💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › ATHEISM › plea.d captured on 2022-07-17 at 09:28:48.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-12)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
16 page printout
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This disk, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
**** ****
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
by
Charles Bradlaugh
THIS essay is issued in the hope that it may succeed in
removing some of the many prejudices prevalent, not only against
the actual holders of Atheistic opinions, but also against those
wrongfully suspected of Atheism. Men who have been famous for depth
of thought, for excellent wit, or great genius, have been
recklessly assailed as Atheists by those who lack the high
qualifications against which the malice of the calumniators was
directed. Thus, not only have Voltaire and Paine been, without
ground, accused of Atheism, but Bacon, Locke, and Bishop Berkeley
himself, have, amongst others, been denounced by thoughtless or
unscrupulous pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the
accusation being that they manifested an inclination to push human
thought a little in advance of the age in which they lived.
It is too often the faslaon with persons of pious reputation
to speak in unmeasured language of Atheism as favouring immorality,
and of Atheists as men whose conduct is necessarily vicious, and
who have adopted Atheistic views as a desperate defiance against a
Deity justly offended by the badness of their lives. Such persons
urge that amongst the proximate causes of Atheism are vicious
training, immoral and proffigate companions, licentious living, and
the like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his "Instructions on Christian
Theology," goes so far as to declare that "nearly all the Atheists
upon record have been men of extremely debauched and vile conduct."
Such language from the Christian advocate is not surprising, but
there are others who, while professing great desire for the spread
of Freethought and having pretensions to rank amongst acute and
liberal thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and its teachings
cold, barren, and negative. Excepting to each of the above
allegations, I maintain that thoughtful Atheism affords greater
possibility for human happiness than any system yet based on, or
possible to be founded on, Theism, and that the lives of true
Atheists must be more virtuous -- because more human -- than those
of the believers in Deity, the humanity of the devout believer
often finding itself neutralized by a faith with which that
humanity is necessarily in constant collision. The devotee piling
the faggots at the 'auto da fe' of a heretic, and that heretic his
son, might notwithstanding be a good father in every other respect
(see Deut. xiii. 6-10). Heresy, in the eyes of the believer, is
highest criminality, and outweighs all claims of family or
affection.
Atheism, properly understood, is no mere disbelief; is in no
wise a cold, barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty,
fruitful affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive
assertion of action of highest humanity.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
Let Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned -- its
defence unheard -- on the 'ex parte' slanders of some of the
professional preachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose courage is
bold enough while the pulpit protects the sermon, but whose valour
becomes tempered with discretion when a free platform is afforded
and discussion claimed; nor misjudged because it has been the
custom to regard Atheism as so unpopular as to render its advocacy
impolitic. The best policy against all prejudice is to firmly
advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but
he says: "I know not what you mean by God; I am without 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 have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer,
is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, however,
'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence of
which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is
impossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and
deny that there can be more than one." The Pantheist also affirms
one existence, and denies that there can be more than one but the
distinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist is, that the
Pantheist affirms infinite attributes for existence, while the
Atheist maintains that attributes are the characteristics of mode
-- i.e., the diversities enabling the conditioning in thought.
When the Theist affirms that his God is an existence other
than, and separate from, the so-called material universe, and when
he invests this separate, hypothetical existence with the several
attributes of personality, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence,
eternity, infinity, immutability, and perfect goodness, then the
Atheist in reply says I deny the existence of such a being"; and he
is entitled to say this because this Theistic definition is self-
contradictory, as well as contradictory of every-day experience.
If you speak to the Atheist of God as creator, he answers that
the conception of creation is impossible. We are utterly unable to
construe it in thought as possible that the complement of existence
has been either increased or diminished, much less can we conceive
an absolute origination of substance. We cannot conceive either, on
the one hand, nothing becoming something, or on the other,
something becoming nothing. The words "creation" and "destruction"
have no value except as applied to phenomena. You may destroy a
gold coin, but you have only destroyed the condition, you have not
affected the substance. "Creation" and "destruction" denote change
of phenomena; they do not denote origin or cessation of substance.
The Theist who speaks of God creating the universe must either
suppose that Deity evolved it out of himself, or that he produced
it from nothing. But the Theist cannot regard the universe as
evolution of Deity, because this would identify Universe and Deity,
and be Pantheism rather than Theism. There would be no distinction
of substance -- no creation. Nor can the Theist regard the universe
as created out of nothing, because Deity is, according to him,
necessarily eternal and infinite. Gods existence being eternal and
infinite precludes the possibility of the conception of vacuum to
be filled by the universe if created. No one can even think of any
point in extent or duration and say: Here is the point of
separation between the creator and the created. It is not possible
for the Theist to imagine a beginning to the universe. It is not
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
possible to conceive either an absolute commencement, or an
absolute terminltion of existence; that is, it is impossible to
conceive beginning, before which you have a period when the
universe has yet to be; or to conceive an end, after which the
universe, having been, no longer exists. The Atheist affirms that
he cognizes to-day effects; that these are, at the same time,
causes and effects -- causes to the effects they precede, effects
to the causes they follow. Cause is simply everything without which
the effect would not result, and with which it must result. Cause
is the means to an end, consummating itself in that end. Cause is
the word we use to include all that determines change. The Theist
who argues for creation must assert a point of time -- that is, of
duration, when the created did not yet exist. At this point of time
either something existed or nothing; but something must have
existed, for out of nothing nothing can come. Something must have
existed, because the point fixed upon is that of the duration of
something. This something must have been either finite or infinite;
if finite it could not have been God, and if the something were
infinite, then creation was impossible: it is impossible to add to
infinite existence.
