{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:the-divided-household-of-faith",
  "slug": "the-divided-household-of-faith",
  "title": "The Divided Household of Faith",
  "subtitle": "Essay.",
  "excerpt": "An essay on the disintegration of Christian doctrine in the latter nineteenth century — denominational quarrels, creedal revision, and the silent departure of the intelligent laity from the old faith.",
  "year": 1888,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/the-divided-household-of-faith/",
  "wordCount": 13244,
  "body": "\"Let determined things to destiny hold unbewailed their way.\" THERE is\na continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony that he knows\nmust exist between all known facts. It is hard for the scientist to\nimplicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsistent with a\nknown fact. He feels that every fact is a key to many mysteries—that\nevery fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual witness. He knows\nthat a fact has a countless number of sides, and that all these sides\nwill match all other facts, and he also suspects that to understand one\nfact perfectly—like the fact of the attraction of gravitation—would\ninvolve a knowledge of the universe.\n\nIt requires not only candor, but courage, to accept a fact. When a new\nfact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by the\nconservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept it with\nthe statement that they always supposed it was true.\n\nThe old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree and\nrespectability; it is filled with the spirit of caste; it is associated\nwith great events, and with great names; it is intrenched; it has an\nincome—it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the\nparasites always defend themselves.\n\nLong ago frightened wretches who had by tyranny or piracy amassed great\nfortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise with God\nand to let their money fall from their stiffening hands into the greedy\npalms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries were endowed,\nand in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known as religious\ntruths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead hypocrites have\npropagated and supported their kind.\n\nMost religions—no matter how honestly they originated—have been\nestablished by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them as a\nmeans to enslave, to degrade and rob. The priest, consciously and\nunconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers.\n\nNear Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle—twenty or\nthirty at a time—are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox leads\nthe way—the others follow. When the place is reached, this Bishop\nDupanloup turns and goes back for other victims.\n\nThis is the worst side: There is a better.\n\nHonest men, believing that they have found the whole truth—the real\nand only faith—filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of\npropagating the \"divine creed.\" They found colleges and universities,\nand in perfect, pious, ignorant sincerity, provide that the creed, and\nnothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any professor teaches\nanything contrary to that, he must be instantly dismissed—that is to\nsay, the children must be beaten with the bones of the dead.\n\nThese good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision to the\neffect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads are changed\nor not, and with the further provision that the professors who keep and\nrepair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads have not been\nchanged.\n\nThere is still another side.\n\nProfessors do not wish to lose their salaries. They love their families\nand have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise between their\nbread and their brain. On pay-day they believe—at other times they have\ntheir doubts. They settle with their own consciences by giving old words\nnew meanings. They take refuge in allegory, hide behind parables,\nand barricade themselves with oriental imagery. They give to the most\nfrightful passages a spiritual meaning—and while they teach the old\ncreed to their followers, they speak a new philosophy to their equals.\n\nThere is still another side.\n\nA vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied. They have\nno doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did. The \"scheme of\nsalvation\" suits them because they are satisfied that they are embraced\nwithin its terms. They give themselves no trouble. They believe because\nthey do not understand. They have no doubts because they do not think.\nThey regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow of orthodox slumber. Their\nsouls are asleep, and they hate only those who disturb their dreams.\nThese people keep their creeds for future use. They intend to have them\nready at the moment of dissolution. They sustain about the same relation\nto daily life that the small-boats carried by steamers do to ordinary\nnavigation—they are for the moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like\nlife-preservers, are to be used in disaster.\n\nWe must also remember that everything in nature—bad as well as\ngood—has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and\nall mistakes carry concealed weapons. Driven to the last corner, even\nnon-resistance appeals to the dagger.\n\nVast interests—political, social, artistic, and individual—are\ninterwoven with all creeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been\ninvested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the propagation\nand support of certain religious doctrines, and many millions have been\neducated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is more natural\nthan that they should defend themselves—that they should cling to a\ncreed that gives them roof and raiment.\n\nOnly a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It included\nand accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy satisfactory to the\nignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of its own; it answered\nall questions with the same readiness and the same inaccuracy; it had\nwithin its sacred volumes the history of the past, and the prophecies of\nall the future; it pretended to know all that was, is, or ever will be\nnecessary for the well-being of the human race, here and hereafter.\n\nWhen a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of\neverything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his\nsystem. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake of\nthe accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything and\neverything that does not endanger its success.\n\nThe writers of all sacred books—the inspired prophets—had no reason\nfor disagreeing with the common people about the origin of things, the\ncreation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and the\nuses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages have\nindorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred\nbooks the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of\nthe ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his\nfoundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For many\ncenturies the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our Bible\nwere accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that the world\nwas too ignorant to question.\n\nA few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world was\ndiscovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The arts\nwere born again. The world was filled with adventure; millions became\nself-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old theories were put aside—and\nsuddenly, the old leaders of thought were found to be ignorant, shallow\nand dishonest. The literature of the classic world was discovered\nand translated into modern languages. The world was circumnavigated;\nCopernicus discovered the true relation sustained by our earth to the\nsolar system, and about the beginning of the seventeenth century many\nother wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609, a Hollander found that\ntwo lenses placed in a certain relation to each other magnified objects\nseen through them. This discovery was the foundation of astronomy. In\na little while it came to the knowledge of Galileo; the result was a\ntelescope, with which man has read the volume of the skies.