2 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3d772fe12215b949e1edf4f05e54d6ab.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=tW9nnIBweaJo5ycREL1EQM4cjLgTdhnbeT-pRYHQIQTcINn5Tpgyq0JnzWHydZonKAgD1dpUD2EFRtJfNsePQV9Mna6NkMTzyZdTAfTuQDjLhbl3qOcd7FLUlLkN7vajCQOcfzV%7EIkMZ0tlmPDjdYeV-Axh9fSHRda6f9HQChF-JJIzrAyz4VuCCFt0QbeRJcMPFv%7E%7EmvpOR%7EJeeFhnt8Xitb4BubknzcIUkKZp4sQdJUOQt4qpUUcJ3BDpAEV5XY-R5hpE8CSyB%7E3P19UlDYjCDE8dCXiydovADMYH8D8q%7E0IGCv3zBtQoo9Xk31lTeKVBb6j5zF90uZacN9g%7E1mg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ab0023e38c0026b3cd49a4cef7acb1c6 PDF Text Text WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ? WITH OBSERVATIONS ON ' HUXLEY, BRADLAUGH, AND INGERSOLL AND A REPLY TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE ALSO A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. BY G. W. FOOTE, PRICE THREEPENCE. LONDON THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED,. 2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, E.C. igO2. �PRINTED BY THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD., 2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C. �ß 2SiO NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AGNOSTIC PRETENSIONS. \ I happened to say once that an Agnostic was an Atheist with a tall hat on. Many a true word is spoken in jest, and I believe this is a case in point. It may be my ■obtuseness, but I have never been able to discover any real difference between the Atheist and the Agnostic, ■except that the latter is more in love with respectability ; ■or, if not exactly in love, is anxious to contract a marriage of convenience. In the old Hall of Science days, I noticed that sturdy Freethinkers used to come and sit under Bradlaugh, and proudly call themselves Atheists. That was while they were comparatively poor, and free from domestic embarrassments. When they became better off, and their children (especially their daughters) grew taller, they gradually edged off to South-place Chapel, sat under Mr. Conway, and ■called themselves Agnostics. They did not pretend that their opinions had changed, and they were glad to sneak into the old place (minus wife and family) on a stirring occasion ; but they had drifted, and they knew why, though they never liked to say so. Bradlaugh’s strength lay amongst those who could, for one reason or another, afford to defy conventions; such as the skilled artisans and the lower-middle classes, with a dash of professional society. Two hundred a year was fatal to his front-seat people. When they reached that income they emigrated (with their womenkind) to a more 81 respectable ” establishment. �4 I do not shrink from the consequences of the foregoing; observations. Indeed, I will speak with the utmost plainness. Charles Bradlaugh was an Atheist becausehe was a man of invincible courage, and did not care: twopence for the frowns of the Church or the sneers of Society. Professor Huxley was an Agnostic because he: had» over a thousand a year, and moved in the “ upper circles,” and filled certain “ honorable ” positions. He was too honest to say that he believed what he dis­ believed, but he could not afford to bear an odiousname. So he coined the word “ Agnostic,” which wasnewer, longer, and less intelligible than “ Atheist.” And having got a label that suited him entirely, he devised many subtle reasons why other Freethinkers should, wear it too. A number of them jumped at the oppor­ tunity. They were delighted to be at once heterodox; and respectable. It was a new and unexpected sensa­ tion. They were able to criticise orthodoxy with great, freedom, providing they did not touch upon the twovital points of all supernatural faith — namely, the: belief in God and the doctrine of a future life ; and. they were also able to chide the Atheist for his vulgar dogmatism in calling certain religious ideas false, when, the true philosopher knew that it was impossible todemonstrate the negative of anything. I used to think that Mr. Holyoake was an Atheist. At any rate, he wrote a Trial of Theism, in which he made that ancient faith look a frightful old impostorj But I conclude that he now wishes this work to b<& regarded as an academic exercise, a playful effort of the theoretical intelligence. Many years ago—and still for all I know—he offered the British public the story of his prosecution and imprisonment for “blasphemy’' under the title of The Last Trial for Atheism. He wasreally not tried for Atheism at all, and most of us took the word as a defiant expression of his principles* Buhl �5 we were mistaken. Mr. Holyoake explains in a recent publication that he is not an Atheist now, what­ ever he may have been when he was young, ignorant, -and impulsive. He says that the Atheist is guilty of ■“ preposterous presumption ”—which I think I under­ stand, although it is a very loose expression. He calls Atheism a “ wild assumption.” He professes himself an Agnostic ; which, as he explains it, is our old friend Sceptic alive again from the pages of David Hume. “Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism denote attitudes of thought in relation to the existence of a Supreme Cause of Nature. The Theist declares, without mis­ giving, that there is such an existence. The Atheist, without misgiving, declares there is no such existence. The Agnostic, more modest in pretension, simply says that, having no information on the subject, he does not know.” Mr. Holyoake says, further on, that the Theist and the Atheist alike have “ no doubt that they knew the solu­ tion ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.” Well, I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist who does not affect to know this “ solution.” This particular Atheist does not so much asknow the meaning of “the cause of eternity.” To him it is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words! But this is not enough. I will go further, and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God. Of course there are many Atheists who deny the existence of this or that God, because the definition of such alleged beings involves a contradiction to obvious facts of universal ■experience. But what Atheist denies the existence of ■any God ; that is to say, of any superhuman or super­ mundane power ? All the Atheists I know of take the position that there is no evidence on which to form a valid judgment, and that man’s finite intellect seems �6 incapable of solving an infinite problem. And as I understand Mr. Holyoake this is the very position taken by the Agnostic. Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an Atheist is. one without God. That is all the “A” before “Theist”' really means. Now I believe the Agnostic is without God too. Practically, at any rate, he is in the same boat with the Atheist. Atheism may be called a negative attitude. No doubt it is so. But every negative involves something positive.. If the Atheist turns away from the “ mighty problem ” as hopeless, he is likely to tackle more promising pro-« blems with greater vigor annd effect. But it is admitted by Mr. Holyoake that Agnosticism is a negative attitude too. Wherein, then, lies the justification for all the super fine airs of its advocates ? When you look into the matter closely, you perceivfl that Atheism and Agnosticism are both definite in the same direction. Bradlaugh and Huxley were at one in their hostile criticism of Christianity. Keeping the mind free from superstition is an excellent work. It is weeding the ground. But it is not sowing, and still less reaping. It merely creates the possibility of sound and useful growth. We have to fall back upon Secularism at the finish. Nor is that a finality. Secularism is the affirma­ tion of the claims of this life against the usurpations of the next. But the affirmation would be unncessary if the belief in a future life disappeared or radically changed.. Secularism itself—whatever Mr. Holyoake may say—is. an attitude. The face that was turned from God is. turned towards Man. What will follow is beyond the. range of Atheism or Agnosticism. Presently it is. beyond the range of Secularism. It is not to be deter­ mined by any system. It depends on positive knowledge and the laws of evolution. �7 AGNOSTICISM AND ORTHODOXY. During the most vigorous part of his life Mr. Holyoakepassed as an Atheist, but in his old age he prefers to call himself an Agnostic. Now this is a change that might be allowed to pass unchallenged, if it were not made the occasion of an attack on others who elect to remain under the old flag. Old age is entitled to comforts, or at least to shelter from hardships ; and if a veteran of over eighty finds any advantage or convenience in adopt­ ing a more tolerable designation, without any actual renunciation of principle, it is only a curmudgeon that would deny him the luxury. But when we are practi­ cally asked to share it with him we have the right tomake an open refusal. When the fox, in the old story, lost his tail, and then tried to persuade his brethren that they would look much handsomer if they dispensed with theirs, it was time to tell him that the appendages were both ornamental and useful. If “ Atheist ” is in Mr.. Holyoake’s way, by all means let him get rid of it. Butwhen he advances a reason why others should follow his example, it is permissible to tell him that his reason is insufficient. Mr. Holyoake’s reason is this—in brief. Theism says there is a God, Atheism says there is no­ God, and Agnosticism says it does not know. Agnosti­ cism, therefore, is modest and accurate; it does not dogmatise, and it keeps within the limit of its informa­ tion. Such is Mr. Holyoake’s argument, and his con­ clusion would be sound enough if his premises were not faulty. But they are faulty. Mr. Holyoake declared that Atheists, like Theists, had “ no doubt that they knew the solution ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.” “Well,” I said in reply, “ I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist who does not affect to know this ‘ solution.’ To him it �is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words ! I will go further,” I added, “ and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.** He has not, however, deigned to reply to this perfectly legitimate question. Atheists may, just like Agnostics, deny the existence of this or that God. It all depends on definitions. A quarter of a century ago, in criticising a book by Pro­ fessor Flint, I wrote as follows :— “ There be Gods many and Lords many; which of the long theological list is to be selected as the God ? A God, like everything else from the heights to the depths, ■can be known only by his attributes; and what the Atheist does is not to argue against the existence of any God, which would be sheer lunacy, but to take the attributes affirmed by Theism as composing its Deity, and to inquire whether they are compatible with each other and with the facts of life. Finding that they are not, the Atheist simply sets Theism aside as not proven, and goes on his way without further afflicting himself with such abstruse questions.” This is precisely the position I took in replying to Mr. Holyoake recently, and it is the position of all the Atheists I know or have ever known. Moreover, it was, as far as I understood him, the position of Mr. Holyoake himself while we all thought him an Atheist. During his debate with Mr. Bradlaugh, some thirty years ago, it was admitted that both were Atheists; the question in dispute was whether Atheism was involved in Secularism. I do not recollect that there was so much as a suggestion that a difference existed between them as to the meaning of Atheism. Their difference was over the meaning of Secularism. I am well aware that persons of a metaphysical turn of mind, and a good knowledge of the dictionary, can argue with each other on all sorts of subjects, and keep �9 it up till death or the day of judgment. But the troublecomes when they have to meet the practical man, the average man, the man in the street. He has his living • to get, and lots of things to attend to ; so, instead of beating about the bush, he goes straight to what seems, to him to the kernel of the question—the real point at issue. He may be mistaken, of course ; but that is his method, and you will never wean him from it. All the “ revelations ” in the world have been got up for him. It was found that no impression was made upon him by Platonic or other long-winded ratiocinations; so specu­ lation was presented to him as fact, and fancy as history ; and in that .way he was nobbled, because he did not perceive the cheating—though he is beginning to see it now. Well then, let an Atheist and an Agnostic stand together before this gentleman; and what difference will he discover between them ? “ Have you got a God?” he asks in his blunt way. The Atheist plainly answers “ No.” The Agnostic hums and ha’s. “ Come now, straight,” says the questioner, “ have you got a God?” The Agnostic says : “Well, I------.” “ Here^ that’ll do,” says the man in the street, “ I see you haven’t got one. You’re just like the other fellow, only he’s straighter.” And really that practical man, that average man, that man in the street, is right. He has ' got hold of the substance. All else is shadow. You have a God, or you have not. There is really no intermediate position. If you have a God, you are a Theist; if you have no God, you are an Atheist. Let your reasons be few or many, plain or subtle, this is what it comes to at the finish. “ I am the Lord thy God,” cries some Deity or other through the mouth of a priest. “Not mine,” says the Atheist. - “ Not precisely mine,” says the Agnostic, “ at least at present; these things require a great deal of consideration ; but I promise to keep an open mind.” Now if the offended Deity were to box. �IO the ears of one of them, which do you thin it would be ? I fancy it would be the Agnostic, for all his ii reverence.” Mr. Holyoake’s new attitude is likely to procure him fresh friends in the fold of faith—which he will probably not find annoying. One announced himself in the Church Gazette, and this is what he said :— “ One is glad to see that Mr. Holyoake has renounced the title of ‘Atheist’ in favor of that of ‘Agnostic.’ The Freethinker deprecates his doing so on the ground that the two terms imply exactly the same thing. We cannot admit that they do. An ‘ Atheist ’ properly means a person who positively denies the existence of a God, while an ‘ Agnostic ’ is simply one who does not know, but who very often is strongly inclined to believe in a Deity. Between these attitudes there lies a vast interval. The first is as dogmatic as that of a Cardinal; the second is philosophical, and of one who adopts it there is always a good deal of hope.” Without inquiring what right a Christian paper has to define “ Atheism ” for Atheists, I may observe how consoling it must be to Mr. Holyoake to be told by a ■Christian that he is “ philosophical,” that there is “ a vast interval ” between himself and a wicked, dogmatic Atheist, and that there is “ a good deal of hope ” for him! My own criticism is nothing to this. This orthodox editor greets Mr. Holyoake’s one leg over the fence, and “ hopes ” for his whole body. Other orthodox .editors in the course of time, either before his death or .after, will perhaps argue that Mr. Holyoake really saw the error of his ways and probably “ found salvation.” �11 MR. HOLYOAKE’S VINDICATION. Mr. Holyoake’s article on “ Agnosticism Higher than Atheism ” in my own journal, the Freethinker, for January 6 (1901) opened with a warm defence of his ■own consistency. Personally, I may say that I do not care two pins, or ■even one, whether Mr. Holyoake has or has not made or undergone a change in his opinion, his attitude, or "whatever he or anyone else may please to call it. He :seems to be quite passionate about it, but it is really of no importance to anyone but himself. The only important question is whether he is right in what he says now. All men but the fossilised have •changed intellectually, as they have changed physically. ““ In a higher world,” said Newman, “ it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to' have changed often.” Emerson stated the same truth with scornful relation to human vanity. “ A foolish consistency,” he said, “is the hobgoblin of little .minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and •divines.” It may be telling in political debate, where there is ever a hundred grains of nonsense to one grain ■of sense, to reply to an opponent out of his own mouth, and show that what he says to-day is answered by what he said several years ago. Vain politicians fall into this trap, because they fancy their own consistency is somethingiof infinite moment; not their consistency of prin­ ciple or intention, but their consistency of mental ■conclusion. But now and then a stronger politician laughs at the trap which is laid for him. Some persons thought it was mere cynicism on Beaconsfield’s part when he declined to argue a question before parliament in the light of certain “musty old speeches” of his, which had been quoted against him in the debate. But f- �12 it was sanity and wisdom. It was a personal question1 whether he was right or wrong twenty years before; it was a public question whether he was right or wrong at that moment. Mr. Holyoake, as I understand him, says he never wasan Atheist. He has always an Agnostic, but he lacked the word to express his attitude. The term he did suggest was Cosmism as a substitute for Atheism. In connection with it he quotes the words—from ThomasCooper, I believe—“ I do not say there is no God, but. this I say—I know not.” Perhaps it will surprisehim to learn—or to be reminded of it if he has forgotten it—that Charles Bradlaugh, both in print and on theplatform, was fond of quoting those very words asindicating the essential attitude of Atheism. Are we to conclude, then, that Bradlaugh, too, was an Agnostic without knowing it ? Are we also to conclude that not a single Atheist during the past forty years understood Atheism, and that the only person who did understand it was Mr. Holyoake, who was never an Atheist at all ? “ Agnosticism,” Mr. Holyoake says, “ relates only toDeity.” Does it indeed ? Its meaning and application were not thus restricted by Professor Huxley. This is what he said in his essay on “ Agnosticism ” (Collected Essays, vol. v., p. 245) :— “ Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method», the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of M single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said ‘ Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed : In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration- �i3 And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the Agnostic faith.” This is stated even more compendiously in a later essay on “Agnosticism and Christianity” (vol. v., p. 310) :— “ Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘ negative ’ creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in 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 any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts ; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.” These are, I believe, the only two definitions of Agnos­ ticism to be found in Huxley’s writings; and, so far from restricting the application of the term to the question of the existence of Deity, as Mr. Holyoake :says it should be, its inventor does not so much as allude to that question in either of these passages. He presents Agnosticism as a general method or attitude in relation to all propositions, and therefore to all subjects whatsoever. Mr. Holyoake goes on to say that Agnosticism—his Agnosticism—“ leaves a man to reason, to con­ science, to morality, to nature, to the laws of truth, of honor, and the laws of the State.” Yes, and it also leaves him, if he prefers, to the opposite of these—to folly, vice, and crime, to the workhouse, the lunatic asylum, and the prison. What Mr. Holyoake says of Agnosticism is simply an echo of what Bacon said of Atheism. “ Atheism,” that philosopher said, in the Essay Of Superstition, “ leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation.” �When Bacon wanted to dig the Atheist in the fifth rib with a dirty dagger, he treated Atheism as a denial of God. “None,” he said, “ deny there is a God but those for whom it maketh that there were no God.’” Which is equivalant to saying that no one denies God. but a scoundrel. But when he talks like a candid philo* sopher his language is very different. “It were better,’” he declared, “ to have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy of him.” That was. the real difference between Atheism and superstition. “ No opinion of God at all.” Bacon regarded that as philosophical Atheism. Mr. Holyoake regards it as philosophical Agnosticism. Well, this is a free country, at least to that extent, and I prefer to side with. Bacon. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoke’s philosophy of “disbelief” and “ non-belief ” is a sad confusion, abound­ ing *in arbitrary statements. Take the following passage», for instance :— “‘Disbelief’ is the state of mind of one who hag; evidence before him, but finds it so insufficient that ha disbelieves the proposition to which the evidence: relates. ‘ Non-belief’ expresses that state of mind whefft all relevant evidence is absent, and he is therefore in ft. state of non-belief or absolute unknowingness.” Now the first sentence is but a pretty waste of wordsRepetition is not definition. It enlightens no one to say that “disbelief” is the state of mind of a person who “ disbelieves.” Nor is it true that one who disbelieveshas always evidence before him. He may have none at all. I disbelieve in the existence of dragons and centaurs, but I am not aware that there is a scrap of positive evidence on the subject. On the other hand, there may be “relevant evidence”—can there be any irrelevant evidence ?—in the case of “ non-belief,” which is precisely the same thing as unbelief. My own position �i5 with regard to the “ microbe theory ” of disease is oneof “ non-belief,” but I should be very ignorant or foolish to say that “ relevant evidence ” was totally “ absent.”' And how on earth can “ absolute unknowingness ” haveany relation to belief at all? It is simply a blank. Nothing is there, and no room exists for any form o£ opinion. Mr. Holyoake’s “ non-belief ” seems to be a nonentity. The remaining term is “ disbelief.” This he does not really define, but he evidently means it to connote a. state of mind following the recognition that the evidenceadvanced in favor of a proposition is “ insufficient.” Now I venture to say that this is unbelief or disbelief simply according to the balance of the evidence. Mr, Holyoake speaks as though evidence were always for and never against, whereas it is usually of both kinds. If the evidence is unsatisfactory, we say we do not believe the proposition. If the evidence is very unsatis­ factory, we say we disbelieve it. The two words express different degrees of the same general state of mind. This view has fbe countenance of common usage, asit certainly has the countenance of etymology. And a. very remarkable fact may be cited in this connection. The orthodox term for all sceptics, from the mild. Unitarian to the terrible Atheist, is “ unbelievers.” Mr. Holyoake goes to the length of saying that “ Todisbelieve is to deny.” I say it is not. Mr. Holyoakehimself disbelieves the theory of a future life, but he does not deny it. Denial, in the strict sense of the word, presupposes knowledge. It is not a mere question of opinion—like belief, unbelief, or disbelief. < If you say I have done a certain thing which I know I have not done ; if you say I was at a certain place yesterday when I know I was not there ; I deny your assertion. But if you say that a friend of mine has done a certain �i6 thing, or was at a certain place yesterday, when I was not there myself, I cannot deny your assertion. Yet I may not believe it from what I know of my friend’s ■character and movements, and I may disbelieve it when I have heard the evidence on both sides. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake made this arbitrary •affirmation about disbelief and denial because it served the turn in his argument against Atheism. He proceeds to say—and with plausibility if his theory of disbelief is .accurate-—that if you “ take denial out of the word ” Atheism you “ take the soul out of it.” “ Atheism,” he repeats, “ which does not deny God is a corpse.” All this, however, is repetition on repetition of what he is asked to prove. The idea seems to be that saying a thing over again, with fresh force and point, is a good substitute for “ relevant evidence.” Mr. Holyoake says there are “ brave spirits ” in the Atheistic camp “ who believe that the existence of God <an be disproved, and say so.” “ To them,” he adds, “Atheism, in its old sense—of denial—is the only honest word.” Of course it is. But who ave, these Atheists ? AVhy does not Mr. Holyoake give us a little informa­ tion ? What is the use of argument without facts ? I ■admit there are Atheists who believe that the reality of some conceptions of God can be disproved. If reason is to be trusted—and we have no other guide—it is perfectly clear that a God of infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite goodness, does not exist. John Stuart Mill was as firm as a rock on this point, and he was the author of a classical treatise on Logic. Mr. Holyoake himself, I believe, would not deny that Science has practically disproved the existence of the God of Miracles. