frequently marvelled at the tremendous dilemma God would have been placed in had these first parents have partaken of the “ tree of life ” as well as that of “ good and evil ”. Well might he hurry them out of paradise exclaiming “lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. It must be admitted that it would have been most unfortu­ nate and awkward for the. almighty to have had a world on his hands teeming with sin-struck immortals upon whom he had pronounced death (both of body and soul), but who would not, nor could not, die by reason of the charm contained in a particular tree which he had planted in their midst. But there is another curious point: if it be a fact that death came into the world by sin there was, previous to the fall, practically no use nor need for this particular tree, except perhaps as a kind of temptation, and even that is not made quite clear, as Adam and Eve do not appear to have been forbidden to eat of it. The people .were already immortal, and would, bar accidents, “ go up ” without tasting death. And when the occasion for its use might be fairly thought to have arrived, by reason of their having incurred the penalty of death, they were, as we have seen, hurried out of its presence. And what about the animals ? Did Eve’s sin bring pain and death upon them, or were they to die in any case ? And would they have �28 GOD. admit I have not read his book upon the “ Origin of Evil ”, in which it is possible he may clear these matters up. In the meantime I would fain tell him that, if God be the origin of all things, evil must come in with the rest, and certainly be put down to his account. The fact that pain and evil do exist is indisputable, and, whilst fully admitting this fact will not increase it; the tortuous efforts to reconcile its existence with that of a good and Almighty God will not remove nor lessen it. Neither will dubbing those “ Pessimist ” who cannot shut their eyes to it. The so-called Pessimist does not point out the existence of pain and evil, with a view—as I take if of sitting down and crying; but rather, with the view of removing or lessening their power and scope. In this he is certainly more logical than he who, whilst admitting them to be deplorable, not only insists upon their necessity, but caps all by affirming that an all-powerful creator could not order it otherwise. I will, before proceeding with my main contention, trouble my readers with another very short, but shock­ ing account of what I will call—if not intended—a serious and awful hitch in the divine machinery. It is taken from a daily paper of about the same date as both lived and died free of pain ? And if so, what about the carnivora and their victims? Were they originally to be all herb-eating creatures (this would also apply to man), but completely meta­ morphised into what they now are by God at the time he chopped off the serpent’s legs? Perhaps there were no carnivora at that period. In truth nothing whatever is known as to what time it is said to have occurred. Modern believers in the fable are willing to place it in any period, varying by millions of years, to which infidel or scientist may drive them. Take again the case of whales ; are we to suppose they were not originally intended to feed upon small fish ? What of sharks, and, indeed, of fish generally ? Are we to suppose they were not, till after the fall, intended to prey upon each other ? The same may also be asked of birds preying upon insects, not to mention those which prey upon their own species. Was this all to be so, or are these creatures an afterthought, and so “made” by God to suit the altered circumstances in which he found himself ? Taken altogether it certainly does form a most curious instance of the “ crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart to express its sense of the tragedy and solemnity of human experience”. Fables and legends indeed these things are, but they are not put forward as such ; they are forced into children’s minds as truths, and kept there by fear of hell. Hence, I say, it becomes necessary to completely break down such pernicious nonsense. �GOD. 29 the others from which I have quoted upon similar catas­ trophes : “ Mail advices have now been received from Cuba, giving particulars of the recent cyclone in the island. It appears that it raged on the 4th and 5th, over the whole length of the province of Santa Clara, causing damage amounting to millions of dollars. At Sogna, scarcely twenty houses escaped injury. The desolation and ruin was complete. The rivers overflowed their banks, and vessels foundered or stranded, while in some cases they were driven into the streets of the town. Fatalities are reported everywhere. A hundred persons perished at Cardenas, and seventy at Caibarien; the total number of deaths in the island being estimated at one thousand.” Now I ask: did these poor people, their homesteads, their ships and commerce, and industries, mar the general design ? Or, did they become part and parcel of it against the intention and desire of the almighty architect, and was it therefore that he thus cruelly wiped them out? And in any case, do this and the other calamitous results of the workings of nature—to which I have but pointed—demon­ strate the fitness-of-all-things which is said to pervade the universe ? Do they not rather demonstrate the unfitness of all things ? Bear in mind, they are no mere theorisings : nor are they isolated cases : they could be multiplied without end. They are the daily lessons, bloody and awful, which nature reads out to her children without cessation. The world, every journey round the sun, pro­ duces and chronicles in awful manner its yearly record of calamities over which man has no control, but of which he is the helpless victim : and which if held to be the work of an almighty designer, would stamp him as being a fiend. The elements, under certain conditions, smite furiously and indiscriminately all things which lie in their course. They will blast the innocent lamb, or scorch up the poor cow, as readily as they will topple over a church steeple, or shrivel up a little child. They are but the blind forces of nature, and could do no other than they do. The Christian Theist is at liberty to hold these blind forces of nature to be directed by an “ All-seeing eye”; in which case I am at liberty to ask: To what kind of monster does this all-seeing eye belong ? The sea, if lashed �30 GOD. into fury by wind or storm, will as readily engulph. the little boat of heroes as they nobly face death in order to rescue their fellow creatures, as it will the blood-stained pirate craft which preys upon the helpless and the unwary. The ill-fated emigrant ship—with its cargo of entire families; its wives and children going to join the father who waits with tender longing for their coming to the home he has with love and industrious labor prepared for them; its sons and daughters going to seek on foreign shores the sustenance and comfort for parents and younger children, which they fail to obtain at home—is as mercilessly wrecked and submerged, as is the infamous slaver, with or without its living freight of wailing and outraged humanity.1 But I fail to see in what way this demonstrates perfection of design—design as emanating from one who is all-good and all-mighty. Do you suppose, reader, that you could procure a patent for your design after showing that it produced such un­ toward and disastrous results as are produced by the elements ? And if you did obtain your patent, do you think after twelve months experience of its work, you could sell it for much money ? Of course it must always be remembered that man is in no sense perfect; consequently his works must at most be but efforts in the direction of perfection: the highest and best only excelling those which they succeed. But this reasoning cannot be applied to God. He deliberately, with all power and all knowledge —present and to come—made things as they are; and is therefore responsible for the world as it exists at this .1 When I reflect upon the awful sufferings of every conceivable kind which all living creatures must, by the nature and conditions of their existence endure, and try to understand what it means, I become appalled : my efforts to express myself fail me ; and I am over­ whelmed. Let therefore no self-satisfied quibbler, holding a cut-anddried read to Heaven—whether upon the degrading plan of the agony and death of an enthusiast, or upon the farce of a mangled and crucified third portion of a God—point the finger of scorn at me. My reason and my better feelings, which at times well-nigh unman me, will not suffer me to worship anything so ignoble as their butcher-God, whom they themselves have set up. And I deliberately avow that I cast my measure of scorn, although utterly inadequate —well, I will not say upon those who hold it; but certainly upon the brutal and degrading idea that the same God, or indeed any God, will, after this world and its woes are ended, doom the vast bulk, or even one of the creatures he has created, to eternal torture ! �GOD. 31 instant: either this, or the word God loses its meaning. A curtailed and changing immutable and omniscient omnipotence is simply an impossibility, and ought to be too ridiculous even for Christians to pin their faith to. The idea of inventing an almighty God, and then killing him, or annulling his almightiness by another, and calling that other devil, is, to my thinking, excessively foolish. Almighty God must, under pain of damnation, be held to be good and just, even though we invent a devil to stand sponsor for what we know to be evil and unjust. Nay, further : our invention of the devil involves the idea that God himself produced him as a kind of scape-goat, as a something upon which to charge the existence of that evil which he, although omnipotent, either could not or would not avert. This is the reasoning involved—but I digress somewhat. It appears to me that, wherever you look, you are con­ fronted with a mixture of good and evil; or they exist side by side. I think the former is more generally correct, although it is often difficult to determine which really preponderates. Take, for instance, the sun, which is the vastest and most wonderful body of all those that go to make up our special system, and whose rays are full of life-giving heat. Yet there are some portions of the globe which are never touched by them, whilst other portions are literally scorched up. In some of the deserts, by reason of the heat, and the absence of water, the suffering of man and beast is extreme. So .with water. In some parts of the earth it is abundant, and in others so scarce as to render life almost insupport­ able. At some seasons of the year, rivers are dried up; and at others they rise and overflow their banks, inundating the surrounding country, and doing much injury to life and property, perhaps sweeping away entire communities. Some portions of the globe—especially at particular seasons, are a. perpetual swamp, and are the source of constant malaria, fever, ague, and death. Can all this be held as evidence of perfect wisdom and power on the part of a maker ? Bear in mind, I am not speaking of nature and its wondrous revelations in a mocking or disparaging sense. I am simply pointing out its imperfections, and trying to combat the puny idea that it had its origin in a ghost. �32 GOD. As another practical illustration of the complete failure of the design argument, as evidenced by what actually occurs, I will give, in full, the following from a daily paper, the Freeman's Journal, of September 1st, 1888 : “ What is one poor country’s meat, is another poor country’s poison. While we are threatened with ruin by rain here, and are praying for dry weather, they are face to face with famine in Egypt by reason of the drought, and they are praying for the Nile to inundate the lands. ‘Yesterday,’ says the Correspondent of the Standard, ‘I had an opportunity of con­ versing with two large landed proprietors, whose opinions may be quoted as authoritative. One of these is a Bey, owning immense fields, of which the yearly land-tax amounts to a small fortune. He had come to Cairo in order to complain to Biaz Pasha of the scarcity of water. His fields had now, he said, been dry for sixty days, and under these circumstances it was, he affirmed, quite impossible to pay the taxes. The other proprietor, a well-known Pasha, whose land-tax amounts to about two thousand pounds a year, declared that unless the Nile should rise two metres within the next ten days, the whole maize crop of Lower Egypt would be lost. There are out of every six hundred acres, no less than one hundred and fifty under maize, and the failure of this crop would mean financial ruin and starvation for the fellaheen population, w’ith whom maize is the staple food. As to cotton, my informant stated that he had in one field a hundred men picking off the worms. For some time past there had been no water, and unless there was a speedy improvement, he, too, did not see any way of paying the taxes.’ ” Come nearer home. Take a glance at agriculture amongst ourselves, and what do we find? We find the farmer’s life one long struggle with the elements and against the disasters resulting from them. True, he manages to live, but often very badly. The weather is generally so unpropitious as to cause him, in a fit of despair—and always as a last resource—to join with his Church, and take part in offering up set petitions and special pleadings that God will, for the sake of poor humanity in general, and himself in particular, avert the calamitous results which would follow a continuation or a fulfilment of what would appear to be God’s present intentions. It is quite clear that the majority of those who express belief in “him who rules all things ”, and who talk much of his providence—including his own ordained ministers— do not always agree with him as to the wisdom and �GOD. \ 33 humanity of the course he happens to be pursuing. Indeed, bearing in mind their daily beggings and pray­ ings, it would be more correct to say they never agree. Practically they have much more faith in the seasonable and desirable weather which they know will facilitate the growth of their crops or ripen them into maturity than they have in the deity whom they inconsistently believe is providentially blighting them. Practically, I say, they prefer to have a big finger in their own providential pie. They pretend that God is all-wise, but go on their bended knees to the end that he may drop his all-wisdom, which means ruin to them, and adopt theirs. That their petitions are not heeded is quite certain. Nature sweeps right on. She always prevails, the mutterings to an imaginary “throne on high ” notwithstanding. The marvel to me is that intellectual people should engage in such childish forms.1 It might not be altogether amiss in speaking of prayer to note that one of the bishops (him of Wakefield) at the late Manchester Congress, whilst professing very frequently that he had no fear of law, was yet very much staggered at its immutability. The tenor and aim of his entire speech was to tone down what he called the “splendid paper read by Mr. Momerie ” ; because it contained “ certain words ” which struck him “ very forcibly ”, and made him “feel a certain amount of doubt with regard to them”. The “doubt”, or fear, as I think it should be called, is fully explained in the following passage which comes immediately after: “What I felt at the moment was this—may not some of those who form this audience go away from here and say: ‘ Why, then, should I pray ? Why should I ask God to restore a friend from a bed of sickness? Why should I ever join in the church’s prayers for a blessing on the harvest and the like?’.” Common sense echoes : Why indeed ! . The Bishop, in his further remarks, whilst still depre­ ciating the immutability of law, admits we cannot “alter” the laws by which the universe is governed; but hastens to point out that we can “interfere” with them. He illustrates his meaning by asserting that we interfere with the law of gravitation every time we pick up a stone and 1 See “ The Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed Publishing Company. Freethought �34 GOD. throw it into the air, or catch it as it falls. This is of course to keep law from barring the way to miracle and the utility of prayer. But it is wide of the mark; because if it means that miracles can happen, there can be neither sense nor utility in showing that one law may counteract another. And if it does not mean that miracles may happen, it means (from the Bishop’s point of view) nothing. AVhat the statement, taken as a whole, actually does mean—whether his lordship intended it so or not, is another matter—is that, inasmuch as that law, as applied to nature, is unalterable, but can be interfered (!) with; therefore man, by means of prayer, can induce immutable God to interfere with what he has decreed to be un­ alterable! Poor Bishop of Wakefield. But it is only another and a very weak edition of the Bev. Octavious Walton’s “Swallowed Miracle”; wherein that philosophic divine childishly contends that because there are other laws, which, under given circumstances counterbalance that of gravitation; therefore miracles are occurring every moment of time ! The law of gravitation seems quite a favorite sugar-stick to suck, with these clerical nincompoops. Albeit, they do their sucking prayerfully; but they are sure to suck it at the wrong end. It would appear, so far, from this right rev. gentleman’s utterances, that he holds law to be good all the while you hold that it can be annulled by God, at the will or whim of his creatures. He fears that if its immutability be but once admitted, the efficacy of prayer is done for. He would seem to recommend just enough law; but not too much. Judging, however, by another passage in his speech, he would appear to go even farther still, and throw law entirely to the dogs; for he says: “I am not content to accept that view of answers to prayer which tells us that God may move the spirit of man to act upon outward things by which he is surrounded; I say I want something more direct.” If man is not going to act upon the things by which he is surrounded, what is he going to act upon ? It is evident that nothing less than the total cessation or reversion of law will satisfy his lordship. But he is a curious and quite an amusing description of Bishop. He concludes his remarks by saying he believes that “he ”— God—“governs and directs his own laws, and that the whole world everywhere is bound with gold chains about �GOD. 35 his feet”. By governing and controlling his own laws, I presume he means that God decrees when fire shall burn —or, as one of his colleagues puts it—“hurt,” and when it shall not; and when water shall be wet, and when it shall not; and also when man shall have too much of one, or both; or not enough of either, as God may see fit— always subject of course to the superior wisdom and control of man, as exemplified by prayer. I think there was an error of about 300 years made in the date of this particular Bishop’s birth. He is living in the wrong age. With regard to the “world everywhere ” being chained with gold chain about God’s feet: should I spoil the great sublimity of the metaphor if I suggested brass or nickel silver as being good material for the chain ? and that a whole string of worlds chained about his neck would not look amiss as a necklace, and that perhaps two fine large planets would come in very well as droppers to his ear­ rings ? I can appreciate a truly sublime or beautiful metaphor, thought, or figure of speech, as such, even though it embody an idea to which I demui’; but to talk of binding the world everywhere with gold chain to the feet of a footless ghost, with a view, as I take it, of teaching that natural law may be effaced or reversed by means of man’s supplications—for that is the Bishop’s great con­ tention—is not to be sublime, but ridiculous. Clerical inanity is a better term for such nonsense. Speaking of prayer, and as an example of the mode in which it is made use of, and, principally as an example of its always non-success, I will for a moment direct attention to an incident of the kind which has, whilst I write, been forced upon my notice. When I say tho always non-success of prayer, I mean that the happenings would have occurred whether the petitions wore offered up or not; and that whether they seem to be propitious or otherwise, they have no reference whatever to the prayer. But beyond that, it is really remarkable how the hopes of tho prayerful, who of course hold their hopes to bo founded upon the direct promises of him to whom they pray, are continually falsified by daily events. I like to place these every-day facts before the notice of my readers, bocause, being indisputable, they most effectually answer and expose the sacerdotal pretence which I hold to be so abominable and �36 GOD. so transparent. The wild Indian, who, whilst offering­ incantations to the Great Spirit, patiently shooting arrow after arrow into the clouds, till one floats and bursts over his village, is not more foolish nor arrogant, and I might add cunning, in claiming the result as being due to the strength of his medicine, than is the mitred and tinselled prelate, who offers up his incantations and mutterings, and claims the ordinary and inevitable happenings of nature as the result of his particular action. Indeed I find it difficult to believe that thinking and intelligent men do believe that there is a power of any kind waiting to fashion his, or its, actions upon the supplications and cravings of this, that, or the other people, or sect, or clan: the desires being mostly in contradiction and at variance one with another. I scout such an idea as being too absurd for serious argu­ ment. But to go to the case mentioned; and in which case, for the complete failure of the prayers, I will not ask belief in my own words, but will give evidence out of the mouths of Christians themselves. The paper I shall principally quote is in no sense favorable to unorthodox views, but is the recognised political organ of the Catholic Church in the country (Ireland) in which it is published. During the latter portion of the summer of 1888, and far into the autumn, the weather had been extremely wet and cold; continuous rain, with frequent very heavy down­ falls, had prevailed. AVe were getting cold soaking rain instead of genial sunshine. Great complaints and murmurings were heard on all sides, and general fears were entertained that we should have a bad harvest with all its dire results. In a word, and from a Christian Theist’s point of view, God, nothwithstanding his all-wisdom, and the perfection of his design, was going wrong: he was rotting with excess of cold moisture, what his humble subjects presumed to think he should have been browning and ripening with heat. In this extremity my Lord Bishop of Dublin, the Most Bev. Dr. Walsh, in the interests of his faithful flock, came to the. rescue,1 and ordered special 1 lie came to their rescue upon a more important occasion—that of their eSort to obtain self-government, but completely changed front, directly his master, the Pope, spoke. What was political at once became non-political in the Doctor's mouth. Only some two or three dared openly allude to this ; the majority, including the National Press—notably the Freeman—belauded him for the shuffle. �GOD. 37 prayers for fine weather to be said throughout his diocese. The prayers, as a matter of course, were of the usual orthodox type. The petitioners were made to crawl into the presence of their supposed offended tormentor by admitting, as I think in grave satire, their complete unworthiness ; and then craving as a favor that he might see fit to change his mind by removing the kind of weather he was putting upon them, and replacing it with the kind they required ; and finally telling him not to mind what they were asking, but to do as he thought best. What he did think best, shall be told by the daily papers. There are always three cardinal points which must be existent in your orthodox petitioner; his total degradation and unworthiness, his strong sense of what he considers essential to his well-being, and his desire to obtain it; and his total lack of the sense of the ludicrous, as displayed in his telling God not to do as he is asked, but as he chooses. What God really chose to do upon this particular occasion, although quite usual, forms a very amusing and instructive comment upon the petition itself, and upon special prayers in general. The announcement of the order for saying these special prayers, I take from the Freeman’s Journal of August 11th, 1888, as follows : “His Grace the Archbishop and the Weather.