-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca83b94623612bea77ec2f928f8cf880.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nPJxhNuHfAuwyw1j6FnELNLsGiMkYY2q%7EwdkbV-IePSfmz3%7E7IV2cyd-unyrKJpEQHTs06zpIEfTZGtx311PUXEi9i0oJT0KLxqWXUt1TWdV3A3QBnEPKfqINbFNpQ6ZDVI0ti3-q2f7F2P%7EuZ1692olZQuD49kFkrW3hrZ5oNSLKfWM1TPO-Z7Q9Fpd9I6P9T0pYLL3G6cM4NII97OheMB9AaHoqfYJai9uCJ9EO1pzN11aj1y6YeXS7j%7EbgnfJfWjT%7ECD1bJq4MgwTUN4U%7ElI7c0NZh6HXM1drB7D0YFZiYGpdfo%7ESavFHuj0Qvp2QuzhvR6jRk-iW96eGHgJ7ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ccaba3076336eca5feebe4bca2a15bcd
PDF Text
Text
i Z'^'4H 113-1
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
W Atheistic ^UHorm.
VIII.
IS
DARWINISM
ATHEISTIC?
BY
CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL.
Author of “A Search
for the
First Man,'’
etc
LONDON:
EREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is "being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
i 1.—“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By‘Annie Besant.
2. —Mind considered as a Bodily Function. By Alice
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveling,
D.Sc.
4. —“ England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh,
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
6. —“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7. —“ Some Objections
laugh.
to
Socialism.” By Charles Brad
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
In the concluding words of the “Descent of Man ” “w? are
?rntfiere-pC°nCemed
hopes or fears> only with the
truth as far a8 0llr reason permits mt0 discover it”(p
lor? th!
is not Atheism. aijy
eludes the otfS^7
A?r0I10W’ Net whether one el
eiuo.es tne othei is a question which the
unanswered. The Theist looks on the ea^th Ad r •
things as a series of fixed and unchangeable fim™?
the?cXtioSnUnThe n„8'- “
"v ™ the fcst daX »*
eir creation lhe universe, according to his view conlrl
can make to the question’pr°Pfi answer he
aSd vegetXl^Ct^tC^
“They exist bv an
? ClvAlsed, uatl°ns are familial-:
the unlimited ‘existencein
‘and
existences animate and inanimate. I hl
�116
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
and. men only. Others again bring in a bill of divorce
ment for the severance of the universe from the creator,
and introduce the law of nature to take the place of an
active God. Hence in most popular works we meet with
the first cause and secondary causes. By general agree
ment scientific men attribute all the present operations of
nature to second causes, and express their conclusions,
based on observation and experience in terms now popular
—the laws of nature. Even George Combe, a man of
undoubted piety, penned the following sentence:
“ Science has banished the belief in the exercise-by the
Deity in our day of special acts of supernatural power as
a means of influencing human affairs.” Baden Powell
went still further (Inductive Philosophy, p. 67): “There
is not, there never has been, any ‘ creation ’ in the original
and popular sense of the term,” which is now adopted as
“a mere term of convenience.” To this the appearance
of man is no exception, and in no way violates the essential
unity and continuity of natural causes. Again, “by equally
regular laws in one case as in the other, must have been
evolved all forms of inorganic and equally of . organic
existence.” Any single instance of birth or origin as an
exception to physical laws “is an incongruity so prepos
terous that no inductive mind can for a moment entertain
it. All is sub j ect to pre-arranged laws, and the disruption
of one single link in nature’s chain of order would be the
destruction of the whole.” All this was written before
Darwin broached his theory, and I well remember the
reply given more than thirty years ago. “ Why then cry
unto God ? There is no God in nature, only an exhibition
of his legislative power as evinced in his pre-arranged
laws! ” This appears to me an answer. Under this head
may fittingly be placed Darwin’s predecessors, E. G. St.
Hilaire, Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and Goethe, all of
whom attribute changes and modifications to a process of
nature. A brief summary of their views may be read in
Dr. Aveling’s “Darwinian Theory.”
