-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc94e4861475a38701984125c78daffc.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=Wz%7E-m68Uw2mt2mxXjgtPVmcK2fzQpXsWbXEBZaVYInBPniElQZ-Rv7lcRpDA9r%7EY4FhABUEWkR2z0mE8Lo4iYFh9rSoPcdPzMCBMENW9HZatoQ1iuz1YhbG4Hd5tBkKEpqCMgOsABUKDzjAadQv504gw7h4ZXICFo0IyC5sZfJ6fM6eydqtMDfHsapbp6b4JLDVdpKmzF3TZI2tZq-QO9lJU240spKniGtaNf1pKJxN0ht0tU4-XAq3jzZJnAxZrF%7E57MOxVF6FheS25Tp19Cihf2vB8Mcq4rrwTo1E8EiENCz4FbYkb9ikm1Iil3cN7dL72M05QkolX5DTliZhlaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
35cfcd1e262d7fd08a5847bc0a390fc6
PDF Text
Text
/S/%
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
PHILOSOPHY
OF
SECULARISM
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
«
1889.
�The major portion of this pamphlet was
published under a slightly different title in
1879. I have revised, that portion carefully
and added some pages of new matter.
G-. W. Foote.
�£ >500
W2-5?
THE PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM.
----- *----The present age is one of theological tliaw.
The
Reformation is by some regarded as the most remark
able and important religious movement of modern
times; while others consider as still more portentous
that sceptical movement of last century, which culmi
nated in the lightnings and thunders of the Revolution,
and finally cleared the intellectual atmosphere of its
densest and most oppressive clouds of superstition.
Butprobably it will befound that this nineteenth century,
which is not, as some writers seem to imagine, rudely
severed from its predecessor, has continued less tumul
tuously, because amidst fewer impediments, the critical
work of the eighteenth, and is no less a period of reli
gious disintegration and reconstruction. Traditional
beliefs are being silently subverted by new agencies.
Science, instead of critically attacking supernatural
religion, has surely and irretrievably sapped its founda
tions. The educated intelligence of to-day is not
required to discuss minor points of doctrine and ritual,
or the internal discrepancies of revelation, but finds
itself confronted with the supreme all-subsuming
question of whether the very essentials of faith can be
maintained in presence of the indubitable truths of
science, and of the rigorous habit of mind it engenders.
Heretics, too, are less vigorously cursed fontheir wicked
�4
Philosophy of Secularism.
obstinacy, a sure sign of theological decadence. On
the contrary, when they happen to be eminent in
science or literature they are usually treated with
marked respect; and the apologetic tone, which heresy
has long discarded, is now assumed by those who have
hitherto claimed to speak with authority. Christian
Evidence Societies invite sceptics to fashionable West
end halls to hear celebrated religious doctors show that
the popular faith is after all not so very unreasonable,
yet sceptics can hardly be induced to attend; and
when these discourses are published sceptics can hardly
be induced to read them; the real secret of all this
being that such addresses are designed, not so much to
meet the objections of those outside the Churches, as
to soothe the doubts and allay the misgivings of those
inside them. Even in the days of Voltaire, Buffon
was obliged to recant what he knew to be true; and
doubtless the Patriarch of Ferney himself would have
paid a severe penalty for his scepticism, had he not
eluded the vigilant malice of his foes by acting on his
professed opinion that a philosopher, like a fox, should
have plenty of holes to run to when the priests are on
his track. But in our days no name commands greater
respect than that of Darwin, whose biological theories
reverse all time-honored notions of man’s origin and
history, as the Copernican astronomy reversed the geo
centric theory of the universe, so flattering to man’s
complacent egotism. Huxley, Tyndall and Clifford1 are
1 Professor Clifford’s death was a sad blow to the cause of
Freethought. We have to mourn the loss of a most valiant
soldier of progress, fallen prematurely before a tithe of his
work was done.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
5
becoming quite fashionable; Air. Swinburne, whom
the daintiest young ladies may read with parental
consent if they eschew certain proscribed pieces in
Poems and Ballads, publishes fiery lyrical impeach
ments of Christianity, which a century or two ago
would have commended him to a fiery death; and even
Mr. Carlyle, the noble prophet of our time, was allowed
without protest to write scornfully of Hebrew OldClothes. These are a few remarkable signs of our
religious state in England, and by general admission
the educated classes on the Continent are still more
“ irreligious ” than our own.
If the Reformation
broke the infallibility of the Pope, and secured liberty
and progress for Protestants ; if the Revolution drove
feudalism and mental tyranny from their strongholds
n France, and enlisted the bright quick French intel
lect once for all in the service of reason and freedom
it is no less true that the scientific movement of our
age, which is co-extensive with civilisation, is doing a
vaster though not more necessary work, and is slowly
but surely preparing for that great Future, whose
lineaments none of us can presume to trace, although
here and there an aspect flashes on some straining
vision.