If you leave the question of creation, and deal, with the
government of the universe, the difficulties of Theism are by no
means lessened. The existence of evil is then a terrible stumbling-
block to the Theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the
advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable
potency his declaration of Deity as all-good, all-wise, and all-
powerful. A recent writer in the 'Spectator' admits that there is
what it regards "as the most painful, as it is often the most
incurable, form of Atheism -- the Atheism arising from a sort of
horror of the idea of an Omnipotent Being permitting such a
proportion of misery among the majority of his creatures." Evil is
either caused by God or exists independently; but it cannot be
caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it
exist hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If
all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil
contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it.
Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been etemal;
but, according to the Theist, it cannot be eternal, because God
alone is etemal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it
must either have originated in God, or outside God; but, according
to the Theist, it cannot have: originated in God, for he is all-
good, and out of all-goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil
have originated outside God, for, according to the Theist, God is
infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.
To the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely
different aspect. He declares that each evil is a result, but not
a result from God nor Devil. He affirms that conduct founded on
knowledge of the laws of existence may ameliorate each present form
of evil, and, as our knowledge increases, prevent its future
recurrence.
Some declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check.
to crime. They allege that the Atheist may commit murder, lie, or
steal without fear of any consequences. To try the actual value of
this argument, it is not unfair to ask: Do Theists ever steal? If
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
yes, then in each such theft the belief in God and his power to
punish has been insufficient as a preventive of the crime. Do
Theists ever lie or murder? If yes, the same remark has again force
-- Theism , failing against the lesser as against the gearer crime.
Those who use such an argument overlook that all men seek
happiness, though in very, diverse fashions. ignorant and
miseducated men often mistake the true path to happiness, and
commit crime in the endeavour to obtain it. Atheists hold that by
teaching mankind the real road to human happiness it is possible to
keep them from the by-ways of criminality and error. Atheists would
teach men to be moral now, not because God offers as an inducement
reward by and by, but because in the virtuous act itself immediate
good is ensured to the doer and the circle surrounding him. Atheism
would perserve man from lying, stealing, murdering, not from fear
of an eternal agony after death, but because these crimes make this
life itself a course of misery.
While Theism, asserting God as the creator and govemor of the
universe, hinders and checks man's efforts by declaring God's will
to be the sole directing and controlling power, Atheism, by
declaring all events to be in accordance with natural laws -- that
is, happening in certain ascertainable sequences. -- stimulates man
to discover the best conditions of life, and offers him the most
powerful inducements to morality. While the Theist provides future
happiness for a scoundrel repentent on his death-bed, Atheism
affirms present and certain happiness for the man who does his best
to live here so well as to have little cause for repenting
hereafter.
Theism declares that God dispenses health and infficts
disease, and sickness and illness are regarded by the Theists as
visitations from an angered Deity, to be borne with meekness and
content. Atheism declares that physiological knowledge may preserve
us from disease by preventing us from infringing the law of health,
and that sickness results not as the ordinance of offended Deity,
but from ill-ventilated dwellings and workshops, bad and
insufficient food, excessive toil, mental suffering, exposure to
inclement weather, and the like -- all these finding root in
poverty, the chief source of crime and disease; that prayers and
piety afford no protection against fever, and that if the human
being be kept without food he will starve as quickly whether he be
Theist or Atheist, theology being no substitute for bread.
It is very important, in order that injustice may not be done
to the Theistic, argument, that we should have -- in lieu of a
clear definition, which it seems useless to ask for -- the best
possible clue to the meaning intended to be conveyed by the word
"God." If it were not that the word is an arbitrary term,
maintained for the purpose of influencing the ignorant, and the
notions suggested by which are vague and entirely contingent upon
individual fancies, such a clue could probably be most easily, and
satistactorily obtained by tracing back the word "God," and
ascertaining the sense in which it was used by the uneducated
worshippers who have gone before us, and collating this with the
more modem Theism, qualified as it is by the superior knowledge of
to-day. Dupuis says: "Le mot Dieu parait destine a exprimer l'idde
de la force universelle et eternellement active qui imprime le
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
mouvement a tout dans la Nature, suivant les lois d'une harmonie
constante et admirable, qui se developpe dans les diverses formes
que prend la matiere organisee, qui se mele a tout, anime tout, et
qui semble etre une dans ses modifications infiniment variees, et
n'appartenir qu'a elle-meme." "The word God appears intended to
express the universal and etemally active force which endows all
nature with motion according to the laws of a constant and
admirable harmony; which develops itself in the diverse forms of
organized matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all; which
seems to be one through all its infinitely varied modifications,
and inheres in itself alone."
In the "Bon Sens" of Cure Meslier, it is asked: Qu'est-ce que
Dieu? "and the answer is: "C'est un mot abstrait fait pour designer
la force cachee de la nature; ou c'est un point mathematique qui
n'a ni longueur, ni largeur, ni profondetir." "It is an abstract
word coined to designate the hidden force of nature; or it is a
mathematical point having neither length, breadth, nor depth."