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake plays with the word “ God.” He treats it is a definite word, with one invariable meaning. But it means anything or nothing, �.according to definitions. Without a definition, you might as well pronounce it backwards. It may be true that the Atheist “ denies the existence of God,” if you ■define God to mean Thor, Jupiter, Jehovah, or Christ. But is it true that the Atheist denies the existence of any possible God ? This is a point to which Mr. Holyoake does not address himself. Nor is he likely to ■ do so while he uses the word “ God ” as loosely as any ^shuffling theologian. Some conceptions of God are flatly contradicted by the most familiar facts of experience. These are as much to be denied as a round square or a bitter sweet. Some conceptions of God are not contradicted by any facts of experience. They may be true, and they may Be false. In the absence of “ relevant evidence,” there is no way of deciding. It is all a matter of conjecture. And both information and. denial, in such cases, are mere expressions of personal preference. But behind all the metaphysics of this subject there is a Science of which one could hardly surmise from his writings that Mr. Holyoake had ever heard. I mean the Science whith the great David Hume inaugurated in his Natural History of Religion. Not to go beyond •our own country, the researches of Spencer, Lubbock, Tylor, Frazer, Harland, and other workers in this fruitful field, have thrown a flood of light upon the .genesis and development of religious belief. The facts .are seen, and they tell their own tale. And when it is •once perceived that the “highest” ideas of modern theology have their roots in the lowest savage super­ stitions, the old disputes about the existence of God .seem almost fantastic. This is a point, however, which it is not my object to press. Some of my readers will understand ; others, perhaps, will take the hint. I wish to conclude this ■criticism by showing that what Mr. Holyoake means by �Agnosticism, is what Atheists have always meant by Atheism. The shortest way is the best. Let us take the most conspicuous, the most hated, English Atheist of thenineteenth century ; one who was supposed — and especially by those who knew least about him—to beas extravagant in his speech as he was shocking in his. character. I refer to Charles Bradlaugh. He was am Atheist of Atheists, and this is what he wrote:— The Atheist does not say ‘there is no God,’ but hesays, ‘ I know not what you mean by God; I am with­ out idea of God; the word “ God ” is, to me, a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I haves no conception, and the conception of which, by its. affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.’ ” Now let us hear the Agnostic. Mr. Holyoake says “ The Agnostic assertion of unknowingness is far wider, far mo.e defiant and impregnable than the deniaL of the Atheist who stands upon the defective evidence. Agnosticism is a challenge. It says: ‘ I do not know J do you ? Your assertions have no force. Evidence from the field of facts is wanted’....... the very idea of an originating Deity has no place in the understanding.’* Mr. Bradlaugh’s language is that of clear thought.. Is Mr. Holyoake s so ? It is hard to see how an asser­ tion of ignorance can be “ defiant,” though it may be “ impregnable ” because there is nothing to attack. If the Atheist stands upon the defective evidence, what else is the A gnostic doing when he says that evidence iswanted ? And is not the last sentence on all-fours with. Mr. Bradlaugh’s last sentence ? What difference there is seems in favor of the Atheist. It is one of carefulnessand modesty. Mr. Bradlaugh speaks for himself. Mr. Holyoake speaks for everybody. �i9 What substantial difference, I ask, can anyone find, between these two quotations? Mr. Bradlaugh was asmuch an Agnostic as Mr. Holyoake, and Mr. Holyoake is as much an Atheist as Mr. Bradlaugh. It is therefore evident, as far as this particular discussion goes, that Agnosticism is a new name for the old Atheism. After repeating that Agnosticism “asserts that theexistence of Gcd is a proposition of utter unknowing­ ness,” Mr. Holyoake declares that it “leaves Theism, stranded on the shores of speculation.” What more has been asserted by any Atheist ? Does it not provethat the Agnostic is “ without God in the world ”? And. does not this illuminating phrase of the great Apostle­ show the real parting of the ways ? INGERSOLL’S AGNOSTICISM. Mr.. Holyoake, I believe, has a great admiration for the late Colonel Ingersoll. I have a great admiration for him too. He was a splendid man, a magnificent orator, and a deep thinker. This last fact is too little recognised. Many take the clear for the shallow and. the turbid for the profound. Others love decorum even though it drops into dulness. Ingersoll’s brightness, noless than his lucidity, was detrimental to his reputation.. It is commonly thought that the witty man cannot be wise. But a minority know how false this is. Shakes­ peare was the wittiest as well as the wisest of men. Be that as it may, the point is that Mr. Holyoake and. I both admire Ingersoll. We may therefore appeal tohim on this question of Atheism and Agnosticism. Not that he is to decide it for us, but it will be profitable tohear what he has to say. Ingersoll published a lecture entitled Why Am I An Agnostic ? This was during his mellow maturity,. �when some hasty persons said he was growing too ■“ respectable.” He was perfectly frank, however, and even aggressive, on the question of the existence of Deity. Here is a passage from the very first page of this lecture :— “Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is not God, that the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the Christian religion, like other religions, is the creation of man, usually say : ‘ There must be a Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an •over-ruling Providence or Power.’ “ This position is just as untenable as the other. He who cannot harmonise the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonise the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity.” After giving several illustrations of the Deist’s diffi­ culty, Ingersoll proceeds as follows, introducing for the first time the word Agnostic :— “ It seems to me that the man who knows the limita­ tions of the mind, who gives the proper value to human testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of compre­ hending the supernatural, or conceiving of an infinite personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all meaning falls.” Mr. Holyoake might reply that he endorses every word of this paragraph ; but I should have to tell him that there are much stronger things to come. My point for the present is that Ingersoll in a lecture on Agnosticism makes it look remarkably like Atheism. Certainly he dismisses the only idea of God that a Theist would ever think of •contending for. Let us now turn to the last address that Ingersoll ever ■delivered, before the American Free Religious Associa­ tion at Boston, on June 2, 1899, only a few weeks prior �21 to his sudden death. This lecture is published under thetitle of What is Religion ? Curiously it sums up all that he had ever taught on the subject. There is an autumn ripeness about it, and its conclusion has the air of a final deliverance in sight of the grave. Nor is this astonishing ; for he knew the nature of his malady, and was aware that death might overtake him at any monent. It should be added that Ingersoll read this address, which was printed from his manuscript. Now this lecture on What is Religion? contains a care­ ful and elaborate statement of the speaker’s Materialism. It runs as follows :— . “ If we have a theory we must have facts for the foundation. We must have corner-stones. We must not build on guesses, fancies, analogies, or inferences. The structure must have a basement. If we build, we must begin at the bottom. “ I have a theory, and I have four corner-stones. «The first stone is that matter—substance—cannot be destroyed, cannot be annihilated. ► The second stone is that force cannot be destroyed, cannot be annihilated. “ The third stone is that matter and force cannot exist apart—no matter without force; no force without matter, “ The fourth stone is that that which cannot be destroyed could not have been created; that the indestructible is the uncreateable. ** If these corner-stones are facts, it follows as a necessity that matter and force are from and to eternity ; that they can neither be increased nor diminished. “ It follows that nothing has been, or can be, ereated; that there never has been, or can be, a creator. “ It follows that there could not have been any intel­ ligence, any design, back of matter and force. '¿/‘There is no intelligence without force. There is no force without matter. Consequently there could not by �22 -any possibility have been any intelligence, any force, back of matter. ' ’ It therefore follows that the supernatural does not, •and cannot, exist. If these four corner-stones are facts, nature has no master. If matter and force are from and to eternity, it follows as a necessity that no God exists.” Here is an argumentative denial of the existence of 'God, as the term is generally understood. It is true that Ingersoll says, a little later on, that he does not -pretend to know, but only states what he thinks. This ■qualification, however, while it is a sign of modesty, is not necessary from a philosophical point of view, since no man who is not inspired can possibly advance any­ thing on this subject but his opinions. This is so from the very nature of the case, for there is no certainty • about the strongest argument in the world unless its •conclusion can be submitted to the test of verification. According to Mr. Holyoake’s criterion, therefore, Ingersoll had no right to call himself an Agnostic. He was not merely a doubter, but a denier, and should have called himself an Atheist. Not that he denied any possible God, for no Atheist does that. He denied the God of Christianity and the God of ordinary Theism. Now if Ingersoll s statement of the Agnostic position, thus qualified and understood, is one which Agnostics m general are ready to endorse, it is perfectly clear that the only difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is one of nomenclature. There is evidence that this was Ingersoll’s own •opinion. The complete “ Dresden ” edition of his works contains an important “ Inverview ” headed M My Belief” (vol. v., pp. 245-248). It is in the form of •Question and Answer. We will take the following :—■ Question. Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being ? �23 Answer*—I do not believe in any Supreme personality or in any Supreme Being who made the universe and governs nature. I do not say there is no such Being— all I say is that I do not believe that such a Being exists. This is precisely the position taken by all the Atheists T ever knew. If this is Agnosticism, every Atheist is Agnostic, and every Agnostic is an Atheist. ■Let it not be said that this is only my inference. It was Ingersoll’s own view, as is shown by the following extract:— Question. Don’t you think that the belief of the Agnostic is more satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist ? Answer. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: “ I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God.” The Atheist says the same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there is a God ; but we know that he does not know. He simply believes. He can­ not know. The Atheist cannot know that God does not exist. I have given the whole of this Question and Answer do avoid any possible misunderstanding. The pertinent >nd decisive words are in the first half of the Answer. Ingersoll is not with Mr. Holyoake, but against him. 'We have only to reverse the order of three short sentences to feel the full force of his conclusion. The ^Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic is an Atheist. There is W difference. �24 WICKED OPINIONS. Mr. Holyoake seems to be turning his back upon a prin­ ciple which he has often expounded; a principle which in the justification of Freethought, and without which persecution is honest jurisprudence. He refers very strangely to certain “ Atheists whose disbelief in born of dissoluteness, and who conceal vice by theological outrage of speech.” This is followed by a scornful reference to“ pot-house Atheism.” I am not well acquainted with pot-houses, but I should' imagine that Atheism is not prevalent in them. I have seen the pot-house people at large on certain holidays,, but I never noticed much Atheism in their conversation.. Vulgar, malignant Christians, of course, have often suggested that Atheists hold their meetings in public­ houses ; but I hope Mr. Holyoake does not wish tocountenance this calumny. I should imagine, too, that if a man wanted to “ conceal ” his “ vice ” he would be a very great fool toresort to “ theological outrage of speech.” It would pay him better, or rather less badly, to be outrageous in any other direction. This is precisely the way to excite odium, to attract hostile regard, and make him­ self an object of general suspicion. That a vicious man should wear a mask of piety is sufficiently intelligible.. Myriads have done it, and many still do it, as we learn every now and then by the police news. But for a. vicious man to range himself on the side of an odiousand hated minority, to affront the prejudices of the very people he wishes to impose upon, and thus to invite a scrutiny where he desires to practice concealment, would be an amazing display of imbecility. But it is still worse to hear Mr. Holyoake stigmatising; the “disbelief” of certain Atheists—not their affecta- �25 lions or pretensions, but their disbelief—as “ born of •dissoluteness.” If this has any meaning at all, it implies that belief is amenable to volition. If it be so, you •can change a man’s belief by punishing him ; that is, by .•giving him a strong inducement to believe otherwise; and, in that case, the Christians were quite right when they fined, imprisoned, tortured, and burnt heretics as .guilty of moral perversity. Such offenders could believe the orthodox faith, but they would not, and force was «employed to overcome their obstinacy. But the truth is, that men do not think as they would, but as they can; that is to say, as they must. The intellect may be .affected by the emotions, but not directly. The wish is :sometimes father to the thought, but it must necessarily be a case of unconscious paternity. We may be blinded by passion, but when the mist disperses the mind’s eye sees the facts according to its capacity and the laws of mental optics. I do not merely “ disbelieve,” I deny ” that Atheism ever was, ever is, or ever could be, born of dissoluteness. “ The fool,” according to the Psalmist, “ hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Mr. Holyoake substitutes sinner for fool, and thinks he is philosophic. I think that he and the Psalmist are in the .same boat. Let us take an illustration. A burglar is going to break into a jeweller’s shop, but he sees a policeman looking at him from the opposite corner. He wishes to •crack that crib, he came out to crack that crib, he is there to crack that crib. Why should he not do it ? There is a policeman over the way. What of that ? -Can he not wish the policeman were not there ? Can be not believe the policeman is not there ? We know he ■cannot. We know the shop is safe for the present. Now the God that Mr. Holyoake refers to in this con­ nection is the heavenly policeman. A vicious man wishes this God were not looking on, then he believes this God �26 is not looking on, and thus he becomes a full-blown Atheist! Could there be a greater absurdity ? It should be recognised that the human intellect acts (or functions) according to necessary laws. Given certain information, and a certain power of judgment,, and a man s conclusion follows with mathematical pre­ cision. His desires, and hopes, and fears have nothing“ to do with the matter. They do not govern his opinions. His opinions govern them. Our ideas do not accom­ modate themselves to our emotions: our emotions accommodate themselves to our ideas. Love itself, which is supposed to be absolutely blind, walks with, some degiee of rationality in the light. Peasants do not fall in love with a princess. Why ? Because they know she is beyond their reach. Actions may be wicked, and intentions may be wicked.. But there cannot be a wicked opinion. An opinion has only one quality; it is true or false—or, to be still, more strict, it is accurate or inaccurate. The quantity of accuracy and inaccuracy may vary, but the quality is unchangeable. An opinion may always be reduced to a proposition.. Now if you apply the word “wicked ” to a proposition you will immediately see its grotesqueness. It is true that a man may neglect to inform himself on a subject, either through indolence or wilfulness ; and his opinion will suffer in consequence. He may even be dishonest, if inquiry devolved upon him as a duty.. But his opinion cannot be dishonest. You might say it was born of dishonesty, but that is a very forced metaphor, and not the language of philosophy. An opinion is always born of two parents ; a man’s natural, faculty of judgment and the information on which it operates. If there cannot be a dishonest opinion, of course there cannot be an honest opinion. It is nonsense to talk of �27 a man’s “honest belief” unless you simply mean that the belief he expresses is the belief he entertains. Strictly speaking, the honesty is not in the belief, but in. the man. He may believe what he says or he may not; in either case his belief is his belief. He knows it, if you do not. Mr. Holyoake, if I recollect aright, has championed, the cause of “honest disbelief” in his former writings.. The expression was unfortunate, because it was unphilosophical; but I always understood him to mean that the sceptic had the same right to his thought as a. believer, So far I agree with him. In any other senseof the words I profoundly differ. And I deeply regret that Mr. Holyoake has given the sanction of his name to a view of the formation of opinions which is calcu­ lated to serve the cause of bigotry, if not of active per­ secution. I fear that the sentence I have specially criticised will be quoted against Atheists ad nauseam, and will be a fresh stumbling-block in the path of Freethought advocacy. BLANK ATHEISM. Mor® than twenty years ago I was personally acquainted', with the late Mathilde Blind. James Thomson (“ B.V.”), the author of that sombre and powerful poem, The City of Dreadful Night, was with me on more than one occa­ sion in her rooms, which were then the centre of some distinguished intellectual society. Swinburne used to call there occasionally, though it was never my luck to meet him. Professor Clifford was another visitor,, and with him I came into fairly close contact. One evening I had a little party, consisting of Miss Blind and a few of her friends, at my own bachelor diggings, where by request I read them Thomson’s masterpiece.. �28 It was not then published, in the ordinary sense of the word. I had it as it appeared in the National Reformer— •a presentation copy from Thomson himself, with the ■omitted stanza added in his own handwriting. It had Teen a good deal talked about in select circles, and the members of that little party were very glad to make its 'Complete acquaintance in that fashion. When the flood.gates of criticism were open, one young poet suggested some rather fatuous improvements. All admired the work very much, or said they did ; but I noticed that they all regarded it as a literary curiosity, a striking poetical /w de force, and not at all as the life-agony of a man of genius minted into golden verse by his unsubduable art. That aspect of the case did not seem to strike them a bit, and I felt considerably disappointed at their ■dilettante observations. But why do I go back to that long-ago ? Why open and deliberately shut doors of old memories ? Why let the daylight of recollection into ancient disused chambers, where the only footfalls are ghostly, and even these are •deadened by the dust of many years ? Because I cannot help it. Because a sentence in a book, casually meeting my gaze, has done it in my despite. “ What took this soul of mine on the verge of a blank Atheism, of utter denial and despair; what took it and led it out of itself to the calm and awful centre of things ?” "This was the sentence that arrested my attention in the Memoir ” which Dr. Garnett contributes to the new •edition of Mathilde Blind’s Poetical Works. The sentence is hers. And having raised the question, she supplies .the answer. “ It was Buckle. I verily think I owe to him what I owe to no other human being—an eternal debt of gratitude for the work he has left. It was the right book at the right time, the serene proclamation of law �29 o he unrolled the history of humanity before me from. , its earliest germs.” Now I confess to a certain sense of confusion in reading all this- In the first place, Buckle did not do what he is alleged to have done. He did not unroll the history of humanity from its earliest germs. His work was a great one, but that is not a proper description of it. In the next place, I can hardly conceive that Mathilde Blind had not read Buckle when I knew her, and she was certainly an Atheist then. Clifford was so far from being ashamed of the designation that he gloried in. it, and we all understood that Mathilde Blind’s attitude was precisely similar. What on earth then could she mean by saying that Buckle saved her from “blank Atheism ” ? What, indeed, is there in Buckle incom­ patible with Atheism ? Did not his orthodox critics call him a teacher of the Atheistic philosophy? Not that Le W® fin Atheist, but as far as his book went it was not unnatural that they (at any rate) should think him It does not appear that Mathilde Blind herself ever became a positive Theist. I fancy she called herself to ■ the end fin Agnostic. Her own poetry is not the work of a believer in God. What on earth then, I repeat,, did she mean by the statement that she had been saved from * blank Atheism” ? And what is the meaning of the words that follow ? “ Utter denial ” of what ? And 44 despair ” of what ? The whole thing is like a Chinese puzzle. I cannot help thinking that Mathilde Blind,, writing perhaps in after years, when Clifford was dead, and when perhaps the great Bradlaugh struggle had rendered ® Atheism ” more odious than ever to the great mob of “ respectable ” people, used the word with that looseness which is only too common, but of which she ought »ot to have been guilty. It is curious how so. many persons, and orthodox teachers especially, are loth �30 to let “Atheism” stand by itself, and tell its own story. They seem to feel the necessity of prejudicing the reader (or hearer) against it at the very outset. So they hasten to put a suggestive, or even a sinister, adjective m front of it, as a kind of warning herald. Sometimes it is “ downright ” Atheism, sometimes it is utter ” Atheism, sometimes it is “ grovelling ” Atheism .sometimes it is “ blatant ” Atheism. This, by the way,' is the favorite adjective of gentlemen like the late Rev. Mr. Price Hughes. But “ blank ” Atheism is perhaps the most ingenious form of depreciation. The horrified imagination of piety is free to fill in the “ blank ” accord­ ing to the instant movement of the spirit. Then it has at least a suggestion of swearing. It sounds like a polite or fastidious form of “ damned Atheism,” or even ■one of those stronger expletives which are so common in the streets of Christian cities. Yes, “ blank Atheism ” is distinctly good, and may be recommended to the average apologists of religion, who might blunder into obvious bad language if left to their own resources. When one comes to think of it, however, it is per­ fectly clear that Atheism is only “ blank ” in the sense that it is not Theism. Atheists dispense with what they regard as fictions, but they retain what they (and every­ body else, for that matter) regard as facts. They dismiss dreams, but .they cling to realities. They roam the ■ earth, though they believe in no hell under it. They admire the ever-shifting panorama of the sky, though they believe in no heaven above it. They breathe the universal air, though they do not believe it is peopled with invisible spirits. All that anyone is sure of is theirs. The “ blank ” in their minds and lives only relates to the unknown, the incomprehensible, and perhaps the impossible. What is it that the Theist knows and the Atheist does not know? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. To the �greatest minds, as well as the smallest, God is at the best an inference ; and the doctrine of a future life can only be verified (if at all) by dying. In this world, there­ fore, and on this side of death, the Atheist has, or may have, as much information as any religionist. Nor has he fewer sources of enjoyment, or fewer means of per­ sonal development and elevation, or fewer opportunities -of social usefulness. The “ blank ” only means that he does not burden his mind with the contradictory fancies of theology. He objects to wasting his time in trying to find the value of the infinite X. And he has learnt from history that the pursuit of such chimeras has pro­ duced a very decided “ blank ”—as far as secular science and civilisation are concerned—in the minds and lives of many men of genius, and of whole societies of inferior mortals. �SOME PUBLICATIONS BY G. W. FOOTE. Bible Romances. Cloth. 160 pp. 2s. Bible Heroes. 