The old faiths ruin and rend, and the air is vocal
with the clamour of new systems, each protesting itself
the Religion of the Future. Sweet sentimental Deism
claims first attention, because it retains what is thought
to be the essence of old beliefs after discarding their
reality. Next perhaps comes Positivism,2 far nobler
2 Positivism is exceedingly well represented in England. Al
though numerically the smallest of sects, it has four very able
�6
Philosophy of Secularism.
and more vital, which manages to make itself well
heard, having a few strong and skilful pleaders, who
never lose sight of their creed whatever subject they
happen to be treating. But Secularism, which in
England at least is numerically far more important
than Positivism, although gladly heard by thousands
of common people, is scarcely known at all in circles
of highest education where its principles are most
powerfully operant. Mr. Gladstone, indeed, in his
paper on “ The Courses of Religious Thought/’3 pub
lished many years ago, thought it worth serious notice ;
but with that exception I am not aware that Secu
larism has received attention in any first-class pub
lication. Yet the word secular is entering more
and more into our general vocabulary, and in especial
has become associated with that view of national edu
cation which denies the propriety of religious teaching
in Board Schools. This use of the word points to tile
principle on which Secularism is based. The interests
of this world and life are smtZar, and can be estimated
and furthered by our unaided intellects; the interests
of another life and world can be dealt with only by
appealing to Revelation. Secularism proposes to culti
vate the splendid provinces of Time, leaving the
advocates in Dr. Congreve, Professor Beesley, Dr. Brydges, and
Mr. Frederick Harrison. There are many points of resemblance
between Positivism and Secularism. Indeed the resemblance
would be almost complete if the Positivists in ignoring theology
did not make a god of Comte, and with amazing disregard of
that historic development they so emphasize, venerate all his
later aberrations, as though he or any man could justly assume
to prescribe the ways in which, through all succeeding genera
tions, a great idea shall realise itself in practice.
3 Contemporary Review, June, 1876.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
7
theologians to care for the realms of Eternity, and
meaning to interfere with them only while their
pursuit of salvation in another life hinders the attain
ment of real welfare in this.
Mr. Gladstone’s conception of Secularism, derived
of course from its literature, may here be cited. After
describing the Sceptic, the Atheist, and the Agnostic,
he proceeds :—
“ Then comes the Secularist. Him I understand to
stop short of the three former schools in that he does not
of necessity assert anything but the positive and exclusive
claims of the purposes, the enjoyments, and the needs pre
sented to us in the world of sight and experience. He
does not require in principle even the universal suspense of
Scepticism ; but, putting the two worlds into two scales of
value, he finds that the one weighs much, the ofher either
nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated. At the
utmost he is like a chemist who, in a testing analysis, after
putting into percentage all that he can measure, if he finds
something behind so minute as to refuse any quantitative
estimate, calls it by the name of ‘ trace.’ ”
This account of Secularism is on the whole very fair,
but evidently it requires much amplification before it
can be perfectly understood by those who have not,
pke Mr. Gladstone, read Secular literature for them
selves. As Mr. Gladstone quoted words of mine in
corroboration of his view of Secularism, I may with
out immodesty undertake to give a fuller explanation
of it; and this can best be done, not dogmatically, but
popularly, allowing principles as it were to unfold
themselves.
Were I obliged to give an approximate definition of
Secularism in one sentence I should say that it is
�8
1 hilosoplnj of Secularism.
naturalism in morals as distinguished from super
naturalism ; meaning by this that the criterion of
morality is derivable from reason and experience, and
that its ground and guarantee exist in human nature
independently of any theological belief. Mr. G. J.
Holyoake, whose name is inseparably associated with
Secularism, says: “ Secularism relates to the present
existence of man and to actions the issue of which can
be tested by the experience of this life.-” And again :
“ Secularism means the moral duty of man deduced
from considerations which pertain to this life alone.
Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by con
siderations purely human.” The second of these
quotations is clearly more comprehensive than the first,
and is certainly a better expression of the view enter
tained by the vast majority of Secularists. It dismisses
theology from all control over the practical affairs of
this life, and banishes it to the region of speculation.
The commonest intelligence may see that this doctiine,
however innocent it looks on paper, is in essence and
practice revolutionary. It makes clean sweep of all
that theologians regard as most significant and precious,
'Dr. Newman, in his Grammar of Assent, writes: “By
Religion I mean the knowledge of God, of h:s will,
and of our duties towards him; ” and he adds that
the channels which Nature furnishes for our acquiring
this knowledge “ teach us the Being and Attributes of
God, our responsibility to him, our dependence on him,
our prospect of reward or punishment, to be somehow
brought about, according as we obey or disobey him.’
A better definition of what is generally deemed reli
gion could not be found, and such religion as this
�Philosophy of Secularism.
9
Secularism will have no concern with. From their
point of view orthodox teachers are justified in calling
it irreligious ; but those Secularists who agree with
Carlyle that whoever believes in the infinite nature of
Duty has a religion, repudiate the epithet irreligious
just as they repudiate the epithet infidel, for the popu
lar connotation of both includes something utterly
inapplicable to Secularism as they understand it.
Properly speaking, they assert, Secularism is not
irreligious, but untheological; yet, as it entirely
excludes from the sphere of human duty what most
people regard as religion, it must explain and justify
itself.
Secularism rejects theology as a guide and authority
in the affairs of this life because its pretensions are
not warranted by its evidence. Natural Theology, to
use a common but half-paradoxical phrase, never has
been nor can be aught but a body of speculation, admir
able enough in its way perhaps, but quite irreducible to
the level of experience. Indeed, one’s strongest impres
sion in reading treatises on that branch of metaphysics
is that they are not so much proofs as excuses of faith,
and would never have been written if the ideas sought to
be verified had not already been enounced in Revela
tion. As for Revealed Religion, it is based upon miracles,
and these to the scientific mind are altogether in
admissible, being trebly discredited. In the first place,
they are at variance with the general fact of order in
nature, the largest vessel or conception into which all
our experiences flow ; adverse to that law of Universal
Causation which underlies all scientific theories and
guides all scientific research. Next, the natural
�10
Philosophy of Secularism.
history of miracles show us how they arise, and makes
us view them as phenomena of superstition, manifest
ing a certain coherence and order because the human
Imagination which gave birth to them is subject to
laws however baffling and subtle. All miracles had
their origin from one and the same natural source.