The orthodox fringe of the Theism of to-day is Hebraistic in
its origin -- that is, it finds its root in the superstition and
ignorance of a petty and barbarous people nearly destitute of
literature, poor in language, and almost entirely wanting in high
conceptions of humanity. It might, as Judaism is the foundation of
Christianity, be fairly expected that the ancient Jewish records
would aid us in our search after the meaning to be attached to the
word "God." The most prominent words in Hebrew rendered God or Lord
in English are @@ii)#-19@@ 'Ieue,' and @@t)',-*N@@ 'Aleim.' The
first word Ieue, called by our orthodox Jehovah, is equivalent to
"that which exists," and indeed embodies in itself the only
possible trinity in unity i.e., past, present, and future. There is
nothing in this Hebrew word to help us to any such definition as is
required for the sustenance of modem Theism. The most we can make
of it by any stretch of imagination is equivalent to the
declaration "I am, I have been, I shall be." The word @@ii)#-19@@
is hardly ever spoken by the religious Jews, who actually in
reading substitute for it, Adonai, an entirely different word. Dr.
Wall notices the close resemblance in sound between the word
'lehowa' or leue, or Jehovah and Jove. In fact @@Zeig ora-r*Lo,@@
Jupiter and leue-pater (God the father) present still closer
resemblance in sound. Jove is also @@Zetic@@ or @@eeac@@ or
@@Ae6g,@@ whence the word Deus and our Deity. The Greek mythology,
far more ancient than that of the Hebrews, has probably found for
Christianity many other and more important features of coincidence
than that of a similarly sounding name. The word @@6)Eo'gl@@ traced
back, affords us no help beyond that it identifies Deity with the
universe. Plato says that the early Greeks thought that the only
Gods (@@eEOY-P@@) were the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven. The
word @@C)SllbN@@, Aleim, assists us still less in defining the word
God, for Parkhurst translates it as a plural noun signifying "the
curser," deriving it from the verb @@i-75N@@ (Ale), to curse. Dr.
Colenso has collected for us a store of traditional meanings for
the @@IAO@@ of the Greek, and the @@1-111-71@@ of the Hebiew; but,
though these are interesting to the student of mythology, they give
no help to the Theistic demonstrator. Finding that philology aids
us but little, we must endeavour to arrive at the meaning of the
word "God" by another rule. It is utterly impossible to fix the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
period of the rise of Theism amongst any particular people; but it
is, notwithstanding, comparatively easy, if not to trace out the
development of Theistic ideas, at any rate to point to their
probable course of growth amongst all peoples.
Keightley, in his "Origin of Mythology," says: "Supposing, for
the sake of hypothesis, a race of men in a state of total or
partial ignorance of Deity, their belief in many Gods may have thus
commenced: They saw around them various changes brought about by
human agency, and hence they knew the power of intelligence to
produce effects. When they beheld other and greater effects, they
ascribed them to some unseen being, similar but superior to man."
They associated particular events with special unknown beings
(Gods), to each of whom they ascribed either a peculiarity of
power, or a sphere of action not common to other Gods. Thus, one
was God of the sea, another God of war, another God of love,
another ruled the thunder and lightning; and thus through the
various then known elements of the universe, and the passions of
human-kind.
This mythology became modified with the com mencement of human
knowledge. The ability to think has proved itself oppugnant to, and
destructive of, the reckless desire to worship, characteristic of
semi-barbarism. Science has razed altar after altar heretofore
erected to the unknown Gods, and has pulled down Deity after Deity
from the pedestals on which ignorance and superstition had erected
them. The priest, who had formerly spoken as the oracle of God,
lost his sway just in proportion as the scientific teacher
succeeded in impressing mankind with a knowledge of the facts
around them. The ignorant, who had hitherto listened unquestioning
during centuries of abject submission to their spiritual
precaptors, at last commenced to search and examine for themselves,
and were guided by experience rather than by church doctrine. To-
day advancing intellect challenges the reserve guard of the old
armies of superstition, and compels a conflict in which human-kind
must in the end have great gain by the forced enunciation of the
truth.
From the word "God" the Theist derives no argument in his
favour; it teaches nothing, defines nothing, demonstrates nothing,
explains nothing. The Theist answers that this is no sufficient
objection that there are many words which are in common use to
which the same objection applies. Even if this were true, it does
not answer the Atheist's objection. Alleging a difficulty on the
one side is not a removal of the obstacle already pointed out on
the other.
The Theist declares his God to be not only immutable, but also
infinitely intelligent, and says: "Matter is either essentially
intelligent or essentially non-intelligent; if matter were
essentially intelligent, no matter could be without intelligence;
but matter cannot be essentially intelligent, because some matter
is not intelligent, therefore matter is essentially non-
intelligent; but there is intelligence, therefore there must be a
cause for the intelligence, independent of matter -- this must be
an intelligent being -- i.e., "God." The Atheist answers: I do not
know what is meant, in the mouth of the Theist, by "matter."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
"Matter," "nature," "substance," "existence," are words having the
same signification in the Atheist's vocabulary. Lewes used "matter"
as the symbol of all the known properties, statical and dynamical,
passive and active; i.e., subjectively, as feeling and change of
feeling, or objectively, as agent and action"; and Mill defined
"nature" as "the sum of all phenomena, together with the causes
which produce them, including not only all that happens, but all
that is capable of happening." It is not certain that the Theist
expresses any very clear idea to himself when he uses the words
"matter" and "intelligence"; it is quite certain that he has not
yet shown himself capable of communicating this idea, and that any
effort he makes is couched in terms which are self-contradictory.