Strange as it may appear, Professor Mivart quotes
Aquinas and Augustine as writing that “ in the first insti
tution of nature we do not look for miracles, but for the
laws of nature,” and he himself says “that throughoiit
the whole process of physical evolution—the first mani
festation of life included—supernatural action is not to be
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
117
looked for.” Mr. Mungo Ponton holds that no organism
•can be said to be created. “It is neither necessary nor
reasonable to suppose the Creator himself to act directly
in the organisation of any organism.” How such lan
guage must shock the pious writer who exclaimed: “ The
hand that made me is divine.”
The genial poet duly shuddered at Baden Powell, who
after all only repeated the words of the Saints of the
JRoman Church:
“ Take thine idol hence,
Cold Physicist!
Great Absentee ! and left His Agent Law
To work out all results.
Nature, whose very name
Implies her wants, while struggling into birth,
Demands a Living and a Present God.”
I fully enter into the spirit of these words, and in my
first work of importance (1864) I urged that such a con■ception negatives all science. There can be no scientific
fact established and reliable, if it is true that there is a
•God
“ Whose power o’er moving worlds presides,
Whose voice created, and whose wisdom guides,”
It appears manifest that there can be nothing certain in
nature if God ever interferes. No prediction of the ap
pearance of a comet or any description of the motion of a
planet is possible, if we allow the possibility of any un
known person interfering with the calculations on which
the predictions are based. This is not a matter of opinion
or belief—it is a self-evident truth. We understand that
two added to two equal four, but the Theistic theory
admits the possibility that they may, under divine control,
be either more or less. If any say no, they admit the
Atheistic position. A God who never interferes is no God
at all.
Those who put Law in place of God explain nothing
Law can no more create, modify, or sustain nature than
God can. It is, in fact, only removing the Divine operator
one step back without any advantage. Such persons think
they thus obviate certain objections to terrible calamities
�118.
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
and sufferings by saying instead of “God did it,” “ the
Law did it.” It matters not whether it be the landlord or
his agent, if we are evicted without compensation, and
starve on the highway.
Mr. M. Ponton (“ Beginning: How and When ? ” p. 357)
may be quoted as a very good illustration of this view. He
contends that God acts in the living organisms only
“mediately, through the instrumentality of the organiser.
We might as well suppose every instinctive action of an
organised being to be a direct act of the creator, as that
every unconscious action contributing to the development,
growth, maintenance, or reproduction of the organism is a
direct act of Divine interference.” Certainly, that is so—
but why not? H the development, growth, and repro
duction goes on without direct interference, there must be
some reason for it, and here it is—“the imperfections and
occasional monstrosities occurring in individual organisms
forbid our supposing these to be the immediate products of
unerring creative wisdom and power.” The blundering is
shifted on to the “organiser”—but whence the organiser
who or which acts so monstrously ?
The parentage is clearly set forth by Mr. Ponton (p.
356) himself, who, in describing all existing organisms,
says : “ But the first in each series must have been, in thestrict sense of the term, a creation—a being brought into
existence by the mere will of the creator.” Now taking
these two statements as an explanation of the mode of
origin of living organisms, I contend that the same login
that forbids us to accept monster from “unerring wisdom ”
equally forbids us attributing the origin of an agent
capable of producing them to the same unerring cause.
A good designer of a good organism is accepted—while
all is plain and fair sailing; but immediately Mr. Ponton
stumbles over an imperfect or monstrous one, he sends theunerring cause flying back into the unknown mist, to
assist at the formation of things in their primeval inno
cence and purity. This is exploded theology over again,
as taught in our dame schools.
A similar idea is developed in religion. The brutal God
of the lews is transformed into a humane God by the
Christians—a God of love.
But if we assume one source of power, it follows that all
efficient causes of good and evil are traceable to that one?
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
119
source, so that there is no advantage in a liberal and loving
philosophy clothing the modern God with only a humane
and beneficent character. Many devout persons have
written books to reconcile us to Theism by picturing the
design in nature to produce the beautiful and beneficent.
If we accept their theory, we are confronted by fact, at
tested before our eyes and recorded in the rocks up to the
earliest time—that animals have been created and sent on
the earth for the purpose of devouring each other. There
is no design or purpose plainer than this.