The belief in their occurrence invariably characterises
certain stages of mental development, and gradually
fades away as these are left farther and farther behind.
They are not historical but psychological phenomena,
not actual but merely mental, not proofs but results of
faith.4 The miracles of Christianity are no exception
to this rule; they stand in the same category as all
others. As Mr. Arnold aptly observes : “ The time
has come when the minds of men no longer put as a
matter of course the Bible miracles in a class by them
selves. Now, from the moment this time commences,
from the moment that the comparative history of all
miracles is a conception entertained, and a study
admitted, the conclusion is certain, the reign of the
Bible miracles is doomed/’ Lastly, miracles are dis
credited for the reason insisted on by Mr. Greg—
namely, that if we admit them, they prove nothing but
the fact of their occurrence. If God is our author,
4 I do not say that miracles are impossible, an audacious and
quite unscientific assertion rightly stigmatised as such by Professor
Huxley in his admirable booklet on Hume. The region of “ may
be ’’ is infinite, and finite minds blessed with sanity leave it alone,
confining themselves to the certain and the probable. A miracle,
as Huxley says, is no more impossible than a centuar, but it is
just as improbable, and equally requires a tremendous array of
unimpeachable evidence to support it. Every scholar knows
that no such evidence is extant in the case of Christian or any
other miracles.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
11
he has endowed us with reason, and to the bar of that
reason the utterances of the most astounding miracle
workers must ultimately come; if condemned there,
the miracles will afford them no aid; if approved there?
the miracles will be to them useless. Miracles, then,
are fatally discredited in every way. Yet upon them
all Revelations are founded, and even Christianity, as
Dr. Newman urged against the orators of the Tamworth Reading-Room, “ is a history supernatural, and
almost scenic.” Thus if Natural Theology is merely
speculative and irreducible to the level of experience,
Revealed Religion, though more substantial, is erected
upon a basis which modern science and criticism have
hopeless undermined.
Now if we relinquish belief in miracles we cannot
letain belief in Special Providence and the Efficacy of
Prayer, for these are simply aspects of the miraculous.5
Good-natured Adolf Naumann, the young German
artist m Middlemarch, was not inaccurate though
facetious in assuring Will Ladislaw that through him,
as through a particular hook or claw, the universe was
straining towards a certain picture yet to be painted ;
for every present phenomenon, whether trivial or im
portant, occurs here and now, rather than elsewhere
and at some other time, by virtue of the whole universal
past. All the forces of nature have conspired to place
Y e often hear Prayer defended on emotional grounds not
as a practical request but as a spiritual aspiration. This however
merely proves the potency of habit. The “ Lord’s Prayer ” con
tains a distinct request for daily bread. The practice of prayer
originated when people believed that something could be got by
IXdoHMrWeX°W 'Vith “° SUOh belief " slaT“t0 the
�12
Philosophy of Secularism.
where it is the smallest grain of sancl on the sea-shore,
just as much as their interplay has strewn the aetherfloated constellations of illimitable space. The slightest
interference with natural sequence implies a disruption
of the whole economy of things. Who suspends one
law of nature suspends them all. The pious supplicator for just a little rain in time of drought really asks
for a world-wide revolution in meteorology. And the
dullest intellects, even of the clerical order, are begin
ning to see this. As a consequence prayers for
rain in fine weather, or for fine weather in time of
rain, have fallen almost entirely into disuse; and
the most orthodox can now enjoy that joke about the
clerk who asked his rector what was the good of pray
ing for rain with the wind in that quarter. Nay more,
so far has belief in the efficacy of prayer died out, that
misguided simpletons who persist in conforming to
apostolic injunction and practice, and in taking certain
very explicit passages in the Gospels to mean what the
words express, are regarded as Peculiar People, in the
fullest sense of the term; and if through their primi
tive pathology children should die under their hands,
they run a serious risk of imprisonment for man
slaughter, notwithstanding that the book which has
misled them is declared to be God’s word by the law
of the land. Occasionally, indeed, old habits assert
themselves, and the nation suffers a recrudescence of
superstition. When the life of the Prince of Wales
was threatened by a malignant fever, prayers for his
recovery were publicly offered up, and the wildest
religious excitement mingled -with the most loyal
anxiety. But the newspapers were largely responsible
�Philosophy of Secularism.
13
for this ; they fanned the excitement daily until many
people grew almost as feverish as the Prince himself,
and “ irreligious ’’ persons who preserved their sanity
intact smiled when they read in the most unblushingly
mendacious of those papers exclamations of piety and
saintly allusions to the great national wave of prayer
surging against the Throne of Grace. The Prince’s
life was spared, thanks to a good constitution and the
highest medical skill, and a national thanksgiving was
offered up in St. Paul’s. Yet the doctors were not
forgotten ; the chief of them was made a knight, and
the nation demanded a rectification of the drainage in
the Prince’s palace, probably thinking that although
prayer had been found efficacious there might be danger
in tempting Providence a second time.