Reason and understanding are sometimes treated as separate
faculties, yet it is not unfair to presume that the Theist would
include them both under the word intelligence. Perception is the
foundation of the intellect. The perceptive ability differs in each
animal; yet, in speaking of matter, the Theist uses the word
"intelligence" as though the same meaning were to be understood in
every case. The recollection of the perceptions is the exercise of
a different ability from the perceptive ability, and occasionally
varies disproportionately; thus, an individual may have great
perceptive abilities, and very little memory, or the reverse; yet
memory, as well as perception, is included in intelligence. So also
the comparing between two or more perceptions; the judging and the
reflecting; all these are subject to the same remarks, and all
these and other phases of the mind, are included in the word
intelligence. We answer then, that "God" (whatever that word may
mean) cannot be intelligent. He can never perceive; the act of
perception results in the obtaining a new idea, but if God be
omniscient, his ideas have been eternally the same. He has either
been always, and always will be, perceiving, or he has never
perceived at all. But God cannot have been always perceiving,
because, if he had, he would always have been obtaining fresh
knowledge, in which case he must at some time have had less
knowledge than now; that is, he would have been less perfect; that
is, he would not have been God. He can never recollect nor forget;
he can never compare, reflect, nor judge. There cannot be perfect
intelligence without understanding; but following Coleridge,
understanding is the faculty of judging according to sense." The
faculty of whom? Of some person, judging according to that person's
senses. But has "God" senses? Is there anything beyond "God" for
God to sensate? There cannot be perfect intelligence without
reason. By reason we mean that phase of the mind which avails
itself of past and present experience to predicate more or less
accurately of possible experience in the future. To God there can
be neither past nor future, therefore to him reason is impossible.
There cannot be perfect intelligence without will; but has God
will? If God wills, the will of the all-powerful must be
irresistible; the will of the infinite must exclude all other
wills.
God can never perceive. Perception and sensation are
identical. Every sensation is pleasurable or painful. But God, if
immutable, can neither be pleased nor pained. Every fresh sensation
involves a change in mental and perhaps in physical condition. God,
if immutable cannot change. Sensation is the source of all ideas,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
but it is only objects external to the mind which can be sensated.
If God be infinite there can be no objects external to him, and
therefore sensation must be to him impossible. Yet without
perception where is intelligence?
God cannot have memory nor reason -- memoiy is of the past,
reason for the future, but to God immutable there can be no past,
no future. The words past, present, and future imply change: they
assert progression of duration. If God be immutable, to him change
is impossible. Can you have intelligence destitute of perception,
memory, and reason? God cannot have the faculty of judgment --
judgment implies in the act of judging a conjoining or dis-joining
of two or more thoughts, but this involves change of mental
condition. To God the immutable, change is impossible. Can you have
intelligence, yet no perception, no memory, no reason, no judgment?
God cannot think. The law of the thinkible is, that the thing
thought must be separated from the thing which is not thought. To
think otherwise would be to think of nothing -- to have an
impression with no distinguishing mark would be to have no
impression. Yet this separation implies change, and to God,
immutable, change is impossible. In memory, the thing remembered is
distinguished from the thing temporarily or permanently forgotten.
Can God forget? Can you have intelligence without thought? If the
Theist replies to this, that he does not mean by infinite
intelligence, as an attribute of Deity, an affinity of the
intelligence found in a finite degree in humankind, then he is
bound to explain, clearly and distinctly, what other "intelligence"
he means; and until this be done the foregoing statements require
answer.
The Athdist does not regard "substance" as either essentially
intelligent or the reverse. Intelligence is the result of certain
conditions of existence. Burnished steel is bright -- that is,
brightness is the characteristic of a certain condition of
existence. Alter the condition, and the characteristic of the
condition no longer exists. The only essential of substance is
existence. Alter, the wording of the Theest's objection: -- Matter
is either essentially bright, or essentially non-bright. If matter
were essentially bright, brightness should be the essence of all
matter; but matter cannot be essentially bright, because some
matter is not bright, therefore matter is essenteally non-bright;
but there is brightness therefore there must be a cause for this
brightness independent of matter -- that is, there must be an
essentially bright being -- i.e., God.
Another Theistic proposition is thus stated "Every effect must
have a cause; the first cause universal must be eternal: ergo, the
first cause universal must be God." This is equivalent to saying
that "God" is "first cause." But what is to be understood by cause?