—In consequence of the continued unsettled state of the weather, and the precarious condition of the crops, his Grace the Arch­ bishop of Dublin has issued directions to the clergy of his diocese for the saying of special prayers in the Mass for a favorable change. The prayers to be said from and after to-morrow, till further notice.” The weather upon that particular Sunday, and for hours after the offering up of the special prayers, was perhaps the worst we had yet experienced. Possibly it took some little time to duly receive and consider the humble petition. However that may have been, there was no improvement, “no favorable change”; indeed matters became very much worse. But the papers evidently held on as long as they could in the hope that they would be able to score a victory for the Archbishop. At length the editorial patience of one, the Evening Telegraph of August 20th, gave way ; the following item of news being the cause : “Yesterday’s rain and storm. — A heavy rainfall took �38 GOD. place in many parts of Ireland yesterday. In West Cork much damage is reported to have been caused to the grain and potato' crops. The potatoes are in places affected with the blight.” It would have been more correct to have said that it had scarcely ceased to rain since the offering up of the prayers ; but it is perhaps near enough. The same paper of four days later, in referring to further storms said : “ Great damage (says a telegram this afternoon) has been caused in the lower Shannon valley by the heavy rains of Tuesday. Hundreds'of tons of hay have been carried into the river, and turf has been carried long distances. The corn crop is lost. The potato crop is injured, and many roads are torn up.” The prayers were being answered very tardily ; or were being answered in a reverse direction to that prayed for. The Freeman's Journal of August 28th, under the heading of “ The Rain and the Crops ”, gave a list of woes resulting from the former, which came in from nearly all quarters, and from which I will give a few quotations : “ Kilrush, Monday.-—Such a destructive deluge of rain has not been witnessed in West Clare for a quarter of a century, as that experienced last night. All the rivers have inundated the country around, and large quantities of hay in meadow cocks have been carried seaward. In low lying districts the houses have been flooded, and many were in danger of falling. The oat and wheat crops have been laid in vast tracts. The amount of damage caused by last night’s continued downpour is incalculable in the country, as testified by various reports to-day.” Surely there could not have been one single grain of faith amongst the hundreds of thousands of petitioners— including the Archbishop himself-—or their prayers would not have produced such lamentable results. But tho accounts from all parts are the same. “ Navan, Monday.—The prospects of a good or middling harvest are again darkened by the incessant rains. All work has been retarded.” “ Castlewhelan, Monday.—The severe weather of the past week has exercised a most dispiriting effect on the harvesting prospects in the large districts of the County Down, of which this town is the centre. Great fears are entertained for the potato crops. The tubers, which are in abundance, remain still very soft; and now reports from all sides signify that the spots- �GOD. 39 which so surely indicate the approach of disease to the germ have made their appearance,” etc. Sorrow is then expressed for the partial failure of the oat, wheat, and flax crops. “F-ERMOY, Monday.—-The hopes which were entertained here some time ago of a bountiful harvest are now almost completely blasted in consequence of the late incessant rains which have fallen with the most destructive results to almost every descrip­ tion of growing crops.” [This is certainly a trifle unco after the Archbishop’s special prayers for their safety.] “The mis­ chief done since last Sunday is incalculable, and should there be a continuance of the present unsettled state of the weather the consequences will be disastrous to the farmers of the dis­ trict,” etc. After giving a similar dismal account from Newry and Banbridge, the list for that day closes with the following: “ Lokgford.—-There can no longer be a doubt on the subject that the crops in this county are a complete failure owing to the recent rains. Every day for the last month [italics mine] there have fallen heavy showers completely paralysing the farmer’s efforts to save ’his crops. Turf, hay, and oats are all bad. The potatoes, too, are failing rapidly. Nothing could be much worse looking than the existing prospect.” In reference to the above, it may be remarked that the “showers” must have been “heavy” indeed to have completely paralysed the farmers’ efforts for a whole month. But be it noted that “the past month” spoken of comprises at least three weeks which had elapsed since His Grace’s special prayers were muttered ; and yet he actually had the audacity to claim that his prayers were answered ! This list of woes collected together for me by Christian and God-fearing journalists (?) may be taken as a kind of supplement to my own remarks upon the work of the ejements, as illustrating the general unfitness of things. Now, it will not be wondered at, after the above leugthened spell of disastrous work done by the weather, flat it did eventually and in natural course change for the better. But what did this astute Archbishop do ? Did he admit that he had ordered his special prayers just one month too soon for an immediate response ? Not at all. D:d he candidly admit that from beginning to end they were a total failure ? Nothing of the kind. Then what dil he do ? Why he actually insulted his God, and the intellects (if they possessed any) of his flock, by ordering �40 GOD. fresh prayers—this time—of thanks to God for having lent a favorable ear to their former ones, and so vouch­ safing them fine weather ! Thus imposing upon the ig­ norance and stupid credulity of his people, by making clerical capital out of the ordinary workings of nature, which if they, from his own stand-point, meant anything, meant a complete failure. He asked that the rain might cease, and the sun shine, in order that the crops might be saved. The rain did not cease, the sun did not shine, and the crops were not saved. Upon the showing of his own people the destruction was general. Whereupon he orders these same people—I should dearly like to call them geese—to thank God for not destroying these very crops I This of course is priest-like. These are the tricks and trade devices of the priest’s calling; they are what he lives by. But what can be said—how infantile, nay, imbecile—or, to be orthodox, truly child-like—must those be who kneel and pray and smite their breasts, making offerings and crying “Amen” to such transparent chic­ anery. I was, previous to giving the foregoing Christian evi­ dence against Christian Theism, dwelling upon the frequent unfitness of the weather for the work it is insisted it was designed to perform ; and will now in continuation of that idea offer some further remarks, taking it up at the point at which I broke off. Now, it frequently happens that in spite of the prayers (of the efficacy of which we have just had an example) and all the care and precaution a farmer can bestow upon his lands, his crops are blighted by unseasonable weather, by cold winds, storms, droughts, hail and frost; and thus a who.e year’s toil, expenditure, and anxiety is sacrificed. At times, the failure of crops—often a particular crop which forms the main subsistence of a people, or section of a people—is so complete as to leave them without fool; and gaunt famine with its hideous train of horrors stalks through the land. In what way, I must continue to ask, does all this show perfect order and design? Why the best kept garden you meet with may become a mass of blight and pest, the attention bestowed upon it notwith­ standing. You will see a rose tree grow and bud forth almost into flower, and wake up some morning to find it blighted by the atmosphere, or covered with vermin; )r, �GOD. 41 perhaps the centres of the yet unopened blooms become cradles for destructive insects. (“ The worm i’ the bud”, taken in the wide sense, is no mere poetic figure, as those who cultivate and live by the land know to their dear cost.) The same can be said of perhaps every plant that grows. Your cabbages will be literally riddled and eaten to the bare stalks immediately the larvse deposited by the butter­ flies assume the caterpillar form. What nature, aided by science and labor does to-day, she undoes to-morrow. Entire orchards of fruit, gardens of hops, fields of corn, potatoes, hay, etc., are yearly sacrificed to the elements. And yet all this means perfect and exquisite design on the part of a maker ! What it really does mean is simply that nature is as we find her, and that there is no maker in the case. All-wisdom and all-power, could not result in failure, nor in disaster sometimes so hideous as to curdle the blood as the tale is told. Turning to man himself, can he, taken for all in all, be considered to show evidence of having had a perfect maker1 ? Is he is in any sense the work of perfection ? For his own physical perfection, let the hospitals, asylums, and houses for incurables all over the world speak. For his mental and moral perfection, his doings as recorded in history must answer. The penal settle­ ments and gaols of to-day must also give their evidence. It is held that God made man in his own image, and, curiously enough, it is man’s mind, or spirit, as it is termed—which is imageless—which is held to be so made. But that by the way. It follows that, either God himself was a depraved pattern, or he blasted man after the making. Indeed the latter is claimed to be the true solu­ tion. If I might be allowed to judge of “ God the Father” by applying to him one of the standards claimed as emanating from “God the Son”, anent judging the tree by its fruit—more especially if man be the depraved wretch Christian theists contend he is—I should have to come to the conclusion that the tree in question was a most corrupt and imperfect one. I suppose there is not one single human being, sound 1 When I speak of man as having had a maker, I do so in the sense generally accepted by Christians, and therefore the statement itself, and any observations made upon it do not necessarily apply to those Theists who believe otherwise. �42 GOD. in body and mind, brought into the world in a century, though there are many millions of defective ones. Take for example—and they are but a small item in the general failure—the deaf mutes, the blind, and the idiotic from birth. I suppose it would fill a fair-sized volume simply to enumerate all the diseases peculiar to man. Those peculiar to children alone are something appalling. Take the average duration of life as a test of the design argument. It is estimated that of all who are born, one-fifth die within a year after birth, and onethird before the completion of the fifth yeai'; whilst one half do not reach seventeen years ; and only six per cent reach seventy-five years. So that, whilst one-fifth go to the grave before they can be said to be well into the world, one half never reach the age of maturity, and only in every hundred reach what has been foolishly called “ man’s allotted time ” I I think comment upon these crushing figures is superfluous. I will but add that these premature deaths are brought about, for the most part, by painful, lingering, and dreary process ; and sometimes by such shocking mutilations as we have previously glanced at. And if you take the Christian theory, in addition to his natural woes, every human being that ever came into the world, or ever will come into it—-save the first pair, who were themselves so defective as to succumb at the first test—is literally damned with a soul whose natural (i.e., unnatural) corruption is, upon the same authority, certain to carry the vast majority into eternal suffering.1 Man, like all other portions of the universe, is a mix­ ture of good and evil. He has noble parts and degrading passions, high aims and selfish fears, hates and jealousies. He is capable of the highest deeds of known right and self-sacrifice, and of the lowest deeds of cunning and cowardice. He is capable of experiencing the highest pleasure and the deepest woe. Man was not put upon the earth cut and dried. His progress from savagery to civilisation has been long and painful. And his further progression onward and upward must needs partake of 1 It is explained by the Roman Church, that the soul is originally pure, but becomes corrupted the moment it fuses with the body. I claim that, whether the body blasts the soul, or the soul the body, the result is still the same. �GOD. 43 the same tedious nature. The evolution of man, from the lowest to the highest type—without going further down in the scale than man himself—does not argue for a perfect maker. Man’s existence is one long struggle to free himself from his grosser nature; and to develop into a higher state. If it is contended that he had an Almighty maker, in the sense in which the phrase is commonly applied, then I am justified in asking why he should have been made of such base material, and beset with such untoward conditions. His maker, being Almighty, could have made man upon any other plan, or with any set of conditions, that he saw fit. Indeed, it is contended that God did make man upon such conditions as he saw fit; and behold the result! I hold that man’s weaknesses, his infirmities, his passions and sufferings—sometimes caused by himself, sometimes by others, and sometimes inherited in spite of himself—do not point to an intelligent, a just, and an almighty maker. A child born blind, or lame, or covered with some loathsome disease, would show the maker either to be impotent or a monster. A perfect creator would not blast what he had created with imperfections most shock­ ing. And I will push my contention to man’s passions; because God must be held responsible for the results of his own work : especially when he is accredited with having been cognisant of those results when he began it. . Man is bound to hold man responsible to man, for his right doing : hence the existence of courts of law and justice throughout the civilised world. But if you are to hold to the doctrine of a personal all-powerful maker and superintender—especially the latter—of the world, you are bound to lay to his charge the sorrow and suffering of all living creatures, including man. And with regard to him, I will add, sin likewise. As I have said, God must be held, responsible for his own work. He is, from the Theistic point of view, the primary mover, maker, and first cause; or he is nothing. He either could not, or would not, order it otherwise; and in either case it is difficult to recognise the God-ship. It is—and that most assuredly from what I will call the God-maker’s point of view^-somewhat idle to talk of man bringing all the misery upon himself ; that he knows right from wrong, etc. That contention certainly cannot �44 GOD. apply to those who are born into the world with bodies unfit for life, and in such manner and conditions as must necessarily render their lives a grievious burden. Nor will it apply to the innocent victims of those who do wrong. Indeed it is inapplicable to four-fifths of the wrong and misery endured by man—not to mention again that endured by the lower order of animals. In fact, if the all-ruling argument be brought in, it cannot apply at all; else, where the «A-ruling ? It must also be borne in mind that man does not always know right from wrong. He frequently does the most criminal things under the impression that he is doing right. The conscience standard, or test of right and wrong, which is generally put forward by Christian apolo­ gists is not necessarily a true one. In a vast number of cases it is no test at all. Conscience can only be a test of right, in the sense that it is right to do what one believes to be so ; but it is no test as to whether the thing done is right or wrong. The truth or falsity of positions, theories, and acts, must rest upon evidence, upon facts and con­ siderations in connexion with themselves; and not upon what a number of persons — or, rather, each individual person, three parts of whom may be quite uninformed— might conscientiously think or believe about them. One man’s conscience will acquit him of doing things at which another’s revolts. In Africa, a man’s conscience will acquit him of sacrificing his brother man to the Fetish. In the middle ages the highest consciences in the Christian world sanctioned the burning alive of those whose consciences forced them to differ from their executioners. Till recently, the Christian conscience, even in Great Britain, sanctioned upon Bible authority the burning of unhappy enthusiasts or half-witted creatures as witches.1 And to-day, the Christian will sanction the outlawry of the Atheist-—right or wrong-—as per conscience. Conscience, to a far greater extent than is usually admitted by those who urge it as a 1 At the present time, as a rule, the Christian advocate’s conscience will not permit him to include the Bible a,s part of his creed. “ Bible smashers” have doubtless had much to do in shaping the modern Christian conscience. It is now a' matter of history that Christian legislators have, under the guidance of the “ Infidel Advocate ”, con­ scientiously passed into law what they but yesterday conscientiously affirmed would insult their maker and bring ruin to their country. �GOD. 45 standard, is only another name for intelligence, and must always depend upon circumstances : upon creed, birth, and surroundings.1 God must not, therefore, under the plea of conscience, be freed from the consequences (which he fore-knew) of what he has created; and which from their very nature proclaim that he is not good and omnipotent. Some such ideas and considerations have doubtless been in the minds of peoples at all times. The human race have at all periods recognised the fact of the existence, in many shapes, of good and evil; hence their many Gods, some good and some bad. The Christian has dethroned and banished all the Gods but one, which he holds to be the Z/w God. But he has balanced the case by inventing the devil, who is a kind of concentrated essence of all the old and bad Gods squeezed into one; and is made to do duty for what I will call the black side of “ Creation”. All the shortcomings, slips, and can’t-help-its of the good or white God are saddled upon the black one—whose presumed existence is thought to make that of his rival more feasible. The existence or non-existence of the devil may be thought to be somewhat outside the question; but I venture to introduce his sable majesty entirely upon the authority of his friends—indeed I might say his patentees —who have, I believe, not intentionally made him co-equal, and frequently more than co-equal, with his white brother in the management of the world. By far the largest number, in fact by nearly all Theists, he (the devil), or something equal to him, is held to be a necessary antithesis to God proper. You see God is greatly hampered : all over the world, at all times, he has been heavily weighted, either by devils or devil, in some shape or guise, which indeed is not to be wondered at; for, taking a Bible and a Christian view, and, I think I would be justified in saying, a Theistic view generally, he has only himself to thank, because if he is the beginning, the author and creator of all things, he is the author and creator of the evils these devils and devil-Gods personify. Indeed 1 I think a better definition for conscience than the usually accepted one, would be : The sense.of approval or sanction which we accord or withhold to our actions. �46 GOD. the existence of evil is so patent to all as to have become proverbial, and amongst us finds expression in such sayings as : “ There is never a good without an evil ” ; and vice versa. Why Giod does not see fit to uncreate the source of evil—if he can do so without uncreating himself—is of course beyond our ken. Before finally quitting the design argument I will for a moment or two longer dwell upon this personification of evil, or rather, upon some of his doings as chronicled in God’s book. I feel justified in doing so, because the remarks I am about to make have direct reference to what Christian and Jew alike assert God to have performed and suffered, whilst working out what (under God) for many centuries was held to be the very beginning of the work of creation, but which is now held by Christians (of course still under God) to be any period or stage of the work which Science and Infidelity may ascribe to it. And I would here submit that those who hold to a belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment, ought to be the last to dabble in the design idea. According, then, to the opening chapters of the Bible, the Almighty began his work in what may be termed the Garden-of-Eden fashion, but finished it—well, very much otherwise. Heaven will answer as denoting the beginning, but Hell is the word which applies to the ending. God had no sooner completed his work and blessed it, and pronounced all things to be good, when, by the superior cunning of a reptile—made by his own hands—he found his design working so badly that he had at once to blast everything he had made, and to introduce pain, labor, thorns, thistles, disease, and death—not only for man, but for beasts likewise. Thus Omniscience and Immutability succumbed at the first bite of the apple. The serpent obliterated Paradise, and deprived Omnipotence of its meaning. And bear in mind the weak argument as to free will does not affect the question—except in a detri­ mental sense—of an Omniscient designer. If there be any truth in the theory, you are bound to believe that the serpent was designed to beguile the woman and so damn mankind, and this, whilst adding nothing in the shape of perfection to the general muddle, simply converts your God into worse than a devil. According to the prevailing Christian belief—certainly �GOD. 47 the Roman Catholic belief—God created the world as a means of replacing those angels who were expelled from heaven for disobedience and rebellion; and the result, according to the same authority, is simply becoming an overflowing hell. God thought by means of this world to recruit his celestial army, but the devil stole his recruits before they were yet ripe, and made fuel of them to feed his eternal stew-pan. Talk of design : it is really a worse case than that of the painter who was not sure till he had finished his picture whether it would turn out to be a “ cow in the meadow ” or a “ ship in a storm ” ! If I am asked for a justification for these remarks, I refer my interrogator to the Bible account of the transaction, in which he will see how the serpent, getting his own way in the matter of Eve and the forbidden fruit, put God to another and most disastrous shift—i.e., damning creation, followed, if you will, by a confessedly futile scheme of salvation. If it were not so far away from my immediate subject, I should like to go into the question as to where the Serpent’s great wisdom came from ; and whether he had already stolen a few apples upon his own account ? However that may have been, God took summary vengeance upon him, and at once either conjured or chopped off his legs, and made him go upon his belly—although I presume he was under the necessity of supplying him with a new set of muscles to enable him to get along in his new and strange method of locomotion. Or, has he— the serpent—to some extent proved the truth of evolution by acquiring for himself these organs since his fall ? But what a childish fable for grown people to hold as God’s truth. Of course these observations are not founded upon any­ thing better than the teachings and dogmas of men who hold in various ways the position I am attacking. But in such an enquiry as this, the things said for God, and of God, by those who maintain his existence, are fair matters for comment. And this applies to many other comments in this pamphlet. I have before me a scrap of what I take to be a portion of a sermon upon the canonisation of St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, in which the following passage appears. My excuse for giving it is that it applies to God, inasmuch as �48 GOD. it shows God’s method, or one of his methods, of utilising' defunct saints : “ They ” (saints in general) “were a shield of protection not only for those who invoked them, but also, through the super­ abounding mercy of God, even to those who were ignorant of their very names. Just as a range of mountains in the distance frequently breaks the violence of the elements, so do the accu­ mulated merits of the saints act as a barrier against the fury of God’s vengeance, shielding even the unworthy from his wrath”, etc. Now this, divested of its oratorical and sacerdotal coloring, means that one of God’s occupations is to providentially raise up barriers in the shape of departed saints, against his own wrath, so as to prevent himself from taking as much vengeance as he otherwise would upon the beings he has providentially created. What a dreadful character he most assuredly would be if he were let alone—or rather, if he let himself alone I Just imagine mountains of buffers against the “fury of God’s vengeance” in the shape of defunct saints I Under the circumstances mentioned, one can scarcely help wondering how heaven can really be heaven to them. Think of the picture here presented. Shoals of departed saints dwelling in perfect bliss, but nevertheless perpetually on the watch, both, in heaven and out of it, so as to be ready at any instant to throw them­ selves between God’s fury and his intended victims. I don’t think I should care to be a saint under the circum­ stances. But the saints were ever a queer lot, and it is possible their work in the next world is quite as unco1 as in this. If we are to believe those who are authorised to speak for them, they are, though dead, still used as a kind of supernatural cement to patch up the design which they preached, but which I nevertheless think they marred when in the flesh. It has just dawned upon me that possibly I have failed to interpret aright the meaning of this highly-colored statement of supernatural-natural nonsense and incredi­ bility ; which indeed would be excusable. It is possible that it is not the saints’ bodies which we are to understand as acting as barriers and buffers, but their merits. These merits would in that case stand in the same relationship to God’s wrath and vengeance as the mountains do to the fury of the elements, and thus prevent him, as I before �GOD. 49 remarked, from doing such dire and dreadful things as he ■otherwise would do. He spends the fury of his vengeance upon these mountains of virtues—after the manner of the elements—rather than upon those who (presumably) de­ serve it! There is a most curious theological fact—it could only be a fact theologically—peeping out from behind this mountain ■of sacerdotal nonsense, i.e., that God is so mighty, and so wonderful as to be able to suffer his power and his inten­ tions to be broken and scattered as are the elements against mountains which successfully withstand their force, and disperse them; without for an instant lessening his omnipotence or his immutability. What a very wonderful God these nineteenth century Christians must have ! The observations I am now about to make, although not perhaps strictly pertinent to the subject, are yet bearing upon it, being still in reference to the God question. I make them with great respect, and with much diffidence: respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer and closer application to the question and better means of studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion than myself; and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion. Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself. But I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I shall put forward seem to me to be real difficulties. If I should appear dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty in finding a method of conveying the thoughts I wish to express. And I ask Christians to apply these remarks, in so far as they are able, to what has preceded them (what immediately follows does not touch them1); for, if in arguing this subject I have not shown enough respect for their feelings, have spoken harshly or irreverently of their accepted doctrines and dogmas, I desire to say that I have not intended to be wittingly offensive; although I will confess I have not endeavored to hide feelings of con­ tempt for certain beliefs and ideas which appeared to be contemptible as they came before my mind. This I could not avoid; it were false to act otherwise. And I must 1 This has reference to the argument which I am about to venture upon, and not to the remarks I am now making. �50 GOD. also admit that I do not feel in any way bound to be extremely tender with the doctrine of Christianity, as a doctrine, and taken as a whole. Some things which have happened, and which show even at this day a dangerous smouldering of the awful Smithfield fires, have made a deep impression upon me. To travel no further than three of the foremost English Freethinkers of to-day: (a) Mrs. Annie Besant was, by process of Christian law, ruthlessly separated from all a woman holds dear, and cast without means upon the world, because she, being a Christian minister’s wife, dared to think, and was not hypocrite enough to hide her conclusions, (#) Later on Christian legislators actually endeavored to prevent her and her fellow-students, the Misses Bradlaugh, from teaching Science, pure and simple, to their fellow beings. (0) Charles Bradlaugh was persistently treated with insult and contumely, the sanctity of his person was outraged, and he was robbed of his legitimate status as a citizen and duly elected representative of the people, and all but ruined—the struggle continuing for six years—by a Chris­ tian House of Parliament, because he was an avowed Atheist.1 Mr. G. W. Foote, in company with Mr. W. J. Ramsey, was incarcerated in a felon’s gaol, treated as a criminal, and made to suffer all the indignities of a convicted rogue and thief, or perjurer, because he would not belie his sense of right and liberty in matters of freedom of thought. Christians, now as ever, trample on those who differ from them, and I do confess there is that within me which will not permit me to kiss the hand that smites me; nor lick the foot which spurns and kicks me. Christians profess to do these things ; but their practice belies their professions. For my own part, until I am allowed toexist upon equal terms in all respects, I will fight. I will not prostrate my individuality before the Christian Jug­ gernaut, and say : “ Trample out my existence, I am only 1 I am happy to know that a vast number of Christians have since joined with others in contributing to clear off the debt incurred by above six years’ struggle. Nevertheless Christians did the thing I complain of in the name of Christianity. Any other man than Charles Bradlaugh would scarcely have survived to afford the con­ science-mongers an opportunity of thus easing their consciences. �GOD. 51 an infidel ” ; but will, if need be, take my “ tomahawk”, which a not altogether unfriendly critic has put into my hand, and, striking right and left, hope it may never alight upon the head of a friend, nor miss that of an enemy. Having said thus much, because I thought the occasion opportune, I will proceed with the remarks to which I have referred. In this paper I have said that God is not, nor could he be. . And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observations. I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his existence.. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings. But I think I see very marked signs of what may be considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism. Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take up this position, but what is considered the safer and more moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him; and that therefore he should neither affirm nor deny his existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos­ ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence. Mr. Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of the Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a first cause, and a personal God; equally, we cannot prove a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further saying: “Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned”. I would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull­ ing the statement. But he further holds that if the existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of 1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. �52 GOD. course to illustrate the idea he is expounding) be asserted in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos­ sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist an uncaused cause of all things ? If it, as well as the existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc.,— which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ? It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr. Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned, the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned. If anything which is inconsistent with what we really know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—i.e., God —stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct issue. The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr. Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is, as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously, forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice it denies it. Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then it is, so far Atheism : because the Atheist does but say what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis­ 1 I notice that “D” (of the National Reformer) takes exception to the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, hut I do not think that affects the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God. �GOD. 53 able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not, physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical­ ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility of something about the Unknowable ; although that admis­ sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions superbly ridiculous. Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the possibility of what both practically say is impossible.1 It would appear to me that what is unknowable is not. Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there may be some points and niceties about it which pass my comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra­ ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you prove to the contrary? ” Of course one could shake one’s head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the closure will come in again with quite as much force against 1 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journal (J March 30th, remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic­ ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and Atheism is no more.” Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is assured. ‘ God ’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.” With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults. If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists who believe in God. �54 GOD. improbable as it did against the impossible, when used in reference to the Unknowable. It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding that it may be this, that, or the other. The whole idea seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically, no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall be completely outside or free from considerations which are in connexion with the universe, or which are not based upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos­ ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or, what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure, rather than to throw more light upon what is already sufficiently difficult. As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach­ ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre­ sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism. I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism, or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other hand if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution till he arrives at Theism, which says yes. Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house between the two extremes, there will at all times probably the �GOD. 55 be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism, and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who are either going forward or returning, as the case may be. I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point ■out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God. I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs, Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the Bev. W. T. Lee, and the. definition of Agnosticism quoted from the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan­ guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only a very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi­ fying the boast made by many, that there is no living person who really believes there is no God. Of course this boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything, mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed, and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would, I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues, which may contain no principle. The question then arises which is the most logical �56 GOD. position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimateend and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at the last gate by refraining from making such direct declaration ? At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what hisname implies-—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves: m the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God. Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi­ tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula ‘ ‘ we do not and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does he not in reality say “ there is no God ” ? If you venture as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict ? It appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the common and consequent result of investigation should not be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not­ withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi­ bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra­ dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible. �GOD. 57 you venture one whit further in the shape of denial than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be true. I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for giving direct form to his verdict, or result of his investigation. I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse declared it contained no money, would not be held to be illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin­ ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con­ tained money, but would not venture upon saying out­ right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn, and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi­ tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use in dropping one term and picking up another, which, whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing? If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean one other thing: the possibility of the existence of God, which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and denial of Atheism. Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism, as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ? But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility If 1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to methat the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature is an admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still an admission that perhaps it (supernature) is; to the shutting out of the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism. �58 GOD. of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact; thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con­ ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils, ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms with which the regions of supernature are peopled. I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to admit of a may-be, which the whole universe proclaims may not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grate­ ful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position the possible correctness of which you have already conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate. It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quite savoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that Agnosticism is safer because it tells you neither to affirm nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say perhaps yes ? Do I then doubt, or half believe ? What logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non­ admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not. The “ New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded, and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. Wace, states that “ an Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and, as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good enough for the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant �GOD. 59 for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism. Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good; although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”. He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist, nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I 1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following quotation, given in the Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition of the word, be correct: ‘ ‘ As the inventor of the word, I am entitled to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence of science whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such belief. So far it is Atheistic ; but if it further means that man has no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not therefore to state his disbelief, then it is not Atheistic. And if meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove. But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean­ ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi­ cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss him. Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance, the Trinity. �60 GOD. think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com­ patible with the position now apparently assumed by leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti­ mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in thebelief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case. To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is, at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic doing so. It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that, while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out­ side natural phenomena, nor of the first cause—which is the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and act Atheism. I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we are bound to have great respect, that the word God, undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ? It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin­ ning and the End, and many other things. But the cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist, knowing what is broadly meant and held as to God by those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no �G01). 61 meaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can yon not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined. I recognise the difficulty; but reply : Would an Atheist subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary —I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli­ gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist to say yes or no to such general meaning. If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I presume in every scientifically arranged language in the world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their derivatives. If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will —put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing room for variations of definition) holds that he does not exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ? I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then 1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas they are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence. �62 GOD. he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in thia particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he must not venture upon making the logical and consequent avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic­ tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results. It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity. I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not, it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter­ pret his position. I could understand taking up the position that, because we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what mighty or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos­ sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable and improbable; although I should be strongly tempted to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I should consider beyond the improbable and to be im­ possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round and include all questions, and not be confined to that of the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con­ cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence. I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving expression to his conviction that a moon made of green cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being “ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis­ belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither affirming nor denying ” : it is the embodiment of denial �GOD. 63 and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into another position; but in the meantime, I must again say that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis­ believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name, and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi­ tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the weak avowal he makes when he says “the Atheist does not say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words, he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much reason be regarded as a loop-hole. But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do not know God — and forgive me if I once more say— thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought, I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other terms as shall better define our position. In that case we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one. For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or otherwise, I have.no hesitation in asserting that, so far as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other­ wise, I could not be an Atheist. Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles in the National JR&former, “In Defence of Agnosticism”. They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and �64 GOD. profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them. But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question” being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”. But he further says that some argument is admissible when he is taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it: “ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on to explain, such assertions include statements with regard to the order of nature ; as, for instance: “We may argue from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”. This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but to my mind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to leave the person awkwardly situated, who does not believe in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his God forward as being supernatural only, and as having nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be dumb; or limit one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put forward in conjunction with our phaenomenal universe (as indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him. But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirmstively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be verified either way without full discussion ? And why should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ? And finally, is that Agnosticism ? But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward. Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time the cause and author or creator of the universe and of �GOD. 65 all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the enabling position, above all others, I take to be that of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion of the statement only, discussion upon the question of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super­ natural being. But the qualification comes in as a kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega­ tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say, “ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis­ factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos­ ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s” further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when a Christian states that “three times one God are one God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possibility, as to say the subject matter is beyond the reach of my faculties, and that the assertion conveys no meaning to my mind. These seem to be quite distinct statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro­ fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed. I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”, but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon common sense and science, “does not, or needs not, deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it; but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be �66 GOD. hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming nor denying. The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored to give form have been in my mind for a considerable period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps, in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other. The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small space here at my command I have not been able to much more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My observations are possibly better calculated to induce the ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and to look for larger and more complete investigations than they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the great of learning. The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating humanity, and building up a people who shall consider their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry, but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry, rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought. � 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 &amp; 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 God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ball, William Platt [1844-1917] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 66 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N056 Subject The topic of the resource God 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 (God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), 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 Agnosticism God NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=lRwwFjMx0KESVzkwSAkmzSnXj-OlwRSHKQLBdjqIXwDCjZH8PwyyYYa29kiARFS9o0xAgMXr8wmNBdMkAfAa1TVKdALqqqEjRDjQ2fYc4CzBh0vx2OBLC-eOe9q5nIQrxYA9%7EstHdZjVzfGgPzHfo9-IPIcAwHIkitcLXyPBnmxQGCGzNel3M5VHQWfucK-WbWRTtCVrriFrWDxtwe3A5kVgcXVuI29bLQ-D8xoK-gwcEaG7eMoX4CsNNLxl5wAy7uUxamWFckE6f-GJbmbrdmxQasdtQGB6OSUo5APeBFx-swFJyvuYjecSjvxR0qY6yX6AHmdvbwBywJA%7E4VP-Aw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 37feacb69ba8bfdfa58d820541348d09 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. BY “ HTJMANITAS.” Author of “ Is God the First Caused ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”, “Thoughts on Heaven’9, “Jacob the Wrestler99, “Mr. Eradlaugh and the Oaths Question", “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P,", “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ",“ Socialism a Curse", “ A Fish in Labor; or, Jonah and the Whale ", “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments Against Agnosticism ", “ Against Socialism ", tc. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9 . PRICE TWOPENCE. �LONDON FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHAELES BBADLATOH, 63 FLEET STEEET, E.C. �\T0S3 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. This pamphlet was originally written as a portion of my larger one on “God ” ; but considering it to be complete in itself—as against Agnosticism—I determined to publish it, in a separate form, hoping thereby to reach many who might not be inclined to buy the larger one. The observations I have made, and the arguments I have endeavored to advance, are made and advanced with great respect and with much diffidence: respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer and closer appli­ cation to the question, and better means of studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion than my­ self : and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion. Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself; but I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I shall endeavor to put forward seems to me to be real difficulties. If I should appear to be dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty in finding a method of expressing the thoughts I wish to convey. In my pamphlet on God, of which this forms a part, I have said that God is not, nor could not be. And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observa­ tions. I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his existence. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings. �4 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. But I think I see very marked signs of what may be considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism. Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take up this position, but what is considered the safer and more moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him; and that therefore he should neither affirm_ nor deny his existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos­ ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence.. Mr. Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of th© Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a first, cause, and a personal God ; equally, we cannot prove a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further saying: “ Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned ”. I would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull­ ing the statement. But he further holds that if the existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of course to illustrate the idea he is expounding.) be asserted in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos­ sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist an uncaused cause of all things? If it, as well as the existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc., — which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ? It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr. Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned, the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned. If anything which is inconsistent with what we really 1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. �AGAINST AGNOSTISISM. 5 know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—£e., God —stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct issue. The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr. Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face -of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is, as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously, forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice it denies it. Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then it is, so far Atheism: because the Atheist does but say what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis­ able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not, physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical­ ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility of something about the Unknowable; although that admis­ sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions superbly ridiculous. Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the possibility of what both practically say is impossible?1 2 1 I notice that “D” (of the NationalReformer} takes exception to the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, but I do not think that affects the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God. 2 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journaloi March 30th, remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic­ �6 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. It would appear to me that what is ■unknowable is not. Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there may be some points and niceties about it which pass my comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra­ ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you prove to the contrary ? ” Of course one could shake one’s head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the closure will come in again with quite as much force against the improbable as it did against the impossible, when used in reference to the Unknowable. It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding that it may le this, that, or the other. The whole idea seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically, no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall be completely outside or free from considerations which ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and Atheism is no more.” Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is assured. ‘God’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.” With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults. If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists who believe in God. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 7 ar© in connexion with the universe, or which are not based upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos­ ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or, what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure, rather than to throw more light upon what is already sufficiently difficult. As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach­ ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre­ sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism. I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism, or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other hand, if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution till he arrives at Theism, which says yes. Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house between the two extremes, there will at all times probably be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism, and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who are either going forward or returning, as the case may be. In the observations which follow I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God. I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs. Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the Rev. W. T. Lee, and the definition of Agnosticism quoted �8 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. from, the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan­ guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only B very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi­ fying the boast made by many, that there is no living person who really believes there is no God. Of course this boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything, mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed, and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would, I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues, which may contain no principle. The question then arises which is the most logical position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimate end and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at the last gate by refraining from making such direct declaration ? At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what his name implies—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves in the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God. Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi• tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula 1‘ we do not and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does he not in reality say “there is no God ” ? If you venture as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 9 logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict? It appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the common and consequent result of investigation should not be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not­ withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi­ bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra­ dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible. If you venture one whit further in the shape of denial than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be true. I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for giving direct form to his verdict, orresult of his investigation. I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse declared it contained no money, would not be held to be illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin­ ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con­ tained money, but would not venture upon saying out­ right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it �10 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn, and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi­ tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use in dropping one term and picking up another, which, whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing? If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean one other thing : the possibility of the existence of God, which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and denial of Atheism. Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism, as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ? But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact; thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con­ ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils, ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms with which the regions of supernature are peopled. I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to admit of a may-le, which the whole universe proclaims may not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grateful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position the possible correctness of which you have already 1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to me that the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature, is an admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still an admission that perhaps it (supernature) ; to the shutting out of the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 11 conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate. It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quitesavoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that Agnosticism is safer because it teils you neither to affirm, nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you. there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say perhaps yes? Do I then doubt, or half believe? What logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non­ admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not. The “New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded, and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. AVace, states that “an Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and, as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good.enough for the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism. Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good ; although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who dis­ claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late 1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following quotation, given in the .Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition of the word, be correct: “As the inventor of the word, I am entitled, to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence �12 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. "bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”. He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist, nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com­ patible with the position now apparently assumed by leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti­ mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in the belief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case. To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is, at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic doing so. of science whether ancient or modem. It .-imply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such belief. So far it is Atheistic.; but if it further means that man has no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not therefore to state his disbelief, then it is rot Atheistic. And if meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove. But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean­ ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi­ cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss h m. Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance, the Trinity. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 13 It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that, while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out­ side natural phsenomena, nor of the first cause which is the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and act Atheism. I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we are bound to have great respect, that the word God, undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ? It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin­ ning and the End, and many other things.. But the cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist, knowing what is broadly meant and held as. to God by those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no moaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can you not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can ' know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined. I recognise the difficulty; but reply: Would an Atheist subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary —I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no 1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas, they are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence. �14 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli­ gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist to say yes or no to such general meaning. If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I presume in every scientifically arranged language in the world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their deri­ vatives, nor would Atheists themselves have existed. If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will —put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing room for variations of definition) holds that he does not exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ? I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in this particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he must not venture upon making the logical and consequent avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic­ tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results. It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 15 it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity. I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not, it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter­ pret his position. I could understand taking up the position that, because we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what might, or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos­ sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable and improbable ; although I should be strongly tempted to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I should consider beyond the improbable and to be im­ possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round and include all questions, and not be confined to that.of the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con­ cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence. I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving­ expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving expression to his conviction that a moon made of green cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being “ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis­ belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither affirming nor denying” : it is the embodiment of denial and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into another position; but in the meantime, I must again say that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis­ believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name, and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi­ tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the weak avowal he makes when he says ‘ ‘ the Atheist does not say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions �16 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words, he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much reason be regarded as a loop-hole. But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do not know God — and forgive me if I once more say— thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought, I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other terms as shall better define our position. In that case we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one. For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or otherwise, I have no hesitation in asserting that, so far as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other­ wise, I could not be an Atheist. Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles in the National Reformer, “In Defence of Agnosticism”. They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them. But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question ” being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”, But he further says that some argument is admissible when he is taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it: “ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on to explain, such assertions include statements with regard to the order of nature ; as, for instance : “We may argue �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 17 •from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”, This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but to my wind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to leave the person awkwardly situated, who does. not believe in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his God forward as being supernatural only, and as having nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be dumb; or limit, one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put forward in conjunction with our phenomenal universe (as indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him. But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirma­ tively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be verified either way without full discussion ? And why should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ? And finally, is that Agnosticism ? But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward. Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time the cause and author or creator of the universe and of all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the enabling position, above all others, I take to be that of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion of the statement only, discussion upon the question of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super­ natural being. But the qualification comes in as a kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega­ tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say, �18 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. “ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis­ factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos­ ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s” further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when a Christian states that “three times one God are one God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possi­ bility, as to say “the subject matter is beyond the reach of my faculties, and that the assertion itself conveys no distinct meaning to my mind”. These seem to be quite distinct statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro­ fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed. I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”, but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon common sense and science, “does not, or needs not, deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it; but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming nor denying. The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored to give form have been in my mind for a considerable period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps, in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other. The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small space here at my command I have not been able to much more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 19 occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My observations are possibly better calculated to induce the ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and to look for larger and more complete investigations than they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the great of learning. The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating humanity, and building up a people who shall consider their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry, but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry, rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought. � 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 &amp; 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 Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ball, William Platt [1844-1917] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 19 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N053 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism 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 (Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), 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> 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 Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/87fd9714814352553f7f953d2df788dc.