The world is one vast slaughter-house—one half the
animal kingdom lives in and on other animals. So long
as the lion roams the forest and the tigers seek their prey,
so long the doctrine of benevolent design in nature will
have a living palpable refutation. A power outside nature
that can prevent pain is one of the grossest impositions
the ingenuity of man has ever attempted to prove the
existence of, or by implication to infer, as evidenced by
God “in his works which are fair.”
The only answer that can be made is that it is a good
thing to be devoured! I have heard naturalists describe
the beautiful adaptations by which one creature can and
does kill another I All this takes place by the intention
of a personal God who directs it, or his under unerring and
beneficent laws of nature, according to whichever view is
held.
There was a time, not so distant, when the whole of
nature was believed to be under .the personal direction of
God. Thunder, lightning, storms, eclipses of the sun and
moon, and the motions of the heavenly bodies, all came
under this description. Travellers assure us that savages
usually look upon nature with similar eyes.
All attempts to remove a capricious will of God from
the operations of nature have been denounced as Atheistic.
All discoverers and announcers of new truth have been
denounced as Atheists through all time. A Frenchman
filled a whole dictionary with their names. All science is
necessarily Atheistic in the original sense of the word—
Atheist means ivithout God. Of course it is used in other
senses by some—for instance the denial of God, against
God, an active opposition to Theism, &c. The broad dis
tinction I wish to make is: by Theism we understand a
�120
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
system based upon the Supernatural ; by Atheism, a system
based upon the Natural.
As regards the subject of the present enquiry, the only
great difficulty all along has been the popular conception
of the earth’s recent appearance and its transitory nature.
Called into existence only yesterday and liable to vanish
in smoke to-morrow, it afforded no scope for the evolution
of living things during myriads of ages, millions of years.
So long as minds were occupied with the fall of man
behind them and penal fires before them, and all nature in
a state of possible instantaneous combustion, nothing cer
tain could be expected, no science was possible.
In the presence of a first cause and a last cause and
secondary causes, only confusion could arise. When it
became known that in science a first and last cause was
equally unknown, that changes in nature being intermin
able, so likewise are causes and effects—the names by
which they are known, what we rightly call human know
ledge became possible. The first society started in Eng
land for the collection and diffusion of this sort of know
ledge was the Royal Society for the special study of
Natural, in contradistinction to Supernatural, knowledge.
As regards man, the study has been greatly facili
tated by the discovery of his high antiquity, but aid to
the interpretation of nature in general comes from the
chemist.
To explain anything in the terms of science as a process
of nature required the evidence afforded by quantitative
chemistry. This assures us that, though all nature is con
stantly changing, nothing is lost—hence the indestructi
bility of matter is an established fact. What bearing has
this on our subject? To my mind it is clear that the in
destructible is a never-ending and never-beginning attri
bute.' This being accepted as a logical inference from an
indisputable fact, a beginning and a beginner are both
dispensed with. All are agreed that there is a selfexistent, eternal something—a necessity of human thought;
this appears to me to be the indestructible nature we
know—by whatever name we call it.
In illustration of this, I have often quoted a beautiful
passage from Herschell (Nat. Phil.), who, after referring
to the fact that one of the great powers, gravitation, the
�16 DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
121
main bond and support of the universe, has undergone
no change from a high antiquity, says: “So that, for
aught we know to the contrary, the same identical atom
may be concealed for thousands of centuries in a limestone
rock; may at length be quarried, set free in the lime-kiln,
mix with the air, be absorbed from it by plants, and, in
succession, become a part of the frames of myriads of liv
ing beings, till some occurrence of events consigns it once
more to a long repose, which, however, in no way unfits it
for again assuming its former activity.”
There are some who admit the indestructibility of
matter and its illimitable existence in space and time, who
nevertheless allow there may be something underlying ox*
behind the nature we know. I see no advantage in mul
tiplying assumptions, nor do I see where logically we can
stop if we do. If I assume a self-existent, eternal universe,
and there stop, no one else can do more than repeat the
same proposition containing the same idea. I do not pro
fess to account for it—no one can account for it. Why
anything exists without limit in space and time no man
can tell.
In support of this view, let me quote a passage from the
voluminous writings of Herbert Spencer: “Those who
cannot conceive a self-existent universe .... take for
granted that they can conceive a self-existent creator.”
