home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 6
/
500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 6.iso
/
start
/
progs
/
text
/
existgod.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-28
|
36KB
|
651 lines
10 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
**** ****
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD;
or
QUESTIONS FOR THEISTS.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
(Vice-President of the National Secular Society).
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, Johnson's Court,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
1894.
**** ****
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD;
OR, QUESTIONS FOR THEISTS.
THEISTS of marked intellectual ability persistently avoid
any attempt to defend the Christian's notion of their God as he is
delineated in the Bible. The reason, no doubt, of this is that the
character given to the deity by the "inspired writers" is so
contradictory and repulsive that no amount of reasoning will
harmonize it with modern ideas of justice, purity, and morality.
Now is it not inconsistent upon the part of Christians to preach to
credulous congregations about the virtues of God, while they dare
not endeavor to defend, in public discussion, the same Being before
a critical audience? Surely orthodox exponents, to be consistent,
should, when they undertake to prove the "existence of God,"
confine their attention to the God of the Old and New Testaments.
If they feel that they cannot do this, it is their duty to say so;
and further, to be honest they should inform their followers that
the character of he "Heavenly Father," as depicted in the Bible,
cannot be defended by reason and ethical science. Is it not a sham
and a delusion to profess to believe in a being whose nature and
conduct are indefensible?
Feeling their utter inability to argue in favor of the
Christian deity, Theists shelter themselves behind some
metaphysical creation of their own, which they call "An Infinite,
All-powerful, and Intelligent Being distinct from the material
universe." Now' supposing there is such a being, where is the proof
of his existence? Do not the varied and contradictory conceptions
that are alleged to obtain as to his nature and attributes show
that no idea of such a being really exists? It occurs to us that,
if there be a God who is all-powerful and infinite in intelligence,
he must know that the human race have no knowledge of him.
Moreover, if he wishes us to have this knowledge, be, being all-
powerful, could impart it. But he has not imparted it; therefore
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
are we not justified in believing one of two things -- namely,
either that this supposed Being lacks the knowledge of our
ignorance of him, or that he has not the power to make himself
known? In either case he could not be a God of infinite power and
wisdom.
What is called "Advanced Theism" is but a metaphysical
abstraction. It has been said that from metaphysics almost anything
can be apparently proved. We are told that metaphysis treat of the
"inner secret, or logic of thought," and as persons differ in their
thoughts as to what lies hidden in the "inner secret," most of what
persons say upon the matter is but little more than individual
speculation. Metaphysics have always appeared to us to cover a
certain amount of intellectual jugglery. Karl Pearson, in his
'Grammar of Science,' writes: "Now one of the idiosyncrasies of
metaphysicians lies in this: that each metaphysician has his own
system, which, to a large extent, excludes that of his predecessors
and colleagues. Hence, we must conclude that metaphysics are either
built on air or on quicksands -- either they start from no
foundation in fact at all, or the superstructure has been raised
before a basis has been found in the accurate classification of
facts. ... The metaphysician is a poet, often a very great one,
but, unfortunately, he is not known to be a poet, because he
clothes his poetry in the language of apparent reason, and hence it
follows that he is liable to be a dangerous member of the
community." Avoiding, as much as possible, this disguised poetry,
let us take a practical view of the difficulties surrounding the
allegation: "That there exists an Infinite, All-powerful and
Intelligent Being distinct from the material universe." Before this
allegation is proved certain evidence must be produced, and
important questions must be satisfactorily answered. Now, there are
three kinds of evidence: that which is derived from the senses;
that which is relied upon from testimony; and that which we obtain
from the deductions of reason. While assumption is sometimes
permissible, bare assumption cannot justify the Theist's
affirmation. The term, "an intelligent Being," implies a form of
existence that manifest the knowing faculty. "A Being," as Mill, in
his 'Logic,' observes, is one who excites feelings and possesses
attributes. By the "material universe" we understand the totality
of existence, with all its attributes, properties, and forces. All
the evidence in reference to the said intelligent Being and to the
universe should be drawn from one or more of the three kinds of
evidence above mentioned. Further, every formulated thought, every
true cognition, should possess three characteristics -- namely,
relation, likeness, and difference. Any analysis of thought that
reveals the absence of any one of these three characteristics
indicates that we have no certain conception of what may be
expressed in words. For instance, the terms "creation,"
"annihilation," and "the infinite," as used by theologians, convey
to us no definite and logical meaning.