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Mir4f%7EBG8rEp7DzauC6M5BcRVNrBjstrUb2Wa2DxUVrBpjTyeTxgAZgzKElNsDqX3o%7EKpsHaqmFTQseOPXqws4VcGZw%7E6Jbk4iKFexvFEgAzFCQplAxIkjNL7WGKAyhfZJOmDtSCqd0lZPusMSR-UGhwgUVRVr7ny5mXWK2CQGNPnYXFWNFKV%7E5Ow0Qvy-FAgdF8JBuhIqBtlk%7EvB9d3K8X4PRrizkO1jadRkBeeV8ulnPuSWlnvknA1HvPSq3mKgmn-oVh5AoOulLUiHdFiYa%7E%7EmkuqGVy1Fx5rCtiZ6JSYYAtv9-JTrwEx1avvo3pYIGlnF3LpoqtE1VUt-MqPeg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 173a2645c331f3345564730fa21bc66f PDF Text Text r NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY T IF j Christianity AND x J Agnosticism A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, V-' Agnostic; London. Price Twopence Bradford : Printedjlnd Published by J. W. Gott, 2, Union Street. �List of Books for Sale by J. W. GOTT 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel—Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace: An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth) ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza: Ethics of Marriage ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to be happy tho’ married Professor Huxley’s—Lectures and Essays Edward Clodd's The Pioneers ot Evolution ... Samuel Laing’s Modern Science and Modern Thought ... Matthew Arnold’s—Literature and Dogma .. Herbert Spencer’s—/Education ■Grant Alien’s—The Evolution of the Idea of God ... Professor Haeckel’s—The Riddle of the Universe ... Samuel Laing’s—Human Origins ........................... < ■Cotter Morrison’s—The Service of Man Professor Tyndall’s—Lectures and Essays Charles Darwin’s—The Origin of Species ... ............... Emerson’s—Addresses and Essays (a Selection) John Stuart Mill’s—On Liberty ....................................... Edward Clodd’s—The Story of Creation ........................... Sir Leslie Stephen’s—An Agnostic Apology........................... Ernest Renan’s—The Life of Jesus....................................... Elements of Social Science (latest edition) ... �. g2-\8! U Christianity AND > * Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London* George, philanthropist. 1824. Anderson was a self-made man »ho prospered in business and very generously supported advanced movements. He was a personal friend of Bradlaugh, Holyoake, and Watts, and one of the bunders of the Rationalist Press Associaj .on. The first issue of cheap reprints by ).ie Association was made possible by a fenerous gift from him of £2,000. He ive with equal liberality to hospitals and bher charitable institutions. D. Aug 12 915. ’ IAA < ck'el*, tA/uj, . ANDEKSON, E. to Mr. Anderson, in ng his church. Mr. hristian, and, thinking apy of his first letter, nation; hence followed on suggested that it Ejected; therefore, his term “ Clergyman ” yman’s letters which localities that might —K. E. Watts. �r— , * J r 4 1 w •I List of Books for Sale by J. W. GOTT. 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel — Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) ... ... ... ... ... Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) ... J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... ... ... .■ Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t * Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... ... ... ... Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century ... ... . ...1 ... ... ... ... Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace: An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions ... ... ... ... ... ... 9 Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... ... ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) ... Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth)... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold... ... R. ... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza; Ethics of Marriage ... ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to be happy tho’ married ............... ... Professor Huxley’s—Lecturesand Essays ... .3 ... Edward Clodd's The Pioneers ot Evolution ... ... ... Samuel Laing’s Modern Sci6n< Matthew Arnold’s—Literature Herbert Spencer’s—Education Grant Allen’s—The Evolution Professor Haeckel’s—The Ridd Samuel Laing’s—Human Origi Cotter Morrison’s—The Service Professor Tyndall’s—Lectures-a Charles Darwin’s—The Origin Emerson’s—Addresses and Esss John Stuart Mill’s—On Liberty Edward Clodd’s—The Story of Sir Leslie Stephen’s—An Agno Ernest Renan’s—The Life of Je Elements of Social Science (late 4 0 10 o 6 o 6 10 10 0 i 3 0-3 0 3 03 o 6 2 o 10 o 4 6 10 O o 6 o 6 4 �Christianity AND Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London. plaNatok y no te. ^»rSa'sJ£pU^i”o^n‘1 i^;'> Mr. Anderson, i„ Anderson declined, statin? that prov‘nS his church. Mr Je correspondence would end there kenT* Chrislian’ and> thinking Soon, however, he received a seco S ° ?°P? of his first l^erT the correspondence. . commur»cation; hence followed should be‘^rtHshed,'the reverend rentle'"'1"'5,?" s“«Kted that it sn£tSad<,teSS »™«e6d, InTlhJ were merdy°omp!’m?Syn£ ^ve betrayed his letters which �List of Books for Sale by J, W. GOTT. 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel — Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) ............ Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) ... J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... ■ ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... ... ... ... Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... ... ... ... •Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century ... ... x .S ... ... ... ... -Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace; An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... ... ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) ... Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth)... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold... ... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza; Ethics-of Marriage ... ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to behappy tho* married M ... ... Professor Huxley’s—Lectures and Essays ... Ed’ Sar Ma He: -Gre Pre Sai Co Pre Ch Eijr Jo* Ed Sii Er El 4 0 10 o 6 o 6 1 o 1 o o 3 O 3 o 3 o 3 06 2 o 10 o 4 6 10 o 0 6 �Christianity AND Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London. Price Twopence. Printed Bradford : and Published by J. W. Gott, 2, Union Street. �I' > W_ ■ ' aBF/ Ijk i- EXPLANATORY NOTE. A Minister of the Church in Scotland wrote to Mr. Anderson, in London, for a subscription towards improving his church. Mr. Anderson declined, stating that he was not a Christian, and, thinking the correspondence would end there, kept no copy of his first letter? Soon, however, he received a second communication; hence followed the correspondence. * When, towards- the close of it, Mr. Anderson suggested that it should be published, the reverend gentleman objected ; therefore, his name and address have been omitted, and the term “ Clergyman ” substituted 1 One or two short paragraphs in the Clergyman’s letters which were merely complimentary, and which named localities that might have betrayed his identity, have been withheld.—K. E. Watts. �Christianity and Agnosticism. A Correspondence. I. Dear Sir,— Your note in reply to my appeal for funds for church building I have received. I thank you for your frank statement, and for the leaflet you kindly sent, with neither of which I agree. I admit that everyone is entitled to have his own views on religion as well as on other matters. I know that many men have difficulty in connection with Christianity, but certainly your opinions’have at least the merit of being somewhat novel, if “ to compete ” against the foreigner is the one vocation of a British subject. There may be some truth in what you say from your point of view, though I think few will agree with you that Christianity makes a man less capable to compete honourably with foreigners or any others. I regret I had not the pleasure of seeing you when in London. I know you are liberal towards other objects, and generous in giving for charitable purposes, and I believe, though you may not be aware of it, that you owe much of that kindly disposition to the fact of the influence of Christianity upon you. You gave up Christ­ ianity forty years ago ; you cannot therefore be young. If you believe in a future state, I trust the religion you profess gives you some comfort. I am quite satisfied with Christianity. 1 try to walk in the light, leaving alone unknown things. May I ask you to read again the Sermon on the Mount ? (Matthew’s Gospel, chapter v.) Pardon me for troubling you with this letter. Yours faithfully, Clergyman. �11. Dear Sir,— Yours of the 25th inst. received. I am sending you a book called Force and Matter, which treats of such doctrines as I believe in. You can return it to me any time within a year, and if you wish to acquaint yourself further with the views that are accepted by the intelligent portion of mankind, read Huxley’s Essays, and Darwin’s and Laing’s works, all of which I am willing to lend you if you care to read them. I reject your eternal hell doctrine as an infinite cruelty. I also reject your virgin-box# son as being contrary to all experience. It is only a re-hash of similar stories from religions older than Christianity. I reject your Hell and Heaven stories because they teach that which is contrary to all knowledge and to nature’s laws. I love my fellow-creatures, and I wish that all would-be mentors would not confuse young minds with those imperfect doctrines which often perplex them and render them unfit for the business of life, but would teach them something of this worl(^, instead. I know that Christianity is less aggressive than it was three hundred years ago, but that is only because it is less powerful. The doctrines are the same, and human nature is the same ; but science is taking the place of Christianity, and society is more humane. George Anderson. III. Dear Sir,— I am much obliged to you for your letter, and Force and Matter, which I will read. I have read Huxley’s Essays and some of Darwin’s works, but would like to read them again when I have time, so shall be pleased to accept your kind offer. It seems to me that one of your great difficulties is belief in the so-called “ miraculous.” I am sure you believe in Christ as an historical personage ; you cannot help doing so if you accept history at all. You must also acknowledge that no religion has produced such moral 4 �and intellectual results as the Christian religion has. How do you account for that fact if Christianity is a delusion ? I suppose that a man of intellect like yourself will acknowledge that some of the greatest men in thisrcountry accept Christianity. The best scientific men of the present day admit that the spiritual is of greater force than matter. Science is advancing. The discovery may yet be made that there is a higher law which covers the sphere of the miraculous, so that what you regard as contrary to law may be in accord with it. There is much to be said for the questions you raised in your last note, but men of science are still making advances. They acknowledge that there are numberless questions in the domain of matter that they cannot understand—how many more in that of mind or spirit ? May I ask you to read Dr. A. B. Bruce’s Apologetics (published by R. & R. Clark ?) I am sorry I have not got the book, and I cannot afford to buy it. You can, and I think it only fair that, if I read the books you recommend, you should read those that I suggest. Kindly let me have your'views after you have read the Apologetics. Yours truly, Clergyman. IV. Dear Sir,— I quite deserve to be rebuked for my writing. I shall do what you desire when reading Force and Matter. The book I recommended for your perusal is Apologetics, or Christianity Defensively Stated, by A. B. Bruce, D.D. (publishers, R. and R. Clark, Edinburgh). Thanks for “ Caledonian Society Report.” I send you by this post for your acceptance a course of lectures pub­ lished by me some years ago. They do not bear upon the subject in which we are both interested at present, but, if you have nothing special to do, you might look into them. I think they will at least entertain you, if they fail to convince. 5 �After you have read the leaflet inside vol. i.—viz., the review of the book—may I ask you to send it back to me in enclosed stamped envelope, as I have only one or two copies left, and I wish to keep them by me ? Yours faithfully, Clergyman. V. Dear Sir,— I brought home your book of lectures last night, opened it about eight o’clock, and finished it at five minutes to three this morning ; and, were I to write a folio, ■ I could not give a stronger testimony to the enjoyment I derived from its perusal. It tells once more the old story how Christians prosecute, and I think their actions are the logical outcome of their doctrines. “ He that believeth not shall be damned.” “ For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Hence to skin a man, or to burn him to death, is as nothing to eternal hell fire. In this country, in the present enlightened age, we are tolerably certain to die with our skins on ; but that is only because science, has humanised the people, and I hope it will continue the process until there is liberty for one and all to speak their honest thoughts : then we may expect greater progress, and much increased happiness for mankind. I would like your book to be read by every Scotchman, for it gives in a condensed form facts that one could otherwise only gather after an extensive course of reading. It also shows the pluck of Scotchmen, and thfcjr determination to persevere until they obtain their rights. I was a lad in Scotland in ’43, and remember the “ non­ intrusion ” agitation ; and as the English are now in a worse position than the Scotch were then, I think that the mental superiority of the Scotch over the English must be admitted. Yours, George Anderson. 6 �VI. Dear Sir,— Thanks for your note just received with leaflet returned. I am pleased that you propose to read my book. I read your lecture, for which accept my thanks. I consider it excellent, and quite enjoyed and profited by it. I agree thoroughly with what you say as to the efforts men should put forth to acquire knowledge. It is unwise in my opinion, to be too dogmatic on any question unless one is as sure as of the axioms of mathematics, for so much is yet to be known. I therefore guard myself against speaking too strongly either for or against Christianity, as there are many things that now seem impossible which by fuller knowledge, we may come to understand. My wife read your lecture with great pleasure. Pardon * me for stating it, but she said: He must be a good Christian who wrote that- lecture.” Yours faithfully, Clergyman. Dear Sir,— I am glad you enjoyed the reading of my lectures. You appear to appreciate the Scotch intellect and persever­ ance. How do you account for these ? I gather from your re­ marks that you think the superstition of Christianity retards intellectual progress. There are no people in the world so superstitious as the Scotch in this respect. Does it not strike you as strange that their religion does not dwarf their intellect ? It seems odd that such superstitious people should be so far advanced in learning and in all the sciences, and should be able to hold their own in competing with the foreigner. I have read your reply to Cardinal Manning with great interest. It bears a second reading. Your arguments are very fresh, and from your point of view unanswerable. I am reading Force and Matter. It is a. remarkable book. The laws of natural philosophy are clearly put. One of the things insisted on is, that matter is eternal. Will you kindly define to me what is meant by “ eternal ?” 7 �You do not seem to believe in anything that is not in aceord with “knowledge” and “experience.” If you insist that matter is eternal, then you must regard that quality as knowable, or in accord with experience ; if not, you believe in a thing that is not knowledge. ' You accept “ eternal ” as something you cannot understand, yet you believe in it, and you say there is that something in matter. Is it not as easy to believe in something eternal outside matter ? Is it not as easy to believe in the existence of God apart from matter ? If you believe in a being you cannot define, why not in a soul ? But if you say that the so-called soul is matter, then the soul is eternal too, and, the brain being eternal, may it not in another and similar form have possession of its present sensations of pain and pleasure ? You appear to me to believe in a kind of material soul. Well, what matters it whether it is material or not ? If it is eternal, and can consequently carry with it out of the world all its sensations, may not the brain be transformed into something else than mere earth and grass ? We have not yet discovered all the forces and combinations into which matter can be changed. It seems to me that the difficulty4 which puzzles most people gathers around the word “ eternal.” We have not solved the problem by evading this. Yours truly, Clergyman. VIII. My Dear Sir,— I am very much obliged for your great kindness in sending me the two periodicals, also the volume by Mr. Gould. I am anxious to read every book that gives useful information, and I shall read these as soon as my time will permit. I have nearly finished Force and Matter, and I agree with the premises laid down. They are full of natural philosophy and science, with much of which I am familiar. I do not, however, always agree with the conclusions of the writer. I have stated already my difficulty with regard to the conception of “ eternity.” Materialists trace things up to 8 �that point. They tell us that matter is eternal; they believe that, and yet they also say that they cannot believe what is not in accord with knowledge and experience. Is. eternity in accord with knowledge and experience ? If then, they say “ no,” and yet believe in it, why not believe in God ? and why have so great a difficulty in believing in the existence of a soul, which none of the senses can discover ? Are we justified in thinking that all that exists is discoverable by our few senses ? If matter and mind are identical, and if matter is eternal, does not that agree with the view ot the immortality of the soul ? I am not concerned whether that which I call soul, and you call matter, is matter or not, if it is eternal, and may, as far as we can see, retain all its powers under different conditions. I shall read with pleasure the book you sent me. May I ask you to read Anti-Theistic Theories, by Professor Flint (Baird Lectures, 1877 ; Blackwood & Sons, publishers) ? I am sorry I cannot send it to you, but it is not my own. My wife is interested in your book, and especially in yourself; she insists upon me expressing her wish to have your portrait, if convenient for you to send it. I have marked some parts of Force and Matter, but at present I am so occupied with my own work that I have little time for private reading, and I am not much inclined to controversy, I am a firm believer in the Christian faith, and in the person of Christ and his teaching. There are many things in connection with Christianity that I differ from, many of its doctrines that I do not accept; but I would never think of staking the whole question on small issues, and I entirely disagree with you in giving any importance to such trifling advertisements as you were kind enough to send me. In my opinion, the large question of the Christian faith and its power ought not to be judged on small issues. Please read M. Janet’s reply to Force and Matter. With kind regards, I am, yours sincerely, Clergyman. �IX. -*Dear Sir,— Yours of yesterday in reference to reading books just to hand. If any one asked me to read a book on new discoveries in arithmetic, based on the assertion that 3 + 3 = io, or 3 x 3 = io, I would not waste my time by doing so ; I certainly would not buy the book. That is my position in regard to Christianity. It makes statements which I disbelieve, and it gives no proof of their veracity. You know fairly well my tone of mind. If you can loan me, if only for a week or two, any book that you think I ought to read, 1 will gladly look into it on the strength of your recommendation. Herewith I send you a Christian book which the Roman Catholics put into the hands of children. It is called A Sight of Hell. I view such teachings with horror and disgust, for they frighten the little ones, stunt the growth of their intellect, and fill our asylums with idiots. Yours, George Anderson. Dear Sir,— In your letter of January 25th you write that you cannot understand why I think that Christianity makes us less able to compete with foreigners in business. I will explain. Continental boys are not dosed daily with religion in schools, as British boys are. Dogma, miracles, and mystery do not occupy their time ; hence, on leaving school they know more of what is required in this world than our boys do, and their minds are not confused by divergent ideas incapable of proof, and which all their knowledge of this life and its duties contradicts. As the terrors of an everlasting hell form part of the belief of our boys, they become mental cowards, and are afraid to think. This dwarfs their intellect, and makes them less able to compete with boys more secularly trained. But please note, I do not confine these remarks to your Church. All religious teaching has the same effect in certain degrees. You think that my liberality towards “ other objects ” is due to the influence of Christianity upon me. iQ �I cannot agree with you upon this point. If I assist a man or an object, it is always for the purpose of increasing comfort, or furthering progress in human affairs. I never do so as a bribe to heaven to save my soul, nor to escape the eternal miseries of your hell. You hope the religion I profess gives me comfort. I know of no religion that I consider good enough, so I don’t profess any. I thank you for your kind hope, how­ ever, and wish to state that I feel very comfortable except in this, that I would that more were of my opinions. I see so much misery amidst so much luxury that I would like to increase the latter, and, if the former must exist at all, to see at least a more equal division. I find beautiful and grand ideas in most religions, but they are all blended with the preposterous. The Hindoos had their Trinity of Brahma, Siva and Vishnu before Christians adopted the idea. Think of the Hindoos’ glorious wide-flowing river of sacred water (the Ganges) and compare it with the small vessel of holy water used by the Christians. At the last eclipse of the sun the Hindoos thought it was the end of the world ; they rushed into the sacred water, that they might be floated into eternity on its holy bosom. We laugh at this, yet we tell them of men carried up into the air in chariots of fire. Which is the more absurd ? Religions also teach morality, but morality is not reli­ gion—that is ethics, and the ethical part of Christianity which is good was previously taught in China, and some moral precepts that have since been added are wholly unworkable, such as “ Give all you have to the poor ”—a kindly-meant sentiment, which, if acted upon, would dis­ organize society and ruin any one who attempted it, for no doubt his relations would take steps to have him housed in a lunatic asylum. A subsequent letter of yours I hope to reply to in a day or two. I wish, however, you would again read my reply to Cardinal Manning, for I feel you have not gathered a clear idea of my philosophy of matter and its attributes Yours, George Anderson. i i �XI. My Dear Sir,— I sent you yesterday a copy of Dr. Bruce’s Apologetics, which I borrowed. You can keep it for a month. I am sure you will give the book a fair reading. Thanks for ltttle book received, A Sight of Hell. I quite agree with you that it is a scandal to have such literature put into the hands of youth ; but in religion, as in business, there is too much fraud. That does not, however, detract from what is valuable, honest, and true in both. My wife thanks you very much for your portrait. We are both delighted with it, and trust it will be a long time before we shall have to add the omitted date on the back. It is a pity that London is so far away. I would like so much to have a talk with you ; letters are of so little use. If you are travelling in the summer time, would you not like a tour through the Highlands ? We would be so pleased to have you with us here ; and you would, I am sure, enjoy the beautiful scenery. I shall send you another book when you have read Bruce’s. Yours faithfully, j ' Clergyman. < , XII. Dear Sir,— I must apologize for my delay in answering your letters, but I hope to make good my leeway. Your letter of February 18th I now reply to. You ask how I account for the intellect of the Scotch and their knowledge of the sciences, although they were so very religious. I account for it thus : they lived in a comparatively poor country, with a harsh climate, which compelled them to consider ways and means more seriously than if they had lived in Southern Italy, for instance. They had also a rich neighbour, who tried to enslave them and thrust its religion upon them, all of which tended to develop their thinking faculties. The Scotch undertook the education of every girl and boy one hundred years before other nationalities, and it has been within that period that their scientific progress has expanded. They had also cheap coal and iron ; without these prosperity would have been T2 z �difficult. Moreover, they have never hesitated to leave the land of their birth, when they thought that by 'so doing they could improve their worldly position. These are all secular agencies, and to me they account for the progress of the Scotch people, in spite of superstitious teaching. My own case was similar. I had heard of London, and I longed to see it. I accepted a contract that would occupy two or three months, fully intending to return ; but during those months I changed my mind and remained, and my experience has justified my decision. There