Soon after that interesting event Mr. Spurgeon
modestly observed that the philosophers were ' noisy
enough in peaceful times, but shrank into their
holes like mice when imminent calamity threatened the
nation; which may be true without derogation to the
philosophers, who, like wise men, do not bawl against
popular madness, but reserve their admonitions until
the heated multitude is calm and repentant. Professor
Tyndall has invited the religious world to test the
alleged efficacy of prayer by a practical experiment,
such as allotting a ward in some hospital to be specially
prayed for, and inquiring whether more cures are re
corded in it than elsewhere. But this invitation has
not been and never will be accepted. Superstitions
always dislike contact with science and fact; they
prefer to float about in the vague of sentiment, where
pursuit is hopeless and no obstacles impede. If there
�14
Philosophy of Secularism.
is any efficacy in prayer, how can we account for the
disastrous and repeated failures of righteous causes and
the triumph of bad ? The voice of human supplication
has ascended heavenwards in all ages from all parts of
the earth, but when has a hand been extended from
behind the veil ? The thoughtful poor have besought
appeasement of their terrible hunger for some nobler
life than is possible while poverty deadens every fine
impulse and frustrates every unselfish thought, but
whenever did prayer bring them aid ? The miserable
have cried for comfort, sufferers for some mitigation of
their pain, captives for deliverance, the oppressed for
freedom, and those who have fought the great fight of
good against ill for some ray of hope to lighten despair.
but what answer has been vouchsafed •?
What hope, what light
Falls from the farthest starriest way
On you that pray ?
*
*
*
*
Can ye beat off one wave with prayer,
Can ye move mountains ? bid the flower
Take flight and turn to a bird in the air ?
Can ye hold fast for shine or shower
One wingless hour ?6
The dying words of Mr. Tennyson’s Arthur—“ More
things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams
of ”—are a weak solace to those who recognise its
futility, and find life too stern for optimistic dreamsSalvation, in this life at least, cometh not by prayer,
but by valiant effort under the guidance of wisdom and
the inspiration of love. Knowledge alone is power.
0 A. 0. Swinburne, Felise.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
la
Ignorant of Nature's laws, we are broken to pieces
and ground to dust; knowing them, we win an empire
of enduring civilisation within her borders. Recog
nising the universal reign of law and the vanity of
supplicating its reversal, and finding no special clause
in the statutes of the universe for man’s behoof, Secu
larism dismisses as merely superstitious the idea of an
arbitrary special providence, and affirms Science to be
the only available Providence of Man.
Thus theological conceptions obtruded upon the
sphere of secular interests are one by one expelled.
We now come to the last, and, as the majority of
people think, the most serious and important—namely,
the doctrine of a Future life and of Future Reward
and Punishment. Mr. Gladstone says that, putting
this world and the next into two scales of value, the
Secularist finds that the one weighs much, the other
either nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated.
This is very near the truth. Secularism, • as such,
neither affirms nor denies a future life; it simply pro
fesses no knowledge of such a state, no information re
specting it which might serve as a guide in the affairs
of this life. The first question to be asked concerning
the alleged life beyond the grave is, Do we fenowr aught
about it ? If there were indisputably a future life in
store for us all, and that life immortal, and if we could
obtain precise information of its actualities and require
ments, then indeed the transcendence of eternal over
temporal interests would impel us to live here with a
view to the great Hereafter. But have we any know
ledge of this future life ? Mere conjectures will not
suffice; they may be true, but more probably false, and
�16
Philosophy of Secularism.
we cannot sacrifice the certain to the uncertain, or
forego the smallest present happiness for the sake of
some imagined future compensation. Have we any
knowledge of a life beyond the grave 1 The Secularist
answers decisively No.
Whatever the progress of science or philosophy may
hereafter reveal, at present we know nothing of per
sonal immortality. The mystery of Death, if such
there be, is yet unveiled, and inviolate still are the
secrets of the grave. Science knows nothing of another
life than this. When we are dead she sees but decom
posing matter, and while we live she regards us but as
the highest order of animal life, differentiated from
other orders by clearly defined characteristics, but
separated from them by no infinite impassable chasm.
Neithei' can Philosophy enlighten us. She reveals to
us the laws of what we call mind, but cannot acquaint
us with any second entity called soul. Even if we
accept Schopenhauer’s7 theory of will, and regard man
as a conscious manifestation of the one supreme force,
we are no nearer to personal immortality; for, if our
soul emerged at birth from the unconscious infinite, it
will probably immerge therein at death, just as a wave
rises and flashes foam-crested in the sun, and plunges
back into the ocean for ever. Indeed, the doctrine of
man’s natural immortality is so incapable of proof that
7 Schopenhauer was one of the most powerful and original
thinkers of this century, and his intellectual honesty is surprising
in such a flaccid and insincere age. A physical fact worthy of
notice is that his brain was the largest on record, not even ex
cepting Kant’s. Those who cannot read his works in the German
may find a capital exposition of his main ideas in Ribot’s La
Philosophie de Schopenhauer.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
17
many eminent Christians even are abandoning it in
favor of the doctrine that everlasting life is a gift
specially conferred by God upon the faithful elect.