Putting aside the theory that divides existence into spiritual
and material, for which we fail to see, as Professor Huxley, does,
any justification in nature, what is affirmed by eminent writers to
day? We are told of the persistence of force, the continuity of
motion, and the indestructibility of matter; that law prevails
throughout all nature, and that the materials of which different
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
bodies are composed can be identified by their similarity. Again,
we regard every thought as being conditioned; to think, as Hamylton
puts it, is to limit. Therefore, apart from physical causes, we are
unable to think, to lay down a boundary beyond which we can say
nothing is. Every conclusion implies that there is something
beyond. To affirm that there is an "infinite, intelligent Being
apart from the universe" is to distinguish it from the universe,
and to contend for two existences. Before, however, this can be
done successfully it has to be proved that nature is limited. To
assume a limit to the universe is not evidence, because no proof
has been given of its limitations. To postulate an "infinite,
intelligent Being" distinct from the universe vitiates the law of
thought to which we have referred, inasmuch as the definition does
not express likeness, and it negates relation. Of course, we do not
assert there is no such intelligent Being, but only that we have no
evidence of his existence.
Our position is that nature is; that, so far as we can
ascertain, it is destructible only in its various forms. Is it not,
therefore, possible that this nature is the "something" of which
endless existence may be affirmed? An endless "intelligent Being"
is that which does not possess a likeness to any known existence.
All intelligent beings, as we know them, must begin and end, or
they cannot be thought of. The senses or testimony fail to afford
us evidence of the existence of such a being as the Theists contend
for. We are, therefore, unable to see how, from reason, any
evidence can be adduced to prove that of which we can form no
conception. It is clear, that, if there is such a being, he is
limited in the extent of his power, for this reason -- as a "Being"
his power must be limited, and as he exists apart from something
else, he is not the whole of existence. Everything to be thought of
must exist in some place and in some relation to other existences,
and therefore to speak of one being apart from all else is the
annihilation in thought of that one. Besides, how can a Being who
is distinct FROM the universe manifest his power in the universe?
While distinct he is non-related, and cannot affect it. If he does
influence nature, it is only when he becomes a part thereof, and
then he is no longer distinct from it. If God is infinite, in the
sense of being everywhere, he is in the universe. If he is not in
the universe, his sphere is limited and finite. In that case, where
does his superior power, to that possessed by nature, commence, and
where is it made visible to us? How are we to distinguish between
natural power and God power? Further, if he be distinct from
nature, where is he? And what exists between his dwelling-place and
nature? That is, are the two -- nature and God's abode --
connected? If yes, by what? If by nothing, what is that?
Before the Theist can make good his assertion, that there
exists "an infinite, all-powerful, and intelligent Being distinct
from the universe," he should be able to satisfactorily answer the
following questions: (1) Can the universe be limited by human
thought? (2) Can we conceive of a time when the universe was not?
(3) How is it possible for God, if he be distinct from nature, to
control and regulate it? (4) Have we any proof that the power of
nature is acquired and limited? (5) Where is the evidence that
God's intelligence is different from, and superior to, that of man
7 (6) Supposing God exists, has his intelligence always been used
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
for the benefit of the human family? (7) Is the world governed upon
the principles of justice, goodness, and mercy? It occurs to us
that, before the Theist should positively allege that he knows a
God exists, a reasonable reply should be given to these queries. If
it is admitted that no logical answer can be given to them, is not
that very admission a proof that Theism is a belief without
adequate evidence? Remembering the difficulties that these
questions suggest, it is not surprising that Dr. Knight, in his
recent work, 'Aspects of Theism,' should write thus: "The God of
the logical understanding, whose existence is supposed to be
attested by the necessary laws of mind, is the mere projected
shadow of self. It has, therefore, no more than an ideal
significance. The same may be said, with some abatements, of the
Being whose existence is inferred from the phenomena of design. The
otologist and the teleologist unconsciously draw their own
portrait; and, by all effort of thought, project it outward on the
canvas of infinity." In reference to design, an able American
writer puts the following pertinent question: "Did God design the
universe? If so, his plans must be eternal -- without beginning,
and therefore uncaused. If God's plans are not eternal; if from
time to time new plans originate in his mind, there must be an
addition to his knowledge; and, if his knowledge admits of
addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no beginning; if,
like himself, they are eternal, they must, like him, be independent
of design. Now, the plan of a thing is as much evidence of design
as the object which embodies the plan. Since the plans of deity are
no proof of design that produced them (for they are supposed to be
eternal), the plan of this universe, of course, was no evidence of
a designing intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of
the universe is as much evidence of design as the universe itself,
and since the former is no evidence of design, it follows that
design cannot be inferred from the existence of the universe."