The mystery they see surrounding them on every side they
transfer to an alleged source, “ and then suppose they have
solved the mystery. But they delude themselves............
Whoever agrees that the Atheistic hypothesis is untenable
because it involves the impossible idea of self-existence,
must perforce admit that the Theistic hypothesis is unten
able if it contains the same impossible idea. ... So that,
in fact, impossible as it is to think of the actual universe as
■self-existing, we do but multiply impossibilities of thought
by every attempt we make to explain its existence.” (“First
Principles,” p. 35.)
Some who do not admit that nature is all in all, reject
the notion I have described as a person creating and sus
taining all existing things—on the ground that it is an
thropomorphic. Be it so, the long name does not alter the
fact. I hold that Paley was right and has never been
answered, when he said that a designer and contrivei’
of nature must be a person. A Man- God is the only rational
�122
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
ancl intelligible conception the human intellect can
form, and they who reject it are manifestly without God—
Atheist.
Those who place Law where Grod used to be are in
advance of Theism, my only difference with them being as
to the meaning they attach to the word Law. I also
believe in the laws of nature, but only thereby express the
invariable order manifested—the way nature acts. They
use Law not to denote the fact that water seeks its own
level, but as though they meant the law either pushed or
pulled the water down the river. In all their writings
they speak of nature, her laws, and the lawgiver. I only
know nature and mode or method. When I say nature
works thus, I add nothing to the fact; they speak of law
as something impressed on matter, something having a
separate existence.
Where I speak of living matter, they speak of matter
endowed with life, endowed with intelligence, &c. This leads
up to the particular question under discussion—does Dar
winism come under the latter view ? A few phrases are
frequently quoted to prove that it does. Darwin writes
that 11 probably all the organic beings which have ever
lived on this earth have descended from some one primor
dial form, into which life was first breathed by the
Creator.” In another place he writes : “The Creator ori
ginally breathed life into a few forms, perhapsfour or five.”
Here we have the word Creator, and the work ascribed to
him, or it, is breathing life into one or perhaps five organ
isms. Darwin’s mind was apparently unsettled with
regard to theology all his life. If he had devoted as many
years to that as he did to the observation of plants and
animals, he would doubtless have uttered a more certain
sound. But his use of popular modes of expression, theo
logical phrases, must be judged by his later utterances.
Theists quote his words about breathing as though he was
in accord with Moses. Surely his tracing man’s origin to
the quadruped and aquatic animals is slightly at variancewith the words of Genesis ! Again it is urged that the
use of the word Creator implies creation, but he has placed
that view beyond all dispute.
The belief in God he traces to natural causes in
“Descent of Man,” p. 93, and points out numerous races
of men of past and present time, who have no idea of God
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
123-
and no word to express such, an idea. With regard to the
existence of a creator and ruler of the universe, he says : •
“.This has been answered in the affirmative by some of thehighest intellects,” but he does not answer it himself.1 Ho
mentions a savage who with “justifiable pride, stoutly
maintained there was no devil in his land.”
. With regard to organisms being the work of a creator,
his later utterances in “Descent of Man,” p. 61, are very
clear. He states that in writing “ Origin of Species” he
had two objects in view, “firstly, to show that species had
not been specially created.” The concluding paragraph
runs: “I have at least, I hope, done good service in airb'ng
to overthroio the dogma of separate creations.” On the
same page, I think, he gives ample explanation of his use
of current theological phrases. “I was not, however, able
to annul the influence of my former belief then almost
universal, that each species had been purposely created.”
Hetraces the objections to his theory to the “arrogance
of our forefathers which made them declare that they were
descended from demi-gods,” and says that before long it
will be thought wonderful that naturalists should have
believed in separate creations. The concluding words of
the volume attest his freedom from dogmatism and his con
siderateness for the. feelings of others. His words are :
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely,
that man is descended from some lowly organised form,
will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many,”
In another place, he says, p. 613 : “I am aware that theconclusion, arrived at in this work will be denounced by
some as highly irreligious.” Whatever maybe said about
it, Darwin says (p. 606): “The grounds upon which this
conclusion rests will never be shaken.” Viewed in the
hght of our. knowledge of the whole organic world : “ The
great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm,”
because it is founded on “facts which cannot be disputed.”'
