Part 4 (1/2)
”One of the principal difficulties,” he said (of the clergy), ”was the prevalence of freethought a the people There was a time when the New Testas had changedSoo the weapons of skilled historians were turned first against the Old and then against the New Testa from Germany, said, 'I am informed on credible testimony that ninety-nine out of every hundred persons here are sceptics'Geran than Christian
The press passed up and down the land, scattering into every ho” [Ah! there is the secret; when ical subjects as they do on secular, good-bye creeds! goodbye confessions!] ”Goldwin Smith, a man who had so studied the past as to be able to interpret the present, had told us that a religious collapse of the most complete and tremendous character was apparent on every hand” It was only very recently that a sceptical work on 'Supernatural Religion' passed through a nuersoll had recently visited the country He came, he saw, and in soht he had a er attendance than on the first No reat power of oratory and strong in those qualities which control audiences
The Rev gentlee training of theological students in ”apologetics,” as they were not allowed to read the works of sceptics for themselves, but had to take their tutors' version of the sceptics' argu it down,” he said was neither ”the fair nor the true way” He reco ”the very sceptical works into the hands of the students, and he would even say to go and hear Ingersoll if he caress in civilization,”
_Bystander_ adrounds, and dilute its strength as an argument that God is simply a projection of the human mind He asks:--
”If this conception” (a conception of God) ”flows from no reality, from what does it flow? It is a phenomenon of which, as of other phenomena, there must be some explanation; and we have not yet chanced to see in the writings of any Agnostic an explanation which seeest to _Bystander_ that there _is_ a satisfactory explanation, though to hi his question I will ask another If the conception of, or belief in, a devil or devils, flows from no reality, from what does it flow? The saenus oeneral as belief in God, though _Bystander's_ question seems to assume that belief in the latter is universal
This, however, is not the case, as has been conclusively shown in the foregoing reply to Wend-ling Therefore, this ”conception” arguu As to the _origin_ of the belief in spiritual agencies, and conceptions of God, Darwin tells us it is not difficult to comprehend how they arose He says, ”Descent of Man,” vol i, p 63-5:--
”As soon as the iether with so, had become partially developed, man would naturally have craved to understand as passing around hiuely speculated on his own existence
The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief of one orthat the Theistic theory is compassed with difficulties; and requires ”re-statement,” reminds us that the-”materialistic hypothesis is not free from difficulty” The difficulty he discovers in materialism relates to the order of priority of matter and force He asks:--
”Which of the two is the First Principle? Force cannot have been produced by enerate at all Matter cannot have been produced by force, because force is nothing but the i before both, which produced the beyond the range of sense”
_Bystander_ I think, has not correctly apprehended the u before bothbuilt upon a postulated pre the existence of a God behind matter and force His error lies in the assu separately and independently He asks, ”Which of the two is the First Principle?”
Our answer is, there can be no _first_ as between matter and force, for there can be no matter without force, and _vice versa_ The two are inseparable, even in conception, and the existence of one is absolutely essential to the existence of the other Hence the argu from the assumption of their divisibility and possible independence fails The Theist has no right whatever, logically speaking, to assu beforeas matter and force are amply adequate (as far as we can discern) to the production of all cognizable pheno the existence of any being or thing behind theht to carry his reasoning further, and at once assuain, and thus not only one but a thousand Gods could be postulated without the shadow of real proof of one of theround, however, upon which the Theist and Materialist may meet in common, and, so far as I can see, the only ultimate position they can occupy in perfect corelation The universe exists; man as a part of the universe--ahience he knows of, continually seeks an explanation of the universe and of hiround upon which we all stand--Rationalist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist--barbarous and civilized--the weakest and the reat mystery of the universe--soic fancies of the primitive barbarian up to the abstruse speculations and subtle reasonings of the cultured Pantheist, intellectual Agnostic, and logical Materialist