200 pp. Cloth. 2S. 6d. Bible Handbook Paper Covers, is. 6d, Cloth, 2s. 6d. The Book of God In the Light of the Higher Criticism. Paper, is. Cloth, 2s. Flowers of Freethought. FIRST AND SECOND SERIES. Cloth, 2s, 6d. (each). Scores of Essays and Articles on a vast variety of Freethought Topics. Crimes of Christianity. Hundreds of References to Standard Authorities. Cloth, 2S. 6d. Theism or Atheism? Public Debate with Rev. W. T. Lee. Boards, is. Christianity and Secularism. Public Debate with Rev. Dr. McCann. Paper Covers, is. Cloth, is. 6d. Comic Sermons & other Fantasias Paper Covers, 8d. Darwin on God. Paper Covers, 6d. London : The Freethought Publishing Company, Ltd.. 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C. ** A � 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 What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: Selective list of author's other works on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Limited Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1902 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N268 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 (What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism), 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 Charles Bradlaugh George Jacob Holyoake NSS Robert Green Ingersoll Thomas Henry Huxley https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=brhEEQarRJz0RwmI221RzH1QDAFhKFgc-U6fpMTWEYe6vvaQyIoE0LAWAONSJU9SEJsEaqtDrXFAOVAvg9HhEZ177vm2e0TiW5gUqurJvQAUVZnNaLvLBhAMWhF-%7Ego9C%7E3of2FqyOKRldhdgRDREXsWJC%7ErLByHogg3a-xw-3tjZVQk6NbL1G1T0x7rba31TMqyzh3h9TdcDQHW76%7EswKzbeYHGAm3UtHylvZi95GW0cYqRacBkaYO4bjKi8EOo0P12x-aP5VGPGjgkfUI9xI3tAgrm9fajcmQ9sC4LLDn7UBut-zFJWJZdQVVOpdPrW0aA88W2ZupMCAjwwpcKhA__&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/675b9647a6d5d889519f669bef7bfb1b.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=ODOShauEFXd56J55%7EdOUOQ4BikMpq9wpN9g0tnwCqaLongyZhV5En2aHM15mm0XxTl9OUpYKzzYYW9%7E44N6OCXei1ZD3d7ChB8EuKMJGJ60GLSo34A1mLIIPyC%7EhLnWTLBRV7RNZLjn1QEpI6MA4wsIqK%7EGWNsFRoLdc9vA79xegzzjNpRK0FJcrQmyPiRcw38G7S0P5SNF8tMEOviVUvK0-xbVInzQATzzeZWJ7MzZqcuj8EpsOV4AX01Ag5pW7fCvozkqpaUepxCAYhJ4bRPnRQHQekNOR5lIGJXrmkkH%7EhVmtHtdz0s51Hhd4M79MCiD98YfM1Q%7EHAZRPb31AWQ__&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/6de107ecb6cb1c012e8ef8d4e1665667.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=VbvDyxL9zXoEWfxe-cau2mfuM6PUUIKWj1STsFW5sjk-AFq2KgI9%7EoiYnknF%7EZZXs4e1%7E6pgvjV6nnmSNl5YZUpbeXmPX%7Eo8Vie1C6zT9hvuyps1V5WNTomKFmt%7EAeTMbDAjFRIsZJGnKv5XGqjYepA-6O7V9v-3zRGOr07527TYSGLNMD%7E9PPdMntDxAdOg3TtIsv8HTESSKCSrTV18gHxgYt3n6vpj7L8t1WXDtzcuuT3dHw15L8ufiJDf5IZRLViwqIB5bhPhf%7EiPNNf4PJUiClvZazt5Swbc%7Emw4sTuw6ehA8aMIkZeYAg6N31xq02V5RdugKu75MvAYo6IrDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7c494523eee86ac7949e014048d24231 PDF Text Text national secular scc7^ MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE AN AGNOSTIC’S VIEW. BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL. Price Twopence. LONDON: R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �LONDON: PRINTED BY G. W. EOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �V9 0-73 0 M374- During November and December, 1889, the North American Review printed a number of articles by repre­ sentative men on the subject of Divorce. The editor framed a series of four questions, which the various writers replied to. Colonel Ingersoll answered them seriatim and fully, without the least evasion or reserve, having a habit, not only of meaning what he says, but of saying what he means. His article is now reproduced for the benefit of English readers. It is a very important contribution to the literature of the marriage question, and it is to be hoped that those who are privileged to read it will circulate it amongst their friends and acquaintances. ��MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Question (1). Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances ? The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the living are tyrannised over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the conditions under which they were produced have passed away, often persist in surviving. Many are disposed to worship the ancient—to follow the old paths, without inquiring where they lead, and without knowing exactly where they wish to go themselves. Opinions on the subject of divorce have been for the most part inherited from the early Christians. They have come down to us through theological and priestly channels. The early Christians believed that the world was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord —to remain there, in all probability, until the earth was prepared as a habitation for the blessed. With this thought or belief in their minds, the things of this world were of comparatively no importance. The man who built larger barns in which to store his grain was re­ garded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the unfortunate, the wretched, and diseased, as the favorites of God. They discouraged all worldly pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry or to be given in marriage ; no time to build homes and have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the heaven they expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into disrepute. �6 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of the Apostles ; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of home; nothing about the necessity of .education, the im­ provement and development of the mind. These things were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the pre­ sence of the expected event, was considered of any importance, except to be ready when the Son of Man should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their wives and children. Human love was spoken of with contempt. “Let the dead bury their dead. What is that to thee ? Follow thou me.” They not only believed these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a consequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and their obligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was regarded as only one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only in consideration of human weakness. It was thought far better not to marry—that it was something grander for a man to love God than to love woman. The exceedingly godly, the really spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And yet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theo­ logians, marriage was held to be a sacrament. The priest said to the man who married: “ Remember that you are caught for life. This door opens but once. Before this den of matrimony the tracks are all one way.” This was in the nature of a punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the contract of marriage, if not contrary to God’s command, was at least contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be no divorce, that a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as a warning. At every wedding­ feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards bride and groom. Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the world is about to come to an end. . They do not now believe that prosperity is a certain sign of wicked­ ness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure, certificates of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should have been sent to hell simply for being rich, or that �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 7 Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his poverty. We now know that prosperous people may be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We have reached the conclusion that the practice of virtue tends in the direction of .prosperity, and that a violation of the conditions of well-being brings, with absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune. There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation to which he belonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman had made a vow to God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire com­ munity ; therefore it was the business of the community to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern that there are no rights higher than the rights of the individual. There was a time when nearly all believed in the reforming power of punishment—in the beneficence of brute force. But the world is changing. It was at one time thought that the Inquisition was the savior of society; that the persecution of the philosopher was requisite to the preservation of the State; and that, no matter what happened, the State should be preserved. We have now more light. And standing upon this luminous point that we call the present, let me answer your questions. Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, con­ tract that human beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract or a sacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter whether this contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest, it is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist; all other considerations are lost; the present seems to be eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow—or the shadow is as luminous as light. And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true marriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has �8 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. already happened within; it simply testifies to a union that has already taken place—to the uniting of two mornings that hope to reach the night together. Each has found the ideal: the man has found the one woman of all the world—the impersonation of affection, purity, passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has found the one man of all the world-—her ideal, and all that she knows of romance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realised in him. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation are instantly changed into desire and joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one. Nothing can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obliga­ tion and duty of each to each. There is nothing in the ceremony except the desire on the part of the man and woman that the whole world should know that they are really married, and that their souls have been united. Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public, should be recorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end that the purity of the union should appear. These ceremonies are not only for the good and for the protection of the married, but also for the protection of their children, and of society as well. But, after all, the marriage remains a contract of the highest possible character—a contract in which each gives and receives a heart. The question then arises, Should this marriage, under any circumstances, be dissolved ? It is easy to understand the position taken by the various Churches ; but back of theological opinions is the question of contract. In this contract of marriage the man agrees to protect and cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. What is her redress ? Is she under any obligation to him ? He has violated the contract. He has failed to protect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild beast. Is she under any obligation to him 1 Is she bound by the contract he has broken ? If so, what is the con­ sideration for this obligation ? Must she live with him for his sake ? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must she remain his wife for his sake ? No intelligent man will answer these questions in the affirmative. If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 9 husband’s sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the marriage was a sacrament ? Is there any obligation on the part of the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the sake of God ? Can her conduct affect in any way the happiness of an infinite being ? Is it possible for a human being to increase or diminish the well-being of the Infinite ? The next question is as to the right of society in this matter. It must be admitted that the peace of society will be promoted by the separation of such people. Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh. Even married women have a right to personal security. They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the right of self-preservation; this they share in common, to say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures. This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of divorce; but they will insist that, while the wife has the right to flee from her husband’s roof and seek protection of kindred or friends, the marriage the sacrament—must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest of society that those who despise each other should live together ? Ought the world to be peopled by the children of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and loathing, or by the welcome babes of mutual love ? Is it possible that an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists that a helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch 1 Can this add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune ? Can anything be more infamous than for a Government to compel a woman to remain the wife of a man she hates—of one whom she justly holds in abhor­ rence ? Does any decent man wish the assistance of. a constable, a sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his house ? Is it possible to conceive of a more con­ temptible human being than a man who would appeal to force in such a case ? It may be said that the woman is free to go, and that the courts will protect her from the brutality of the man who promised to be her protector; but where shall the woman go ? She may have no friends; or they may be poor ; her kindred may be dead. Has she no right to build another home ? Must this woman, full of kindness, affection, health, be tied and chained to this living corpse ? Is there no future for �10 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. her ? Must she be an outcast for ever—deceived and betrayed for her whole life ? Can she never sit by her own hearth,, with the arms of her children about her neck, and with a husband who loves and protects her ? Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the bene­ fit of society ?—or is it for the sake of the wretch who destroyed her life ? The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in order to retain your moral character—in order to be pure and womanly ? Must a woman,, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a master, or with a phantom for a master ? If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is it not the duty of this being to see to it that the con­ tract is carried out ? What consideration does the infinite being give ? What consideration does he receive ? If a wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband has violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life, is it possible for her to feel towards him any real thrill of affection ? If she does not, what is there left of marriage ? What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living force ? She cannot sustain the relation of wife, because she abhors him ; she cannot remain under the same roof, for fear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations of hunter and hunted—of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this relation should last through life, and that it should be rendered sacred by the ceremony of a church ? Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under such circumstances ? Are we in need of children born of such parents ? Can the virtue of others be preserved only, by this destruction of happiness, by this perpetual imprisonment ? A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for wealth or position is low enough; but what shall we say of a marriage where the parties actually abhor each other 1 Is there any morality in this ? any virtue in this ? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or husband, without the real and true relation ? Will any good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true, �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 11 loving woman should be compelled to be the mother of children whose father she detests ? Is there a good woman in the world who would not shrink from this her­ self ; and is there a woman so heartless and so immoral that she would force another to bear that from which she would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink ? Marriages are made by men and women, not by society; not by the State; not by the Church; not by supernatural beings. By this time we should know that nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being of sentient beings j that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not good. We know now, if we know anything, that all the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination enough to put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal husband—would he advocate divorces then ? Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women and children, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who hide when they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know the nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of poverty borne by those who love each other are as nothing. Men and women truly married bear the suffer­ ings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console each other. In the darkest night they see the radiance of a star, and their affection gives to the heart of each perpetual sunshine. The good home is the unit of the good government. The hearth-stone is the corner-stone of civilisation. Society is not interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of homes where husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good women should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that they should become mothers by husbands whom they hate. Homes should be filled with kind and generous fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled the world will be civilised. Intelligence will rock the cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the �12 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. legislative halls; and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the spirit of liberty. Although marriage is the most important and the most sacred contract that human beings can make, still, when that contract has been violated, courts should have the power to declare it null and void upon such conditions as may be just. As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth, her beauty, her love—with all she has; and from this contract certainly the husband should never be released, unless the wife has broken the conditions of that contract. Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the marriage should be solemnised. Every marriage should be known, and there should be witnesses, to the end that the character of the contract entered into should be understood; the record should be open and public. And the same is true of divorces. The conditions should be determined, the property should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of the children given under regulations pre­ scribed. Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law should protect virtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has kept her contract, and the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the end of marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns and will forever burn the sacred flame. There has been no time in the world’s history when that torch was extin­ guished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed, there were true and perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural modesty, the affections of the heart; and, in spite of all law, there is and forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure; and everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to that which has happened within the temple of the human heart. Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any circumstances 2 This depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it is not a crime, why should any penalty be attached ? Can �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 13 anyone conceive of any reason why a woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her part, should be compelled as a punishment to remain forever single ? Why should she be punished for the dishonesty or brutality of another ? Why should a man who faithfully kept his contract of marriage, and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished for the benefit of society ? Why should he be doomed to live without a home ? There is still another view. We must remember that human passions are the same after as before divorce. To prevent remarriage is to give excuse for vice. Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family 2 The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real divorce is back of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and wife abhor each other, they are divorced. The decree records in a judicial way what has really taken place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract already made. The true family is the result of the true marriage, and the institution of the family should above all things be preserved. What becomes of the sacredness of the home, if the law compels those who abhor each other to sit at the same hearth ? This lowers the standard, and changes the happy haven of home into the prison-cell. If we wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we must preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband and wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no spectre of fear. The mother must not remain through an order of court, or the command of a priest, or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own soul and of her own body. Real homes can never be preserved through force, through slavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no altar purer than the hearth. Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, contribute to the moral purity of society 2 We must define our terms. What is moral purity ? The intelligent of this world seek the well-being of them­ �14 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. selves and others. They know that happiness is the only good; and this they strive to attain. To live in accordance with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest sense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the highest ends is our highest conception of the moral. In other words, morality is the melody or the perfection of conduct. A man is not moral because he is obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance with perceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality is not the child of slavery. Ignorance is not the corner­ stone of virtue. The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to it that he does not become a burden upon others. To be self-respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin, then he is under obligation to do with that margin all the good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he can. In true marriage men and women give not only their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this is immoral. If this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to sustain the relation of wife after love is dead 1 Is there some other consideration that can take the place of genuine affection 1 Can she be bribed with money, or a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain a virtuous woman ? Is it for the good of society that virtue should be thus crucified between Church and State ? Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of the human race 1 Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where divorce is prohibited than in those where it is granted 1 Where husbands and wives who have ceased to love cannot be divorced there are mistresses and lovers. The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The world looks at the wife who has been abused, who has been driven from the home of her husband, and the world pities ; and when this wife is loved by some other man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused. �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 15 Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for a husband to insist on living with a wife who has no love for him ? Is not this a perpetual crime ? Is the wife to lose her personality ? Has she no right of choice ? Is her modesty the property of another ? Is the man she hates the lord of her desire ? Has she no right to guard the jewels of her soul ? Is there a depth below this ? And is this the foundation of morality ? this the corner-stone of society ? this the arch that supports the dome of civilisa­ tion ? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacri­ lege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven ? To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother walks in the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon the altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the world is civilised, no wife will become a mother against her will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to imprison himself. �Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, of Moses. The only complete edition in England. Accurate as Colenso, and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp. Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d. Defence of Freethought. A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. 6d. The Gods. 6d. Reply to Gladstone. With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler. 4d. Rome or Reason? A Reply to Cardinal Manning. 4d. Crimes against Criminals. 3d. Oration on Walt Whitman. 3d. Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Abraham Lincoln. 3d. Paine the Pioneer. 2d. Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Paine. 2d. Ernest Renan and Jesus Christ. 2d. True Religion. 2d. The Three Philanthropists. 2d. Love the Redeemer. 2d. Is Suicide a Sin? 2d. Last Words on Suicide. 2d. Some Mistakes God and the State. 2d. Why am I an Agnostic Part I. 2d. Why am I an Agnostic ? Part II. 2d. Faith and Fact. Reply to Dr. Field. 2d God and Man. Second reply to Dr. Field. 2d. The Dying Creed. 2d. The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with the Hon. F. D. Ooudert andGrov. S. L. Woodford. 2d. The Household of Faith. 2d. Art and Morality. 2d. Do I Blaspheme ? 2d. The Clergy and Common Sense. 2d. Social Salvation. 2d. Marriage and Divorce. An Agnostic’s View. 2d. Skulls. 2d. The Great Mistake, id. Live Topics. Id. Myth and Miracle. Id. Real Blasphemy. Id. Repairing the Idols. Id. Christ and Miracles. Id. Creeds & Spirituality. Id. COL. INGERSOLL’S NEW LECTURE, ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE. Price Sixpence. READ THE FREETHINKER, Edited by G. W. FOOTE. ■Published every Thursday. Price Twopence. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &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 Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 15 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: No. A5 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by Stein). Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Reproduced from the North American Review. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1890?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N374 Subject The topic of the resource Marriage Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Divorce Marriage NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/70cf2bac7fdd57726d77172875d774ce.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=GPDbIvX92g%7EYnhCJEwk881Pxun2Doo8tEmAsgKJ4aT44TmGibo9p9tVuUVB-A8l9yQp%7ETQw3Ks1TGNbI6WeCx3pgO2nRKM9nqmeaWnlno25ogBH1yF3tVIdDPWkNwBQ4-3rR9tP13u605d19W3OyQmaRxDKXLJxNpl19TVKT-53t6dNSnvSrr0hWPizZM5ooh9NwVEt2Bve5kpE7xxneaqrq5IMASFGVbfcw%7E9wmFarc%7EV8hrpcuUVXa8GKHUZeyhXKVwI5945DyLQQUy3PjZgAxRYrdgSTP7Jkaz3kG5QOGc3RPqgfMEqMxeOSZk0dSpOP1CdHywV7KE4Ic9Ei3TA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 19b00fa9a7514ee527cfbe55c0d89161 PDF Text Text THE GODS1 AN ORATION BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. Price Sixpence. o'r; LONDON: rjq $ R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. $ ��B7 NATIONAL secular SOCIETY ORATION ON THE GODS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. ^onbau: R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1893. �LONDON : PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 14 CI.ERKENWELL GREEN, E.C �Oration on the Gods. “An Honest God is the Noblest Work of Man.’ Nearly every people have created a god, and the god has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved, and he was invariably found on the side of those in power. Each god was intensely patriotic, and detested all nations but his own. All these gods demanded praise, flattery, and worship. Most of them were pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been con­ sidered a divine perfume. All these gods have insisted upon having a vast number of priests, and the priests have always insisted upon being supported by the people, and the principal business of these priests has been to boast about their god, and to insist that he could easily vanquish all the other gods put together These gods have been manufactured after number­ less models, and according to the most grotesque fashions. Some have a thousand arms, some a hundred heads, some are adorned with necklaces of living snakes, some are armed with clubs, some with sword and shield, some with bucklers, and some have wings as a cherub ; some were invisible, some would show themselves entire, and some would only show their backs ; some were jealous, some were foolish ; some turned themselves into men, some into swans, some into bulls, some into doves and some into Holy Ghosts, and made love to the beautiful daughters of men. Some were married—all ought to have been—and some were considered as old bachelors from all eternity. Some had children, and the children were turned into gods and worshipped as their fathers had been. Most of these gods were revengeful, savage, lustful, and �4 Oration on the Gods. ignorant. As they generally depended upon their priests for information, their ignorance can hardly excite our astonishment. These gods did not even know the shape of the worlds they had created, but supposed them perfectly fiat. Some thought the day could be lengthened by stopping the sun, that the blowing of horns could throw down the walls of a city, and all knew so little of the real nature of the people they had created, that they commanded the people to love them. Some were so ignorant as to suppose that man could believe just as he might desire, or as they might command, and that to be governed by observation, reason and experi­ ence is a most foul and damning sin. None of these gods could give a true account of the creation of this little earth. All were wofully deficient in geology and astronomy. As a rule they were most miserable legislators, and as executives, they were far inferior to the average of American presidents These deities have demanded the most abject and degrading obedience. In order to please them, man must lay his very face in the dust. Of course, they have always been partial to the people who created them, and have generally shown their partiality by assisting those people to rob and destroy others, and. to ravish their wives and daughters. Nothing is so pleasing to these gods as the butchery of unbelievers. Nothing so enrages them, even now, as to have someone deny their existence. Few nations have been'so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easy, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god-market was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms. These gods not only attended to the skies, but were supposed to interfere in all the affairs of men. They presided over everybody and everything. They attended to every department. All was supposed to be under their immediate control. Nothing was too small—nothing too large : the falling of sparrows, the flatulence of the people, and the motions of the planets were alike attended to by these industrious and observing deities. From their starry thrones they �Oration on the Gods. 5 frequently came to the earth for the purpose of imparting information to man. It is related of one, that he came amid thund erings and lightnings, in order to tell the people that they should not cook a kid in its mother’s milk. Some left their shining abodes to tell women that they should, or should not, have children—to inform a priest how to cut and wear his apron, and to give directions as to the proper manner of cleaning the intestines of a bird. When the people failed to worship one of these gods, or failed to feed and clothe his priests (which was much the same thing), he generally visited them with pestilence and famine. Sometimes he allowed some other nation to drag them into slavery—to sell their wives and children ; but generally he glutted his vengeance by murdering their firstborn. The priests always did their whole duty, not only in predicting these calamities, but in proving, when they did happen, that they were brought upon the people because they had not given quite enough to them. These gods differed just as the nations differed : the greatest and most powerful had the most powerful god, while the weaker ones were obliged to content them­ selves with the very off-scourings of the heavens. Each of these gods promised happiness here and here­ after to all his slaves, and threatened to eternally punish all who either disbelieved in his existence, or suspected that some other god might be his superior ; but to deny the existence of all gods was, and is, the crime of crimes. Redden your hands with human blood ; blast by slander the fair fame of the innocent; strangle the smiling child upon its mother’s knees; deceive, ruin, and desert the beautiful girl who loves and trusts you—and your case is not hopeless. For all this, and for all these, you may be forgiven. For all this, and for all these, that bankrupt court established by the gospel will give you a discharge ; but deny the existence of these divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and tearful face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate. Heaven’s golden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, with the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your �6 Oration on the Gods. endless wanderings in the lurid gloom of hell—an immortal vagrant—an eternal outcast—a deathless convict. One of these gods, and one who demands our love, our admiration, and our worship, and one who is worshipped, if mere heartless ceremony is worship, gave to his chosen people, for their guidance, the following laws of war : “ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto -it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inherit­ ance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breath eth.” Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous ? Can you believe that such directions were given by any being except an infinite fiend ? Remember that the army receiving these instructions was one of invasion. Peace was offered upon condition that the people submitting should be the slaves of the invader ; but if any should have the courage to defend their homes, to fight for the love of wife and child, then the sword was to spare none— not even the prattling, dimpled babe. And we are called upon to worship such a god ; to get upon our knees and tell him that he is good, that he is merciful, that he is just, that he is love. We are asked to stifle every noble sentiment of the soul, and to trample under foot all the sweet charities of the heart. Because we refuse to stultify ourselves—refuse to become liars—we are denounced, hated, traduced, and ostracised here ; and this same God threatens to torment us in eternal fire the moment death allows �Oration on the Gods. T him to fiercely clutch our naked, helpless souls. Let the people hate—let the god threaten; we will educate them, and we will despise and defy him. The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust, and atrocious This is the book to be read in schools, in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book to be recognised in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice. Strange! that no one has ever been persecuted by the church for believing God bad, while hundreds of millions have been destroyed for thinking him good. The orthodox church never will forgive the Universalists for saying, “ God is love.” It has always been considered as one of the very highest evidences of true and undefiled religion to insist that all men, women and children deserve eternal damnation. It has always been heresy to say “ God will at last save all.” We are asked to justify these frightful passages—• these infamous laws of war, because the Bible is the word of God. As a matter of fact, there never was, and there never can be, an argument, even tending to prove the inspiration of any book whatever. In the absence of positive evidence, analogy, and experience, argument is simply impossible, and at the very best can amount only to a useless agitation of the air. The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even reasoned about, we are mental serfs. It is infinitely absurd to suppose that a god would address a commu, nication to intelligent beings, and yet make it a crime, to be punished in eternal flames, for them to use their intelligence for the purpose of understanding his com­ munication. If we have the right to use our reason, we certainly have the right to act in accordance with it, and no god can have the right to punish us for such action. The doctrine that future happiness depends on belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The idea that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd �Oration on the Gods. for refutation, and can be believed only by that un­ happy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called “ faith.” What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God ? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and, according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salva­ tion of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give its assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible, and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration. Whether the Bible is true or false is of no conse­ quence in comparison with the mental freedom of the race. Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from slavery is inestimable, As long as man believes the Bible to be infallible, that book is his master. The civilisation of this century is not the child of faith, but of unbelief—the result of free thought. All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention—of barbarian invention— is to read it. Read it as you would any other book ; think of it as you would of any other ; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes ; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition—then read the holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity. Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuc­ cessful revolts ; some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds of some fleecy clouds, kissing the wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sym­ pathised with man. There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact : in nearly all the theologies, mytho­ logies, and religions, the devils have been much more �yy',r"r Oration on the Gods. * h,- 9 humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such bar­ barities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality. One of these gods, according to the account, drowned an entire world, with the exception of eight persons. The old, the young, the beautiful, and the helpless were remorselessly devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived, was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such an act would leave upon the character of a devil 1 One of the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a captured king, hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the people! Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such savagery ? One of these gods is reported to have given the fol­ lowing directions concerning human slavery : “ If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.” According to this, a man was given liberty upon condition that he would desert for ever his wife and children. Did any devil ever force upon a husband, upon a father, so cruel and so heartless an alternative ? Who can worship such a God ? Who can bend the knee to such a monster? Who can pray to such a fiend ? < 7'S �10 Oration on the Gods. All these gods threatened to torment for ever the souls of their enemies. Did any devil ever make so infamous a threat ? The basest thing recorded of the Devil is what he did concerning Job and his family, and that was done by the express permission of one of these gods, and to decide a little difference of opinion between their “ serene highnesses ” as to the character of “ my servant Job.” The first account we have of the Devil is found in that purely scientific book called Genesis, and is as follows : “Now. the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ‘ Ye shall not eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden ?’ And the woman said unto the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, “ Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” ’ And the serpent said unto the woman, ‘ Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. . . . And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.” According to this account, the promise of the Devil was fulfilled to the very letter. Adam and Eve did not die, and they did become as gods, knowing good and evil. The account shows, however, that the gods dreaded education and knowledge then just as they do now. The Church still faithfully guards the dangerous tree of knowledge, and has exerted in all ages her utmost power to keep mankind from eating the fruit thereof. The priests have never ceased repeating the old false­ hood and the old threat: “Ye shall not eat of it, �Oration on the Gods. 11 neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” From every pulpit comes the same cry, born of the same fear, “ Lest they eat and become as gods, knowing good and evil ” For this reason, religion hates science, faith detests reason, theology is the sworn enemy of philo­ sophy, and the Church with its flaming sword still guards the hated tree, and, like its supposed founder, curses to the lowest depths the brave thinkers who eat and become as gods. If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after all, to thank this serpent ? He was the first schoolmaster, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred word “ liberty,” the creator of ambition, the author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investi­ gation, of progress, and of civilisation. Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge ! Some nations have borrowed their gods ; of this number, we are compelled to say, is our own. The Jews having ceased to exist as a nation, and having no further use for a god, our ancestors appropriated him, and adopted their devil at the same time. This borrowed god is still an object of some adoration, and this adopted devil still excites the apprehensions of our people. He is still supposed to be setting his traps and snares for the purpose of catching our unwary souls, and is still, wfith reasonable success, waging the old war against our God. To me it seems easy to account for these ideas con­ cerning gods and devils. They are a perfectly natural production. Man has created them all, and under the same circumstances would create them again. Man has not only created all these gods, but he has created them out of the materials by which he has been surrounded. Generally he has modelled them after himself, and has given them hands, feet, eyes, ears, and organs of speech. Each nation made its gods and devils speak its language not only, but put in their �12 Oration on the Gods. mouths the same mistakes in history, geography, astronomy, and in all matters of fact, generally made by the people. No god was ever in advance of the nation that created him. The negroes represented their deities with black skins and curly hair. The Mongolian gave to his a yellow complexion and dark almond-shaped eyes. The Jews were not allowed to paint theirs, or we should have seen Jehovah with a full beard, and oval face, and an aquiline nose. Jove was a perfect Greek, and Jupiter looked as though a a member of the Roman Senate. The gods of Egypt had the patient face and placid look of the loving people who made them. The gods of northern countries were represented warmly clad in robes of fur ; those of the tropics were naked. The gods of India were often mounted upon elephants ; those of the islanders were great swimmers, and the deities of the Arctic zone were passionately fond of whale’s blubber. Nearly all people have carved or painted representa­ tions of their gods, and these representations were, by the lower classes, generally treated a,s the real gods, and to these images and idols they addressed prayers and offered sacrifice. In some countries, even at this day, if the people after long praying do not obtain their desires, they turn their images off as impotent gods, or upbraid them in a most reproachful manner, loading them with blows and curses. “ How now, dog of a spirit,” they say ; “ we give you lodging in a magnificent temple, we gild you with gold, feed you with the choicest food, and offer incense to you, yet after all this care you are so ungrateful as to refuse us what we ask.” Hereupon they will pull the god down and drag him through the filth of the street. If in the meantime it happens that they obtain their request, then, with a great deal of ceremony, they wash him clean, and carry him back and place him in his temple again, where they fall down and make excuses for what they have done. “ Of a truth,” say they, “ we were a little too hasty, and you were a little too long in your grant. Why should you bring this beating on yourself ? But what is done uannot be undone. Let us not think of it any more. �Oration on the Gods 13 If you will forget what is past, we will gild you over again brighter than before.” Man has never been at a loss for gods. He has wor­ shipped almost everything, including the vilest and most disgusting beasts. He has worshipped fire, earth, air, water, light, stars, and for hundreds of ages pros­ trated himself before enormous snakes. Savage tribes often make gods of articles they get from civilised people. The Todas worship a cow-bell. The Kotas worship two silver plates, which they regard as husband and wife, and another tribe manufactured a god out of a king of hearts. Man having always been the physical superior of woman, accounts for the fact that most of the high gods have been males. Had WQman been the physical superior, the powers supposed to be the rulers of Nature would have been women, and instead of being repre­ sented in the apparel of man, they would have luxuriated in trains, low-necked dresses, laces, and back-hair. Nothing can be plainer than that each nation gives to its god its peculiar characteristics, and that every individual gives to his god his personal peculiarities. Man has no ideas, and can have none, except those suggested by his surroundings. He cannot conceive of anything utterly unlike what he has seen or felt. He can exaggerate, diminish, combine, separate, deform, beautify, improve, multiply, and compare what he sees, what he feels, what he hears, and all of which he takes cognizance through the medium of the senses ; but he cannot create. Having seen exhibitions of power, he can say, omnipotent. Having lived, he can say immor­ tality. Knowing something of time, he can say eternity. Conceiving something of intelligence, he can say God. Having seen exhibitions of malice, he can say Devil. A few gleams of happiness having fallen athwart the gloom of his life, he can say, heaven. Pain, in its numberless forms, having been experienced, he can say hell. Yet all these ideas have a foundation in fact, and only a foundation. The superstructu re has been reared by exaggerating, diminishing, combining, separating, deforming, beautifying, improving, or mul­ tiplying realities, so that the edifice, or fabric, is but �14 Oration on the Gods. the incongruous grouping of what man has perceived through the medium of the senses. It is as though we should give to a lion the wings of an eagle, the hoofs of a bison, the tail of a horse, the pouch of a kangaroo, and the trunk of an elephant. We have, in imagina­ tion, created an impossible monster. And yet the various parts of this monster really exist. So it is with all the gods that man has made. Beyond nature man cannot go, even in thought; above nature he cannot rise, below nature he cannot fall. Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers, and with direct reference to him. To preserve friendly relations with these powers was, and still is, the object of all religions. Man knelt through fear and to implore assistance, or through gratitude for some favor which he supposed had been rendered. He endeavored by supplication to appease some being who, for some reason, had, as he believed, become enraged. The lightning and thunder terrified him. In the presence of the volcano he sank upon his knees. The great forests filled with wild and ferocious beasts, the mon­ strous serpent crawling in mysterious depths, the boundless sea, the flaming cQmets, the sinister eclipses, the awful calmness of the stars, and, more than all, the perpetual presence of death, convinced him that he was the sport and prey of unseen and malignant powers. The strange and frightful diseases to which he was subject, the freezings and burnings of fever, the contortions of epilepsy, the sudden palsies, the darkness of night, and the wild, terrible, and fantastic dreams that filled his brain, satisfied him that he was haunted and pursued by countless spirits of evil. For some reason he supposed that these spirits differed in power—that they were not all alike malevolent—that the higher controlled the lower, and that his very existence depended upon gaining the assistance of the more powerful. For this purpose he resorted to prayer, to flattery, to worship, and to sacrifice. These ideas appear to have been almost universal in savage' man. �Oration on the Gods. 15 For ages all nations supposed that the sick and insane were possessed by evil spirits. For thousands of years the practice of medicine consisted in frightening these spirits away. Usually the priests would make the loudest and most discordant noises possible. They would blow horns, beat upon rude drums, clash cymbals, and in the meantime utter the most unearthly yells. If the noise-remedy failed, they would implore the aid of some more powerful spirit. To pacify these spirits was considered of infinite importance. The poor barbarian, knowing that men could be softened by gifts, gave to these spirits that which to him seemed of the most value. With bursting heart he would offer the blood of his dearest child. It was impossible for him to conceive of a god utterly unlike himself, and he naturally supposed that these powers of the air would be affected a little at the sight of so great and so deep a sorrow. It was with the barbarians then as with the civilised now ; one class lived upon and made merchandise of the fears of another. Certain persons took it upon themselves to appease the gods and to instruct the people in their duties to these unseen powers. This was the origin of the priesthood. The priest pretended to stand between the wrath of the gods and the helplessness of man. He was man’s attorney at the court of heaven. He carried to the invisible world a flag of truce, a protest, and a request. He came back with a command, with authority, and with power. Man fell upon his knees before his own servant, and the priest, taking advan­ tage of the awe inspired by his supposed influence with the gods, made of his fellow-man a cringing hypocrite and slave. Even Christ, the supposed son of God, taught that persons were possessed of evil spirits, and frequently, according to the account, gave proof of his divine origin and mission by frightening droves of devils out of his unfortunate country-men. Casting out devils was his principal employment, and the devils thus damaged generally took occasion to acknowledge him as the true Messiah, which was not only very kind of them, but quite fortunate for him. The religious people have always regarded the �1G Oration on Ilio Gods. testimony of these devils as perfectly conclusive, and the writers of the New Testament quote the words of these imps of darkness with great satisfaction. The fact that Christ could withstand the temptations of the Devil was considered as conclusive evidence that he was assisted by some god, or at least by some being superior to man. St. Matthew gives an account of an attempt made by the Devil to tempt the supposed son of God ; and it has always excited the wonder of Christians that the temptation was so nobly and heroically withstood. The account to which I refer is as follows: “ Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when the tempter came to him, he said, ‘ If thou be the son of God command that these stones be made bread.’ But he answered and said, ‘ It is written : man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city and setteth him upon a pinnacle of the temple and saith unto him, ‘ If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down ; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time thou shalt dash thy foot against a stone.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘ It is written, again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.’ Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, ‘ All these will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me.’ ” The Christians now claim that Jesus was God: If he was God, of course the Devil knew that fact, and yet, according to this account the Devil took the omni­ potent God and placed him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and endeavored to induce him to dash himself against the earth. Failing in that, he took the creator, and owner, and governor of the universe up into an exceeding high mountain, and offered him this world —this grain of sand, if he, the God of all the worlds, would fall down and worship him, a poor devil, with­ out even a tax title to one foot of dirt! Is it possible the Devil was such an idiot? Should any great credit be, given to this Deity for not being caught with such chaff ? Think of it! The Devil—the prince of sharpers —the king of cunning—the master of finesse, trying �Oration on the Gods. 17 to bribe God with a grain of sand that belonged to God! Is there, in all the religious literature of the world, anything more grossly absurd than this ? These devils, according to the Bible, were of various kinds—some could speak and hear, others were deaf and dumb. All could not be cast out in the same way. The deaf and dumb spirits were quite difficult to deal with. St. Mark tells of a gentleman who brought his son to Christ. The boy, it seems, was possessed of a dumb spirit, over which the disciples had no control. “ Jesus said unto the spirit, ‘ Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into him.’ ” Whereupon, the deaf spirit (having heard what was said) cried out (being dumb) and immediately vacated the premises. The ease with which Christ controlled this deaf and dumb spirit excited the wonder of his disciples, and they asked him privately why they could not cast that spirit out. To whom he replied : “ This kind can come forth by nothing but prayer and fasting.” Is there a Christian in the whole world who would believe such a story, if found in any other book ? The trouble is, these pious people shut up their reason, and then open their Bibles. In the olden times, the existence of devils was uni­ versally admitted. The people had no doubt upon that subject, and from such belief it followed as a matter of course, that a person, in order to vanquish these devils, had either to be a god, or assisted by one. All founders of religions have established their claims to divine origin by controlling evil spirits and suspending the laws of nature. Casting out devils was a certificate of divinity. A prophet, unable to cope with the powers of darkness, was regarded with contempt. The utterance of the highest and noblest sentiments, the most blameless and holy life, commanded but little respect, unless accompanied by power to work miracles and command spirits. This belief in good and evil powers had its origin in the fact that man was surrounded by what he was pleased to call good and evil phenomena. Phenomena affecting man pleasantly were ascribed to good spirits, B �18 Oration on the Gods. while those affecting him unpleasantly or injuriously were ascribed to evil spirits. It being admitted that all phenomena were produced by spirits, the spirits were divided according to the phenomena, and the phenomena were good or bad as they affected man. Good spirits were supposed to be the authors of good phenomena, and evil spirits of the evil: so that the idea of a devil has been as universal as the idea of a god. Many writers maintain that an idea to become universal must be true ; that all universal ideas are innate ; and that innate ideas cannot be false. If the fact, that an idea has been universal, proves that it is innate, and if the fact that an idea is innate proves that it is correct, then the believers in innate ideas must admit that the evidence of a god superior to nature, and of a devil superior to nature, is exactly the same, and that the existence of such a devil must be as self-evident as the existence of such a god. The truth is, a god was inferred from good, and a devil from bad phenomena. And it is just as natural and logical to suppose that a devil would cause happiness, as to suppose that a god would produce misery. Conse­ quently, if an intelligence, infinite and supreme, is the immediate author of all phenomena, it is difficult to determine whether such intelligence is the friend or enemy of man. If phenomena were all good, we might say they were all produced by a perfectly beneficent being. If they were all bad. we might say they were produced by a perfectly malevolent power. But as phenomena are, as they affect man, both good and bad, they must be produced by different and antagonistic spirits ; by one who is sometimes actuated by kindness, and sometimes by malice ; or all must be produced of necessity, and without reference to their consequences upon man. The foolish doctrine, that all phenomena can be traced to the interference of good and evil spirits, has been, and still is, almost universal. That most people still believe in some spirit that can change the natural order of events, is proven by the fact that nearly all resort to prayer. Thousands, at this very moment are �Oration on the Gods. 19 probably imploring some supposed power to interfere in their behalf. Some want health restored ; some ask that the loved and absent be watched over and protected ; some pray for riches ; some for rain ; some want diseases stayed; some vainly ask for food ; some ask for revivals ; a few ask for more wisdom, and now and then one tells the Lord to do as he may think best. Thousands ask to be protected from the devil ; some, like David, pray for revenge, and some implore, even God, not to lead them into temptation. All these prayers rest upon, and are produced by the idea that; some power not only can, but probably will, change the order of the universe. This belief has been among the great majority of tribes and nations. All sacred, books are filled with the accounts of such interferences., and our own Bible is no exception to this rule. If we believe in a power superior to nature, it i» perfectly natural to suppose that such power can and will interfere in the affairs of this world. If there is no interference, of what practical use can such power be ? The scriptures give us the most wonderful accounts of divine interference : Animals talk like men ; springs gurgle from dry bones ; the sun and moon stop in the heavens in order that General Joshua may have more time to murder ; the shadow on a dial goes back ten degrees to convince a petty king of a barbarous people that he is not going to die of a boil; fire refuses to burn; water positively declines to seek its level, but stands up like a wall ; grains of sand become lice ; common walking-sticks, to gratify a mere freak, twist themselves into serpents, and then swallow each other by way of exercise ; murmuring streams, laughing at the attraction of gravitation, run up hill for years, following wandering tribes from a pure love of frolic : prophecy becomes altogether easier than history ; the sons of God become enamoured of the world’s girls; women are changed’ into salt for the purpose of keeping a great event fresh: in the minds of men ; an excellent article of brimstone is imported from heaven free of duty ; clothes refuse to wear out for forty years ; birds keep restaurants and feed wandering prophets free of expense ; bears tear �20 Oration on the Gods. children in pieces for laughing at old men without wigs ; muscular development depends upon the length of one’s hair; dead people come to life, simply to get a joke on their enemies and heirs ; witches and wizards converse freely with the souls of the departed, and God himself becomes a stonecutter and engraver, after having been a tailor and dressmaker The veil between heaven and earth was always rent or lifted. The shadows of this world, the radiance of heaven, and the glare of hell, mixed and mingled until man became uncertain as to which country he really inhabited. Man dwelt in an unreal world. He mis­ took his ideas, his dreams, for real things. His fears became terrible and malicious monsters. He lived in the midst of furies and fairies, nymphs and naiads, goblins and ghosts, witches and wizards, sprites and spooks, deities and devils. The obscure and gloomy depths were filled with claw and wing—with beak and hoof—with leering look and sneering mouths—with the malice of deformity—with the cunning of hatred, and with all the slimy forms that fear can draw and paint upon the shadowy canvas of the dark. It is enough to make one almost insane with pity to think what man in the long night has suffered ; of the tortures he has endured, surrounded, as he supposed, by malignant powers and clutched by the fierce phantoms of the air. No wonder that he fell upon his trembling knees—that he built altars and reddened them even with his own blood. No wonder that he implored ignorant priests and impudent magicians for aid. No wonder that he crawled grovelling in the dust to the temple’s door, and there, in the insanity of despair, besought the deaf gods to hear his bitter cry of agony and fear. The savage, as he emerges from a state of barbarism, gradually loses faith in his idols of wood and stone, and in their place puts a multitude of spirits. As he advances in knowledge, he generally discards the petty spirits, and in their stead believes in one, whom he supposes to be infinite and supreme. Supposing this great spirit to be superior to nature, he offers worship or flattery in exchange for assistance. At �Oration on the Gods. 21 last, finding that he obtains no aid from this supposed deity—finding that every search after the absolute must of necessity end in failure—finding that man cannot by any possibility conceive of the conditionless— he begins to investigate the facts by which he is surrounded, and to depend upon himself. The people are beginning to think, to reason, and to investigate. Slowly, painfully, but surely, the gods are being driven from the earth. Only upon rare occasions are they, even by the most religious, supposed to interfere with the affairs of men. In most matters we are at last supposed to be free. Since the invention of steamships and railways, so that the products of all countries can be easily interchanged, the gods have quit the business of producing famine. Now and then they kill a child because it is idolised by its parents. As a rule they have given up causing accidents on railroads, exploding boilers, and bursting kerosene lamps. Cholera, yellow fever, and small-pox are still considered heavenly weapons; but measles, itch, and ague are now attributed to natural causes. As a general thing, the gods have stopped drowning children, except as a punishment for violating the Sabbath. They still pay some attention to the affairs of kings, men of genius, and persons of great wealth ; but ordinary people are left to shirk for themselves as best they may. In wars between great nations, the gods still interfere ; but in prize fights, the best man, with an honest referee, is almost sure to win. The Church cannot abandon the idea of special providence. To give up that doctrine, is to give up all. The Church must insist that prayer is answered —that some power superior to nature hears the grants and requests of the sincere and humble Christian, and that this same power in some mysterious way provides for all. A devout clergyman sought every opportunity to impress upon the mind of his son the fact that God takes care of all creatures ; that the falling sparrow attracts his attention, and that his loving kindness is over all his works. Happening, one day, to see a crane wading in quest of food, the good man pointed out to �22 Oration on the Gods. his son the perfect adaptation of the crane to get his living in that manner. “ See,’” said he, “ how his legs are formed for wading ! What a long, slender bill he has ! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or drawing them out of the water. He does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enabled to approach the fish without giving them any notice of his arrival. My son,” said he, “ it is im­ possible to look at that bird without recognising the design, as well the goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistence.” “ Yes,” replied the boy, “ I think I see the goodness of God, at least so far as the crane is concerned ; but after all, father, don’t you think the arrangement a little tough on the fish ?” Even the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in any great amount of interference by the gods in this age of the world, still thinks that, in the beginning, some god made the laws governing the universe. He believes that in consequence of these laws a man can lift a greater weight with, than without a lever ; that this god so made matter, and so established the order of things, that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time ; so that a body once put in motion will keep moving until it is stopped ; so that it is a greater distance around than across a cirle ; so that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of five or seven. He insists that it took a direct inter­ position of providence to make a whole greater than a part, and that had it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one might have been more than twice two, and sticks and strings might have had only one end apiece. Like the old Scotch divine, he thanks God that Sunday comes at the end instead of in the middle of the week, and that death comes at the close instead of at the commencement of life, thereby giving us ¿ime to prepare for that holy day and that most solemn event. These religious people see nothing but design everywhere, and personal, intelligent interfer­ ence in everything. They insist that the universe has been created, and that the adaptation of means to ends is perfectly apparent. They point us to the sunshine, to the flowers, to the April rain, and to all there is of �Oration on the Gods. beauty and of use in the world. Did it ever occur to them that a cancer is as. beautiful in its development as is the reddest rose ? That what they are pleased to call the adaptation of means to ends, is as apparent in the cancer as in the April rain ? How beautiful the process of digestion ! By what ingenious methods the blood is poisoned so that the cancer shall have food ! By what wonderful contrivances the entire system of man is made to pay tribute to this divine and charming cancer! See by what admirable instrumentalities it feeds itself from the surrounding quivering, dainty flesh ! See how it gradually, but surely, expands and grows ! By what marvellous mechanism it is supplied with long and slender roots that reach out to the most secret nerves of pain for sustenance and life! What beautiful colors it presents ! Seen through the micro­ scope, it is a miracle of order and beauty. All the ingenuity of man cannot stop its growth. Think of the amount of thought it must have required to invent a way by which the life of one man might be given to produce one cancer! Is it possible to look upon it and doubt that there is design in the universe, and that the inventor of this wonderful cancer must be infinitely powerful, ingenious, and good ? We are told that the universe was designed and created, and that it is absurd to suppose that matter has existed for eternity, but that it is perfectly self-evident that a god has. If a god created the universe, then there must have been a time when he commenced to create. Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing—absolutely nothing —except this supposed god. According to this theory, this god spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum, and in perfect idleness. Admitting that a god did create the universe, the question then arises, of -what did he create it ? It cer­ tainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that the god must have made the universe out of himself, he being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of god, �24 Oration on the Gods. the god must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander, of Miletus, said : “ Creation is the decomposition of the infinite.” It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun, only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, and those worlds must be attracted by other worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left ? The idea of a creative deity is gradually being abandoned, and nearly all truly scientific minds admit that matter must have existed from eternity. It is in­ destructible, and the indestructible cannot be created. It is the crowning glory of our century to have demon­ strated the indestructibility and the eternal persistence of force. Neither matter nor force can be increased nor diminished. Force cannot exist apart from matter ; matter exists only in connection with force ; and con­ sequently a force apart from matter, and superior to nature, is a demonstrated impossibility. Force, then, must have also existed from eternity, and could not have been created. Matter, in its count­ less forms, from dead earth to the eyes of those we love, and force in all its manifestations, from simple motion to the grandest thought, deny creation and defy control. Thought is a form of force. We walk with the same force with which we think. Man is an organism, that changes several forms of force into thought-force. - Man is a machine, into which we put what we call food, and produce what we call thought. Think of that wonderful chemistry by which bread was changed into the divine tragedy of Hamlet! A god must not only be material, but he must be an organism, capable of changing other forms of force into thought-force. This is what we call eating. Therefore, if the god thinks, he must eat, that is to say, he must of necessity have some means of supplying the force with which to think. It is impossible to conceive of a being who can eternally impart force to matter, and yet have no means of supplying the force thus imparted. If neither matter nor force were createcL what ev - �Oration on the Gods. 25 dence have we then of the existence of a power superior to nature ? The theologian will probably reply, “ We have law and order, cause and effect, and besides all this, matter could not have put itself in motion.” Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there is no being superior to nature, and that matter and force have existed from eternity. Now suppose that twoatoms should come together, would there be an effect ? Yes. Suppose they came in exactly opposite directions with equal force, they would be stopped, to say the least. This would be an effect. If this is so, then you have matter, force, and effect without a being superior to nature. Now, suppose that two other atoms, just like the first two, should come together under precisely the same circumstances, would not the effect be exactly the same ? Yes. Like causes producing like effects is what we mean by law and order. Then we have matter,, force, effect, law, and order without a being superior to nature. Now, we know that every effect must also be a cause, and that every cause must be an effect. The atoms coming together did produce an effect, and as every effect must also be a cause, the effect produced by the collision of the atoms, must as to something else have been a cause. Then we have matter, force, law, order, cause, and effect, without a being superior to nature. Nothing is left for the supernatural but empty space. His throne is a void, and his boasted realm is without matter, without law, without cause, and with­ out effect. But what put all this matter in motion ? If matter and force have existed from eternity, then matter must have always been in motion. There can be no force without motion. Force is for ever active, and there is, and there can be, no cessation. If, therefore, matter and force have existed from eternity, so has motion. In the whole universe there is not even one atom in a state of rest. A deity outside of nature exists in nothing, and is nothing. Nature embraces with infinite arms all matter and all force. That which is beyond her grasp is destitute of both, and can hardly be worth the worship, and adoration even of a man. �26 Oration on the Gods. There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only for one moment, the con­ tinuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless ■chain of evidence one little link ; stop for one instant the grand procession, and you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a master. Change the fact, just for one second, that matterattracts matter, and a god appears. The rudest savage has always known this fact, and for that reason always demanded the evidence of miracle. The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine—cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance, this was easy to do. The cre­ dulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvellous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently every religion has for its foundation a miracle—that is to say, a violation of nature—that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world’s whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle was ever performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to and independent of nature. The Church wishes us to believe. Let the Church, or ■one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions. We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible, and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans, and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We �Oration on the Gods. 27 pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits, and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year’s fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. Their reputation for “truth and veracity” in the neighborhood where they resided is wholly unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and sub­ stantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living in this world. Do not send us to Jericho to hear the winding horns, nor put us in the fire with Meshech, Shadrach, and Abednego. Do not compel us to navigate the sea with Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr. Ezekiel. There is no sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with Samson. We have positively lost all interest in that little speech so eloquently delivered by Balaam’s inspired donkey. It is worse than useless to show us fishes with money in their mouths, and call our attention to vast multitudes stuffing themselves with five crackers and two sardines. We demand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the