may be, too, something in the fact that the breed is considerably intermixed—a condition of things to which I believe Scottish lasses have no objection. You ask me for a definition of “ eternal.” We have now arrived at an important point where we should clearly understand each other, and I feel from some of your questions that you do not comprehend my position. By “ eternal ” I mean that which will continue without end— vide the Christian hell as recorded in Scripture, 'and as applied to matter—that which ever has been, and ever will be. I cannot prove either proposition, but my knowledge of matter dictates this inference : We see matter changing in form—never any lost, never any coming into existence “ out of nothing.” Hence I look on it as without beginning or end, just as if I were riding on a circular railway, and, after passing the same fixed objects many times I would conclude that it had no end, but was a circle. I think the assumption is as rational in the one case as in the other, although only in the case of the railway could I get down and prove it. Those who object to the eternity of matter say : “ Oh, no ; matter was created.” I reply : “ My friend, I do not understand ‘ creation,’ never having seen the process. Please explain.” I am then referred to very old books, written thousands of years ago, and to the general assent of mankind. I respond that I don’t want to be told by books—I could write a book stating the contrary. I don’t believe all I read even in modern books, still less in doubtful ones, written in an ignorant age by no one knows whom. Besides, old books which I have read give quite different accounts of both creation and creator. Some say that the world is flat like a plate, so that,'if you �reached the edge, you might fall off. Others say it is borne on the back of a turtle, but they do not suggest what the turtle rests on. So old books are to me wholly unsatisfactory. The remainder of your letter refers to “soul” and “ matter,” which I will reply to anon. Will you again read my reply to Cardinal Mantling, commencing at page 8, so that you may not quote views I do not hold ? Bruce’s book to hand with thanks. Yours, George Anderson. XIII. Dear Sir,— The conclusion of your letter of February r8th contains several arguments re God, soul, and eternity, which are not based upon anything I have written. Permit me to again explain. I believe matter to be etefttal for reasons already given, but I do not believe “ matter ” to be one thing and “ eternal ” another. Eternal is only an attiibute. Attributes have no physical existence. I have said that which is called soul is an attribute of brain, but I have not said that brain, as brain, is eternal, although as matter it is. Matter is ever changing, forming new compounds in which its previous character is lost, although the matter is not. Your fire poker, a piece of bright iron, if left to the influences of damp and air, becomes resolved into an oxide of iron, having no resemblance to a poker. Strike the poker against the tongs, and you have a musical sound which in the condition of an oxide does not exist. You might call the sound the soul of the poker, but I call it an attribute only ; and attributes vary with the condition of matter, the latter being the only existence. Yours, George Anderson. �XIV. Dear Sir,— Replying to yours of January 31st, as to whether Christ was an historical character, I am not strong upon that point either pro or con. The Hindoos had their trinity before the alleged time of Christ, and the stories of both religions have many similarities—indeed, “ trinity ” is a common conception—good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; length, breadth, and thickness when measuring solid bodies, etc. Critics are agreed that our Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, cannot be traced beyond the middle of the second century of our era. During these one hundred and fifty years there is no doubt there were many who aspired to be religious leaders, and, as there were no printing presses at this period, what these mentors might have said would become a matter of legend only. Whoever wrote those books merely voiced the opinion of the times, and, as they contain many statements that would only be laughed at if 4pld of events of to-day, I am most strongly inclined to consider them fabulous. I have more certainty as to the existence of Julius Cresar, the Roman Governor, than of Jesus Christ. However this may be, I consider it of small account. We should judge writings by what they contain, not by the authorship— submitting all to the test of reason. You write that I must acknowledge that no religion has produced such moral and intellectual results as Christianity. I am not aware that man is now more moral than in past ages. To my mind, the scoundrelism of the present exceeds anything in the past. Take up any leading newspaper, and what does it contain ? Reports of bubble companies being floated, regardless of whom they rob, and in a year or two coming to a disastrous end ; officers of friendly societies decamping with the cash ; solicitors struck off the rolls through misapplication of the funds of their clients ; pious Jabez Balfour absconding with the hard-earned savings of the poorest bank depositors, deceiving the poor dupes by his church-going hypocrisy ; 15 / �the drunkenness, wife beating, seduction of children, spread of infectious disease, avaricious grasping after fortune without toiling honestly for it, quarrels of nations in their efforts to outwit each other for possession of territory to which they have no right, and from which they intend, should success crown their efforts, to shut out the rest of mankind. Oh, no, pray banish that oft-told fable from your mind ; it is not true. Intellectual advancement I admit, but that has been in spite of Christianity, which exerted all its power against mental progress, even perse­ cuting its pioneers. From the time of Constantine, the chief Christian shop has been cruel to all but its own customers; even the sects that have sprung from its false roots have persecuted each other, and continue to do so indirectly. No shopkeeper would succeed in a country town, however good the quality and reasonable the price of his wares, if it were known that he did not attend some conventicle. The intellectuality of this age is due to the greater knowledge of nature that pervades it—that makes it more human while less religious; consequently the burning of witches, warlocks, and even unbelievers, is not permitted, and the Church endeavours to trim its sails to the modern breeze. The creation was not accomplished in six of our days ; we have misunderstood Scripture. It means six long periods of time ; “ a thousand years are to the Lord as one day.” This paltry subterfuge is used to delay the downfall of the nonsense formerly preached from Genesis. If the shades of Galileo, Darwin, and many others of that ilk, can look down and read our thoughts of to-day, how they must rejoice at the change their writings have effected, and at the fact that we now enthrone them after having displaced Moses and the Prophets. Yours, George Anderson. j6 �XV. Dear Sir, * ' , Excuse me for not thanking you earlier for your kind attention in sendihg me Gould and Darwin. I have read vol. i. of former with interest. Thanks also very much for box of pens—a kindly hint to write better. I will try to do so. I have been very busy of late, and have had no spare moments. Referring to yours of March 9th, you say rightly that you cannot prove the eternity of matter. You cannot prove an existence without beginning and without ending ; but you believe in it. My contention is this : It is impossible for our finite minds to understand what is meant by a thing being eternal—matter, for example ; but we have the power to believe it. Now, if you believe a thing you cannot understand, that you have no knowledge of by the senses, why not believe in the existence we call God ? To me, it seems as easy to believe in the existence of God as in the eternity of matter. I have tried again and again to understand a thing without a beginning or an ending, and I have failed. Can you grasp it ? I therefore say, it is as easy for me to believe in the existence of God and his eternity, although I never saw him, as it is for you to believe in the eternity of matter. Knowledge and experience teach us that everything is done by some force, some energy You ask : Who made God ? I cannot tell, but I can more easily believe in a Supreme being of intelligence than I can in matter, which you say has no beginning, but possesses the qualities or powers necessary to develop itself with such perfection as we perceive in the human frame and in the physical universe. I have once more carefully read your reply to Cardinal Manning. I agree with most of what you say. The arguments you use do not shake my faith in the future existence of our intelligence, whether that be through the mere condition of matter, or of the separate existence of the soul or mind. I am quite of opinion that science and T7 �religion will become more and more reconciled, and that Maie.r.lists and Spiritualists will modify their views, and to see eye to eye as to the existence of a supreme, intelligent, and heneficient Being, who is behind and before all things. We are babes in knowledge, but after we leave the body, or if you prefer it, when this material man has had his personality changed by death, we shall know far more than we do'now. I quite understand what you mean by soul or mind as a mere attribute of matter; but we do not know all the circumstances which may go to create that condition. There may be something better in store for us than to be transformed into gases, or into grass or herbage to feed animal life. I find it quite impossible to conceive that a powerful mind like your own should evaporate into insignificance of this description. I do not agree with your view of religion retarding intellectual progress. As a matter of fact and history, Christianity has done more to advance education and the sciences than any other faith, and history knows that our school people owe more to religion for their education than to any other cause. Every one knows that the Scotch Reformation has been the revival of learning, as it was the awakening of the intellect. I know I shall not induce you, by any arguments I may advance, to become a Christian. There are many things I cannot understand, but Christianity has for me a power that nothing else possesses, to cause me to live the best possible life for myself and for the good of others, and gives more satisfaction with regard to the great future. I daresay you will smile at my simplicity when I tell you that I am praying to the eternal God to lead you to believe in Jesus Christ. I have no doubt the Scotch mother to whom you owe so much has often prayed for you, and taught you from the Bible, which you seem to know so well. I have a great desire to see you, for I believe that there is much good and kindness in your nature, and far more of the spirit of Christ than in many who profess to be his followers. I am led to understand that you have a son in charge of your office. Pardon me, J8 �if I say that I am curious to know whether you train him in the same views as you hold yourself. You think it strange that I should wish to have your life prolonged. For one thing, I think that we should wish good and useful lives to be extended. Then I wish to see you—that is a selfish motive, you will ay ; and, thirdly, I would like to know where you are going, before I would wish you to depart. , What a curious thing matter must be that it can act, think, will, and be happy. What a pity it does not develop more rapidly, that we might have a longer time to study by living longer. It is scarcely worth while for us to come into existence to have it end and become a blank so soon, as far as mind or intellect is concerned. I am afraid I have trespassed too much upon your time in inflicting such a long letter upon you. I trust you enjoyed your holiday in Ireland, and that you have returned home full of vigour in body and mind. Yours truly, Clergyman. XVI. Dear Sir,— Yours of April ist received. I think we waste time over the word “ eternal,” of which you ask my definition. I take the dictionary meaning—without beginning or end. That meaning I apply to matter, but not to its attributes, which are ever changing, while matter remains in one form or another. You say, I believe in the eternity of matter, although I cannot prove it. I do so because it is more logical. Matter is : we take cognizance of it by all our senses. It is ever with us ; we cannot divest ourselves of it even in imagination ; we cannot put a particle of it out of, or bring into, existence ; and as we have never seen an instance of what is called “creation,” it is more logical to think that it has ever been than that there was a time 19 �when it was not. You assert that it is as easy to believe in the existence of God as in the eternity of matter. Here you place an adjective and a noun on an equality. I have never treated the term “ eternal ” otherwise than as an ad­ jective. If you had said, “ It is as easy for me to believe in the existence of God as for you to believe in the exist. ence of matter,” I would have asked you for some of your proofs. You say you have ever failed to think of a thing without beginning or ending. Then your everlasting God has no existence, and you must accept Materialism as a consistent belief. Still, you maintain that you can easily believe in a Supreme Being of intelligence, but you have , no evidence of intelligence, supreme or moderate, except as an animal attribute. The dog, the horse, the man,, are all intelligent in various degrees, the better educated they are, the more intelligent they become ; but intelligence is not a thing—it is only an attribute applicable to animals and to matter • and although we have had thousands of doctrines over hundreds of years, we have no instance of the continuance of intelligence after the dissolution of the material body. After impressing upon me the fact that it is as easy for you to believe in the existence of God and his eternity as it is for me to believe in the eternity of matter (the noun and the adjective again on equal ground), you say that knowledge and experience teach us that everything is done by some force—some energy. I agree with this remark, and now apply it to the following one. You have never seen God, but I have seen and handled matter. Is it your ■belief that your God is material—hence his force and energy ? But this is not the common belief, for it is written that he has neither body, parts, nor passions. This is as concise a description of “ nothing ” as I have read ; yet by the same authority he is represented as kind, revengeful, and personal. He showed himself to Moses. He has prepared a heaven for a few, and a hell for the many. One would only expect such inconsistent statements to emanate from a lunatic asylum, but they are all in the Gospel, hence the world is mostly mad. You tell me that you believe in the future existence of the soul or mind— 20 �you should first prove its present existence before you launch it into futurity. However, give me your evidence, for I would like to believe it, as life is sweet. You have a willing pupil, who will not trouble you to ransack the writings of the ancients. A few references to current examples will suffice. You are of opinion that religion and science will be­ come more reconciled. So am I. I ha\e seen consider­ able approachment in my time. Religion has joined science as to the form of the earth. Religion, at least outside Italy, does not believe that Etna and Vesuvius are two of the mouths of hell. Religion and science in Europe and America generally agree that our globe has existed for hundreds of thousands of years instead of six or seven thousand. Although this is a money-making age, and many things are now possible that were not a few hundred years ago, you would find it very difficult to en­ gage a carpenter or mason who would contract on proper conditions to supply you with a ladder, or any other means, by which you could climb into heaven. Astronomy says it is too far away. Telescopes have been brought into use, and earnest students have looked miles upon miles into space, and have only found stars, stars, stars with no glimpse of heaven to reward their search. Oh ! yes, we are approximating. Our present judges do not believe in witches, and to burn them on account of their opinions is quite beyond the pale of possibility. Superstition cannot fly at our throats as it once did; science has clipped its wings. It is now kept in the background, except on rare occasions, such as when we allowed an English Bishop to unveil the statue of Darwin in the Natural History Museum. Of course, superstition some­ times makes itself heard yet, as it did recently in Rome, when a Catholic wrote a book entitled Happiness in Hell, which the chief representatives of Jesus Christ in Rome and elsewhere said no good Catholic must read. I read the book on what I considered the Pope’s recommendation, as doubtless thousands of others did; and I daresay the Pope’s interdict was considered by the author a good advertisement. 21 �I had intended to write more, but I must close for the present. Your other points are only side issues, which I may return to when I have time. Yours, George Anderson. XVIJ. Dear Sir,— In continuation of my letter of April 9th, I note that you say it is a matter of fact and history that Christianity has done more to advance education and science than any other faith. I agree with you in this, for I do not know that any of the faiths have ever advanced science, while I do know that Christianity has retarded it. Christians (socalled) have advanced science, not, however, as Christians, but as scientific men. Christianity has been so ferocious and so powerful that men of science, who had no ambition to become martyrs, have used it as a mantle. Christians have acted as if all unbelievers were so through mere perversity, and not through honest conviction ; and, as all who do not believe will be damned, they have cut short the life of the unbeliever, and all for the glory of God and the saving of their own miserable souls. But a better knowledge of human capacities has taught us that belief is not to be obtained at will or by force, that disbelief is quite as honest as belief, and in consequence we have become more humane. This humanity has not been brought about by Christianity, but in spite of it; and this better understanding of the nature of man has been accomplished by unbelievers. And to the believer what does Christianity offer ? An eternity of idleness, save for playing on a harp and singing the praises of the Lord. What a puerile conception of the Author of the universe it is, that he should be pleased to hear for ever ringing in his ears the praises of moths like us. I have been seated in my garden, when a cloud of gnats were hovering round my head, and have wondered if I would be happier if I knew they were praising me. No. I would say : “You fools, mind your own affairs; make 22 �each other happy ; I can get along perfectly well without you.” But why should your God punish me because I disbelieve the absurd stories I am told about him ? I have never, so far as I know, injured him. I have never spoken an unkind word to him or of him. I don’t trouble him with my little wants and sorrows. I don’t even ask any favours of him. I have helped many sufferers who have not been as fortunate as I have been. I don’t pray for them—that is easily done. I accept nature as it is organised, and choose what I consider its better parts, for I see nothing perfect. Then why should I be damned ? I cannot believe that a God of Justice would act so brutally. He would rather say : “ Come in ; give him a harp, Peter.” I would reply : “ Thank you, but I am on my way to the Mohammedan paradise ; I like that better. There is something to be done there—beautiful gardens, sweet smelling flowers, luscious fruits, noble people, and, above all, no torments. You reign there too. Au revoir.” No. the Christian Conception of heaven is poor indeed. The whole scheme has been built on human pride and the wish to enslave mankind.. We praise and bow down to the land-lords and all the big-wigs, and they employ preachers to teach obedience to the masses, who raise their daily bread. It is very sad, and I pity the preachers, who know better, as many of them must do. I am told hell is not so prominent in sermons as it was even 'in my young days, when I saw young women brought out and laid upon the grass fainting from the effects of mission sermons in the Highlands. We are advancing, and I earnestly hope that the clergy will preach ethics, and gradually draw people to believe that every bad thought, every bad action, brings suffering, seen or hidden, and a conscience smitten with remorse. I advocate no sudden overthrow of Christianity; it has hitherto been the one guide, and we can only slowly provide a substitute ; but do not bring your sons up to the Church, for it is a decaying institution. In a subsequent letter I may describe how I brought up my family, with not one of whom have I ever had the least trouble. Yours, GeorgeJAnderson. 23 �XVIII. My Dear Sir, I apologise for my long silence. I have been away through the Highlands for some time examining schools in religious instruction, and I have also changed my residence. This has kept me very busy, and my corres­ pondence has been neglected. I send you per same post Darwin’s Voyage. I have read it with very great interest, and I shall be pleased to have his Descent of Man. Many thanks for Mr. Roman’s letter. I should like to keep it, but will return it if you desire. 