\n\nOn the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his three\nlaws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchisement of\nthe human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient Hebrews were not\nastronomers. From that moment the church became the enemy of science.\nIn every possible way the inspired ignorance was defended—the lash, the\nsword, the chain, the fagot and the dungeon were the arguments used by\nthe infuriated church.\n\nTo such an extent was the church prejudiced against the new philosophy,\nagainst the new facts, that priests refused to look through the\ntelescope of Galileo.\n\nAt last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired\nwritings, literally translated, did not contain the truth—the Bible was\nin danger of being driven from the heavens.\n\nThe church also had its geology. The time when the earth was created had\nbeen definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact had not only\nbeen stated by inspired writers, but their statement had been indorsed\nby priests, by bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical councils; that\nwas settled.\n\nBut a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes not\nalways closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them; they\nobserved channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams; they saw\nthe vast territories that had been deposited by rivers; their attention\nwas called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas—to the deposits\nby volcanoes—to the sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that had been\nbuilt by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of the\nlapse of time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had been\npursuing its course about the sun for millions and millions of ages.\n\nThe church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every\ndevice that cunning could suggest or ingenuity execute, but the conflict\ncould not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerned, was\nin danger of being driven from the earth.\n\nBeaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate, to evade, and\nto give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having failed\nto harmonize the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius,\nthe leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to teach\nastronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was not a\nscientific book, but that it was written in the language of the people,\nand that as to unimportant things it contained the general beliefs of\nits time.\n\nThe ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its\nscience, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its\naccount of the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that\nit had to say on the subject of religion.\n\nThe moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in\neverything within its lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest\nbecame less arrogant. The church was forced to explain. The pulpit had\none language for the faithful and another for the philosophical, i. e.,\nit became dishonest with both.\n\nThe next question that arose was as to the origin of man.\n\nThe Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the stars\nwas against the sacred volume. The church had also been forced to admit\nthat the world was not created at the time mentioned in the Bible—so\nthat the very stones of the earth rose and united with the stars in\ngiving testimony against the sacred volume.\n\nAs to the creation of the world, the church resorted to the artifice\nof saying that \"days\" in reality meant long periods of time; so that\nno matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six\nperiods—in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to be\ndivided by six.\n\nBut when it came to the creation of man, this evasion, or artifice, was\nimpossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because\nit gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the\ngenerations from Adam to the flood, and from the flood to the birth of\nChrist, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor\nis given. So that, according to this account—according to the inspired\nfigures—man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years.\nThere is no room left for any people beyond Adam.\n\nIf the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man; consequently,\nwe know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived and\nlabored and suffered on this earth.\n\nThe church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation of\nAdam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the man. The\nchurch cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden—the serpent—the\nfall and the expulsion; these must be defended because they are vital.\nWithout these absurdities, the system known as Christianity cannot\nexist. Without the fall, the atonement is a non sequitur. Facts\nbearing upon these questions were discovered and discussed by the\ngreatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck, Humboldt, Haeckel, and\nabove all, Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is not\na special creation. If anything can be established by observation, by\nreason, then the fact has been established that man is related to all\nlife below him—that he has been slowly produced through countless\nyears—that the story of Eden is a childish myth—that the fall of man\nis an infinite absurdity.\n\nIf anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has existed\nupon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if we know\nanything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that they\nexisted in a highly civilized state; that thousands of years before the\nGarden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other their ideas\nby language, and that artists clothed the marble with thoughts and\npassions.\n\nThis is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old\nTestament is untrue—that the account was written by the ignorance, the\nprejudice and the egotism of the olden time.\n\nSo, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that\ncivilization is a growth—that man did not commence a perfect being, and\nthen degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen, to\nthe intellectual height he now occupies.\n\nThe church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths,\nbecause they contradict the sacred word. Some of the most ingenious\nof the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that there is no\nconflict—that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony with the\ntheories of Charles Darwin, and these clergymen in some way manage to\nretain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly destroys it.\n\nBut in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that\nthe Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its\nanthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of\nthe sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the\norigin of man—in other words, nothing of any particular value to the\nhuman race.\n\nIt is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its\nmorality. Let us examine this question.\n\nWe must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if conscience\nis more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such a thing\nas wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must admit that slavery is\nimmoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old Testament\nupholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that Jehovah was opposed\nto the enslavement of one Hebrew by another. Christians may quote the\ncommandment \"Thou shalt not steal\" as being opposed to human slavery,\nbut after that commandment was given, Jehovah himself told his chosen\npeople that they might \"buy their bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen\nround about, and that they should be their bondmen and their bondwomen\nforever.\" So all that Jehovah meant by the commandment \"Thou shalt not\nsteal\" was that one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but\nthat all Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed.\n\nIt is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made only for\nthe Jews, not for the world, because the author of these commandments\ncommanded the people to whom they were given to violate them nearly all\nas against the surrounding people.\n\nA few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery was\nwrong. It was upheld by the church. Ministers bought and sold the very\npeople for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergymen of the\nEnglish church owned stock in slave-ships, and the man who denounced\nslavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and thereupon was duly\nmobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ. Churches were built with the\nresults of labor stolen from colored Christians. Babes were sold from\nmothers and a part of the money given to send missionaries from America\nto heathen lands with the tidings of great joy. Now every intelligent\nman on the earth, every decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution\nof human slavery.\n\nSo with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is\nimmoral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do\naway with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to cover\nthe hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The\nJehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution.\n\nCan we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality? Consider for\na moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah, wars were\nwaged. Remember the atrocities that were committed. Think of a war where\neverything was the food of the sword. Think for a moment of a deity\ncapable of committing the crimes that are described and gloated over in\nthe Old Testament. The civilized man has outgrown the sacred cruelties\nand absurdities.\n\nThere is still another side to this question.\n\nA few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural.\nMiracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days, that\nwhich actually occurred was not regarded of sufficient importance to\nbe recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited derision.\nA creed that did not fill the horizon—that did not account for\neverything—that could not answer every question, would have been\nregarded as worthless.\n\nAfter the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the\nleaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the power\nof working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in partnership\nwith God, what excuse could have been made for the Reformation? The\nProtestants took the ground that the age of miracles had passed.\nThis was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could not say\nthat miracles had never been performed, because that would take the\nfoundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves; consequently\nthey were compelled to admit that miracles were performed in the\napostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man must rely upon\nthe facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to carry on two kinds of\nwar; they had to contend with those who insisted that miracles had never\nbeen performed; and in that argument they were forced to insist upon the\nnecessity for miracles, on the probability that they were performed, and\nupon the truthfulness of the apostles. A moment afterward, they had to\nanswer those who contended that miracles were performed at that time;\nthen they brought forward against the Catholics the same arguments that\ntheir first opponents had brought against them.\n\nThis has made every Protestant brain \"a house divided against itself.\"\nThis planted in the Reformation the \"irrepressible conflict.\"\n\nBut we have learned more and more about what we call Nature—about\nwhat we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force is\nindestructible—that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from\nmatter—that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from\nforce—that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an\neffect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also\na cause. We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a\nmiracle. We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that\nit can have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an\nimpossibility.\n\nThe intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous.\n\nMost ministers are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain\nmiracles, and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few\ncongregations could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously\nassert the truth of the Old Testament miracles.\n\nMiracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the religious\nworld. The evidence accumulates every day, in every possible direction\nin which the human mind can investigate, that the miraculous is simply\nthe impossible.\n\nConfidence in the eternal constancy of Nature increases day by day. The\nscientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation—in\nchemical affinities—in the great fact of evolution, and feels\nabsolutely certain that the nature of things will remain forever the\nsame.\n\nWe have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly understood;\nthat there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are simply\ntransparent falsehoods.\n\nThe real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the\nattraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light\nbecome the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water runs,\nor why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in nature are\nthe eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange about the\nmiracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes of ignorance\nand fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to live on the labor\nof others.\n\nIn our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take the\nexact ground occupied by the Deists. They dare not defend in the open\nfield the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdities\nof the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent was\nstill there. They have nothing to say about the fall of man. They are\nsilent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They are ashamed\nto defend the miraculous. They talk about these things to Sunday schools\nand to the elderly members of their congregations; but when doing battle\nfor the faith, they misstate the position of their opponents and then\ninsist that there must be a God, and that the soul is immortal.\n\nWe may admit the existence of an infinite Being; we may admit the\nimmortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures\nand the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or\nthese dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in God\nand taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older than\nChristianity, and they have been almost universal.\n\nChristianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration\nof the Bible, on the fall of man, on the atonement, on the dogma of the\nTrinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from the\ndead, on his ascension into heaven.\n\nChristianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul—not simply\nthe immortality of joy—but it teaches the immortality of pain,\nthe eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that\nimmorality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated\nforever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and\nin a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a\ncurse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope of\nthe human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most infamous\nof men.\n\nLet us see what the church, within a few years, has been compelled\nsubstantially to abandon,—that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed\nto defend.\n\nFirst, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures; second, the geology;\nthird, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine\nof original sin, the fall of the human race; fifth, the mathematical\ncontradiction known as the Trinity; sixth, the atonement—because it was\nonly on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another,\nthat he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another;\nseventh, that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the\nimpossible; eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for\nthe reason that slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that\nwars of extermination are not merciful, and that nothing can be more\nimmoral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of the\nguilty; and ninth, the divinity of Christ.