Again, if it be contended that an intelligent power can and
does control matter and force from outside the universe, it should
be shown how this outside power can be separated in thought from
matter and force, and yet, at the same time, be a perceptible
existence. At the most this can only be inferred. Matter being
infinite (that is, unlimited) in extension and duration, the "non-
matter" cannot exist apart from it. Neither can it be ascertained
how far (if there be any relation) the one is independent of the
other, or how the presence of "non-matter" can be even inferred,
except by its influence on matter. Is it possible to conceive of
the universality of both matter and non-matter? The Theists speak
of an "intelligent Being who rules the universe and regulates the
destiny of man. But intellect implies a power capable of exercising
reason and judgment. We have no evidence of intellect existing by
itself Perception is a function of an organism; all intellect, as
we know it, is attended by living organized matter, and the one is
always related to the other, not apart from it.
We fail to see how the human mind can conceive an idea of an
"intelligent Being" apart from, or independent of, matter, for the
same reason that we are incapable of forming an idea that motion
can exist separately from matter. In order to establish the
existence of a Being distinct from matter, it is necessary to
assume that matter is limited in extent and in time, and that it is
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
destitute of all the properties that we claim it now possesses,
except that of mere existence. But even then we should require
evidence that any mind could have produced everything out of
nothing, and have endowed it, under certain forms, with powers to
live, feel and think. If it is assumed that all physical forces
that are manifested in nature, which exhibit skill, will,
intention, and purpose, are qualities of mind, and not of matter,
then the question arises, By what mode of action does an
"intelligent Being apart from them " exercise will, intention, and
purpose, through such forces? If we do not know, why should we
assume that we do?
But if all unverified assumptions are accepted, or are
assumed, as necessary to explain phenomena, the evidence of them
can be found only in the very nature that they are supposed to
explain. Moreover, the assumption of an "intelligent Being"
existing outside of nature can only be a deduction from
manifestations inside of nature, where it is admitted that he is
not present. This is a contradiction, for it implies that action is
caused by a power that is not there to act. We can only assume
nature and its properties as being capable of partial explanation,
or even cognition; and, although we cannot fully account for them,
we do but multiply impossibilities of thought by attempts to
explain their ultimate nature, origin, and purpose. Is it not self-
evident that -- (1) Every part of existence, the All, must be,
related to every other part? (2) That the whole of existence can
have on relation to any other whole? (3) That only the one whole
contains self-knowledge, self-will, and self-intention? (4) If the
universe, which to us is the whole, had intelligence imparted to it
from without, when, where, and how was it imparted? (5) How could
an intelligent person manifest intelligence, without the conditions
being present which we know to be necessary for its manifestations?
Every intelligent being, whatever attributes he may be endowed
with, must be a person hiving identity; he must also be
distinguishable from every other intelligent being. The material
world is full of such distinct intelligent beings, and therefore
they must stand in some relation to any other being who may exist.
We repeat, that a being, to be thought of at all, must be
characterized by relation, likeness, and difference, which cannot
be affirmed of an abstraction apart from the universe or separate
from the All. Now, it may be fairly alleged that the very thought
of personality is inconsistent with infinity. Experience teaches us
that a being who feels, thinks, and reasons is limited by an
organism that is acted upon, and that responds to the movements of
an external world. From experience we also learn that no
intelligent being can exercise his intellectual powers without food
and air, we do not mean that thought is the direct product simply
of food and air, any more than are muscular action and animal heat;
but we do mean that we have no knowledge of living beings in which
these three manifestations are not dependent upon food and air.
Now, the question for Theists to endeavor to answer is, If the
sources of these energies are not in the universe, where are they?
