Part 5 (1/2)
Ingersoll of attacking a theology which, he tells us, is ”opposed to all reason,” and noell nigh obsolete” I would simply say if it is ”obsolete,” it is the stock in trade of the Christian Church today Take away froy (which is ”opposed to all reason,”) and there is nothing left of Christianity worth speaking of; for theto it It is Pagan It has been _appropriated_ by Christianity, and is not original with it There is not a single ht before that book ritten (For proof of this, see Sir Wion”) Therefore, when you take away the dogy”--you take away Christianity itself to all intents and purposes And hence the utter inconsistency and absurdity of our opponents in taxing us with y is all there is of a religion which they defend and wish to perpetuate Seeing, then, that the theology of Christianity is adive it up and come over to us? for all you have left--the brotherhood of s to us: it is our RELIGION OF HUMANITY
As the only salient point, to ersoll is dealt with in the following letter, which I addressed to the _Spectator_, and which appeared in its columns, I have only space here to reproduce that letter:--
To the Editor of the Canadian Spectator:
Sir,--In your issue of the 10th instant, in a discourse in reply to Col
Ingersoll, I find the following:--
”The lecturer, who see else, was coe that he did not understand why there should be so er and pain and misery Why, the world over, life should live upon life When he has cast Jehovah out of the Universe, he is pained and puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow With God he cannot account for it; without God he cannot account for it If Col Ingersoll, or any other of that school, can give ent theory of life, and satisfactory solution of the problem of the presence of evil and pain without God, I a the honor (or dishonor, as the case auntlet thus thron Froent theory of these things; and although it may not be wholly devoid of mystery, we claim it is less mysterious than the Christian theory We claim that the Materialistic explanation of the Universe and its phenomena is more reasonable and less mysterious than the Theistic; and this is e find ourselves compelled to adopt it and become Atheists On the Materialistic hypothesis of development and evolution we are certainly _not_ ”puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow,” however much we may be pained at their fearful prevalence It is only on the hypothesis of being under the governance of an o that we are utterly unable to account for such-a state of things Although the ultimate tendency of the forces of the-Universe seeher, and more perfect condition, not only for man, but all animals, and even plants, yet these-forces are, as Science abundantly proves, utterly without mercy--without pity for man or any other anis, we can reasonably predicate pain, sorrow, and wrong; and are not puzzled at their existence It is only on the theory of a _good_ God controlling the Universe that we stand dumb with confusion and wonder-hich the world is filled--this terrible ”struggle for life,” where the-strong prey upon the weak, where aniians have had upwards of two thousand years to reduce the Materialistic paradoxes of Epicurus on the existence of evil, but have they done so? If there be a God, and He is all-powerful, He _could_ remove the _surplus_ evil and pain froood He _would_ reument which has never yet been answered by a Paley, a Butler, a Dawson, or any other Christian Theist or Bible apologist I use the phrase ”_surplus_ evil and pain” for this reason: As a sort of apology for the rank ument for the existence of a beneficent God, Christian Theists tell us that pain is necessary as an antecedent to the proper enjoyrowth and development of character; that the storm of the ocean is an essential pre-requisite to the adequate enjoy would be monotonous and insipid Noill adument; but there yet remains the mass of _surplus_ evil to be accounted for, which is wholly unnecessary for such corrective and distributive purposes It may, perhaps, be necessary that the tempest toss the shi+p about on the bosohtcalm, and also to develop awe and sublimity in their breasts; but to accomplish this it is scarcely to the purpose to send all to the bottom of the ocean! That we may have a proper relish for our food and a due appreciation of the blessings of a good appetite, it er and starvation occasionally; but to give us this wholesome discipline it would sees should actually be starved to death!