Darwin s anticipation of the judgment passed upon his
views has been more than realised. The great objection
to his view is commonly expressed in the words—what it
leads to.. There can be no doubt that it leads to the
assumption of natural instead of supernatural causes.* I
�124
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
well remember the same objection was made to Combe’s
theory that the brain was the organ of mind—it would
lead to materialism. Astronomy was objectionable because
it was no longer possible to keep up the dignity of the
earth and its inhabitants as occupying the central position
in the universe, having all the heavenly host surrounding
them as lights and ornaments. It was a manifest degra
dation to reduce the comparative size of the earth to a
pin’s nob surrounded by specks two or three miles in
diameter. A remarkable illustration of this occurred
recently. A gentleman of education and position opened
my “First Man” at the page where I place the last glacial
period at 100,000 years ago. He said: “I can read no
more, not a line.” “Why?” “Because I see what it leads
to—the giving up of all I have been taught to believe as
the infallible word of God.” There can be no manner of
doubt but that is the honest way tt> look at it. Either a
man must have his mind open to new knowledge and new
truth, or remain in ignorance and error. Those who do
not wish to relinquish their notion of the supernatural
producing, sustaining, and guiding the natural had better
leave Darwin alone.
Hugh Miller held that animals preceded each other, man
being last, but not ‘that one was produced by the modifi
cations of others. The present Duke of Argyll admits
that changes in the forms of animal life have taken place
frequently, but not in the course of nature. Professor
Owen argued that as all vertebrate animals had rudi
mentary bones found in the human skeleton they were
types of man—the earliest created perhaps millions of
years ago, being planned to undergo certain modifications
resulting in the appearance of man long before such a
creature as man was known. All these whimsical assump
tions are overthrown by Darwin’s theory, which accounts
for the modification by natural processes. He justly lays
claim to his theory as the only natural solution of the
appearance of rudimentary organs. It is not at all
to be wondered at that such a theory should be called
Atheistic, and Darwin the Apostle of the Infidels—and
that a bishop described him as burning in hell a few days
after he was buried. The opposition of ministers of re
ligion of all denominations might reasonably be expected,
since, as they say, he banishes the creator as an intruder
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
125.
in nature, and takes away the foundation on which the
Christian religion is built. The difference between the
clergy and Darwin is a gulf that can never be bridged
over—they find man made in the image of God, whatever
that may mean, while Darwin finds him made exactly in
the image of the ape of the old world, now supposed to be
extinct. The first Adam of Moses is an essential to the
second Adam of Christianity—symbols of death and life
in the human race. Besides ministers of religion, the
Atheistical tendency of Darwinism has been pointed out
by Agassiz and Brewster; the latter stating distinctly that
his hypothesis has a tendency “to expel the Almighty
from the universe.” Reviews, magazines, and many
newspapers put it that Darwinism is practically Atheism;
in which description I think they accurately represent the
fact.
Professor Dawson, who is recognised by all the re
ligious reviewers as a trustworthy exponent of their views,
refers to this subject in his “Story of the Earth,” p. 321,
1880. In discussing whether man is the product of an in
telligent will or an evolution from lower organisms, he
says: “ It is true that many evolutionists, either unwilling
to offend, or not perceiving the consequences of their own
hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle course, and to main
tain that the creator has proceeded by way of evolution.
But the bare hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English
authority, leaves noplace for this compromise, and shows that
that theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, ex
cludes the knowledge of a creator and the possibility of his
works.” Again, on page 348, speakingof absolute Atheists
who follow Darwin: “They are more logical than those
who seek to reconcile evolution with design .... The
evolutionist is in absolute antagonism to the idea of crea
tion, even when held with all due allowance for the varia
tion of all created things within certain limits.” It is evi
dent, therefore, from this orthodox authority, that Darwin
ism, is in the estimation of popular Theists, undoubtedly
Atheistic. This might be explained away on the ground
of bigotry, prejudice, or misrepresentation, if the facts ad
duced by Darwin could be quoted in support of the accusa
tion. But the inexorable logic of facts points in the direc
tion of Professor Dawson’s inference, and, however objec
tionable the conclusion may be to him, it rests on a basis
�126
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
'which, can never be moved, on grounds that will never be
■shaken.