Their appeal is to Revelation, by which they mean the
New Testament, all other Scriptures being to them
gross impositions. But can Revelation satisfy the
critical modern spirit ? When we can interrogate her,
discord deafens us. Every religion—nay, every sect
of religion—draws from Revelation its own peculiar
answer, and accepts it as infallibly true, although
widely at variance with others derived from the same
source. These answers cannot all be true, and their
very discord discredits each. The voice of God should
give forth no such uncertain tidings. If he had indeed
spoken, the universe would surely be convinced, and
the same conviction fill every breast. Even, however,
if Revelation proclaimed but one message concerning
the future, and that message were similarly interpreted
by all religions, we could not admit it as quite trust
worthy, although we might regard it as a vague fore
shadowing of the truth. For Revelation, unless every
genius be considered an instrument through which
eternal music is conveyed, must ultimately rely on
miracles, and these the modern spirit has decisively
rejected. Thus, then, it appears that neither Science,
Philosophy, nor Revelation, affords us any knowledge
of a future life. Yet, in order to guide our present
life with a view to the future, such knowledge is indis
pensable. In the absence of it we must live in the
light of the present, basing our conduct on Secular
reason, and working for Secular ends. How far this
is compatible with elevated morality and noble idealism
�18
Philosophy of Secularism.
we shall presently inquire ancl decide. Intellectually,
Secularism is at one with the most advanced thought
of our age, and no immutable dogmas preclude it from
accepting and incorporating any new truth. Science
being the only providence it recognises, it is ever
desirous to see and to welcome fresh developments
thereof, assured that new knowledge must harmonise
with the old, and deepen and broaden the civilisation
of our race.
In morals Secularism is utilitarian. In this world
only two ethical methods are possible. Either we
must take some supposed revelation of God’s will as
the measure of our duties, or we must determine our
actions with a view to the general good. The former
course may be very pious, but is assuredly unphilosophical. As Feuerbach8 insists, to derive morality from
God “ is nothing more than to withdraw it from the
test of reason, to institute it as indubitable, unassail
able, sacred, without rendering an account why.”
Stout old Chapman’s9 protest against confound
8 Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, from which I quote, was
translated form the German by Marian Evans (George Eliot).
This remarkable work deserves and will amply requite a careful
study. The thoroughness with which Feuerbach applied his
subtle psychological method to the dogmas of Christianity,
accounts for the hatred of him more than once expressed by
Mansel in his notes to the famous Bampton Lectures.
9 George Chapman was one of those lofty austere natures that
put to scorn the flabbiness which a sentimental Christianity does
so much to foster ; as it were, some fine old Pagan spirit rein
carnate in an Englishman of the great Elizabethan age. His
“ Byron’s Conspiracy” furnished Shelley with the magnificent
motto of The Revolt of Islam:—
There is no danger to a man that knows
What life and death is: there’s not any law
Exceeds his knowledge ; neither is it lawful
That he should stoop to any other law.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
ing the inherent nature of good is also memor
able :—
“ Should heaven turn hell
For deeds well done, I would do ever well.”
Secularism adopts the latter course. Were it necessary,
a defence of utilitarian morality against theological
abuse might here be made; but an ethical system
which can boast so many noble and illustrious adherents
may well be excused from vindicating its right to
recognition and respect. Nevertheless it may be
observed that, however fervid are theoretical objections
to utilitarianism, its criterion of morality is the only
one admitted in practice. Our jurisprudence is not
required to justify itself before any theological bar,
nor to show its conformity with the maxims uttered by
Jesus and his disciples; and he would be thought a
strange legislator who should insist on testing the value
of a Parliamentary Bill by appealing to the New
Testament. Secularism holds that whatever actions
conduce to the general good are right, and that what
ever have an opposite tendency are wrong. Manifold
objections are urged against this simple rule on the
ground of its impracticability; but as all of them apply
with equal force to every conceivable rule, they may
be peremptorily dismissed. The imperfections of
human nature must affect the practicability of any
moral law, however conceived or expressed. Chris
tians who wrote before Secularism had to be combated
never thought of maintaining that reason and expe
rience are inefficient guides, although they did some
times impugn the efficacy of natural motives to good.i
1 Darwin, Spencer, and nearly all the rest of our modernEvolu-
�Philosophy of Secularism.
So thoughtful ancl cautious a preacher as Barrow,
whom Mr. Arnold accounts the best moral divine of
our English Church, plainly says that “ wisdom is, in
effect, the genuine parent of all moral and political
virtue, justice, and honesty.”2 But some theologicallyminded persons, whose appearance betrays no remark
able signs of asceticism, wax eloquent in reprobation
of happiness as a sanction of morality at all. Duty,
say they, is what all should strive after. Good; but
the Secularist conceives it his duty to promote the
general welfare. Happiness is not a degrading thing,
but a source of elevation. We have all enjoyed that
wonderful catechism of Pig-Philosophy in Latter-Day
Pamphlets. What a scathing satire on the wretched
Jesuitism abounding within and without the Churches,
and bearing such malign and malodorous fruit! But
it is not the necessary antithesis to the Religion of
Sorrow. It is the mongrel makeshift of those “ whose
gospel is their maw,” whose swinish egotism makes
t’lem contemplate Nature as a universal Swine’sTrough, with plenty of pig’s wash for those who can
thrust their fellows aside and get their paw in it. The
Religion of Gladness is a different thing from this.
Let us hear its great prophet Spinoza, one of the
purest and noblest of modern minds : “Joy is the
passage from a less to a greater perfection; sorrow is
tionists, believe morality to have had a natural origin. Mr.
Wake, however, in his valuable work, The Evolution of Morality,
while admitting and powerfully illustrating its natural develop
ment, apparently holds that its origin was supernatural, the germs
of all the virtues having been divinely implanted in our primitive
ancestors! Evidently the old superstition about '‘the meat
roasting power of the meat-jack ” is not yet altogether extinct.
2 Sermon on “ The Pleasantness of Religion.’’
�Philosophy of Secularism.