1 have read and re-read it. There is much in it from which I dissent—for example, his view of the history of Moses ; but there is also much that indicates honest thought. I like his closing remarks immensely, viz. : “ Rather keep on doubting and living a life in preparation for that happier state, even though we may be disappointed.” Such belief is a powerful lever in civil government. I am sure you will appreciate that good advice, and I trust from the bottom of my heart you will give due weight to it. Though I have neglected writing to you, you are very often in my thoughts, and I am really interested in you. 1 cannot think that you yourself believe that “ with death it means eternal end,” as your aged friend says. You think much. I am inclined to believe too much. There are in nature thousands of things we cannot understand, but which we believe. Why not act on the same principle in religion ? Our very existence is an unfathomable mystery, and we must be content with knowing only in part. I here is, to my mind, no way of combatting the beneficial influence of Christianity. It has done more good to the human race than any other religion ; as a civilising influence no one can gainsay its paramount place. No doubt it has many blemishes, and has been in many ways hurried into superstition; but that must be allowed, because of the slow progress that man makes towards the higher life. I think no one can read the sayings of our Lord, such as the “ Sermon on the Mount,” without feeling that there is something divine in them. No man could utter such words, and live such a life as 24 �Jesus is represented to have lived, without supernatural power. Excuse my running wild in these lines. I must now close. I trust you are well. I have had no paper nor any remarks for a long time. I should have also said that I am busy with my new church. I believe in my work, and, because I do, 1 give myself wholly to it, and feel satisfied that I am doing the right thing. With kindest regards, '7, . Yours sincerely, Clergyman. XIX. Dear Sir,— Your silence has been so long that I was wondering whether you had decided to discontinue the correspon­ dence ; but you give a sufficient reason. Darwin’s Cruise arrived a few days ago, and I sent you his Origin of Species—his Descent of Man is lent out at present. I am not prepared to endorse all his doctrines—I am not sufficiently educated to do so; but, so far as I have read his works, I think his arguments are most reasonable. The Bible touches on many of the same points as he does, but in such an unsatisfactory manner that I reject it as the production of ignorant men of an ignorant age. The wonder is that in these more enlightened and humane times people are not ashamed of it, with its barbarous cruelties and indecencies, instead of holding it sacred. Nothing proves more strongly the lasting effects of impres­ sions made in early youth, for I feel that you would not dare to read many parts of it from your pulpit. You and I differ entirely as to the civilizing character of Christianity. Its history proves its influence to have been pernicious. While it had power it persecuted, burnt, and murdered all who differed from it. Spain is the most Christian country in Eurjpe, and the most backward; and its amusements are the most vicious—for instance, its bull-fights where delicate, high-born women attend on a Sunday afternoon to see an 25 �old horse disembowelled by an artifically enraged bull, while the eyes of the horse are covered that it may not see the bull’s approach. “ It is only an old horse.” Poor creature ! Poor ill-used help to man ! Read the American history of Spain; how she robbed, tortured, and enslaved the Aborigines, until, after years of cruelty, most of them died, and then she imported slaves from other lands to do her work. She even brought Columbus home a prisoner because he did not send her enough precious things to satisfy her greed, and he, poor man, died without redress. You can find all this in Robertson’s Histories. And the Christian Pope of the day gave America to the Portuguese and the Spaniards, think of the impudence of the man. He knew no more of America before its discovery by Columbus than a Scotch jackdaw, yet he gave it to them. Why ? Because they were Christian supporters. . Christianity is not so bad to-day as it was then, but that is because it lacks the power. Secular and scientific knowledge have drawn her fangs, but the spirit of persecu­ tion is so strong in her that Roman Catholics, members of the Church of England, and Presbyterians now persecute each other, within the law, all struggling to grasp the “loaves and fishes.” And this persecution is in accordance with its principles. “ What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? ” What indeed ? What is earthly profit against eternal damnation? And Christians think that disbelief is mere perversity, and criminal persecution a virtue, if by it they can save souls. Your order has much to answer for to mankind for preach­ ing such abominable doctrines. But do not suppose I lay all the blame to Christianity ; certainly not. In the first place, it is due to the selfish nature of man ; and, secondly, to the dreadful doctrines he has been taught. Scientific men never damn those who differ from them ; they investi­ gate further, and the result is progress. I presume you have read Livy’s History of Rome. The people then were more religious than they are now; they never entered upon anything of consequence without first consulting the gods (this was previous to Christianity). The result was 26 �continuous wars and robberies, such as your own Bible stamps with approval. You ask me to believe ; but believe what ? Something that soipeone else says, of which he can give no proof, which is contrary to my own judgement, and which all my experience contradicts. Take the matter of eternal life. I should not mind—in fact, would prefer—that it could be proved,on the same principle that I wish to live to-morrow, and would not object if that to-morrow were to go on indefinitely; and, if such is the order of our being, it will be so whether I believe it or not, and in that case I trust I may be better employed than I should be in the monotonous eternity that Christians hold out. I prefer the teachings of the Koran, which are more in accordance with human nature. You mention Mr. Roman’s letter, and ask to keep it. You may do so. There is an essential difference between Mr. Roman and myself. My disbelief is on a philosophical basis; his evidently is not. He has doubts; I have none, and he thinks he will do what good he can and chance it. Had he been brought up in India or China, he would most likely have acted on the same principle, and have been a Hindoo or a Buddhist. I look on all religious systems as deceptions which close the book of that- nature I love, but do not worship, for it is not perfect, and sometimes performs its work in anything but a satisfactory manner. The efficacy of prayer I hold to be nil, save to tranquilize the mind of the one who indulges in the process. He who prays and does not act is a fool. The doctrine of the power of prayer has been upheld by your Church. (See Combe’s Constitution of Man, people’s edition, page 93.) The best thing you can preach is morality. Children should be taught the rudi­ ments of science, something of their own anatomy and physiology, something of their own skin and the duty of keeping it clean, something of the love of animals includ­ ing man, something of the love of truth, of help to the unfortunate, of tolerance, of sobriety in all things, of the history of man all over the world—his defects should be pointed out, and religious teaching should be banished 27 �until the children can judge of it for themselves—then you would make clever men and women, able to compete successfully in the battle of life, for we do not lack capacity. As it is, other nations who are more rationally taught are supplanting us in our previous specialities, and, unless we send our manufactures abroad, as a nation we cannot live. I have sent you Ingersoll’s Mistakes of Moses, which I think will interest you. I should like to have your opinion as to the facts contained therein. Yours, George Anderson. XX. Dear Sir,— I send you the Literary Guide for July, and have marked five articles which I would like you to read. Should you take exception to any of them, mark the portions, tear them off, and post them Jto me, that we may exchange views. • You will find views in the Guide similar to those I have expressed in my letters to you, and which are, in my opinion, such as will, in the fulness of time, rule the world of thought, and take the place of those unproveable, absurd, and contradictory notions that were hatched in the days of ignorance, dividing mankind into hostile camps, in which they fought to their mutual destruction. Dr. Wallace, M.P. for Edinburgh, stated in Parliament last week that we shall come to secular education in our schools. This has long been my opinion, but the Churches know that, unless they can secure the young child before he can think on what he is taught, he will never accept their teachings about the unknowable. Yours, George Anderson. 28 �XXL My Dear’Sir,— I am much obliged for your kind wishes, and especially for your offer to send Science Primers for the use of our young people. I have five Sabbath schools in connection’ with my church. I should like to read a copy of them first, although, believing you to be an honourable man, I quite accept what you say that there is nothing in them pro or con on religion, so please send me a few to begin with I am never afraid of scientific knowledge. The articles in the Literary Guide, which you so kindly sent, I have read, and with much I agree. I shall, after another perusal, return some of them marked as you wish. There are two things upon which, in my opinion, you are unduly severe. First, “Christianity.” I think you emphasize too much the superstition and cruelty associated with the religion of Christ. They are no more the fault of Christianity than the nonsense that has so often been associated with science is the fault of science as such. Christianity, as a system, has its side of evolution. It had to fight its way against the tyranny and superstition of Rome for centuries. I am surprised that one who knows history as well as you do can fail to see and acknowledge that Christianity has done more to elevate woman, to civilize man, and to cultivate the human intellect than any other system or creed. I do not think it is fair to insinu­ ate that pure Materialists have been the only or chief pro­ moters of scientific research. I presume you will allow that some of the best scientists of all ages acknowledge the Christian faith, and admit that there is no real antagonism between science and Christianity in its enlightened form. If you will excuse me for saying so, I am of opinion that you take too narrow a view of Christianity, and do not give it sufficient credit for the good results it has produc­ ed in the world. 29 �The other point on which I specially differ from you is this : I think you make too much of science. You appear to me to suppose that all difficulties must be solved by science alone. There are numberless obstacles that can be raised along the lines that you have so often and so well discussed. But do we not meet with as many and as great ones on other lines ? That matter should have in itself the power, skill, intelligence, and wisdom which are dis­ played in the universe, and in the human body and mind, is to me a greater difficulty to believe than that there is a Supreme Being. I suppose that you would find it as im­ possible to intelligently conceive of matter arranging itself with such consummate skill, such perfect balance and accur­ acy,without any mind or any power behind it, as you would find it to believe in the existence of the soul. Why should you take it for granted that science has made sufficient dis­ coveries within the last quarter of a century to justify you in overthrowing the view of the Christian faith maintained by such great minds in the past and present ages ? Is it fair to take it for granted that science has discovered all that can be discovered ? May not science prove yet more •clearly than it has done that-there is no inconsistency be­ tween belief in God and the tnost advanced scientific facts. I cannot really make out whether you believe in a Supreme Being at all, or in the existence of the soul or mind as distinct from the body, or as being at least capable of ex­ isting apart from the present material body. From some •of your statements I am sorry to be disposed to think that you have no faith in these. You kindly said to me some time ago that you would tell me how you brought up your family. I have no right to ask the question whether you taught them your own views, but I should like to know. If you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being out­ side matter, then I do not see that it is so difficult for you to face other obstacles. There are facts as certain, ascer­ tained by inference, as those that you arrived at by experi­ ments. You do not need to put everything under the microscope or the dissecting knife in order to be certain. There are many facts in connection with religion that you •can arrive at by inference. I go back to the beginning of •our correspondence. You said you believed in the eternity 30 �■of matter. I say it is impossible for the human mind to •conceive of anything without a beginning, yet you believe it. Yes, science forces you to believe it, for you say : “ Is it not as easy, or easier, to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being created like matter, with intelligence and wisdom?” If you believe in an uncreated entity, why not in the larger and, to my mind, the likelier theory ? I must honestly say that I would like you to have broader and fairer views on this question. You have not sufficiently explained to me how you can believe in the eternity of > matter and not in the eternity of a Supreme Being. Yet I am unwilling to think that you do not believe in the exist■ence of God, and hold the opinion that human existence ends here. I earnestly trust you will reconsider your position. I do not wish to continue arguing on these points. You and I will find plenty of material to support our arguments for and against Christianity and the existence of a Deity, but I find life top real and serious to occupy my time in discussing questions on which I believe we cannot see eye to eye. It would be .a great pleasure to me to have a personal interview with you, but this cannot be unless you should chance to be in this directions If so-it would afford me great pleasure to receive a visit from you. What do you say of the lat$ Mr. Gladstone ? You will no doubt acknowledge that he had a powerful mind. See what comfort and peace he felt on his death-bed. Do not think that I am presuming too much when I express the hope that, when your journey is nearly ended, you will go back in heart and soul to those old truths that have pro­ duced such splendid men in our land, many of them well known to you. Then you will find in the beautiful words and perfect life of Jesus Christ, as well as in his wonderful death for sinful mankind, that rest and peace, in view of the great future, that others have experienced. This is indeed my prayer for you—that Almighty God will lead you to faith in him.' I have allowed my pen to run loose. Please excuse. With kind regards, i I am, Faithfully yours, Clergyman. 3i �XXII. Dear Sir,— In a concluding paragraph of your letter of July 6th you write that we cannot see eye to eye, and that you find life too serious to occupy time in discussing, etc. That is in accord with a similar sentiment I have held for some time —namely, that, /w or con, Christianity may be deleted, from our correspondence—and, if so, I do not see the use of continuing it. It was your desire that I should become a Christian. You have preached at and prayed forme, but you have only seen one side of the shield. I have seen both, and the Lord has not heard your prayers ; I leave that to be settled between you, for up to now I am, as I was, a disbeliever in the miraculous. In my first letter I gave you my reasons for dissenting from various points of your faith, including your virgin-born Christ; but you have not dealt with them. Indeed, how could you, on a matter contradicted by all experience ? Your silence reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was spending a few days at Naples. On going into the smoking room of the hotel one day after dinner, I found about a dozen gentle­ men, one of whom was doing all the talking, while the others were smoking. He was a middle-aged man, evidently from America. He was telling the others what churches he had been to, and he was pitying those poor ignorant Catholics who worshipped images, and he related how he had seen them kissing the feet of the sculptured saints. Being the last comer, I did not care to speak, unless none of the others did ; but, as no one replied, I said : “ Perhaps some of those people could point at something in your belief which they consider equally as unsound.” “Oh, ” ’ ’ ” ' no, he at once retorted; “ I prove all things, and hold to that which is good.” I said : “ I suppose you are a family man. He nodded assent. “ Well,” I continued, “suppose your wife were to say to you one morning at breakfast: ‘My dear, I am much 32 �afraid there is something wrong with daughter Mary : I don’t like her symptoms.’ You would exclaim : ‘Impossible, I will have her up to the library and question her.’ You would call your valet to send in your daughter. When she arrived you would say : ‘Mary, your mother is seriously alarmed about your condition; her quick eyes have dis­ covered that something is wrong.’ Mary would hang her head, but say nothing. You would entreat her to make full confession of her weakness. She would still be silent, but most probably give way to tears. You would say : ‘Mary, I insist upon knowing who is the author of your trouble.’ She would then faintly say: ‘Father, it is the Holy Ghost.’” I paused half a second and said : ‘Would you believe her ? No; and yet you believe a similar story told about a Jewish girl, who is alleged to have lived nearly two thousand years ago.” I paused dramatically. He made not one word of reply. I looked round to see if any­ one else would ; but no. Some smiled broadly, but no one spoke. The American shortly after rose and left without saying “Good evening, gentlemen.” He was quite right to take his defeat in silence, and far wiser than to have tried to argue in such an impossible position. He was going to the Holy Land ; I hope I gave him something to think about on the way. You said that Ingersoll was flippant; I know what you mean. Christians can be flippant and abusive in their references to Freethinkers ; but the moment their faith is attacked by sarcasm they call it flippancy. I have faith in sarcasm ; it strikes prejudices, it stings, it makes fools think. In my opinion, Ingersoll reasons admirably and humorously ; he can make people laugh, and laughter is a good antidote to folly. You have twice asked how I brought up my family. I had two daughters and four sons. Up to the age of nine or ten they were at local schools, and at home, where religion was not considered a fit subject for youthful minds, so there was no instruction for or against it. When they went to boarding-school I insisted that they were not to learn catechisms, psalms, etc., but to have the time that is usually devoted to this branch of study for play, for I remembered the trouble such things had been to me. I 33 ✓ �✓ have happily forgotten them all now except “that the chief end of man was to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.’ My eldest son I sent to University College School,London, where he met boys from different parts of the world—this itself was education. One of John Bright’s sons was there at the same time. The other three boys and the two girls I sent to Madras College, St. Andrews, as they became of proper age. I found the boys had seven or eight classes to attend, each of about an hour’s duration, out of one room into another. I thought these were too many, so I struck out one class, held about mid-day, which I deemed they least needed, and they had that hour to play. I gave the boys bicycles, and sometimes they would ride from St. Andrews to Leven, where their eldest brother was learning mechanical engineering. Each of my boys I sent to learn a mechanical trade. While they were at St. Andrews, I arranged at the hotel for a groom to take both boys and girls riding on Saturday afternoons. The two girls and the youngest boy I afterwards sent to Germany The girls’ education was already what is called finished, but they went for the study of music and languages, the boy for natural philosophy and chemistry under Bunsen. They were there a couple of years. The boy came home and went to King’s College, London, and the girls I took to Italy—to Florence first, afterwards to Rome. I used to join them during their holidays, taking them to Switzerland, Venice, Pisa, etc., where they saw the immortality of man in architecture, sculpture, and painting. My eldest sonhad gone to Chili to construct, and afterwards manage, a gas works ; my elder daughter followed him. He died while engineer of the gas works, Santiago. My daughter took to teaching music, English, French, German, and Italian ; she made two hundred a year, and was welcomed in the best society, where her riding proved an advantage, as all good people ride there. In the course of time she married. My younger daughter, went out to her sister after her mother’s death. My elder daughter’s husband died, and she took to teaching again, assisted by her sister. She, too, became the wife of a Scotchman, and they all live to­ gether. My youngest son is now my right hand in my office. - Of my other two sons, one has been twelve years34 �in Corsica managing my gas works there, the other is en­ gineer and secretary in a gas works near London. All are married and have children. I may say that they have given me no trouble ; and, if I had their bringing-up to da again, I fail to see where I could alter it with advantage. As to their religion, I have never troubled my head about it, and I fancy the subject has not given them much con­ cern, although some of them, I believe, conform to a few of its forms, which I have never done. A minister of the English Church called on me shortly after I had taken possession of a house in the country, to tell me that my house had a seat in the church. I took him indoors, showed him my shelves of books, told him that here and in the fields I spent my Sundays, uncorked a bottle of port (of which we both partook), and chatted harmoniously. Some months after the men of the near village called to ask me to take the chair at their bean­ feast. I agreed. They had engaged a band of music from a neighbouring village. I asked them why they did not have a band of their own. 'Jhey appreciated the hint, and came to me next week to head the parish subscription. I said ; “No, no; you must go to the big-wigs who have been longer established here than I have, then come to me.” They did so ; got enough money, bought instruments, and secured a bandmaster from the nearest barracks. In a few months they could play very well indeed ; and, after a while, they used to come marching in at my gate, pose themselves in the circular carriage-drive in front of the house, and play capitally. They had got something better to do than spend their evenings at the ale-house, and I hope they became better men and saved the money they formerly paid for a band to play at their village festivals. In my opinion, this was better than praying for them. If you have not, up to this, found out my position on the subject of the gods, I scarcely know how to enlighten you. I have told you that gods, devils, witches, warlocks, spirits, etc., are but myths of ignorant human imaginings, and are as various as teachings you have received—in fact quite geographical. Born in Rome, Catholic ; in London Protestant; in China, Buddhist; in Turkey, Mohammedan —all contradicting and damning each other, hunting and 35 �x killing as opportunity affords. Outside their various religions they will buy and sell; they will join in schemes for the bettering of mankind; but do not introduce religion of any sort, or they are ready to fly at each other’s throats. Talk not to me of the civilizing results of religion, when all history proclaims the direct contrary. Of course, Christians have done much good, but not as Christians, and it is only in secular pursuits that they have benefitted the world. They are'ashamed now to kill or skin a iiran, but it is because the spirit of the age is more secular. Christianity has to retire into the background,while science, which is purely secular, advances to the front; and an Archbishop of the Church of England is glad to attend at the inauguration of a marble statue to Darwin. The excuses which religionists make for their former blunders and ignorance are most humiliating. The world goes round and the sun does not travel, as the Church formerly taught ; so the story of the sun standing still until Joshua slew his enemies is a mistake. The world was not created in six days—it was in six long periods of time; neither was "it created about six thousand years ago. Here, again, a long period of time is called a •day, for geologists have settled that the world is hundreds of thousands of years old ; and so on in many other cases. Your Bible, too, is an obscene, highly improper book to be put into the hands of youths. I am certain you would not read the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis to your con­ gregation from the pulpit. I grant there are some beauti­ ful passages in the Bible; but they should not be mixed up with so much that is objectionable. It requires expurga­ tion—and I wonder some Christians have not the courage to do it. The Roman Catholics know this, for they do not encourage their people to read it. However, with all its blots and false statements, it will be read, and the sys­ tem will go on for many years to come. There are too many people who earn their living by it, and there is too little independence in those who do so for them to throw it up. -Its decay will be a gradual process : but doubtless the day will come when the churches will be turned into halls of science and concert rooms, where people will be able to improve and enjoy themselves : when the fires of 36 �hell will be extinguished, and a heaven be'made here : when each and all will revel in the happy present, although they may lament the sorrows of their fore-fathers, caused by pestilential doctrines imposed on them by the ignorance and avarice of their teachers for thousands of years, in all parts of the world. We shall never see the happy day : but it is coming, coming, coming, and all who advance it a step (among whom for fifty years I have been one) have their consolation, If, in the far-off future, it is in the process of nature that we shall be cognizant of the doings of the men of that per­ iod, we shall have our reward; if it is not, still I am content. Yours, George Anderson? XXIII. _ Dear Sir, I am much obliged for yours of August 4th, and’for the full and very interesting account you gave of the history of your family. You must have been a very kind and thought­ ful parent, and your children should always feel grateful to you. You say they were not permitted to learn catechism and psalms at school. Well, that was a mild way of teaching them to avoid the “superstition” of Christianity. I think that at heart, if you will excuse me for saying so, you are not such a disbeliever in Christianity as your statements would sometimes lead me to infer. You recollect that the first question of the Catechism is “ that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.” If you believe that and act upon it, you do well. I am afraid you misunderstood me when I referred to our not seeing eye to eye about religion. I am not growing weary of our correspondence ; I have not given up hope of your returning to the faith of your childhood. I am still praying for you, and I am not discouraged because you are still a disbeliever in the miraculous. If you are a believer in God, that is the first all-important 37 �. point. It is the point that I was always wanting to get at, and I must say that you have never been definite on this subject. Sometimes I think you believe in a Supreme Being, and at other times you make statements that lead me to suppose you do not. Now, my contention is this,, and I would like you to notice it. You believe, you say, in the eternity of matter. I say, by the constitution of the human mind, it is easier to believe in a supreme intelli­ gence that created matter. Science itself shows most clearly the order and perfection of nature, and it is incon­ ceivable that it could arrange itself without any intelligence to guide it. Now, if you admit the existence of God, which I think you do, I contend that other difficulties will disappear. It is quite easy to raise side issues and discover