Defined in the absolute the word has no real value. "Cause,"
therefore, cannot be eternal. What can be understood by "first
cause"? To us the two words convey no meaning greater than would be
conveyed by the phrase "round triangle." Cause and effect are
correlative terms -- each cause is the effect of some precedent;
each effect the cause of its consequent. It is impossible to
conceive existence terminated by a primal or initial cause. The
"beginning," as it is phrased, of the universe is not thought out
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
by the Theist, but conceded without thought. To adopt the language
of Montaigne: "Men make themselves believe that they believe." The
so-called belief in Creation is nothing more than the prostration
of the intellect on the threshold of the unknown. We can only
cognize the ever-succeeding phenomena of existence as a line in
continuous and eternal evolution. This line has to us no beginning;
we trace it back into the misty regions of the past but a little
way, and however far we may be able to journey there is still the
great beyond. Then what is meant by "universal cause"? Spinoza
gives the following definition of cause, as used in its absolute
signification: "By cause of itself I understand that, the essence
of which involves existence, or that, the nature of which can only
be considered as existent." That is, Spinoza treats "cause"
absolute and "existence" as two words having the same meaning. If
this mode of defining the word be contested, then it has no meaning
other than its relative signification of a means to an end. "Every
effect must have a cause." Every effect implies the plurality of
effects, and necessarily that each effect must be finite; but how
is it possible from finite effect to logically deduce a universal
-- i.e., infinite cause?
There are two modes of argument presented by Theists, and by
which, separately or combined, they seek to demonstrate the being
of a God. These are familiarly known as the arguments 'a Priori'
and 'a posterori'.
The 'a posteriori' argument has been popularized in England by
Paley, who has ably endeavoured to hide the weakness of his
demonstration under an abundance of irrelevant illustrations. The
reasoning of Paley is veiy deficient in the essential points where
it most needed strength. It is utterly impossible to prove by it
the eternity or infinity of Deity. As an argument founded on
analogy, the design argument, at the best, could only entitle its
propounder to infer the existence of a finite cause, or rather of
a multitude of finite causes. It ought not to be forgotten that the
illustrations of the eye, the watch, and the man, even if admitted
as instances of design, or rather of adaptation, are instances of
eyes, watches, and men, designed or adapted out of pre-existing
substance, by a being of the same kind of substance, and afford,
therefore, no demonstration in favour of a designer alleged to have
actually created substance out of nothing, and also alleged to have
created a substance entirely different from himself.
The illustrations of alleged adaptation or design in animal
life in its embryonic stages are thus dealt with by the late George
Henry Lewes: "What rational interpretation can be given to the
succession of phases each embryo is forced to pass through? None of
these phases has any adaptation to the future state of the animal;
they are in positive contradiction to it, or are simply
purposeless; many of them have no adaptation, even in its embryonic
state. What doe's the fact imply? There is not a single known
organism which is not developed out of simpler forms. Before it can
attain the complex structure which distinguishes it, there must be
an evolution of forms which distinguish the structures of organisms
lower in the series. On the hypothesis of a plan which prearranged
the organic world, nothing could be more unworthy of a supreme
intelligence than this inability to construct an organism at once,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
without making several tentative efforts, undoing to-day what was
so carefully done yesterday, and repeating for centuries the same
tentatives and the same corrections in the same succession. Do not
let us blink this consideration. There is a traditional phrase
which is in vogue amongst Anthropomorphists -- a phrase which has
become a sort of argument -- 'the Great Architect.' But if we were
to admit the human point of view, a glance at the facts of
embryology must produce very uncomfortable reflexions. For what
shall we say to an architect who was unable -- or, being able, was
obstinotely unwilling -- to erect a palace, except by first his
materials in the shape of a but, then pulling them down and
rebuilding them as a cottage, then adding storey to storey, and
room to room, not with any reference to the ultimate purposes of a
palace, but wholly with reference to the way in which houses were
constructed in ancient times? Would there be a chorus of applause
from the Institute of Architects, and favourable notices in
newspapers of this profound wisdom? Yet this is the sort of
succession on which organisms are constructed. The fact has long
been familiar; how has it been reconciled with infinite wisdom?"
The 'a posteriori' argument can never demonstrate infinity for
Deity. Arguing from an effect finite in extent, the most it could
afford would be a cause sufficient for that effect, such cause
being possibly finite in extent and duration. Professor Flint in
his late work in advocacy of Theism concedes that "we cannot deduce
the infinite from the finite." And as the argument does not
demonstrate God's infinity, neither can it, for the same reason,
make out his omniscience, as it is clearly impossible to logically
claim infinite wisdom for a God possibly only finite. God's
omnipotence remains unproved for the same reason, and because it is
clearly absurd to argue that God exercises power where he may not
be. Nor can the 'a posteriori' argument show God's absolute
freedom, for as it does nothing more than seek to prove a finite
God, it is quite consistent with the argumefit that God's existence
is limited and controlled in a thousand ways. Nor does this
argument show that God always existed; at the best, the proof is
only that some cause, enough for the effect, existed before it, but
there is no evidence that this cause differs from any other causes,
which are often as transient as the effect itself. And as it does
not demonstrate that God has always existed, neither does it
demonstrate that he will always exist or even that he now exists.
It is perfectly in accordance with the argument, and with the
analogy of cause and effect, that the effect may remain after the
cause has ceased to exist. Nor does the argument from design
demonstrate one God. It is quite consistent with this argument that
a separate cause existed for each effect, or mark of design
discovered, or that several causes contributed to some or one of
such effects. So that if the argument be true, it might result in
a multitude of petty Deities, limited in knowledge, extent,
duration, and power; and still worse, each one of this multitude of
Gods may have had a cause which would also be finite in extent and
duration, and would require another, and so on, until the design
argument loses the reasoner amongst an innumerable crowd of
Deities, none of whom can have the attributes claimed for God.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
The design argument is defective as an argument from analogy,
because it seeks to prove a Creator God who designed, but does not
explain whether this God has been eternally designing, which would
be absurd or, if he at some time commenced to design, what then
induced him so to commence? It is illogical, for it seeks to prove
an immutable Deity, by demonstrating a mutation on the part of
Deity.