21
the passage from a greater to a less perfection.” No ;
suffering only tries, it does not nourish us; it proves
our capacity, but does not produce it. What, after all,
is happiness ? It consists in the fullest healthy exer
cise of all our faculties, and is as various as they. Far
from ignoble, it implies the highest normal develop
ment of- our nature, the dream of Utopists from Plato
downwards. And therefore, in affirming happiness to
be the great purpose of social life, Secularism makes
its moral law coincident with the law of man’s progress
towards attainable perfection.
Motives to righteousness Secularism finds m human
nature.
Since the evolution of morality has been
traced by scientific thinkers the idea of our moral sense
having had a supernatural origin has vanished into the
limbo of superstitions. Our social sympathies are a
natural growth, and may be indefinitely developed in
the future by the same means which have developed
them in the past. Morality and theology are essentially
distinct. The ground and guarantee of morality are
independent of any theological belief. When we are
in earnest about the right we need no incitement from
above. Morality has its natural ground in experience
and reason, in the common nature and common wants
of mankind. Wherever sentient beings live together
in a social state, simple or complex, laws of morality
must arise, for they are simply the permanent condi
tions of social health ; and even if men entertained no
belief in any supernatural power, they would still
recognise and submit to the laws upon which societary
welfare depends. “ Even,” says Dr. Martineau,3
3 Nineteenth Century, April, 1877.
�22
Philosophy of Secularism.
“ though we came out of nothing, and returned to
nothing, we should be subject to the claim of righteous
ness so long as we are what we are: morals have their
own base, and are second to nothing.” Emerson, a
religious transcendentalist, also admits that “ Truth,
frankness, courage, love, humility, and all the virtues,
range themselves on the side of prudence, or the aid
of securing a present well-being.”4 The love professed
by piety to God is the same feeling, though differently
directed, which prompts the commonest generosities
and succors of daily life. All moral appeals must
ultimately be made to our human sympathies. Theo
logical appeals are essentially not moral, but immoral.
The hope of heaven and the fear of hell are motives
purely personal and selfish. Their tendency is rather
to make men worse than better. They may secure a
grudging compliance with prescribed rules, but they
must depress character instead of elevating it. They
tend to concentrate a man’s whole attention on himself,
and thus to develope and intensify his selfish propensi
ties. No man, as Dr. Martineau many years ago
observed, can faithfully follow his highest moral con
ceptions who is continually casting side glances at the
prospects of his own soul. Secularism appeals to no
lust after posthumous rewards or dread of posthumous
terrors, but to that fraternal feeling which is the vital
essence of all true religion and has prompted heroic
self-sacrifice in all ages and climes. It removes moral
causation from the next world to this. It teaches that
the harvest of our sowing will be reaped here, and to
4 Essay on Prudence.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
23
the last grain eaten, by ourselves or others. Every
act of our lives affects the whole subsequent history of
our race. Our mental and moral like our bodily lungs
have their appropriate atmospheres, of which every
thought, word, and act, becomes a constituent atom.5
Incessantly around us goes on the conflict of good and
evil, which a word, a gesture, a look of ours changes.
And we cannot tell how great may be the influence of
the least of these, for in nature all things hang together,
and the greatest effects may flow from causes seeminglv
slight and inconsiderable/’ When we thoroughly lay
this to heart, and reflect that no contrition or remorse
5 Wherever men are gathered, all the air
Is charged with human feeling, human thought;
Each shout and cry and laugh, each curse and prayer
Are into its vibrations surely wrought;
Unspoken passion, wordless meditation,
Are breathed into it with our respiration ;
It is with our life fraught and overfraught.
So that no man there breathes earth’s simple breath
As if alone on mountains or wide seas ;
But nourishes warm life or hastens death
With joys and sorrows, health and foul disease,
Wisdom and folly, good and evil labors
Incessant of his multitudinous neighbors ;
He in his turn affecting all of these.
James Thomson, City of Dreadful Night.
G The importance of individual action, even on the part of the
meanest, is well expressed by George Eliot in the concluding
sentence of Middlemarch :—
" The growing good of the wor’d is partly dependent on unhistoric acts ;
and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is
half owing to the numbers who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
unvisited tombs.”
Even more memorable is the great saying attributed to Krishna,
—“ He who does nothing stays the progress of the world.”
�24
Philosophy of Secularism.
can undo the past or efface the slightest record from the
everlasting Book of Fate, we shall be more strongly re
strained from evil and impelled to good than we could
be by supernatural promises or threats. The promises
may be mistrusted, the threats nullified by a late
repentance; but the natural issues of conduct are in
evitable and must be faced. Whatever the future
may hold in store, Secularism bids us be true to our
selves and our opportunities now. It does not under
take to determine the vexed question of God’s exist
ence, which it leaves each to decide for himself
according to what light he has; nor does it dog
matically deny the possibility of a future life. But it
insists on utilising to the highest the possibilities that
lie before us, and realising as far as may be by prac
tical agencies that Earthly Paradise which would now
be less remote if one-tithe of the time, the energy, the
ability, the enthusiasm and the wealth devoted to
making men fit candidates for another life had been
devoted to making them fit citizens of this. If theie
be a future life, this must be the best preparation for
it; and if not, the consciousness of humane work
achieved and duty done, will tint with rainbow and
orient colors the mists of death more surely than
expected glories from the vague and mystic land of
dreams.
There are those who cannot believe in any effective
morality, much less any devotion to disinterested aims,
without the positive certainty of immortal life. Under
a pretence of piety they cloak the most grovelling
estimate of human nature, which, with all its faults
is infinitely better than their conception of it. Even
�Philosophy of Secularism.
