Part 2 (1/2)
Therefore, God ner
It will thus be seen that Mr Wendling's design argument froood, and hence it is that the astute theologians of the day have abandoned Paley and his design arguated by the incisive logic of thecoument, and in _conscience_ finds proof of the existence of a personal God He complacently avers that ”God ht' ireat ht” or conscience is _universally_ i puts it That there are tribes without the moral sense of conscience, is sustained by the same unimpeachable authorities referred to in proof of the absence in them of any theistic conception or belief; and even in civilized (?) society we unfortunately find an occasional specienus homo_ with no noticeable trace of that ”variable quality” we call conscience
That conscience is _innate_ in iven faculty, instead of acquired by development, is another convenient assumption without any substantial foundation If conscience is a Divine gift to humanity, how is it that consciences differ so widely, not only in _degree_, but in _kind_? If conscience is a Divine ”uide” frouide, and leads people into many by-paths? How is it that under the sanction of conscience the ainst hued author? How is it, if conscience is an ”unerring guide” to conduct, iuided man, in the name of its author, to let out the life blood of his fellow-creatures in rivers, on account of differences of opinion _conscientiously_ entertained? Does God give one man one sort of conscience and anotherthem in opposite directions, and then prompt the conscience of one to put the other (his fellow) to death for conscience sake and for God's sake? If so, it is very questionable work, surely, for a good (?) God to be engaged in! If God iive _all_ ive one ood article of conscience (the Freethinker, for exaive others (some of our Christian friends, for example) so poor an article, so to speak--so flexible and elastic--that it allows them to murder, cheat, lie, slander, rob s and orphans, and run aith other people's money and other s frorows so eloquent!
The Christian world has been quite long enough teaching an irrational and absurd doctrine about conscience They not only blunder as to its origin, but as to its nature and functions Nearly every Christian writer defines conscience as an ”inward ; a divine faculty enabling us to ”_judge_ between the good and the bad;” a ”_guide_ to conduct,” &c, &c In the light of our present mental science this definition of conscience is utterly false Conscience is not an _intelligent_ faculty at all--it is si By ated fro the e as between right and wrong, or anything else, for that is a function of intellect Conscience, instead of being a ”guide” or ”judge,” is but a blind iuided
It is siood--but the _intellect_ ht; and the nature and character of its decisions will depend upon various circuanization, education, &c; and the decisions of different individuals as to right and wrong will differ as those circu the conscience;” but it cannot be done
Youa sunflohich instinctively turns its head to the light; or a vine, which instinctively creeps up the portico The intellect, however, htened Reason, which is the only and ultihtened; and we uide and direct the blind impulses of conscience The truth is, conscience in man, such as it is, is a development--is acquired rather than innate; has been developed by Nature instead of ”iradually developed in ence
Where there is little or no intelligence, the ruous, and is not needed, hence does not exist
When it is required, Nature, in perfect keeping with all her other adaptations, develops it Darwin, in the ”Descent of Man,” vol i, pp
68-9, says:--
”The following proposition seeree probable--namely, that any animal whatever, endoell-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man”
On this point John Stuart Mill also has the following in his ”Utilitarianism,” p 45:--
”If, as is s are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural”
The reader is also referred to ”Psychological Inquiries,” by Sir B
Brodie, for further evidence on this subject
The moral sense, therefore, which exists in a portion of mankind--distinct traces of which are also found in so the evolution of her condition It has coes of hereditary transht by Christians to prove a God as their author, have, in like radually acquired These subjective emotions and desires--whether you call theht of radual developreat doctrine of EVOLUTION in nature explains theu in evidence of a personal God--a primary assumption upon which he predicates many other assuersoll”
de attention One or two, however, of his extraordinary assertions, it may not be a, having waxed valiant over the supposed conclusiveness of his argulove to ”infidelity” in this wise:--
”To ht of Christianity is that every living soul, of every race, of every clime, of every creed, of every condition, of every color--every living soul is worthy the Kingdoe infidelity I lay the challenge broadly down I challenge infidelity to naht prior to the advent of the Ideal Man”
Here, again, Mr Wendling's orthodoxy is badly out of joint, and his facts at loose ends This ”central thought” that ”every living soul is worthy the Kingdom” has no place in Christianity It is by no means biblical doctrine, however well so humane an idea nate the _brotherhood of ht of Christianity”--a systen a majority of mankind to an endless hell of fire and briratuitous To claiion which declares that the road to hell is ”broad,” and o in thereat, while the way to Heaven is ”narrow,” and few shall go in thereat, is to play fast and loose with the Bible To say that ”every soul is worthy the Kingdoht of Christianity,” in the face of what the ”Word of God” cheerfully tells us on this subject, is, indeed, a ”e,”
which I do not at all propose to tolerate in discussion with ”a lawyer,”
”a politician,” ”a man of the world,” or any other s the Scripture saith to you on your ”future prospects!”
”For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate” ”For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election ht stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” ”Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Roed fro lies” (Psalm 58) ”Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep” (John 10) ”Ye be reprobates” (II Corinth 13) ”Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Ro theythey may hear, and not understand” (Mark 4) ”Hath not the potter power over the clay” &c (Romans 9) ”He that believeth not shall be damned”
This is benevolent (?) fatherhood, and the spirit of the _brotherhood of huance! We are distinctly told that God, ”fro,” has deliberately fixed upon the ultimate misery and destruction of a portion of His hapless creatures; that He moulds them as clay in the hands of the potter; hardens their hearts and blinds their eyes, and then tells the what He has prevented the, and what He knows, beforehand, they cannot and will not do! This is what Mr Wendling calls the ”great central thought of Christianity--that 'every soul is worthy the Kingdom,'”--and he calls loudly upon ”infidelity” to naht before the ”Ideal Man” taught it He is right! We cannot do it! We ans in vain for so fiendish a doctrine