Church furnish at least one, or for ever after hold her peace. In the olden time the Church, by violating the order of nature, proved the existence of her God. At that time miracles were performed with the most astonish­ ing ease. They became so common that the Church ordered her priests to desist. And now this same Church—the people having found some little sense— admits, not only that she cannot perform a miracle, but insists that the absence of miracle—the steady, un­ broken march of cause and effect—proves the exist­ ence of a power superior to nature. The fact is, however, that indissoluble change of cause and effect proves exactly the contrary. Sir William Hamilton, one of the pillars of modern theology, in discussing this very subject, uses the following language : “ The phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, so far from warranting an inference to the existence of a god, would, on the contrary, ground even an argument to his negation. The phenomena of the material world are subjected to immutable laws ; �28 Oration on the Gods. are produced and reproduced in the same invariable succession, and manifest only the blind force of a mechanical necessity.” Nature is but an endless series of efficient causes. She cannot create, but she eternally transforms. There was no beginning, and there can be no end. The best minds, even in the religious world, admit that in material nature there is no evidence of what they are pleased to call a god. They find their evidence in the phenomena of intelligence, and very innocently assert that intelligence is above, and, in fact, opposed to nature. They insist that man, at least, is a special creation; that he has somewhere in his brain a divine spark, a little portion of the “ Great First Cause.” They say that matter cannot produce thought, but that thought can produce matter. They tell us that man has intelligence, and, therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than his ? Why not say, God has intelligence, therefore there must be an intelligence greater than his ? So far as we know there is no intelligence apart from matter. We cannot conceive of thought, except as produced within a brain. The science by means of which they demonstrate the existence of an impossible intelligence, and an incomprehensible power, is called metaphysics, or theology. The theologians admit that the phenomena of matter tend, at least, to disprove the existence of any power superior to nature, because in such pheno­ mena we see nothing but an endless chain of efficient causes—nothing but the force of a mechanical necessity. They therefore appeal to what they denominate the phenomena of mind to establish this superior power. The trouble is, that in the phenomena of mind we find the same endless chain of efficient causes, the same mechanical necessity. Every thought must have had an efficient cause. Every motive, every desire, every fear, hope, and dream must have been necessarily produced. There is no room in the mind of man for providence or chance. The facts and forces governing thought are as absolute as those governing the motions of the planets. A poem is produced by the forces of nature, and is as necessarily and naturally produced as �Oration on the Gods. 29 mountains and seas. You will seek in vain for a thought in man’s brain without its efficient cause. Every mental operation is the necessary result of certain facts and conditions. Mental phenomena are considered more complicated than those of matter, and, consequently more mysterious. Being more mysterious, they are considered better evidence of the existence of a god. No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the com­ plex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God, what we know is science. When we abandon the doctrine that some infinite being created matter and force, and enacted a code of laws for their government, the idea of interference will be lost. The real priest will then be, not the mouthpiece of some pretended deity, but the inter­ preter of nature. From that moment the church ceases to exist. The tapers will die out upon the dusty altar ; the moths will eat the fading velvet of pulpit and pew; the Bible will take its place with the Shastras, Puranas, Vedas, Eddas, Sagas, and Korans, and the fetters of a degrading faith will fall from the mind of men. “ But,” says the religionist, “ you cannot explain everything ; you cannot understand everything ; and that which you cannot explain, that which you do not comprehend, is my God.” We are explaining more every day. We are under­ standing more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day. Nothing daunted, the religionist then insists, that nothing can exist without a cause, except cause, and ■that this uncaused cause is God. To this we again reply : Every cause must produce an effect, because until it does produce an effect, it is not a cause. Every effect must in its turn become a cause. Therefore, in the nature of things, there cannot be a last cause, for the reason that a so-called last cause would necessarily produce an effect, and that effect must of necessity become a cause. The converse of these propositions must be true. Every effect must have had a cause, and every cause must have been an �30 Oration on the Gods. effect. Therefore there could have been no first cause. A first cause is just as impossible as a last effect. Beyond the universe there is nothing, and within the universe the supernatural does not and can not exist. The moment these great truths are understood and admitted, a belief in general or special providence becomes impossible. From that instant men will­ cease their vain efforts to please an imaginary being, and will give their time and attention to the affairs of this world. They will abandon the idea of attaining any object by prayer and supplication. The element of uncertainty will, in a great measure, be removed from the domain of the future, and man, gathering courage from a succession of victories over the obstructions of nature, will attain a serene grandeur unknown to the disciples of any superstition. The plans of mankind will no longer be interfered with by the finger of a supposed omnipotence, and no one will believe that nations or individuals are protected or destroyed by any deity whatever. Science, freed from the chains of pious custom and evangelical prejudice, will, within her sphere, be supreme. The mind will investigate without reverence, and publish its con­ clusion without fear. Agassiz will no longer hesitate to declare the Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent with the demonstrated truths of geology, and will cease pretending any reverence for the Jewish scriptures. The moment science succeeds in rendering the Church powerless for evil, the real thinkers will be outspoken. The little flags of truce carried by timid philosophers will disappear, and the cowardly parley will give place to victory—lasting and universal. If we admit that some infinite being has controlled the destinies of persons and peoples, history becomes a most cruel and bloody farce. Age after age, the strong have trampled upon the weak ; the crafty and heartless have ensnared and enslaved the simple and innocent, and nowhere, in all the annals of mankind, has any god succored the oppressed. Man should cease to expect aid from on high. By this time he should know that heaven has no ear �Oration on the Gods. 31 to hear, and no hand to help. The present is the necessary child of all the past. There has been no chance, and there can be no interference. If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them If slaves are freed, man must free them. If new truths are discovered, man must discover them. If the naked are clothed ; if the hungry are fed ; if justice is done ; if labor is rewarded ; if superstition is driven from the mind ; if the defenceless are protected, and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of man. The grand victories of the future must be won by man, and by man alone. Nature, so far as we can discern, without passion and without intention, forms, transforms, and re-transforms for ever. She neither weeps nor rejoices. She produces man without purpose, and obliterates him without regret. She knows no distinction between the beneficial and the hurtful. Poison and nutrition, pain and joy, life and death, smiles and tears are alike to her. She is neither merciful nor cruel. She cannot be flattered by worship nor melted by tears. She does not even know the attitude of prayer. She appreciates no difference between poison in the fangs of snakes and mercy in the hearts of men. Only through man does nature take cognisance of the good, the true, and the beautiful; and, so far as we know, man is the highest intelligence. And yet man continues to believe that there is some power independent of and superior to nature, and still endeavors, by form, ceremony, supplication, hypocrisy, and sacrifice, to obtain its aid. His best energies have been wasted in the service of this phantom. The horrors of witchcraft were all born of an ignorant belief in the existence of a totally depraved being superior to nature, acting in perfect independence of her laws, and all religious superstition has had for its basis a belief in at least two beings, one good and the other bad, both of whom could arbitrarily change the order of the universe. The history of religion is simply the story of man’s efforts in all ages to avoid one of these powers and to pacify the other. Both powers have inspired little else than abject fear. The �32 Oration on the Gods. cold, calculating sneer of the devil and the frown of •God were equally terrible. In any event, man’s fate was to be arbitrarily fixed for ever by an unknown power superior to all law and to all fact. Until this belief is thrown aside, man must consider himself the ■slave of phantom masters—neither of iwhom promise liberty in this world nor the next. Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading Bibles will not protect him from the blasts of winter; but houses, fires, and clothing will. To prevent famine, one plough is worth a million sermons, and «ven patent medicines will cure more diseases than all the prayers uttered since the beginning of the world. Although many eminent men have endeavored to harmonise necessity and free will, the existence of evil, and the infinite power and goodness of God, they have only succeeded in producing learned and ingeni­ ous failures. Immense efforts have been made to reconcile ideas utterly inconsistent with the facts by which we are surrounded, and all persons who have failed to perceive the pretended reconciliation have been denounced as Infidels, Atheists, and scoffers. The whole power of the Church has been brought to bear against philosophers and scientists in order to •compel a denial of the authority of demonstration, and to induce some Judas to betray Reason—one of the saviors of mankind. During that frightful period known as the “ Dark Ages,” Faith reigned, with scarcely a rebellious subject. Her temples were “ carpeted with knees,” and the wealth of nations adorned her countless shrines. The ■great painters prostituted their genius to immortalise her vagaries, while the poets enshrined them in song At her bidding, man covered the earth with blood. The scales of justice were turned with her gold, and for her use were invented all the cunning instruments of pain. She built cathedrals for God, and dungeons for men. She peopled the clouds with angels and the ■earth with slaves. For centuries the world was retracing its steps—going steadily back towards barbaric night. A few infidels—a few heretics cried “ Halt!” to the great rabble of ignorant devotion, and made it �Oration on the Gods. 33 possible for the genius of the nineteenth century to revolutionise the cruel creeds and superstitions of mankind. The thoughts of man, in order to be of any real worth, must be free. Under the influence of fear, the brain is paralysed, and instead of bravely solving a problem for itself, trembling adopts the solution of another. As long as a majority of men will cringe to the very earth before some petty prince or king, what must be the infinite abjectness of their little souls in the presence of their supposed creator and God ? Under such circumstances, what can their thoughts be worth ? The originality of repetition, and the mental vigor of acquiescence, are all that we have any right to expect from the Christian world. As long as every question is answered by the word “god,” scientific inquiry is simply impossible. As fast as phenomena are satisfactorily explained, the domain of the power, supposed to be superior to nature, must decrease, while the horizon of the known must as constantly continue to enlarge. It is no longer satisfactory to account for the fall and rise of nations by saying: “ It is the will of God.” Such an explanation puts ignorance and education upon an exact equality, and does away with the idea of really accounting for anything whatever. Will the religionist pretend that the real end of science is, to ascertain how and why God acts ? Science, from such a standpoint, would consist in investigating the law of arbitrary action, and in a grand endeavor to ascertain the rules necessarily obeyed by infinite caprice. From a philosophic point of view, science is a knowledge of the laws of life ; of the conditions of happiness ; of the facts by which we are surrounded, and the relations we sustain to men and things—by which man, so to speak, subjugates nature, and bends the elemental powers to his will, making blind force the servant of his brain. A belief in special providence does away with the spirit of investigation, and is inconsistent with personal effort. Why should man endeavor to thwart the c �34 Oration on the G-ools. designs of God ? “ Which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature ?” Under the influence of this belief, man, basking in the sunshine of a delusion, considers the lilies of the field and refuses to take any thought for the morrow. Believing himself in the power of an infinite being, who can, at any moment, dash him to the lowest hell or raise him to the highest heaven, he necessarily abandons the idea of accomplishing anything by his own efforts. As long as this belief was general, the world was filled with ignorance, superstition and misery. The energies of man were wasted in a vain effort to obtain the aid of this power, supposed to be superior to nature. For countless ages, even men were sacrificed upon the altar of this impossible god. To please him, mothers have shed the blood of their own babes ; martyrs have chanted triumphant songs in the midst of flame; priests have gorged themselves with blood ; nuns have foresworn the ecstasies of love : old men have trem­ blingly implored ; women have sobbed and entreated ; every pain has been endured, and every horror has been perpetrated. Through the dim, long years that have fled, humanity has suffered more than can be conceived. Most of the misery has been endured by the weak, the loving, and the innocent. Women have been treated like poisonous beasts, and little children trampled upon as though they had been vermin. Numberless altars have been reddened, even with the blood of babes ; beautiful girls have been given to slimy serpents; whole races of men doomed to centuries of slavery, and everywhere there has been outrage beyond the power of genius to express. During all these years, the suffering have supplicated ; the withered lips of famine have prayed ; the pale victims have implored, and Heaven has been deaf and blind. Of what use have the gods been to man ? It is no answer to say that some god created the world, established certain laws, and then turned his attention to other matters, leaving his children weak, ignorant, and unaided, to fight the battle of life alone. It is no solution to declare that in some other world �Oration on the Gods. 35 this god will render a few, or even all, his subjects happy. What right have we to expect that a perfectly wise, good, and powerful being will ever do better than he has done, and is doing ? The world is filled with imperfections. If it was made by an infinite being what reason have we for saying that he will render it nearer perfect than it now is ? If the infinite “ Father ” allows a majority of his children to live in ignorance and wretchedness now, what evidence is there that he will ever improve their condition ? Will God have more power ? Will he become more merciful ? Will his love for his poor creatures increase ? Can the conduct of infinite wisdom, power, and love ever change ? Is the infinite capable of any improvement whatever ? We are informed by the clergy that this world is a kind of school; that the evils by which we are surrounded are for the purpose of developing our souls, and that only by suffering can men become pure, strong, virtuous, and grand. Supposing this to be true, what is to become of those who die in infancy ? The little children, according to this philosophy, can never be developed. They were so unfortunate as to escape the ennobling influences of pain and misery, and as a consequence, are doomed to an eternity of mental inferiority. If the clergy are right on this question, none are so unfortunate as the happy, and we should envy only the suffering and distressed. If evil is necessary to the development of man in this life, how is it possible for the soul to improve in the perfect joy of paradise ? Since Paley found his watch, the argument of “ design ’’ has been relied upon as unanswerable. The Church teaches that this world, and all it contains, was created substantially as we now see it; that the grasses, the flowers, the trees, and all animals, including man, were special creations, and that they sustain no necessary relation to each other. The most orthodox will admit that some earth has been washed into the sea, that the sea has encroached a little upon the land, and that some mountains may be �36 Oration on the Gods. a trifle lower than in the morning of creation. The theory of gradual development was unknown to our fathers ; the idea of evolution did not occur to them. That most wonderful observer, Charles Darwin, had not then given to the world his wonderful philosophy. Our fathers looked upon the then arrangement of things as the primal arrangement. The earth appeared to them fresh from the hands of a deity. They knew nothing of the slow evolutions of countless years, but supposed that the almost infinite variety of vegetable and animal forms had existed from the first. Suppose that upon some island we should find a man a million years of age, and suppose that we should find him in the possession of a most beautiful carriage, constructed upon the perfect model. And suppose further that he should tell us that it was the result of several hundred thousand years of labor and of thought ; that for fifty thousand years he used as flat a log as he could find, before it occurred to him that, by splitting the log, he could have thè same surface with only half the weight ; that it took him many thousand years to invent wheels for this log ; that the wheels he first used were solid, and that fifty thousand years of thought suggested the use of spokes and tire ; that for many centuries he used the wheels without linch­ pins ; that it took a hundred thousand years more to think of using four wheels instead of two ; that for ages he walked behind the carriage when going down hill, in order to hold it back, and that only by a lucky chance he invented the tongue—would we conclude that this man, from the very first, had been an infinitely ingenious and perfect mechanic ? Suppose we found him living in an elegant mansion, and he should inform us that he lived in that house for five hundred thousand years before he thought of putting on a roof, and that he had but recently invented windows and doors, would we say that from the beginning he had been an infinitely accomplished and scientific architect ? Does not improvement in the things created show a corresponding improvement in the creator ? Would an infinitely wise, good, and powerful God, �Oration on the Gods. 37 intending to produce man, commence with the lowest possible forms of life—with the simplest organism that can be imagined—and, during immeasurable periods of time, slowly and almost imperceptibly, improve upon the rude beginning until man was evolved ? Would countless ages thus be wasted in the production of awkward forms, afterwards abandoned ? Can the intelligence of man discover the least wisdom in covering the earth with crawling, creeping horrors, that live only upon the agonies and pangs of others ? Can we see the propriety of so constructing the earth that only an insignificant portion of its surface is capable of producing an intelligent man ? Who can appreciate the mercy of so making the world that all animals devour animals, so that every mouth is a slaughter-house and every stomach a tomb? Is it possible to discover infinite intelligence and love in universal and eternal carnage ? What would we think of a father who should give a farm to his children, and before giving them possession should plant upon it thousands of deadly shrubs and vines; should stock it 'with ferocious beasts and poisonous reptiles; should take pains to put a few swamps in the neighborhood to breed malaria ; should so arrange matters that the ground would occasionally open and swallow a few of his darlings, and, besides all this, should establish a few volcanoes in the imme­ diate vicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm his children with rivers of fire ? Suppose that this father neglected to tell his children which of the plants were deadly ; that the reptiles were poisonous ; failed to say anything about the earthquakes, and kept the volcano business a profound secret, would we pronounce him angel or fiend ? And yet this is exactly what the orthodox God has done. According to the theologians, God prepared this globe expressly for the habitation of his loved children, and yet he filled the forests with ferocious beasts, placed serpents in every path, stuffed the world with earthquakes, and adorned its surface with mountains of flame. �38' Oration on the Gods. Notwithstanding all this, we are told that the world is perfect ; that it was created by a perfect being, and is therefore necessarily perfect. The next moment the same persons will tell us that the world was cursed, covered with brambles, thistles, and thorns, and that man was doomed to disease and death, simply because our poor dear mother ate an apple contrary to the com­ mand of an arbitrary God. A very pious friend of mine, having heard that I had said the world was full of imperfections, asked me if the report was true. Upon being informed that it was, he expressed great surprise that anyone could be guilty of such presumption. He said that, in his judgment, it was impossible to point out an imperfection. “ Be kind enough,” said he, “ to name even one improvement that you could make, if you had the power.” “ Well,” said I, “ I would make good health catching, instead of disease.” The truth is, it is impossible to harmonise all the ills, and pains, and agonies of this world with the idea that we were created by, and are watched over and protected by, an infinitely wise, powerful, and beneficent God, who is superior to, and inde­ pendent of, nature. The clergy, however, balance all the real ills of this life with the expected joys of the next. We are assured that all is perfection in heaven ; there the skies are cloudless, there all is serenity and peace. Here empires may be overthrown ; dynasties may be extinguished in blood ; millions of slaves may toil beneath the fierce rays of the sun and the cruel strokes of the lash ; yet all is happiness in heaven. Pestilence may strew the earth with corpses of the loved ; the survivors may bend above them in agony—yet the placid bosom of heaven is unruffled. Children may expire vainly asking for bread ; babes may be devoured by serpents, while the gods sit smiling in the clouds ; the innocent may languish unto death in the obscurity of dungeons; brave men and heroic women may be changed to ashes at the bigot’s stake, while heaven is filled with song and joy. Out on the wide sea, in darkness and in storm, the shipwrecked struggle with the cruel waves, while the angels play upon their �Oration on the Gods. 39 golden harps. The streets of the world are filled with the diseased, the deformed, and the helpless; the chambers of pain are crowded with the pale forms of the suffering, while the angels float and fly in the happy realms of day. In heaven they are too happy to have sympathy ; too busy singing to aid the implor­ ing and distressed. Their eyes are blinded, their ears are stopped, and their hearts are turned to stone by the infinite selfishness of joy. The saved mariner is too happy when he touches the shore to give a moment’s thought to his drowning brothers. With the indiffer­ ence of happiness, with the contempt of bliss, heaven barely glances at the miseries of earth. Cities are devoured by the rushing lava; the earth opens and thousands perish; women raise their clasped hands towards heaven, but the gods are too happy to aid their children. The smiles of the deities are unacquainted with the tears of men. The shouts of heaven drown the sobs of earth. In all ages man has prayed for help, and then helped himself. Having shown how man created gods, and how he became the trembling slave of his own creation, the question naturally arises: How did he free himself, even a little, from these monarchs of