It is unnecessary to deal specially with each of the many
writers who have used from different stand-points the 'a
posteriori' form of argument in order to prove the existence of
Deity. The objections already stated apply to the whole class; and,
although probably each illustration used by the Theistic advocate
is capable of an elucidation entirely at variance with his
argument, the main features of objection are the same. The argument
'a posteriori' is a method of proof in which the premises are
composed of some position of existing facts, and the conclusion
asserts a position antecedent to those facts. The argument is from
given effects to their causes. It is one form of this argument
which asserts that a man has a moral nature, and from this seeks to
deduce the existence of a moral governor. This form has the
disadvantage that its premises are illusory. In alleging a moral
nature for man, the Theist overlooks the fact that the moral nature
of man differs somewhat in each individual, differs considerably in
each nation, and differs entirely in some peoples. It is dependent
on organization and education; these are influenced by climate,
food, and mode of life. If the argument from man's nature could
demonstrate anything, it would prove a murdering God for the
murderer, a lascivious God for the licentious man, a dishonest God
for the thief, and so through the various phases of human
inclination. The 'a priori' arguments are methods of proof in which
the matter of the premises exists in the order of conception
antecedently to that of the conclusion. The argument is from cause
to effect. Amongst the prominent Theistic advocates relying upon
the 'a priori' argument in England are Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev.
Moses Lowman, and William Gillespie.
An important contribution to Theistic literature has been the
publication of the Baird lectures on Theism. The lectures are by
Professor Flint, who asks: "Have we sufficient evidence for
thinking that there is a self-existent, etemal being, infinite in
power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and goodness, the Maker
of heaven and earth?"
"Theism," he affirms, "is the doctrine that the universe owes
its existence, and continuance in existence, to the reason and will
of a self-existent Being, who is infinitely powerful, wise, and
good. It is the doctrine that nature has a Creator and Preserver,
the nations a Governor, men a heavenly Father and judge." But he
concedes that "Theism is very far from coextensive with religion.
Religion is spread over the whole earth; Theism only over a
comparatively small portion of it. There are but three Theistic
religions -- the Mosaic, the Christian, and the Muhammadan. They
are connected historically in the closest manner -- the idea of God
having been transmitted to the two latter, and not independently
originated by them. All other religions are Polytheistic or
Pantheistic, or both together. Among those who, have been educated
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
in any of these heathen religions, only a few minds of rare
penetration and power have been able to rise by their own exertions
to a consistent Theistic belief. The God of all those among us who
believe in God, even of those who reject Christianity, who reject
all revelation, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From these
ancient Jewish fathers the knowledge of him has historically
descended through an unbroken succession of generations to us. We
have inherited it from them. If it had not thus come down to us, if
we had not been born into a society pervaded by it, there is no
reason to suppose that we should have found it out for ourselves,
and still less that we should merely have required to open our eyes
in order to see it."
If "Theism is the doctrine that the universe owes its
existence to the reason and will of a self-existing Being who is
infinitely powerful, wise, and good," then it is a doctrine which
involves many difficulties and absurdities. It assumes that the
universe has not always existed. The new existence added when the
universe was originated was either an improvement or a
deterioration on what had always existed; or it was in all respects
precisely identical with what had therefore always existed. In the
first, if the new universe was an improvement, then the previously
self-existent being could not have been infinitely good. If the
universe was a deterioration, then the creator could have scarcely
been all-wise, or he could not have been all-powerful. If the
universe was in all respects precisely identical with the self-
existent being, then it must have been infinitely powerful, wise
and good, and must have been self-existent. Any of the alternatives
is fatal to Theism. Again, if the universe owes its existence to
God's reason and will, God must, prior to creation, have thought
upon the matter until he ultimately determined to create; but, if
the creation were wise and good, it would never have been delayed
while the infinitely wise and good reasoned about it, and, if the
creation were not wise and good, the infinitely wise and good would
never have commenced it. Either God willed without motive, or he
was influenced; if he reasoned, there was -- prior to the definite
willing -- a period of doubt or suspended judgment, all of which is
inconsistent with the attributes claimed for deity by Professor
Flint. It is hard to understand how whole nations can have been
left by their infinitely powerful, wise, and good governor -- how
many men can have been left by their infinitely powerful, wise, and
good father -- without any knowledge of himself. Yet this must be
so if, as Professor Flint conceives, Theism is spread over only a
comparatively small portion of the earth. The moral effect of
Christian and Muhammadan Theism on the nations influenced was well
shown in the recent Russo-Turkish War.