Now, on the theory of _inexorable law_ instead of a _beneficent Providence_, we are not surprised that a shi+p which is not strong enough to ride the storh five hundred bishops and clergy an unknown God for succor
On the theory of inexorable and merciless lahich we are fast bound, we are not ”puzzled” that s should starve to death when these laws or conditions of Nature are violated in over-population and a false political and social econoht under the pressure of train and tempest, the Atheist is neither surprised nor puzzled: but the Christian, orshi+ps a benevolent (?) God and believes that not a hair falls from his head without His notice, can only look at such a malevolent horror in dumb silence and amazement--he has no explanation
Our theory of the presence of evil in the world is, therefore, at least rational; but, is the Christian theory rational? Is it rational to-suppose that all the pain, sorrow, and evil in the world have been caused by the puerile circu an apple? This would be as monstrously unjust as it is irrational and absurd
As to the origin and maintenance of life ”without God,” it is quite as comprehensible and rational without God as with one with the Christian conditions and qualifications An universe ofthe ”promise and potency of all forible and co the potency of all life From the time that Lucretius declared that ”Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without theof the Gods,” and Bruno that s as the fruit of her oomb,” down to Prof Tyndall, who discerns in matter ”the promise and potency of every form and quality of life,” scientists have never been able to discover the least intrusion of any creative power into the operations of
Materialists, in using the phrase ”law of Nature,” use a popular expression, but not in the popular sense as presupposing a law-giver By ”law of Nature” we simply mean natural sequence--the uniformity of Nature's operations
Nature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference by any God or Gods In the prinorance and barbaris, fro, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia and potato-bugs Science now explains all these things and a thousand others Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no roo left for them to do And there cannot be any room _beyond_ it for them, for ”above Nature we cannot rise”
The Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is but _one existence_, the _Universe_, and that it is eternal--without beginning or end--that the matter of the Universe never could have been created, for _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (fro can come,) and that it contains within itself the potency adequate to the production of all phenoent than the Christian theory that there are two existences--God and the Universe--and that there was a time when there was but one existence, God, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and ”masterly inactivity” He finally created a Universe either out of Hi--either one of which propositions is philosophically absurd
And in either case, to say that God would be infinite would be equally absurd
Respectfully,
ALLEN PRINGLE
Napanee, Ont, April 23, 1880
THE OATH QUESTION
(TO CANADIAN FREETHINKERS)
As this Pahout Canada (especially Ontario), it will come into the hands of ht this an opportune ti this question, in which we are all so deeply interested, before the Freethinkers of Canada, and urge upon theitation for refor Parliament to remove the serious and most unjust disabilities under which we, as a class, are now placed, and thus have equal rights extended to all citizens As the la stands we are deprived of our rights in the courts, and the ends of justice are often defeated, not only to our detrie choose to adhere to the strict letter of the law the testiravest injustice could be inflicted upon Freethinkers and Christians alike under this unjust law A Freethinkerthe interests of a Christian, or he ainst a Christian; and by his not being eligible as a witness the ends of justice are defeated Or an unscrupulous believerevidence altogether It is true there seee amount of discretionary power as to whoive evidence; and the es exhibit a co the testimony of Freethinkers But occasionally one is to be nize our rights or extend any discretion in our favor In the city of Toronto, a few ent witnesses was refused because they did not believe the dogion As an offset to this, however, an Ottawa-Judge recently showed his fairness and liberality by allowing a Juryman Freethinker, who declined to take the oath, to make an affirmation The Grand Juror referred to, Mr John Law, of Ottawa, is described as-a gentleman of ”unimpeachable honor and probity,” and hence his si on his conscience, would, or certainly ought to, have ht than the oaths of many witnesses (believers) who are taken into the witness box
The presiding Judge, doubtless, so regarded the naniland, under ”The Evidence Amendment Act” of 1869,32 and 33 Vic, c 68, s 4, Atheists canthe Christian oath, and the Court must allow all Freethinkers to do so who demand it:
”I soleiven by me to the Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
We want a similar Act in Canada, and then Counsel will not be able as now to badger witnesses about ”infidel belief,” and turn the court into an inquisition; nor will a bigoted judge have it in his discretion to order Atheists down froive evidence
At al of our courts it is demonstrated beyond a doubt
that believers in the Bible, who take the oath on that Book, do not all tell the truth under oath Every judge and lawyer in the land knows this, and all knoho have much to do in courts of law The simple word or affirmation of an honest man, whether Christian or Infidel, is better than a thousand oaths of many believers in the Bible, who are without hesitation taken into the witness-box Moreover, the Atheist inthe above affirmation under the Act referred to, is subject to the sa, the usual oath There is, therefore, no good reason e should! not have a siin tonumerous in Canada, and they are, to say the least, as exehbors? Why then should they be longer denied equal rights with their Christian neighbors?
Since writing this I have been informed by one of the witnesses alluded to, that no blae in this case, as he felt coainst his syland they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of Rationalists in this respect are conceded to theion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are utterly out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast being swept away in every civilized country The Bradlaugh ilish House of Co some people's eyes, especially those conservative Christians who are still afflicted with lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and persecuting spirit which for quakers, imprisoned so-called ”blasphemers,” and violated civil contracts in the nao, Charles Bradlaugh, the elish House of Co the House he clai the Parliamentary oath, to affirm under the Act referred to above The House at first refused, vacillated, appointed Cooted et theainst the ”vermin”
Atheist Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knehat he was about, and, as the sequel showed, proved hilish House of Co classes--atching the whole business, and finally when Bradlaugh was refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep the Atheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) proan to dawn on ”the powers that be”