Still, Asa Gray and George St. Clair think it reconcilable
with theology, the latter devoting a large volume to prove
his case. Being an acquaintance, and a fellow townsman
now, I read Mr. St. Clair three times, but with unsatis
factory result. It is a book which evinces great ability,
and is full of information, but as regards the particular
point in question, all that bears upon it is assumption and
.assertion. All theology consists of assumptions and
assertions. Every book upon it we open may be described
as stating : There must have been a commencement, and
that could not be without a causing or creating, and that
■could not be without a First Cause or Creator.
Simple as this appears, it contains a contradiction, and
refutes itself. To account for any existence by assuming
a cause before it, implies non-existence, and the .trans
formation of one into the other. If we assume a self
existing, eternal anything, we at once dispose of “there
must have been a commencement.” The evidence of design
-can only be applied to forms (even if there were any evi
dence that any existing animal Or plant had been at any
time designed), therefore the matter of which forms are
built up, and which in its nature is unchangeable, cannot
be referred to any cause limited to time. If the assumption,
as applied to forms of life, gave us any explanation, it
might be tolerated ; but, as it does not, it is worthless. To
justify the assumption of a commencement, it is necessary
that we should have some evidence of destruction.
We are triumphantly referred to the destruction going
-on in animal and plant life, but the facts connected with it
form the foundation of a belief in the order of perpetual
change, without which neither could exist at all on this
earth. If any live, some must die.
The air we breathe has been breathed before, the part
icles of our bodies are but the elements of the dead past, as
are the luscious fruit we eat and the odorous flowers we
smell—even the blood that is the life itself is derived from
the same source. Our finely-built towns, our marble halls,
the very paths in which we walk, all are made of the rocks
which are but the ashes that survive—the tombs of myriads
-of living things. Composition, decomposition, and recom
position is the order of nature. Times innumerable have
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
127
•all natural forms passed through the process of corruption,
decay, and death—
“ Ever changing, ever new.”
The “ Bard of Avon” has been quoted, saying that
“ The great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,”
and it is true he does; but the lines which follow should be
read in conjunction :—
“Bear with my weakness : my old brain is troubled.”
Astronomy has been brought into the controversy, and the
possibility of Pope’s words being realised has not wanted
believers, when he wrote :—
‘ ‘ Atoms or systems into ruin hurled,
And now a bubble burst, and now a world.”
Some slight weight was given to this by the brilliant,
Frenchman, who accounted for the earth by a comet, which,
having mistaken its way, knocked a piece off the sun.
It is a consolation, however, to be told by Christian
astronomers that we do not find within itself the elements
of destruction in our planetary system, that all is in motion
and change everywhere. After millions of years all the
planets will return to their original places only to go
round again, the great bell of their judgment day will never
be sounded. Playfair says : “In the planetary motions,
where geometry has carried the eye so far into "the future
and the past, we discover no symptom either of a commence
ment or termination of the present order . . .
and as re
gards the latter “we may safely conclude that this great
catastrophe will not be brought about by any of the laws
now existing; and that it is not indicated by anything
which we perceive.”
If the “undevout astronomer is mad,” the devout one
surely is not. Name-calling in serious discussions of this
kind is, in my judgment, not only offensive, but inex
cusable. It is not uncommon to find in expensive works
the main proposition of the Theist described as being so
simple and familiar that any one who doubts it may be
laughed at as a fool or be pitied as insane. To me such
language betrays want of thought, ignorance, or vulgarity
�128
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of speech. In every case, on whichever side, the writer
who steadfastly avoids the use of such expressions is a
praiseworthy contributor to a refinement in the inter
change of thought so desirable in a civilised community.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, at 63, Fleet
Street, London, E.C.—1881.
�
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
Is Darwinism Atheistic?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [115]-128 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 8
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
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N121
Subject
The topic of the resource
Darwinism
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<div style="text-align:left;"><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 (Is Darwinism Atheistic?), 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></div>
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
Atheism
Charles Darwin
Darwinism
NSS