the sky ; from these despots of the clouds ; from this aristocracy of the air ? How did he, even to the extent that he has, outgrow his ignorant, abject terror, and throw off the yoke of superstition ? Probably, the first thing that tended to disabuse his mind was the discovery of order, of regularity, of periodicity in the universe. From this, he began to suspect that everything did not happen purely with reference to him. He noticed that, whatever he might do, the motions of the planets were always the same ; that eclipses were periodical, and that even comets came at certain intervals. This convinced him that eclipses and comets had nothing to do with him. He perceived that they were not caused for his benefit nor injury. He thus learned to regard them with admira­ tion instead of fear. He began to suspect that famine was not sent by some enraged and revengeful deity, but �40 Oration on the Gods. resulted often from the neglect and ignorance of man. He learned that diseases were not produced by evil spirits. He found that sickness was occasioned by natural causes, and could be cured by natural means. He demonstrated, to his own satisfaction at least, that prayer is not a medicine. He found by sad experience that his gods were of no practical use, as they never assisted him, except when he was perfectly able to help himself. At last he began to discover that his indi­ vidual action had nothing whatever to do with strange appearances in the heavens; that it was impossible for him to be bad enough to cause a whirlwind, or good enough to stop one. After many centuries of thought, he about half concluded that making mouths at a priest would not necessarily cause an earthquake. He noticed, and no doubt with considerable astonishment, that very good men were occasionally struck by lightning, while very bad ones escaped. He was frequently forced to the painful conclusion (and it is the most painful to which any human being ever was forced) that the right did not always prevail. He noticed that the gods did not interfere in behalf of the weak and innocent. He was now and then astonished by seeing an unbeliever in the enjoyment of most excellent health. He finally ascertained that there could be no possible connection between an unusually severe winter and his failure to give a sheep to a priest. He began to suspect that the order of the universe was not con­ stantly being changed to assist him because he repeated a creed. He observed that some children would steal after having been regularly baptised. He noticed a vast difference between religion and justice, and that the worshippers of the same god took delight in cutting each others’ throats. He saw that these religious disputes filled the world with hatred and slavery. At last he had the courage to suspect that no god at any time interferes with the order of events. He learned a few facts, and these facts positively refused to har­ monise with the ignorant superstitions of his fathers. Finding his sacred books incorrect and false in some particulars, his faith in their authenticity began to be shaken ; finding his priests ignorant upon some points, �Oration on the Oods. 41 he began to lose respect for the cloth; this was the commencement of intellectual freedom. The civilisation of man has increased just to the same extent that religious power has decreased. The intellectual advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth. The Church never enabled a human being to make even one of these exchanges ; on the contrary, all her power has been used to prevent them. In spite, however, of the Church, man found that some of his religious conceptions were wrong. By reading his Bible, he found that the ideas of his god were more cruel and brutal than those of the most depraved savage. He also discovered that this holy book was filled with ignorance, and that it must have been written by persons wholly unacquainted with the nature of the phenomena by which we are sur­ rounded, and now and then some man had the goodness and courage to speak his honest thoughts. In every age some thinker, some doubter, some investigator, some hater of hypocrisy, some despiser of sham, some brave lover of the right, has gladly, proudly, and heroically braved the ignorant fury of superstition for the sake of man and truth. These divine men were generally torn in pieces by the worshippers of the gods. Socrates was poisoned because he lacked reverence for some of the deities. Christ was crucified by a religious rabble for the crime of blasphemy. Nothing is more gratifying to a reli­ gionist than to destroy his enemies at the command of God. Religious persecution springs from a due admixture of love towards God and hatred towards man. The terrible religious wars that inundated the world with blood tended, at least, to bring all religion into disgrace and hatred. Thoughtful people began to question the divine origin of a religion that made its believers hold the rights of others in absolute con­ tempt. A few began to compare Christianity with the religions of heathen people, and were forced to admit that the difference was hardly worth dying for. They also found that other nations were even happier and �42 Oration on the Gods. more prosperous than their own. They began to suspect that their religion, after all, was not of much real value. For three hundred years the Christian world endea­ vored to rescue from the “ Infidel ” the empty sepulchre of Christ. For three hundred years the armies of the Cross were baffled and beaten by the victorious hosts of an impudent impostor. This immense fact sowed the seeds of distrust throughout all Christendom, and millions began to lose confidence in a God who had been vanquished by Mohammed. The people also found that commerce made friends where religion made enemies, and that religious zeal was utterly incompatible with peace between nations’ or indi­ viduals. They discovered that those who loved the gods most were apt to love men least; that the arro­ gance of universal forgiveness was amazing ; that the most malicious had the effrontery to pray for their enemies ; and that humility and tyranny were the fruit of the same tree. For ages a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius on the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, “ Think !” The many have said “ Believe ?” The first doubt was the womb and the cradle of progress, and from the first doubt man has continued to advance. Men began to investigate and the Church began to oppose. The astronomer scanned the heavens, while the Church branded his grand forehead with the word “ infidel,” and now not a glittering star in all the vast expanse bears a Christian name. In spite of all religion the geologist penetrated the earth, read her history in books of stone, and found hidden within her bosom souvenirs of all ages. Old ideas perished in the retort of the chemist, and useful truths took their places. One by one religious conceptions have been �Oration on the Gods. 43- placed in the crucibles of science, and thus far nothing but dross has been found. A new world has been discovered by the microscope ; everywhere has been found the infinite ; in every direction man has investi­ gated and explored, and nowhere, in earth nor stars, has been found the footstep of any being superior to or independent of nature. Nowhere has been dis­ covered the slightest evidence of any interference from without. These are the sublime truths that enabled man to throw off the yoke of superstition. These are the splendid facts that snatched the sceptre of authority from the hands of priests. In that vast cemetery called the past are most of the religions of men, and there, too, are nearly all their gods. The sacred temples of India were ruins long ago. Over column and cornice, over the painted and pictured walls, cling and creep the trailing vines. Brahma, the golden, with four heads and four arms ; Vishnu, the sombre, the punisher of the wicked, with his three eyes, his crescent, and his necklace of skulls ; Siva, the destroyer, red with seas of blood ; Kali, the goddess ; Draupadi, the white-armed ; and Chrishna, the Christ—all passed away and left the thrones of heaven desolate. Along the banks of the sacred Nile, Isis no longer wandering weeps, searching for the dead Osiris. The shadow of Typhon’s scowl falls no more upon the waves. The sun rises as of yore, and his golden beams still smite the lips of Memnon, but Memnon is as voiceless as the Sphinx. The sacred fanes are lost in desert sands ; the dusty mummies are still waiting for the resurrection promised by their priests, and the old beliefs, wrought in curiously sculptured stone, sleep in the mystery of a language lost and dead. Odin, the author of life and soul, Vili and Ve, and the mighty giant Yamir, strode long ago from the icy halls of the North ; and Thor, with iron glove and glittering hammer, dashes mountains to the earth no more. Broken are the circles and cromlechs of the ancient Druids ; fallen upon the summits of the hills and covered with the centuries’ moss are the sacred cairns. �44 Oration on the Gods. The divine fires of Persia and of the Aztecs have died out in the ashes of the past, and there is none to re­ kindle and none to feed the holy flames. The harp of Orpheus is still ; the drained cup of Bacchus has been thrown aside ; Venus lies dead in stone, and her white bosom heaves no more with love. The streams still murmur, but no Naiads bathe ; the trees still wave, but in the forest aisles no Dryads dance. The gods have flown from high Olympus. Not even the beautiful women can lure them back, and even Danae lies un­ noticed, naked to the stars. Hushed for ever are the thunders of Sinai; lost are the voices of the prophets, and the land, once flowing with milk and honey, is but a desert waste. One by one the myths had faded from the clouds ; one by one the phantom hosts have dis­ appeared ; and one by one facts, truths, and realities have taken their places. The supernatural has almost gone, but the natural remains. The gods have fled, but man is here. “Nations, like individuals, have their periods of youth, of manhood, and decay.” Religions are the same. The same inexorable destiny awaits them all. The gods, created by the nations, must perish with their creators. They were created by men, and like men they must pass away. The deities of one age are the bye-words of the next. The religion of our day and country is no more exempt from the sneer of the future than the others have been. When India was supreme, Brahma sat upon the world’s throne. When the sceptre passed to Egypt, Isis and Osiris received the homage of mankind. Greece, with her fierce valor, swept to empire, and Jove put on the purple of authority. The earth trembled with the tread of Rome’s intrepid sons, and Jupiter grasped with mailed hand the thunderbolts of heaven. Rome fell, and Christians from her territory, with the red sword of war, carved out the ruling nations of the world, and now Christ sits upon the old throne. Who will be his successor ? Day by day religious conceptions grow less and less intense. Day by day the old spirit dies out of book and creed. The burning enthusiasm, the quenchless zeal �Oration on the Gods. 45 of the early Church have gone, never, never tc return. The ceremonials remain, but the ancient faith is fading out of the human heart. The worn-out arguments fail to convince, and denunciations that once blanched the faces of a race excite in us only derision and disgust. As time rolls on, the miracles grow mean and small, and the evidences our fathers thought conclusive utterly fail to satisfy us. There is an “ irrepressible conflict ” between religion and science, and they cannot peaceably occupy the same brain nor the same world. While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for the hopeful, loving, and tender souls who believe that from all this discord will result a perfect harmony ; that every evil will in some mysterious way become a good, and that above and over all there is a being who in some way will reclaim and glorify every one of the children of men. But for the creeds of those who glibly prove that salvation is almost impossible ; that damnation is almost certain ; that the highway of the universe leads to hell; who fill life with fear, and death with horror ; who curse the cradle and mock the tomb ;—it is impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity, contempt, and scorn. Reason, Observation, and Experience—the Holy Trinity of Science—have taught us that happiness is the only good : that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If, by any possibility, the existence of a power superior to and independent of nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel. Until then let us stand erect. Notwithstanding the fact that Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with tearing down without building again. The Church should by this time know that it is utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions. The history of religious per­ secution fully establishes the fact that the mind neces­ sarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by �46 Oration on the Gods. violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for the new. The moment we com­ prehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are of necessity east aside. A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease ; of the curative properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air, and light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be restored. These remarks were so full of good sense, and discovered so much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, “ Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They are my only support, and without them I should be miserable indeed !” “ I am not going,” said the sur­ geon, “ to take away your crutches ; I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the crutches awav yourself.” For the vagaries of the clouds the infidels propose to substitute the realities of earth ; for superstition, the splendid demonstrations and achievements of Science; and for theological tyranny, the chainless liberty of Thought. We do not say that we have discovered all ; that our doctrines are the all-in-all of truth. We know of no end to the development of man. We cannot unravel the infinite complications of matter and of force. The history of one monad is as unknown as the uni­ verse ; one drop of water is as wonderful as all the seas ; one leaf as all the forests ; and one grain of sand as all the stars. We are not endeavoring to chain the future, but to free the present. We are not forging fetters for our children, but we are breaking those our fathers made for us. We are the advocates of inquiry, of investiga­ tion, and thought. This of itself is an admission that we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions. Philosophy has not the egotism of faith. While super­ stition builds Walls and creates obstructions, science opens all the highways of thought. We do not pretend �Oration on the Gods- 47 to have circumnavigated everything, and to have solved all difficulties, but we do believe that it is better to love men than to fear gods ; that it is grander and nobler to think and investigate for yourself than to repeat a creed or quote scripture like a religious parrot, with the countenance of a dyspeptic owl. We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven. We do not expect to accomplish everything in our day ; but we want to do what good we can, and to render all the service possible in the holy cause of human progress. We know that doing away with gods and supernatural persons and powers is not an end. It is a means to an end, the real end being the happiness of man. Felling forests is not the end of agriculture. Driving pirates from the sea is not all there is of commerce. We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future—not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people—wherein, with appropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease producing millionaires and mendicants—gorged indolence and famished industry —truth in rags and superstition robed and crowned. We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable, when the true shall be the beautiful, and when Reason, throned upo$ the world’s brain, shall be the King of kings and God of gods. ���WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. g (J MISTAKES OF MOSES ... ... ...10 Superior edition, in cloth 1 f; DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT 77. 77 o 6 Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by J. M. Wheel er ... ... ... ..04 ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4 CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS ... ... 0 3 AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN... o 3 ORATION ON VOLTAIRE ... . . o 3 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ... o 3 PAINE THE PIONEER ... 7i 0 2 HUMANITY’S DEBT TO THOMAS PAINE 7. 0 2 ERNEST RENAN AND JESUS CHRIST 0 2 THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS ... 0 2 TRUE RELIGION ... ... ... ’7 o 2 FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field ... 0 2 GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field ... 0 2 SKULLS ... . 02 THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH 7. *” 0 2 LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2 THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION ... ... 0 2 A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Ooudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford THE DYING CREED o 2 DO I BLASPHEME ? ... *7 0 2 THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE*’ 7. 0 2 SOCIAL SALVATION ... ... o 2 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ... ... *02 GOD AND THE STATE ... ... .7. 0 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? ... o 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II*” . o 2 ART AND MORALITY ... ... o 2 CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY 0 1 CHRIST AND MIRACLES 0 1 THE GREA.T MISTAKE ... ” 0 1 LIVE TOPICS ... ”*0 1 REAL BLASPHEMY 77 ”* *01 REPAIRING THE IDOLS ... ’ * 0 1 MYTH AND MIRACLE ’*’ ” 0 1 Printed by G, W. Foote, 14 Clerkenweil-green, London. � 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 Oration on the gods Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 47 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Cover title: "The gods: an oration". "Works by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 28j in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1893 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N354 Subject The topic of the resource God 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 (Oration on the gods), 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 Gods NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b87110da396212b9a5c37ec125ad77ad.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=qkkg0ZE6JPjHVwpx7GW4DrOpo8hu9Xv7IGfBsbkrb4XKS1x7J7EagT6HyFqLeG1AtgKXoYemblD0tqMqMYP4vo9RO3jVn5C9S4edSHHybw0-NIX-XPIX15l7mVepKCPTRaNARmOrM-CYBCSC50ugjIqlmYHookIAdaWKh%7EH1ixNYWdHB8r9fq46iyvdUFOTNa2dgM4EXR6ana8gQtwfYWbZATYORSj4SMYPqPcrCYtcKzOYg5rppSIxCqd5wNwtyYOP8etHTLV-j-hmlO5Au9ttzbqCzF0t0scbE9qxAtTkGd50dJvb6q5-A-rSHzpEc9ZsvYyK6IxDOkchzKyK0Fg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bb99dc6ddd013ba11acd1dc578c4ee44 PDF Text Text 3 '1 ? 4- NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY siin-s SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE ANTAGONISTIC. BY CHARLES WATTS. The study of science, and its relation to Biblical records, should be both interesting and instructive. Science is defined as being an investigation into the phenomena of ex­ istence, and the best application of the lessons derived there­ by to the requirements of life. Science may be further described as meaning facts reduced to a system; not a fixed, cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the acquirement of additional knowledge. It has been urged that we can have no complete system of science. To some extent this is true; for no science is perfect, if by perfection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But the disco­ veries that have been made, and the scientific truths that have been brought to light, are sufficient to show the fallacy of many Biblical teachings. For instance, so far as man has investigated the statements of the Bible, and the lessons of science, their antagonism to each other has become apparent. This is recognised by some professing Chris­ tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the orthodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general improvement. The national and individual condi­ tion of society would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science. For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science, is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to have been written under ■divine inspiration for the guidance and instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, but should ex­ pound its truths in such a concise and practical manner, that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should •also commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest of the land. But there can be no doubt that the Bible does refer to scientific subjects, only, unfortunately, in so doing, it exhibits its shortcomings by stating the very �2 opposite to what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the phenomena of the solar system, and how diseases and death entered the world, are scientific ques­ tions. These, with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a reference to its statements thereon will show that science and the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. This may be expected from the history and nature of the book. It was evidently written at a remote period, by persons who possessed little or no scientific knowledge, and its teachings are alleged to be fixed for all time and all people. Progress is thus, so far, practically ignored. No matter what subsequent ages may reveal, upon the Christian hypothesis, the Biblical statements must be adhered to. This places the book in direct opposition to science, and dan­ gerous to the development of an advancing civilisation. No book whose teachings are stationary can accord with modern wants and aspirations. That which in the days of Moses might have been considered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as natural laws, subsequent experi­ ence has shown to be in opposition to scientific discoveries. Science and the Bible, therefore, differ widely—the one being progressive, and the other stationary. Science has stamped its valuable impress on the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore hitherto' unknown regions ; by its aid we can descend into the depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological errors that have too long held captive the human mind ; by its aid we can not only avert many of the diseases to which “ flesh is heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its manifold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations from a state of bar­ barism to partial civilisation, and stimulated man to eman­ cipate himself from the curse of degrading superftitions. That which was hid from the gaze of the ancient world has, _ by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com­ municate with our Atlantic friends by that cable which connects nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very length and breadth of the land. As the �3 late Prince Albert said in 1855 : “ No human pursuits make any material progress until science is brought to bear upon them........... Look at the transformation which has gone on around us since the laws of gravitation, electricity, mag­ netism, arid the expansive power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the whole state of existence— one might say, the whole face of the globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is saddening to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or igno­ rant misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too frequently its usefulness has been im­ paired, and its exponents have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own senses. Perhaps from a theological standpoint we could not expect aught else. A study of the histories of Bible believers will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in those discoveries which show the errors of their faith. There have been but few revelations of any magnitude, in any important branch of science, but what have exhibited the fallacy of Bible re­ cords. The antiquity of man has been proved to be consider­ ably greater than Moses alleges ; geology has demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years anterior to the Jewish account; the Christian theory that all mankind des­ cended from one primeval pair is now given up as unreli­ able ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded; the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific supporters; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded supersti­ tion ; the teaching of the New Testament that the world, and its contents, are to be destroyed by fire, has but few believers; a burning hell for the “wicked souls of the de­ parted,” is deemed too revolting and absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction. In every field the “ sacred writings” ap­ pear the very antithesis of science. Fortunately, truth has so far triumphed, that notwithstanding all opposition, science is now appreciated, and existence is regulated by its laws. The Bible but nominally exists, and its teachings are sup­ planted by those of a higher and a more practical nature. In demonstrating the difference that exists between the �4 Bible and science, the supposed creation of the world and the origin of man are the first subjects that suggest them­ selves for consideration. Accepting the chronology of the Hebrew records, there is but little difficulty in ascertaining how long man has been on the earth. For instance, in Genesis, we read that whenAdam was 130 years old his son Seth was born ; when Seth was 105, Enos was born ; when Enos was 90, Cainan was born ; when Cainan was 70, Mahalaleel was born • when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born; when Jared was 162, Enoch was born ; when Enoch was 65, Methusaleh was born; when Methusaleh was 187, Lamechwas born ; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah, 1056 years ; 600 years after this, the flood appears, making from the creation of man to the flood, 1,656 years. Then reckoning from the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the present time, 1874, we have a total of 6031 years since man first appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus xx. it is said that “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is,” and in Genesis i. we read that “ God created man on the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this adequate proof that the Bible teaches that the world and man have existed only a little over six thousand years? This was really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford, who, in his recent lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old and New Testament,” delivered for the Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture, is the short­ ness of the time into which all history is (or at any rate ap­ pears to be) compressed by the chronological statements, especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews, is fixed by many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus, according to the numbers of our English ver­ sion, but a very little exceeds a thousand years. . Conse­ quently, it has beenusual to regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all mankind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six centuries of the Christian era; and, therefore, that all history, and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races of men were formed, by which languages developed into their numerous and �5 diverse types, by which civilisation and art emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within the narrow ■ space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insufficient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms, which reach back (according to the most moderate of mo­ dern critical historians) to about the time at which. the numbers of our English Bible place the’ deluge. Consider­ able diversities of language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly different physical types appear not much subsequently; civilisation in Egypt has, about the pyramid period, which few now place later than b.