Every Theist must admit that, if a God exists, he could have
so convinced all men of the fact of his existence that doubt,
disagreement, or disbelief would be impossible. If he could not do
this, he would not be omnipotent, or he would not be omniscient --
that is, he would not be God. Every Theist must also agree that, if
a God exists, he would wish all men to have such a clear
consciousness of his existence and attributes, that doubt,
disagreement, or disbelief on this subject would be impossible. And
this, if for no other reason, because that out of doubts and
disagreements on religion have too often resulted centuries of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
persecution, strife, and misery, which a good God would desire to
prevent. If God would not desire this, then he is not all good --
that is, he is not God. But as many men have doubts, as a large
majority of mankind have disagreements, and as some men have
disbeliefs as to God's existence and attributes, it must follow
that God does not exist, or that he is not all-wise, or that he is
not all-powerful, or that he is not all-good.
Many Theists rely on the intuitional argument. It is, perhaps,
best to allow the Baird Lecturer to reply to, these: "Man, say
some, knows God by immediate intuition; he needs no argument for
his existence, because he perceives Him directly -- face to face --
without any medium. It is easy to assert this, but obviously the
assertion is the merest dogmatism. Not one man in a thousand who
understands what he is affirming will dare to claim to have an
immediate vision of God, and nothing can be more likely than that
the man who makes such a claim is self-deluded." And Professor
Flint urges that "What seem intuitions are often really
inferenices, and not unfrequently errondous inferences; what seem
the immediate dictates of pure reason, or the direct and unclouded
perceptions of a special spiritual faculty, may be the conceits of
fancy, or the products of habits and association, or the reflexions
of strong feeling. A man must prove to himself, and he must prove
to others, that what he takes to be an intuition is an intuition.
Is that proof in this case likely to be easier or more conclusive
than the proof of the Divine existence? The so-called immediate
perception of God must be shown to be a perception and to be
immediate; it must be vindicated and verified; and how this is to
be especially if there be no other reasons for believing in God
than itself, it is difficult to conceive. The history of religion,
which is what ought to yield the clearest confirmation of the
alleged intuition, appears to be from beginning to end a
conspicuous contradiction of it. If all men have the spiritual
power of directly beholding their Creator -- have an immediate
vision of God -- how happens it that whole nations believe in the
most absurd and monstrous Gods? That millions of men are ignorant
whether there be one God or thousands?" And still more strongly he
adds: "The opinion that man has an intuition or immediate
perception of God is untenable; the opinion that he has an
immediate feeling of God is absurd."
Every child is born into the world an Atheist, and, if he
grows into a Theist, his Deity differs with the country in which
the believer may happen to be born, or the people amongst whom he
may happen to be educated. The belief is the result of education or
organization. This is practically conceded by Professor Flint,
where he speaks of the God-idea as transmitted from the Jews, and
says: "We have inherited it from them. If it had not come down to
us, if we had not been born into a society pervaded by it, there is
no reason to suppose that we should have found it out for
ourselves." And, further, he maintains that a child is born "into
blank ignorance, and, if left entirely to itself, would, probably,
never find out as much religious truth as the most ignorant of
parents can teach it." Religious belief is powerful in proportion
to the want of scientific knowledge on the part of the believer.
The more ignorant the more credulous. In the mind of the Theist
"God" is equivalent to the sphere of the unknown; by the use of the
word he answers, without thought, problems which might otherwise
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
obtain scientific solution. The more ignorant the Theist, the more
numerous his Gods. Belief in God is not a faith founded on reason.
Theism is worse than illogical; its teachings are not only without
utility, but of itself it has nothing to teach. Separated from
Chrisitanity with its almost innumerable sects, from Muhainmadanism
with its numerous divisions, and separated also from every other
preached system, Theism is a Will-o'-the-Wisp, without reality.
Apart from orthodoxy, Theism is the veriest dreamform, without
substance or coherence.
What does Christian Theism teach? That the first man, made
perfect by the all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God, was
nevertheless imperfect, and by his imperfection brought misery into
the world, where the all-good God must have intended misery should
never come; that this God made men to share this misery -- men
whose fault was their being what he made them; that this God begets
a son, who is nevertheless his unbegotten self, and that by belief
in the birth of God's etemal son, and in the death of the undying
who died as sacrifice to God's vengeance, men may escape the
consequences of the first man's error. Christian Theism declares
that belief alone can save men, and yet recognizes the fact that
man's belief results from teaching, by establishing missionary
societies to spread the faith. Christian Theism teaches that God,
though no respecter of persons, selected as his favourite one
nation in preference to all others; that man can do no good of
himself or without God's aid, but yet that each man has a free
will; that God is all-powerful, but that few go to heaven, and the
majority to hell; that all are to love God, who has predestined
from etemity that by far the largest number of human beings are to
be burning in hell for ever. Yet the advocates for Theism venture
to upbraid those who argue against such a faith.
Either Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must help
to spread its influence; if false, the sooner it ceases to
influence human conduct the better for human kind. This Plea for
Atheism is put forth as a challenge to Theists to do battle for
their cause, and in the hope that, the strugglers being sincere,
truth may give laurels to the victor and the vanquished; laurels to
the victor, in that he has upheld the truth; laurels which should
be even more welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat crowns him
with a truth he knew not of before.
APPENDIX
A few years ago a Nonconformist minister invited me to debate
the question, "Is Atheism the True Doctrine of the Universe?" and
the following was in substance my opening statement of the
argument, which for some reason, although many letters passed, was
never replied to by my reverend opponent.