Why should we attempt to rob nature, of whose power we know
something, of that potency which is displayed on every hand, and
ascribe it to a source of which nothing is known, whatever is
believed upon the subject?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Further, to logically affirm the existence of an "intelligent
Being" apart from the universe, not only must the universe be
deprived of many of its properties, but it must be assumed that
this supposed "intelligent Being" who is said to exist distinct
from the universe, could operate from without, and at the same time
be within the universe. Now, here is a difficulty. How could a
person operate where he was not? If he is distinct from the
universe, he is not in it; and if he is not there, how could he
control and regulate that with which he is not connected? If it is
said God is infinite, then in that case he is in the universe, and
not apart from it. This may not be the perplexing metaphysical view
of the matter, but we regard it as being the more reasonable and
practical one.
We have had quite enough of mysticism associated with this
question. Hence. Agnosticism upon this subject appears to us to be
the more reasonable position to take. Agnostics, refusing to
profess a knowledge they cannot command, aim to differentiate the
knowable from the unknowable, and then devote their time and
energies to widening the sphere of that within human gnosis.
Whatever else is possible, it is certain that we can never extend
the domain of the known by indulging in wild flights of the
imagination respecting the unknown, and to us the unknowable. As
Socrates observes: "Fancies beyond the reach of understanding, and
which have yet been made the objects of belief -- these have been
the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions which
have prevailed in the world. Such national mysteries cannot be made
subservient to the right use of humanity."
There is another consideration in reference to this subject,
which appears to us to be important. Upon the hypothesis that an
intelligent Being exists distinct from the universe, the following
queries may be submitted: Did he form the rocks for the builders?
Animals and plants for breeders and horticulturists to experiment
upon and produce varieties? Did be arrange mountains and valleys,
seas, and rivers for geographical and navigating purposes? The
Theist will doubtless answer that he did produce all these things,
and for the objects named. But, before such a position is proved,
it must be shown that there was a time when these things were not,
which, except in the case of animals, it would be very difficult to
do; and, further, it must be demonstrated that this "Being" really
did produce all that now exists. What, however, does this assume?
Why this: that there was a place where there was no place. But then
the question would arise, How could a "Being" be nowhere, and
produce rocks, animals, plants, etc., out of nothing? These things
could not possibly have been an emanation from the Being himself,
inasmuch as he is alleged to be distinct from all of them. If it
were possible to prove this Theistic assumption, then the
discoveries in the various sciences of energies, causes, and
sequences of recognized natural forces would be nothing more nor
less than fictions of the human brain. "Thus," as Dr. Toulmin, in
his 'Eternity of the Universe, exclaims, "must it most evidently
appear that every step we advance beyond the universe is
relinquishing a sublime, an infinite, and certain existence in
search of an existence removed from the evidences of our senses.
... For again let me observe that the uncaused existences which
could produce the universe, itself infinitely splendid, superb, and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
intelligent, must -- were it possible -- be still more wonderful an
superb than the universe or Nature, which they are said to have
produced; and consequently there is greater difficulty in
conceiving them self-existent than in conceiving the unbounded
universe self-existent."
The Theist's position further assumes that the universe and
man are incapable of producing that which we know to exist, and
that the present "order of things" could not be the result of
certain molecular movements of the elements in nature. Therefore,
it is argued that a belief in a "powerful and intelligent Being
distinct from the material universe" is necessary to account for
things as they are. Now, this assumption is based upon a still
further assumption -- namely, that we are acquainted with the
extent of nature's power. But who has been enabled to fathom such
a mystery? Where is the man who has either penetrated into the
depths of the earth below, or soared into the regions above, and
there sufficiently grasped the extent of natural force to justify
him saying "this or that event is beyond the power of nature to
produce"? Before we can, with reason, dogmatize upon what nature
cannot do, we must know all that she can do, and that is a
knowledge that we have yet to learn that any one possesses.
No man can fix a limit to the possibilities of the potency in
nature. Why, then should the power of the universe be limited by
man, when he has never known that power to be exhausted? Do
diseases or epidemics afflict and desolate society? Nature affords
the advantages of science to alleviate the one, and to get rid of
the other. If political wrongs curse a nation, and despotism
strives to crush the freedom of its people, the heroism in man is
at once stimulated, and his love for liberty aroused, so that he
nobly and persistently toils to remedy the former, and to maintain
the latter. If social inequalities keep men in a false and unfair
position in life, the natural yearning which all men have more or
less for the improvement of their position in the world stimulates
them to try to break down the barriers to social equity and mutual
enjoyment. The inspiration to these useful actions springs from
natural impulses, and not from any imaginary supernatural agency.