25
their love and reverence of God would seem foolish
ness unless they were assured of living for ever.
Withdraw posthumous hopes and fears, say they, and
“ let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die ” would be
the sanest philosophy. In his grave way Spinoza
satirises this “ vulgar opinion,” which enjoins a regu
lation of life according to the passions by those who have
“ persuaded themselves that the souls perish with the
bodies, and that there is not a second life for the
miserable who have borne the crushing weight of piety ” ;
“ a conduct,” he adds, “ as absurd, in my opinion, as
that of a man who should fill his body with poisons
and deadly food, for the fine reason that he had no
hope to enjoy wholesome nourishment for all eternity,
or who, seeing that the soul is not eternal or immortal,
should renounce his reason, and wish to become insane ;
things so proposterous that they are scarcely worth
mention.”
Others, again, deny that a philosophy which ignores
the Infinite can have any grand ideal capable of lifting
us above the petty tumults and sordid passions of life.
But surely the idea of service to the great Humanity,
whose past and future are to us practically infinite, is
a conception vast enough for our finite minds. The
instincts of Love, Reverence, and Service may be fully
exercised and satisfied by devotion to a purely human
ideal, without resort to unverifiable dogmas and inscrutible mysteries; and Secularism, which bids us
think and act so that the great Human Family may
profit by our lives, which exhorts us to labor for human
progress and elevation here on earth, where effort may
be effective and sacrifices must be real, is more pro
�26
Philosophy of Secularism.
foundly noble than any supernatural creed, and holds
the promise of a wider and loftier beneficence.
Secularism is often said to be atheistic. It is, how
ever, neither atheistic nor theistic. It ignores the
problem of God’s existence, which seems insoluble to
finite intellects, and confines itself to the practical
world of experience, without commending or forbidding
speculation on matters that transcend it. Unquestion
ably many Secularists are Atheists, but others are
Theists, and this shows the compatibility of Secularism
with either a positive or a negative attitude towards
the hypothesis of a supreme universal intelligence.
There is no atheistic declaration in the principles of
any existing Secular society, although all are unanimous
in opposing theology, which is at best an elaborate
conjecture, and at the worst an elaborate and pernicious
imposture.
Educated humanity has now arrived at the positive
stage of culture. Imagination, it is true, will ever
holds its legitimate province; but it is the kindling and
not the guiding element in our nature. When exer
cising its proper influence it invests all things with “ a
light that never was on sea or land ” ; it transforms
lust into love, it creates the ideal, it nurtures enthu
siasm, it produces heroism, it suggests all the glories of
art, and even lends wings to the intellect of the
scientist. But when it is substituted for knowledge,
when it aims at becoming the leader instead of the
kindler, it is a Phaeton who drives to disaster and ruin.
It is degrading, or at any rate perilous, to be the dupe
of fancy, however beautiful or magnificent. Reason
should always hold sovereign sway in our minds, and
�Philosophy of Secularism.
reason tells us that we live in a universe of cause and
effect, where ends must be accomplished by means, and
where man himself is largely fashioned by circum
stances. Reason tells us that our faculties are limited
and that our knowledge is relative ; it enjoins us to
believe what is ascertained, to give assent to no pro
position of whose truth we are not assured, and to
walk in the light of facts. This may seem a humble
philosophy, but it is sound and not uncheerful, and it
stands the wear and tear of life when prouder philoso
phies are often reduced to rags and tatters. Nor is it
just to call this philosophy “ negative.” Every system,
indeed, is negative to every other system which it in
anywise contradicts ; but in what other sense can a
system be called negative, which leaves men all science
to study, all art to pursue and enjoy, and all humanity
to love and serve? It declines to traffic in supernatural
hopes and fears, but it preserves all the sacred things
of civilisation, and gives a deeper meaning to such
words as husband and wife, father and mother, brother
and sister, lover and friend.
Incidentally, however, Secularism has what some
will always persist in regarding as negative work. It
finds noxious superstitions impeding its path, and
must oppose them. It cannot ignore orthodoxy,
although it would be glad to do so, for the dogmas and
pretensions of the popular creed hinder its progress
and thwart Secular improvement at every step.
Favored and privileged and largely supported by the
Statj, they usurp a fictitious dignity over less popular
ideas. They thrust themselves into education, insist
on teaching supernaturalism with the multiplication
�28
Philosophy of Secularism.
table, dose the scholars with Jewish mythology as
though it were actual history, and assist their moral
development with pictures of Daniel in the lions’ den
and Jesus walking on the sea. They employ vast
wealth in preparing for another world, which might
be more profitably employed in bettering this. They
prevent us from spending our Sunday rationally,
refusing us any alternative but the church or the
public-house. They deprive honest sceptics as far as
possible of the common rights of citizenship.7 They
retard a host of reforms,8 and still do their utmost to
7 Nearly every leading Secularist lias suffered in this respect.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake was imprisoned for blasphemy ; Mr. Brad
laugh had to win the seat which Northampton gave him, by
means of almost superhuman energy and resource, in the face of
the most bigoted and brutal opposition ; Mrs. Besant was and is
robbed of her child by an order of the Court of Chancery ;
and in would be a false modesty not to add that I have
suffered twelve-months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal
for editing a Freethought journal.—Here is another fact which
must not be forgotten. Mr. Spencer, a Secularist of Manchester,
left £500 in his will to assist in building a Secular Hall in that
city ; but the will was contested by the Christian residuary
legatee, and the Court set aside the bequest. Money cannot,
therefore, be left to propagate Secularism, which is practically
outlawed. This incident occurred so late as 1886.