"By Atheism I mean the affirmation of one existence, of which
existence I know only one mode; each mode being distinguished in
thought by its qualities. This affirmation is a positive, not a
negative, affirmation, and is properly describable as Atheism
because it does not include in it any possibility of Theos. It is,
being without God, distinctly an Atheistic affirmation. This
Atheism affirms that the Atheist knows only qualities, and only
knows these qualities as the characteristics of modes. By
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
'existence' I mean the totality of phenomena and all that has been,
is, or may be necessary for the happening of any and every
phenomenon. By 'mode' I mean each cognized condition (phenomenon or
aggregation of phenomena). By 'quality' I mean that characteristic,
or each of those characteristics, by which in thought I distinguish
that which I think. The word 'universe' is with me an equivalent
for 'existence.'
Either Atheism or Theism must be the true doctrine of the
Universe. I assume here that no other theory is thinkable. Theism
is either Pantheism, Polytheism, or Monotheism. There is, I submit,
no other conceivable category. Pantheism affirms one existence, but
declares that some qualities are infinite -- e.g., that existence
is intelligent. Atheism only affirms qualities for phenomena. We
know each phenomenon by its qualities; we know no qualities except
as qualities of some phenomenon. By infinite I mean illimitable.
Phenomena are, of coursd, finite. By intelligent I mean able to
think. Polytheism affirms several Theistic existences -- this
affirmation being nearly self-contradictory -- and so usually
affirms at least one non-theistic existence. Monotheism affirms at
least two existences: that is, the Theos and that which the Theos
has created and rules. Atheism denies alike the reasonableness of
Polytheism, Pantheism, and Monotheism. Any affirmation of more than
one existence is on the force of the affirmation an absolute self-
contradiction, if infinity be pretended for either of the
existences affirmed. The word 'Theos' or 'God' has for me no
meaning. I am obliged, therefore, to try to collect its meaning as
expressed by Theists, who, however, do not seem to me to be either
clear or agreed as to the words by which their Theism may be best
expressed. For the purpose of this argument I take Monotheism to be
the doctrine 'that the universe owes its existence and continuance
in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent,
eternal, infinite, omnipotent, ormiscient, righteous, and
benevolent personal being, who is distinct from and independent of
what he has created.' By wisdom and will I mean that which I should
mean using the same words of any animal able to perceive, remember,
reflect, judge, and determine, and active in that ability or those
abilities. By supreme I mean highest in any relation of comparison.
By self-existent I mean that the conception of which, if it be
conceivable, does not involve the conception of antecedent or
consequent. By eternal and infinite I mean illimitable in duration
and extent. By 'omnipotent' I mean supreme in power over
everything. By omniscient, knowing everything. By 'righteous and
benevolent' I mean that which the best educated opinion would mean
when applying those words to human beings. This doctrine of
Monotheism appears to me to be flatly contradicted by the phenomena
we know. It is inconsistent with that observed uniformity of
happening usually described as law of nature. By law of nature I
mean observed order of event. The word 'nature' is another
equivalent for the worti universe or existence. By uniformity of
happening I mean that, given certain conditions, certain results
always ensue vary the conditions, the results vary. I do not attack
specially either the Polytheistic, Pantheistic, or Monotheistic
presentments of Theism. To me any pretence of Theism seems
impossible if Monism be conceded, and, therefore, at present, I
rest content in affir&uing one existence. If Monism be true, and
Atheism be Monism, then Atheism is necessarily the true theory of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15
A PLEA FOR ATHETSM
the universe. I submit that 'there cannot be more than one ultimate
explanation' of the universe. That any 'tracing back to two or
more' existences is illogical, and that as it is only by 'reaching
unity' that we can have a reasonable conclusion, it is necessary
'that every form of Dualism should be rejected as a theory of the
universe.' If every form of Dualism be rejected, Monism -- i.e.,
Atheism -- alone remains, and is therefore the true and only
doctrine of the universe."
**** ****
Speaking of the prevalence of what he describes as "a form of
agnosticism," the editor of the 'Spectator' writes: "We think we
see signs of a disposition to declare that the great problem is
insoluble, that whatever rules, be it a mind or only a force, he or
it does not intend the truth to be known, if there is a truth, and
to go on, both in action and speculation, as if the problem had no
existence. That is the condition of mind, we know, of many of the
cultivated who are not sceptics, nor doubters, nor inquirers, but
who think they are as certain of their point as they are that the
circle will not be squared. They are, they think, in the presence
of a recurring decimal, and they are not going to spend life in the
effort to resolve it. If no God exists, they will save their time;
and if he does exist, he must have set up the impenetrable wall. A
distinct belief of that kind, not a vague, pulpy impression, but a
formulated belief, exists, we know, in the most unsuspected places,
its holders not unfrequently professing Christianity, as at all
events the best of the illusions; and it has sunk very far down in
the ladder of society. We find it catch classes which have suddenly
become aware that there is a serious doubt afloat and have caught
something of its extent and force, till they fancy they have in the
doubt a revelation as certainly true as they once thought the old
certainty." Surely an active, honest Atheism is to be preferred to
the state of mind described in the latter part of the passage we
have just quoted.
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books, magazines,
newspapers, pamphlets, etc. please send us a list that includes
Title, Author, publication date, condition and price desired, and
we will give them back to America.
**** ****
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
16