Nature has already done a thousand things which our forefathers
would have declared to be impossible, and she will doubtless, in
the future, under further discoveries and advances in science, do
much more which, to us, appears impossible to be accomplished.
Whatever, therefore, comes through nature must be natural, for the
very reason that it comes to us in that manner. Therefore, upon
nature we rely, believing her to be the fountain from which all
that is has been derived. We have faith in her capabilities, for we
feel assured that "Nature never did deceive the heart that loved
her."
But does the Theist, in any way, settle the question by
supposing the existence of an "intelligent Being distinct from the
universe"? We think not. Taking things and events with which we are
familiar, we ask, Are they such as may be ascribed to such a Being?
There are thousands of creatures born into this world, of whom only
few survive, while others appear under such conditions that they
prematurely perish; there are thousands also of organisms who live
in and upon each other. One half of all animal life consists of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
parasites -- that is, animals that fasten themselves to the bodies
of other animals, and live by sucking their blood. Those which prey
upon man are mentioned by Herbert Spencer in his work upon 'The
Principles of Biology.' These parasites are adapted to their
peculiar mode of life, end are the cause of great pain and
suffering to the organisms upon which they feed. Besides this,
throughout all past time there has been a constant preying of
superior animals upon inferior ones -- a perpetual devouring of the
weak by the strong; and the earth has been a scene of universal
carnage. Now, this supposed intelligent Being either did, or did
not, provide that these things should take place as they have done.
If he did so arrange, his intelligence, to say the very least, was
not put to a good purpose; if, on the other hand, he did not
arrange these things, then, in that case, there was a power in the
universe that acted in despite of him. If all that is, and all that
happens, are not such as an intelligent man would devise, we cannot
reasonably ascribe such work to any other intelligent Being
particularly if he be superior to man.
Contemplating the cruelty and the injustice by which we are
surrounded -- the success of crime, the triumph of despotism, the
prevalence of starvation, the struggles for many to get the means
of mere existence, the appalling sights of deformity in children
who are born into the world so diseased, so decrepit, that the
sunshine of happiness seldom, if ever, gladdens their lives;
remembering the existence of these evils and woes, we cannot
believe that a good God dwells on high, "who could, and yet would
not, remedy this most lamentable state of things. As Dr. Vaughan,
in his work, "The Age and Christianity,' declares: "No attempt of
any philosopher to harmonize our ideal notions as to the sort of
world which it become a Being of infinite perfection to create,
with the world existing around us, can ever be pronounced
successful. The facts of the moral and physical world seem to
justify inferences of an opposite description from benevolent."
Again, if this alleged power distinct from nature is
responsible for some events, why is he not responsible for all? If
he control the universe, then he is responsible for earthquakes
that swallow up entire villages, destroying the lives of thousands
of helpless creatures; for the lightning that kills people,
sometimes even when they are at prayers; for storms at sea, which
cause good and bad to find a watery grave; for individual organisms
that are imperfect and blighted by monstrosities, and for the
existence of ferocious wild beasts and poisonous plants. What is
the answer of Theists to this grave indictment against their
supposed God of infinite goodness? We fail to see any reason for
attributing these blots on nature to any intelligence that is
superior to man's; for if any intelligence but that which is
associated with natural organisms exist and cause these evils, it
must be inferior to ours, inasmuch as human intelligence, if it had
the power, would prevent such catastrophes.
Finally, as our knowledge is only of phenomena, the laws of
which can be directly perceived as operating in nature, we cannot
conceive of such phenomena in the absence of matter and force. It
is no answer to say "we do not know what matter is." Rightly or
wrongly, we hold that what are termed matter and law are
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
coextensive with knowledge, and that knowledge includes thought,
feeling, and action. We cannot imagine a shadow of a man without
the man, and other causes that contribute to its appearance.
Neither is it possible for us to conceive intelligence without the
causes which we know are necessary for its production and
maintenance. True, we are confronted with mysteries on every hand;
but so long as they are mysteries we refuse to dogmatize upon them
ourselves, or to accept what others say concerning them as being
more than mere conjecture.