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts exist in the shape in which they were known in the country at its most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our English Bible do not allow.” That the Biblical assumptions are contradicted by sci­ ence is beyond all doubt. Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geological lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage, that “ the mass of evi­ dence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irresistible and so unshaken by any oppos­ ing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of observing the facts and appreciating the reasoning can for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent their Jives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclusion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the earth’s firstUormation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all competent persons that the formation even of those strata which are nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably millions of years, in arriving at their pre­ sent state.” In reply to this, it is urged by Bible believers that a long period elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first two chapters of that book was only a re-adapta­ tion of the chaos of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is made to animals or plants as being .existence before the time referred to by Moses ? Is it �6 not said by this writer that light was created on the first of the six days, and the sun on the fourth ? Admit this correct, and then, previous to that time, there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the earth, indicating thereby that no new creation, took place 6,000 years ago ? It is also equally conclusive that man existed upon the earth long anterior to the time fixed by Moses. Professor Huxley writes : “ Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption, that man co-existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles Lyell supports the statement, that “North America was peopled more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr. Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire of hereditary kings to 5413 b.c. “It is now generally conceded,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon earth ; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or millions of years beyond our reach. The spurious systems of Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by preju­ dice, to the' monumental records of Egypt as our best guide. Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primi­ tive state of man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages; for the Egyptian Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from the barbarous stage....... These authorities, in support of the extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the lead­ ing geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so extreme for man’s existence on earth may shock some pre­ conceived opinions, it is none the less certain thatlhe rapid �| 7 accumulation of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have already carried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such archaeologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt, &c., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick, Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have, really mastered the monu­ ments of Egypt. Nor do these monuments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full tide of civilisa­ tion, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold inter­ course with Egypt at the present day............ In short, we know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to the deluge of Noah^or even to the creation of the world.” The Bible and science also disagree as to the time occu­ pied in the so-called creation of the world. According to the ist chapter of Genesis, this creation was accomplished in six days, and this theory is confirmed by the words of the Decalogue as given in Exodus xx. n, Mr. Priaulx says “ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined by any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless, no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twenty-four hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation by a cha­ otic period. Geologists, on the contrary, declare that the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous periods of time during their formation, and that even in the vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual change in the organic world. Now, what is the theological explanation of this antagonism between the Bible and geology? Why, it is said that the days men­ tioned by Moses were not natural days of twenty-four hours, but long periods of thousands of years. The objections to �8 this assumption are numerous. The Mosaic periods weredivided into two parts—one of light, and the other of dark­ ness. If, therefore, the day in Genesis meant a thousand years of light, the night represented the same period of darkness. Moreover, it is declared by Moses that God rested the seventh day, so that upon the hypothesis that the day was a thousand years we have the admission that for ten hundred years the universe continued its course without the aid of God. But, says Dr. Sexton, in his “Con­ cessions of Theology to Science, “the greatest objection, and one which is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days as including all the ages that have passed away, during which those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not the same in. the two cases. According to geology, there is a gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all the inhabitants of the waters in another— the two separated from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as creeping things, and as high as man, which certainly does not accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of existence, are represented as having made their appearance with the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also contrary to fact. The sun too does not exist till the epoch after the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the theory that light had been previously formed, and that therefore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s rays is equally as indispensable to vegeta­ tion as the luminous portion that we call light.” The Bible account of the material from which man was. m?de differs from the facts discovered by scientific investi­ �9 gation. According to Genesis, man was made from the dust of the earth; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved dust does not contain the elements found in the human organisation. The late Dr. Herapath, of Bristol, wrote thus boldly upon this subject :—“From our days of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us that ‘ that man was made out of the dust of the earth and, ‘ as dust thou art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion if literally true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as oneof the elements of organisedstrUcture,for no soil or earthy material capable of being employed by agriculturists, can be found without alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits, by those who have neg­ lected the study of true science, but still profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organised material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this fluid certainly cannot be found in dust. The principal elementary substances to be found in our bodies are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon ; these are absent from dust, except a trifling modicum of oxygen. Silicon, which is observable in dust, can scarcely be recognised in the human body. The Lamaic creed supposes man is the production of water. Priaulx suggests had the writer of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat nearer the truth. Moses alleges that mankind have descended from one pair, named Adam and Eve. To indicate the fallacy of this, it is only necessary to refer to the fact, so unmistakably proved, that man and woman were on the earth thousands of years before the time of Adam and Eve. “ The theory,” remarks Gliddon, “ that all nations are made of one blood, is en­ tirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that all man­ kind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distinction characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the case. “We know,” observe Nott andGliddon,“ of �IO no archaeologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as distinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes, Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monuments of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age. Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the multi­ farious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock; because the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they are now; just as they all were then from co­ existent Negroes. Such a miracle, indeed, has been in­ vented, and dogmatically defended ; but it is a bare postu­ late, and positively refuted by scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr. Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt! prove beyond all question that the Caucasian and the ’Negro races were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years ago as they are now. If then the difference which we find existing between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced by external causes, such change must have been effected according to Bible chronology in about 1000 years. This theory is decidedly contradicted by science and experi­ ence.” Another Bible doctrine which clashes with science is, that “ by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;” that is, that through the supposed disobedience of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a punishment, is to many “ a consummation devoutly to be wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a curse upon man pot to die.” Are there not thousands who suffer a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis, how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into realms of �II bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead of remaining in this “vale of tears,” ought certainly to be accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his con­ dition. But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of death, involves a few difficulties. If death had not been introduced, could the world contain its everincreasing inhabitants ? And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient to support such an immense multitude? Suppose tjie serpent had not played its “ little game,” could a man that had no knowledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in a furnace and not be burnt to death ? Or if he were in a coal-mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further, did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ? If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read, “ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If, however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of their kind took a prominent part in what is termed “the fall of man?” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law. As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to that change until we progress to a given point; then our organisation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely exhaust life's power, and death ensues as certain as a fire will cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” deatlrwas not a necessary conse­ quence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the contrary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure, how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ in kind from those who give them birth. So unscien­ tific does this Biblical doctrine appear even to many wellinformed clergymen that they have ceased to regard it as a literal fact. They view it as figurative language or Hebrew poetry; and it requires no great prophetic power to foretell that, when science sheds its light more fully among man­ kind, facts will take the place of the Bible, and the truths �12 of nature will supplant the teachings of an ancient and mis­ leading theology. Modern researches have unmistakeably established the fact that between science and the Mosaic account of the flood there is an absolute antagonism. The Bible states that less than five thousand years ago, God discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con­ tinually.” Not two thous^ad years before this, so the book, relates, God had made man pure and morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine superintendence, and. subsequently the edification of the preaching of Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind degenerating so rapidly that the Lord repented “that he had made man, and it grieved him at his heart.” God possessed, it is said, infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all, excepFone family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment of justice and every feeling of benevolence. No being with a spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent God could have found other means to correct the work of his own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and warning, the cold water process proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better after the deluge than they were before. Even Noah, upon whom God bestowed his preserving care, was not made moral by the experiment, for on landing from his excursion he immediately became intoxicated, acted indecently, and indulged in a tyrant’s curse at the expense of an unoffending posterity.. < My object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern inves­ tigations and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palpable that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in error, inasmuch as it clearly �i3 z teaches the universality of the deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, vi. and vii. : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth ; both man and beast, and the creep­ ing thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all flesh died that moved fipon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, •died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Bishop Colenso says that the flood described in Genesis, whether it be re­ garded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in­ credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his work “ The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have doubted the universality of the deluge............ I need not refer more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood; this seems to me even more asto­ nishing than the universal.” Professor Hitchcock ob­ serves : “ I am willing to acknowledge that the language of the Bible on this subject, seems at first view to teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the suppo­ sition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to know what prevented the "water from finding its level ? Moreover, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found. Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family, together with “two of every sort,” could have emigrated to those parts which the deluge was not to visit. Some of the objections to. the Mosaic account of the flood may be thus stated :— �1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demon­ stration that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progressing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Rev. Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c., who once referred the ‘ diluvium’ to the one period of the historic deluge, have now publicly withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh l^ilser, in his “ Testimony of the Rocks,” says : “ In various parts of the world, such as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna, there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes, which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent materials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calculations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain provinces of France, Kalisch, in his Genesis, observes : “ Distinct mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and animal life bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition of our planet........... That extraordinary region contains rocks, consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits ; one of the rocks is sixty feet in thickness; and a moderate calculation shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote than the date of the Noachian flood; they show not the slightest trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge; their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has Men subject to many floods, it has never been visited bv one as described in the Bible. 2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says : “ And the waters prevailed exceediagly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further, “ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, therefore, required to cover this moun­ tain would be, in the estimation of Dr. Pye Smith, Pro­ fessor Hitchcock, and many '’other eminent writers, eight �I5< times greater than what already existed. Was it supplied ? If so, whence did it come ? 3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have Been not more than 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45 feethigh; yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but “ two of every living thing of all flesh:” According to Hugh Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have furnished accommoda­ tion for this vast congregatWTL? Space, too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob­ tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to the existence of some forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for so long a period the carni­ vorous and the herbivorous animals—the swallows, ant­ eaters, spiders, and flies ? There is a little difficulty also about the light. There were, it appears, three stories in the Ark, and but one window. Now, where was the window positioned ? In the uppel^tory ? Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two stories of the Ark were in the dark, where many of those have since been who have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of science. 4. The Collection of Animals. The difficulties attend­ ing the narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are thus aptly put by Mr. T. R. R. Stebbing, M.A. : “ To achieve it he [Noah] must have gone in person, or sent expeditions^o Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ; the hippopota­ mus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the apteryx, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought toge­ ther by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game, caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas, and titmice mnst all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be employed to secure therruuninjured. They must be fed and cared for during a journey, perhaps, of thousands of miles, till they reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one another while the search is continued for] rats, and bats, and vipers, jmd toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch, specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace, would naturally wish �and naturally be selected to transmit as a boon to his favoured descendants.” * 5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that, after the waters begsffi to subside, the inhabitants of the.'-'Ark existed for nearly eight months in a temperature “■ 3,00'G'feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely will not be contended' tnM this statement harmonises with science any more than the record of an olive tree retaining its life after being underlie pressure of several tons’ weight of water for nearly tfiree-qf^te^ of a year. Colenso says : “The difficulty, that so long an immersion in deep water Would kill the olive, had, no cjbubt, never occurred to the Wfiter, who may have observed that trees survived ordinary R^Urtial floods, and inferred that they would just aS well be I -able to sustain the deluge ta'which his irnaginattofrsubjected ■ them.’^ Kalisch observes It is agreed by all botanical . authorities, that, though pa^fial inundations of rivers do not Idtih.'•or. materially change the vegetation of a region, the infukldn of great quantities,of .salt water destroys it entirely for long periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine 'immediately after the’ta&fation of the Deluge.” In addition to the discrepancies between the Bible and .Science a,bpve pointed out, tgp following may be mentioned. The Bible teaches that mai&ind has degenerated from a state of perfection; science, fn the contrary, indicates that the career of mati fias beeti'iiugressive, and that each age, profiting by d^bb'ffehce, hasten superior to its predecessor. \ The Bible affiftris that at a catain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares that such an event could * never have happened. The/B^ble asserts that all the king­ doms of the world were exhibited from a certain high mountain ; geography teaches that there are many parts of the world totally invisible frjfoc any one elevation. The Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the 'water; experience proves thi^i^be impossible. The Bible alleges that the earth and all tnings therein will ultimately be destroyed by fire ; scientific.Tacts are against the truth of such an allegation. Thus it is seen that the Bible and science are so antagonistic that afcy attempt to harmonise them is hopeless. PRICE TM&PENCE. 1 —.... •- .------------ Printed and Published by C. WArrs, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, Londo% E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &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 Science and the Bible antagonistic Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [C. Watts] 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 N675 Subject The topic of the resource Science Agnosticism Bible 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 (Science and the Bible antagonistic), 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 Science and Religion