It is true one ical than the rest (as I undoubtedly think is the case), yet they all occupy the coround of uncertainty Not one can _demonstrate_ his position, and in this we are all alike (One, however, aht_ and can prove it, viz, the dogether in the presence of Nature and acknowledge our ignorance Though each school has its theory, its hypothesis, its solution, yet the hty universe is still an unsolved problem
REPLY TO ”A RATIONALIST”
We have another reply to Ingersoll in a pa ersoll's Lectures, by 'A Rationalist'” This proeh expectations; but it is only necessary to look into the rational (?) ”refutation” (?) to see that the naiven himself and pamphlet are both misnomers How such an irrational jumble of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, obsolete philosophy, and moribund metaphysics could by any possibility pass for rationalism, even in the eyes of its author, is one of those profound mysteries which ”no fellah can understand” Is it not a little singular that all these ”replies” and ”refutations” froical nondescripts--fro recognizable), and not one reply frohly orthodox chanificance, is that, though no argument comes from the orthodox side, the denunciations all come fro champion is unorthodox, in that ratio is he tolerant, courteous, and in favor of free speech and equal rights ”A Rationalist's” essay is pervaded by the kindliest spirit personally towards his opponent, and this, in a h ”Rationalist” zealously defends the Bible, and argues for a God, it is impossible to tell how much of the Bible he accepts, or what God he believes in He says, ”every jot and tittle of the Bible is inspired,” yet in another place tells us, ”The Apostle Paul is not one of the inspired writers,” as ”His words will not bear a spiritual interpretation” It would, therefore, seem that no part of the Bible is inspired except that which will stand this et rid of the numerous errors, absurdities, and immoralities contained in the Bible, ”Rationalist” spiritualizes them
He has a first-class recondite and spiritualfor every one of them, which seems to be entirely satisfactory--to hi is explained away; and arh at the infidel scientist He says we et at the spiritual, and by this convenient method every difficulty between the two sacred lids vanishes into thin air This ”rubbing off” business he also applies to the God of the Bible, whose characteristic _anthropomorphisence_ So that there would seem to be little esis, than what Beecher describes as a ”dim and shadowy influence” ”Rationalist” divests Deity of intelligence to escape the effects of the following arguence,
God has intelligence,
Therefore, therethe logical force of this, he quibbles thus: ”We do not say that God _has_ intelligence, but that God _is_ wisdom in form and love in essence, and therefore the infinite source of all intelligence” This will not do, Mr ”Rationalist!” It is entirely too vague You must either contend for a personal or an impersonal God Give us either Deisruous round to ate, or even the essence, of all intelligence, all love, all good, why this is a ht accept it; but if you are contending for anything like the Christian's God, as set forth in the Bible, you will have to alter your definitions very materially
As a specimen illustration of ”Rationalist's” spiritual ive below his version of the story of Elisha, the children, and the bears, under the ”rubbing off” process
We, Freethinkers, he says, will not ”object to the bears” e understand what the story means, and here is his elucidation, _verbatim et literatim_:--
”Elisha represents the external or literal words of Holy Writ on which the mantle of spiritual truth still rests Children represent affections--don't fond mothers even yet call them 'little loves?'--They also correspond to the opposite, and so evil loves which destroy obedience to the external life of goodness, taught in, at least, some of the literal words of Scripture, naturally mock at the baldness of Elisha Baldness, since it refers to the head, and the head corresponds to that union of will and intellect in man which rules, and is, the life, and ultimates in the very extreme of its very minute external, corresponds to the ht of Elisha, who represents the literalof Scripture So this incident ood to _theood in a practical every-day way even where that was clearly enjoined, and rendered as beautiful externally as hair is, and therefore mocked at it, or rather at what seemed to them the lack of it Then the bears, which correspond to the animal passions of the animal man, came out of the woods--woods correspond to the natural perceptions of natural truth in man--and utterly destroyed these evil loves out of the life
Again you see we find the saoodness and truth in every degree of man's life, even in the natural man, fitted to cope with and conquer his evils, if man himself will but permit it”
There's a sample of ”spiritual interpretation” for you! And what _clearness_ is there, dear reader! Just return to the fourth sentence of the above extract, co with ”Baldness,” and re-read it, and see if you canout of it What the sentence does really mean is to me as profound a ist It would be interesting to get ”Rationalist” to try his hand at spiritualizing soes of Holy Writ:--