As we regard Secularism as the true philosophy of life, it is
desirable that its attitude towards Theism should not be
misunderstood. Personally, we have always considered that in the
present state of dogmatic theology what is termed destructive work
is a necessary part of Secular advocacy. But we never fail to urge
the important fact that in attacking the errors of our opponents we
should be dignified, and deal only with principles and opinions,
not with men and personal character. Still, we must not submit to
wrong, inasmuch as, unlike Christ, we do not counsel people to
"resist not evil." On the contrary, we urge that to quietly submit
to wrong of any kind is to offer a premium to despotism, and to
sacrifice the independence of our nature. We may be compelled to
listen, sometimes, to false arguments and daring assertions; but
bad temper, vituperation, and imputation of inferiority should
always be firmly resented. We must claim equality, and do our best
to vindicate the right to hold and to express our opinions as
freely as our opponents do. While paying due respect to the
feelings and views of others, we claim the same justice and
consideration for our own. This should be the attitude of all
Secularists in their intellectual combats, whether in defending
Secular principles or in attacking the assumptions of theology. We
ask Theists, and all orthodox believers, to consider if this is not
the correct course to pursue in this age of freedom of thought and
mental discrimination?
Perhaps the most marked difference in modern times, between
the exponents of Freethought and the advocates of theology, is that
the former desire open and fair discussion upon all subjects of
public interest, while the latter frequently condemn the debating
of religious questions. To us, nothing appears more frightful in
eliciting truth, and better calculated to promote a healthy state
of mind, than the practice of listening to a rational statement of
both sides of a question. It was through ignoring this serviceable
element in public advocacy that many of our religious predecessors
repudiated the claims of all new truths, and denounced their
discovery as being inimical to the welfare of mankind. On most
subjects the only conclusions deserving of our serious attention
are those arrived at after free and calm discussion. In fact, it
does not appear to us possible to arrive at a satisfactory
conclusion otherwise. It would be a different matter if all
questions that are submitted to us were as clear as the sun is at
noonday; but they are not, and particularly the perplexed question
of the existence of God; and, therefore, it is an evidence of
weakness to shrink from debate, and to urge that it disturbs the
serenity of the philosophic mind. In most cases we have to rely
upon probable truth, and the best way to learn upon which side the
probability lies is by a thorough examination of the pros and com
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
of any given subject. It, therefore, seems clear to us that
Secularists ought to continue to question the pretensions of
theologians, and to expose the errors of existing faiths, for the
reason that many theological claims delude the unwary and hinder
the recognition of truth.
Our desire is that the proper attitude of Secularists towards
theology should be perceptible to the general public, in order that
it may be known what our real position is. Too long have we been
misunderstood and misrepresented, and consequently denounced, not
upon our merits or demerits, but upon a false presentation of our
principles and methods as set forth by those who never gave
themselves the trouble to ascertain what our objects and aims
really are. For instance, take the subject of what is called
Supernaturalism. Secular philosophy is not concerned with what lies
behind phenomena, and, therefore, it neither affirms nor denies the
existence of God. And the fact that even those who profess to
believe in something beyond the natural cannot make up their minds
as to what that something is justifies our attitude upon the
subject. Equally indecisive are God believers as to their reasons
for their belief. Revelation, Design, and Intuition are all
advanced by different classes of Theists to prove their claims; but
the particular method relied upon by one class of Theists is
entirely repudiated by the others. Surely, then, when we find that
Theists themselves are not agreed, either as to what their God is
or the kind of evidence that is necessary to justify a belief in
his existence, it is more reasonable and useful to confine our
attention to what is known and knowable, and to devote our energies
to what we are all agreed upon -- namely, the mundane improvement
of the human race, than to waste our time in dogmatizing upon what
can be only mere speculation.
The attitude of Secularism towards Theism, then, is this:
Refusing to dogmatize about the existence of a Being of whom we
are, and must necessarily remain, quite ignorant, Secularists
confine their attention to the known and knowable facts of life.
They regard all forms of Theism only as theological conjectures and
vain attempts to solve problems that, with our present limited
knowledge, appear to be incapable of solution. Secularists prefer
endeavoring to make the most of what can be recognized by our
senses, upon which reason can exercise its prerogative, and to
which experience can lend its valuable aid. At the same time,
Secular teachings do not preclude Theists from exercising their
fullest rights in advocating their claims. With us, as Secularists,
the utmost freedom of thought is welcomed.
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
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 contact us, we need to give them
back to America. If you have such books please send us a list that
includes Title, Author, publication date, condition and price.
**** ****
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10