weak points in connection with Christianity, and hold them up to scorn, as your friend Ingersoll does ; but you must grasp fundamental principles. Admit the existence of Deity, and you need not make mountains of other matters. I do not intend to discuss with you the question of the “Virgin-born Son.” I admit, from the secular' point of view, there is great difficulty in explaining this ; but God, who made all things, is surely able to perform acts that may appear to us to be against the laws of nature. Are we justified in saying we have discovered all the laws of nature ? I think, as a scientist, you will allow that there may be laws—many laws—that are as yet unknown to us. There may be a sphere in which the miraculous may appear quite consistent. Do not, I pray, let everything turn upon the miraculous. Leave that out of the question in the meantime, and do not harp upon the inconsistencies of Christianity, nor upon the supposed mistakes in the Bible ; you can find plenty to say on these points. Look at the question in its broad outlines, and try and explain the phenomenon of Christ. Can you explain his life and sayings; can you account for his influence? I differ entirely from you as to the effects of Christianity; there is no question as to its benign influence upon the human race. Where has heathenism provided hospitals and homes for the suffering and the poor, as Christianity has done ? It is because you are a Christian, though you do not know it, that you so liberally subscribe to these charitable 38 �y objects. You cannot, in my opinion, get over the difficulty of the life and sayings of Jesus Christ and his religion unless you ignore the facts of authenticated history. Will you read the Gospels once more ? Read the Gospel of John and the fifth chapter of Matthew. Do not read to find fault, but simply to learn; and I think, if you put away prejudice, you will find that there is much good in the book that you cannot fail to admire. I am reading Darwin with great interest. All your books make me a still firmer believer in my God, *who has ordered all things so perfect and so beautiful. I am very busy, or I would have answered your letter sooner. Yours truly, Clergyman. XXIY.Dexr Sir,— In your last you state that you are not sure whether or no I believe in God. I think my previous letters have been quite clear on that point. Know, then, that I do not believe in any of the gods I have read of; they are all mere myths. Ignorance of nature, and the cunning of men who would use these myths as levers to frighten the ignorant into submission, are the creators of the gods. The gods of a beautiful, fertile country, with pleasant surroundings, were more loveable than the Gods of a country of storm, avalanche, and wild beasts. The gods of Greece were the most perfect of any I have read of; but change in the belief of the people annihilated them. The Greeks have adopted other gods, less beautiful—the gods of the Old and New Testament; the former represented as a cruel tyrant, and the latter as the author of an eternal hell for most men. My opinion is that hell is a priestly invention, and has no existence. Even the clergy are getting ashamed of it, and mention it as the abode of lost souls—another un­ proved assertion, fpr what more knowledge do they possess 39 �of the abode of a soul than I do ? and I know nothing of souls apart from bodies. You will hear of someone described as a great-souled man ; but it only means that he is noble and loveable. If the clergy are to continue to live, they must come down from that elevation from which the ignorance of man has hitherto allowed them to address us. As a class they know less than ordinary educated men of the day ; and what they think they know are deductions from unsound premises, which no investigation supports, and which are, therefore, ’ not believed in by anyone whose opinion is worth having. I feel, however, that we are wasting time which should be better employed. Have you put into your schools the Science Primers I sent you ? That is the kind of information you should disseminate. I know, to my constant regret, that in the Shorter Catechism “ the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever,” for, as a boy of eight, it was inflicted upon me ; but I can give you something much better, and far more sensible : The chief end of man should be to do all the good he can to make himself and his fellow-men happy. What do you say to our correspondence being published ? You could appear under a nom de plume if you liked. Yours with every respect, George Anderson. XXV. My Dear Sir,— I am sorry that yours of September 14th has been so long unanswered. You say you do not believe in any of the gods. I am sorry to hear this ; but I cannot help thinking that, in the depth of your heart, you do believe. You make many statements which I regard as rash and unjust. You seem to impute unworthy and base motives to the clergy, as if they invented and perpetuated views 40 �and opinions to suit themselves, and to support their own interests. Now, this I regard as unjust and uncharitable. You tell me that, as a class, the clergy know less than ordinary educated men of the day. I deny this. I do not know what class of clergymen you come in contact with ; but I am astonished that a Scotchman should make a statement so contrary to fact as far as Scotland is con­ cerned, and other countries also, for, as a rule, clergymen are well educated. But these things are side issues, and, from the tenour of our correspondence, I have the im­ pression that your ungenerous views of Christianity have, to some extent at least, arisen from animosity to the clergy, the origin of which is best known to yourself. I have on several occasions referred to your statements at an early stage of our correspondence, to the effect that you believe in the eternity of matter. Now, I again say that it is much easier for the trained intellect, or for any intellect, to believe in an intelligent Being (whose origin you cannot account for) than to believe that matter, in virtue of its own force, has developed itself into its highest form—that of the human body and mind. If you do not believe in a Supreme Being, it seems to me that it is because you will not, not because you cannot—for you confess that you believe in the eternity of matter, which seems much more difficult. And if you will not believe in God, may it not be that it is because there are some things you do not wish to part with, which you would be obliged to do were you to believe ? It resolves itself into the old question, the words of our Lord : “ Ye will not come to me that ye may have life.” You will not love the light. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. You seem to me to take too much for granted touching your own knowledge and intellect, and those of others who think with you, and too little of the same qualities in those you differ from. A fair mind—one that has power, and lays claim to impartiality—will weigh both sides of any question, will read and think of what is thought and said on the opposite side. Now, I fear that your reading is somewhat exclusive ; that you study those books that are opposed to Christianity, and not those that defend it. I would suggest that you 'read the other side 4i �of these great questions which we have been considering. I have read both sides. 1 have read the books and the periodicals you sent me, and I have not swerved in the least from my view of Christianity, and my faith in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of men. Those writers whose books you lent me, with the exception of one or two—and those certainly not the most noteworthy—never make assertions like some of those you make ; and it is not because they have no intellect, no perception, nor courage, but because they have fair and logical minds. With regard to publishing our correspondence, I do not think it is worth publishing on either side. If I thought you had that idea in view when we commenced it, I would at once say No, for that would indicate on your part a lack of honesty that I am unwilling to attribute to you. The only condition on which I would agree is that all my letters in toto should be published, and that I should be allowed to correct the proofs ; and that all yours should be pub­ lished in the same way. -But I really do not think it would be of any service. I would not care to have my name appear. I visjted two old ladies «th_is week—one ninety-one, the other ninety-four years of age? They were both peaceful and happy in'view of death ; they firmly believe in God, and they have rest in the thought of the future. May I trust that your old faith will return to you before the end of your life, and that you will experience that peace and joy which have been the heritage of millions in the past, and will be that of millions in the future ? The Science Primers I have not yet put into the'hands of my young people, but will do so soon. Would you like to give an examination at the end of the sess-on, and would you care to offer some prizes to the best students ? Excuse this long letter. May I ask you to read the Gospels, and study them impartially ? Yours sincerely, Clergyman. 42 �XXVI. Dear Sir,— Your letter of October 25th arrived when I was from home. It is the worst I have received from you. Such statements as thac I do not believe because I will not, and that, to believe, I would require to give up some things I do not wish to part with, are beneath notice, and are not arguments. Are you not aware that belief or disbelief is not a matter of will ? It is a matter of evidence, or the want of it. The opinion I have expressed re the clergy is supported by history. In the time of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth the bishops and clergy became Catholics or Protestants, as suited the pressure of the passing times and the reten tion of their emoluments. Henry was the most immoral of all our monarchs, and Elizabeth the most cruel; yet neither was forsaken by the clergy, who at one time bastardized Elizabeth and after­ wards crowned her. Henry robbed the Catholic Church of its cathedrals, houses, and lands, wherein the poor were supported. At that time there were no poor rates ; the Catholic Church supported the poverty-stricken. There were houses at short distances where the man in search of work could sup, sleep, breakfast, and proceed on his way. This was not charity ; it did not pauperise him ; it was his immemorial right. But these two crowned scoundrels stole all this and divided it between the aristocracy and the clergy ; hence the present poor rate— a legacy from those times to us. Kings, queens, and clergy have improved since then, but only in countries like ours, where secular knowledge has spread. Some countries suffer now from kingly injustice and clerical superstition, as we did three hundred years ago; there­ fore, still further improvement is required. The clergy are very bitter towards anyone who disputes the doctrines they live by. They are the only body who detest discussion 43 �and free inquiry ; they try to smother free thought in its bud, so that it may not bloom ; hence they catch the child in its cradle. They perform the mummery of baptism ; they “ confirm ” it; they marry and they bury it ; and they taboo and impute improper motives, and put outside the law all who question their unproved^ and unprovable assertions about their everlasting gods. Why, sir, compared with man, gods are things of a day. The beautiful gods of ancient Greece, the liberal gods of ancient Rome, are all dead. There are yet Buddha, Mohammed, and Christ left; but they are all consumptive, and death will claim them at last. You have once more returned to the question of my belief in the eternity of matter, but you have not put for­ ward any arguments ; you have only told me that you think it is easier to believe that an intelligent Being, whose origin you cannot account for, and of whom you know nothing, has accomplished all the developments we find in nature, including man. The God you worship, whom you suppose has done all this, is, according to Scripture, without body, parts, or passions, which, to my mind, appears to be a concise description of nothing. You cannot give any description of such a body, yet you ascribe to it intelligence. Where have you ever found intelligence apart from matter? Intelligence is only a name we give to the mental action of an organized body— a body with a brain ; for all bodies are not intelligent. A lump of granite is matter, but it has no brain ; hence we do not accord it intelligence. You say that the clergy are well educated. Tj be merely a clergyman, I do not see what need he has for education : he has nothing to talk about but mysteries, which he tells you he does not understand, yet asks you to believe. In my opinion, the gift a clergyman most requires is oratory, a good delivery, such as Burns describes in his “ Holy Fair.” Clergymen sometimes dabble in secular matters ; but it would be better for them to leave that field alone. Their efforts seldom meet with approval, especially in Scotland, where secular life thinks it can manage its own affairs— which opinion I share. They are best in the pulpit, where 44 �no one dares to contradict them, and where they can be eloquent upon subjects no one understands. You think my reading has been devoted too much to books antagonistic to Christianity. I think not. I have about 1,000 volumes in my library ; not one in fifty speaks for or against Christianity. Among them is included Alison’s History of Europe (24 octavo vols.), Scott’s Works (12 vols.), Gibbon’s Rome (12 vols.), Hugh Miller (13 vols.), Jones’s Asiatic Researches (9 vols.), fourteen volumes of Scottish History and Story, twenty-four volumes of Tales of the Borders, Ballantyne’s novels (10 vols.), Robertson’s Histories (8 vols ), Darwin’s works (14 vols.) ; several volumes on Geology, several on Astronomy; poems of Burns, Byron, Shelley, Cowper, Southey, Dryden, Moore ; most of Dickens’s novels, Berkeley’s Dictionary, and several others, including the original edition of Johnson’s in two volumes, which weigh about a hundredweight (these latter I have only glanced at) ; also twenty-four octavo volumes of Parliamentary History of England, from the time of Henry IV. to the restoration of Charles II., many books on engineering, and hundreds besides. In addition to these 1 read the Times and Daily Graphic, likewise magazines and weekly papers. I read the Old and New Testaments long ago ; found the former cruel and indecent, and the latter impracticable. I possess, and have read, the Talmud and the Koran. The Koran I consider the most rational of them all. Granting the possibility of a future life, it is the most likely to make converts ; there is something human in its mode of enjoy­ ing eternity, far better than for ever singing in praise of the Lord. And what a low, barren opinion of God they must hold who think that everlasting adulation will please him. I had no thought of publishing when this correspond­ ence began, therefore I kept no copy of my first letter to you; but, when I saw that you wished to make a Christian of me, I deemed it best to keep copies ; and it was only when I was informing you of the manner in which I brought up my family that the idea occurred to me that I might publish, as I consider this duty to be the most important in a man’s career. Should I publish, I will not 45 �name you without your consent. If you decline to give it, I shall not consider it necessary to send you proofs, for 1 shall not publish for profit, and naturally wish to keep down expenses. As this will probably be my last letter, I must say that I suspect your dull, one-sided ass has not mended his pace by beating. I forgive you all your unkind thoughts as to my motives for rejecting Christianity. I know they are mistakes. Tf I had not been a lover of truth, I might have posed as a Christian ; but I detest your faith, and regard it as a hurt­ ful superstition that afflicts mankind—one that has divided those who would otherwise have been mingled into one great brotherhood ; and I have had honesty and backbone enough to appear in my true colours, and always, 1 trust, without giving offence to others. I am, yours, George Anderson. XXVII. Dear Sir, I have gone back in my previous letter to the beginning of our correspondence. You say there you believe in the eternity of matter—that is, you believe in what you cannot, in your own words, understand or explain. This is an admission of great importance on your part. I maintain it is easier to believe in the existence of an intelligent Being who created matter than to believe that matter developed itself. That being so, I asked the question : “ Why don’t you believe in what is the easier rather than in the more difficult thing ? ” You say that this is not argument, and shunt off, in your usual style, to a disquisition upon the Old Testament idea of God. In my opinion this “ is not argument.” In asking the question, Why don’t you believe in the easier conception ? I suggested it might be that to do so would involve on your part a sadrifice that you are not prepared to make. You say that belief is not a matter 46 �of will, but of evidence. Belief is founded on the result of evidence. In the act of believing you are influenced by evidence. One may be convinced by evidence that he should do a certain act; but he determines to do other­ wise, because he wills to do the one and not the other. He is conscious of his freedom to act, and he does it contrary to the evidence that he should do otherwise. ». If a man has no will free to act, where is his responsi- . bility ? I still ask the question : “ Why do you not believe in the existence of an eternal intelligent Being as well as in the eternity of matter? You give no satisfactory answer to that question. The system of your arguments in all your letters turnS upon that you have to stop there, like others who cannot explain how things began to be. You say that you follow Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall. These gentlemen never make such unfounded assertions as you do. You will find that my allusion to the clergy was made with reference to a former statement of yours as to the education of the clergy of the present day. You go off to the time of Henry VIII. ; this is not an unusual method of yours. I admit, with you, that the state of the olergy was badjthen, and it is still, in many places. That, how­ ever, is not the point. There is an advance in the Church as well as in science. If you go back to the time of Henry VIII. for your science, you will find it worse, com­ pared with the present, than you find the Church. You kindly give a list of your books; a fairly good library, but certainly not modern as a whole. You say there are none of them for or against religion. Some of those you sent me are decidedly against religion—such as Gould’s, Ingersoll’s, and literature of that kind. Have you read the other side of the question by authors of the present day ? I have read both sides; but my faith in Christianity, Jn Christ, in his life and words as given in the New Testament, is not shaken. You tell me you read the Old and Netf Testaments long ago : they can bear another reading. I would most sincerely recommend you to study the New Testament once more. Read the sayings of Jesus ; you will find them beautiful and profitable, and not impractic­ able, as you assert. 47 ♦ �You say that the reading of the Koran has led you to believe it to be better fitted to make converts than the Bible and other sacred books. Why does it not do it ? As a matter of fact, the Koran religion is going down, and the Christian religion is making rapid and vast strides. Facts are stronger than assertions. Christianity has never been so strong and aggressive as at present. Tell me how it is that faith in Christ produces such a marvellous moral change in a man. I have been twenty-five years a minister of the Gospel of Christianity; I have seen drunkards reclaimed ; I have seen men and women of all classes, who were a disgrace and a ruin to their homes and to their friends, so much changed that they lived good and beautiful lives for the remainder of their days. These are facts which, it seems to me, your school cannot explain, and they are produced by faith in Christ. I consider your insinuations as to the clergy selling themselves for a mere living quite unworthy of a gentleman of your professed intelligence. If you knew many of them, as I do, I am sure you would change your opinion. You would find them neither one-sided nor inclined to dis­ courage inquiry. I am convinced that if you would study the other side of the question as to the being of God, and the literature of Christianity, and if you come more in contact with Christian men, you would change your views. I am very sorry you seem to think that I have i nkind thoughts of you as to why you are not a Christian. My remark was purely in the line of argument, and I still maintain that, as a free agent, you have the power to will and do ; and if you do what is more difficult, there must be some reason why you do not do what is easier. Excuse my remark that you did not will to be a Christian because Christianity involves responsibility that you do not care to take upon yourself. Far fromTiaving unkind thoughts of you I have the very opposite. I have your portrait among my friends in my drawing-room ; I feel the deepest interest in you. I am still praying for you, for I believe in God, and in his power to influence you in your old age. But even God will not force a man to be a Christian against his will. As I have said more than once, I wish so much 48 �to have a personal interview. If you should have time to take a holiday, I can assure you of a hearty welcome in my home. It is quite possible we might understand each other better if we met. Meanwhile, let me again assure you that I have every good and kind thought towards you, and I am not without hope that you will have different thoughts of Christianity before the end of your life. I am, faithfully yours, Clergyman. P.S.—If you mean to publish, as I have kept no copies of my letters, and I would like to see proofs and I would like them to be complete. The sending of proofs to me will not make much extra expense; but, as I have already said, I do not think that our correspondence is worth publishing. XXVIII. Dear Sir, This correspondence must cease. The object which caused you to commence it has not been obtained nor is it likely to be; hence we but waste time. I have daily evidence that my belief is in the ascendant, and I have no doubts. Governments, Courts of Law, and business between man and man, are all conducted on secular principles, notwithstanding that old religious nostrums are mixed up with their proceedings. When we find one has sworn falsely we commit him for perjury, and we know that the man of criminal intent is far more afraid of a policeman than of the all-seeing, ever­ present God. I trust that you will provide for your schools sets of the Science Primers I sent you. Teach children something of this world, and of their own bodies, and you will make them united, intelligent and happy, and pave the way for the world we live in to become a home superior to your fabled heaven. -1 believe you are better than your religion, and I do not think that you would burn me everlastingly if you had the power. I am, yours, George Anperson, 49 ����J. W. GOTT. Wholesale and Retail Clothier 2, Union Street, Bradford. AGENTS WANTED. Write for Terms. Leading Lines. Gent’s Suits to Measure 30/- 35/- 42/- Gent’s Overcoats to Measure 25/- 30/- Bradlaugh Boots 15/- 10/6 1216 35/- Famous Bedding Parcel at 21/- Dress Goods 1/6 to 4/6 per yard. Costume Materials 2/- to 5/- per yd. All Goods direct from the Warehouse. J. W. GOTT supplies goods to all the leading Reformers throughout The British Isles. �(Editor of the Truthseeker) Last man in England Prosecuted for Blasphemy. THE Truttiseeker Is the only Penny Freethonght Journal in England. The Editor has been Prosecuted so often for selling the paper, that few Newsagents will risk supplying copies. It can always be had direct from The Truthseeker Office, 2, Union St. Bradford Post Free for 1/6 per year. � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity and agnosticism : a correspondence between a clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anderson, George [1824-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Bradford Collation: 49 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Advertisement inside back cover: J.W. Gott, wholesale and retail clothier,2, Union Street, Bradford. ... J.W. Gott supplies goods to all the leading Reformers throughout the British Isles. Back cover has photograph of Gott and advertisement for the Truthseeker, of which Gott was editor. Explanatory note, signed by K.E. Watts, and note on George Anderson (from Joseph McCabe's Biographical dictionary of modern rationalists) inserted loose. Both items are photocopies. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available J.W. Gott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N046 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Agnosticism 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 (Christianity and agnosticism : a correspondence between a clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London), 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> 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 Agnosticism Christianity NSS