8 The Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill is steadily opposed as con
trary to Christian tradition.
Scarcely any but theological
arguments are used against it, and the Bishops fight it as though
they were defending the very citadel of their faith.—Down at
Middlesborough, quite recently, the County Council decided to
erect a crematorium in the interest of the public health, while
leaving the cemetery open as before for all who wished their
bodies to be disposed of in the orthodox fashion. But before
the project could be carried out the Vicar of All Saints called a
public meeting to protest against this “ outrage on the Christian
sentiment of the community.” Religious prejudice was pro
foundly excited by these tactics, the medical officer of health
was mobbed by infuriated females, the mayor received anonymous
warnings to prepare for his latter end, and finally the project had
to be abandoned.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
29
suppress or curtail freedom of thought and speech.
While all this continues, Secularism must actively
oppose the popular creed. Nor is it just on the part
of Christians to stigmatise this aggressive attitude.
They forget that their faith was vigorously and per
sistently aggressive against Paganism. Secularism
may surely imitate that example, although it neither
intends nor desires to demolish the temples of Chris
tianity as the early Christians, headed by their bishops,
destroyed the temples of Paganism and desecrated its
shrines.
Properly speaking, Secularism is doing a positive,
not a negative, work in destroying superstition. Every
error removed makes room for a truth; and if super
stition is a kind of mental disease, he who expels it is
a mental physician. His work is no more negative
than the doctor's who combats a bodily malady, drives
it out of the system, and leaves his patient in the full
possession of health.
Secular propaganda, by means of lectures, journals,
and pamphlets, conducted for so many years, has pro
duced a considerable effect on the public mind. A
great change has been wrought during the past gene
ration. Much of it has been accomplished by science,
but much also by the energetic labors of Secular advo
cates. Yet it must be admitted that Secular organisa
tion is relatively defective. The reason of this, how
ever, is by no means recondite. Secularism, as a
distinct system, came into existence with the decline
of the Socialist movement inaugurated by Robert Owen.
When Socialism began to alarm the upper classes fifty
years ago, the ministers of religion, conveniently for
�30
1 hilosophy of Secularism.
getting that the first Christians were communists,
declared war against it, and made its followers deter
mined foes to Christianity. When their movement
subsided, the Socialists who were still eager for work
accepted the new designation of Secularist, and these
poor malcontents became the moving spirits of the new
faith. Thus Secularism grew up, like every other
system the world has ever seen, amidst distressing
poverty; and as organisation is impossible in these davs
without money, the development of Secular organisa
tion is painfully slow.
Wealthy and “respectable” dissenters from the
popular creed generally keep their heresy to themselves.
They have given too many hostages to Mrs. Grundy,
and are nearly in the same position as the Church of
England clergyman who sympathised with Wesleyanlsm but did not join it, giving nine solid reasons against
doing so, namely, a wife and eight children. Some of
them, doubtless, would leave money for the promotion
of Secularism, but it has already been shown that this
is impossible in the existing state of English law. For
these reasons, and also because Secularism, like all new
systems, appeals to the dissatisfied rather than the con
tented, its staunchest adherents are found among the
elite of the working classes. Inquire closely into the
personnel of advanced movements, and you will find
Secularists there out of all proportion to their nume
rical strength. They are obliged to work in this indi
vidual manner, for the bigotry against Secularism is
still so strong that few dare to recognise its organi
sations. They have always assisted the cause of
National Education, and now it is carried they are
�Philosophy of Secularism.
31
getting their members on School Boards, and doing
their utmost to improve the quality of the instruction
given to children, as well as to preserve them from the
nefarious influence of priests. They promote Sunday
freedom, they are advocates of international peace,
they are sturdy friends of justice, they are firm sup
porters of the emancipation of women, they are lovers
of mental and personal liberty, and they are actively
on the side of every political and social reform. Their
votes can always be depended upon ; no one needs to
solicit them. Where Christians may be they are sure
to be; not because they necessarily have better hearts
than their orthodox neighbors, but because their prin
ciples impel them to fight for Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity, irrespective of nationality, race, sex, or
creed; and prompt them to exclaim, in the sublime
language of Thomas Paine, “ the world is my country,
and to do good is my religion.”
Printed and Published by G-. W. Foors, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�MR. FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS.
2
6
... '...2
6
PRISONER, FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth ...............
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Mouths’ Imprisonment.
Copies in paper covers,
soil d, 6d.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. T.
In collaboration with J. M. Wheel r.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
..........................
...
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besaut.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
1
o
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
Four Nights’ Public Debate vith the Rev. Dr. James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, is. 6d.
1
0
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
.......................................... 0
Seco..d edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..............................................................................
8
DARWIN ON GOD..................................................................
6
3
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
.......................... 0 4
Tiuve Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Cole
ridge.
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST
THE BIBLE GOD
.............................. 0
4
.................................................................. 0 2
.......................................... 0
2
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.............................. 0
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
2
WHAT WAS CHRIST? ... '
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
0
2
WAS JESUS INSANE ?...................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Na areth.
1
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD..........................
0
2
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
......................................
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The philosophy of secularism
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. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published 1879 "under a slightly different title"--Note inside front cover. "Mr Foote's books and pamphlets" listed on back cover.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive 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
N258
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (The philosophy of secularism), 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
NSS
Secularism