\n\nAll this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not afraid\nto think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and the\ncandor to express their thoughts. What then is left?\n\nLet me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true, is left; it still\nremains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the\ntruth needs no inspiration; neither can it be said too often that\ninspiration cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment\nuttered in the Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All\nthat is good in the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord's\nPrayer is not affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of\nforgiveness, and the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And\nbesides, there remains the great hope for all the human race.\n\nWhat is lost? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdities,\nall the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures.\nWe have almost lost the \"hope\" of eternal pain—the \"consolation\" of\nperdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has\nfallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.\n\nThe great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the clergy\nare not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old creed.\nThey have been educated in the universities of the Sacred\nMistake—universities that Bruno would call \"the widows of true\nlearning.\" They have been taught to measure with a false standard; they\nhave weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became convinced of\nthe truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them by the solemnity of\nprofessors who spoke in tones of awe. The enthusiasm of life's morning\nwas misdirected. They went out into the world knowing nothing of value.\nThey preached a creed outgrown. Having been for so many years\nentirely certain of their position, they met doubt with a spirit of\nirritation—afterward with hatred. They are hardly courageous enough to\nadmit that they are wrong.\n\nOnce the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By its side\nwas the sword of the state, with the hilt toward its hand. Now it is\napologized for—it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to\nwhom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has not\naccepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality cannot\nlive except in partnership with the sanctified follies and falsehoods of\nthe past.\n\nThe old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not within\nthe circumference of reason—they are not embraced in any of the facts\nwithin the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been exposed; all\nthe excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at last the church must\nmeet, and fairly meet, the objections of our time.\n\nSolemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred.\nPeople are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is more\nimportant than belief—far better than creeds, vastly more useful than\nsuperstitions. The church must accept the truths of the present, must\nadmit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the mental\nmuseums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past.\n\nThe time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be\ndetermined by ascertaining the character of the disputants; epithets\nare no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the church produces\nlaughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon; argument must be\nanswered with argument, and the church must appeal to reason, and by\nthat standard it must stand or fall. The theories and discoveries of\nDarwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods, or by quotations\nfrom the Old Testament.\n\nThe world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We must go back\nto the book—it cannot come to us—or we must leave it forever. In order\nto remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries, the inventions,\nthe intellectual efforts of many centuries; we must go back until our\nknowledge—or rather our ignorance—will harmonize with the barbaric\ncreeds.\n\nIt is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally\nproduced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same\nreligions would again ensnare the human race. It is also admitted that\nunder the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the great\nand intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition.\n\nThere is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat error.\nWe should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite—larceny, but not the\nthief—superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our\npower to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow-men.\n\nThere is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in\npunishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kindness,\nin the sunlight of intelligence.\n\nWe must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions of\nour reason.\n\nFor many centuries the church has insisted that man is totally depraved,\nthat he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are\ncontrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly\nasserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but\nhaving been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars; that\nthey constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were traps and\nsnares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses, or upon\nhis reason;—he must simply rely upon faith; in other words, that the\nonly way for man to really see was to put out his eyes.\n\nThere has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The\nimprovement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that\nreligion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by prejudice\nand by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its truth\nin question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal; whoever\ndemanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer, a scoffer, a\nmoral leper.\n\nThe church defended its mistakes by every means within its power.\n\nBut in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are\nenough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure\nthe distance that has been traveled by sensible people.\n\nThe world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher, and\nthat \"he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of dogmas,\nbut to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.\"\n\nAs a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not\n\"spiritual\"—that they are \"of the earth, earthy\"—that they cannot\nperceive that which is spiritual. They insist that \"God is a spirit, and\nmust be worshiped in spirit.\"\n\nBut let me ask, What is it to be spiritual? In order to be really\nspiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another?\nWere the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for\nthe miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual? Were\nthose who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the state*\non account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did John\nCalvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus? Were\nthey spiritual people who invented and used instruments of torture—who\ndenied the liberty of thought and expression—who waged wars for the\npropagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who insisted that\nInfinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children forever? Is it\nnecessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the meaning of the\nword spiritual? Is it necessary to hate those who disagree with you,\nand to calumniate those whose argument you cannot answer, in order to be\nspiritual? Must you hold a demonstrated fact in contempt; must you deny\nor avoid what you know to be true, in order to substantiate the fact\nthat you are spiritual?\n\nWhat is it to be spiritual? Is the man spiritual who searches for the\ntruth—who lives in accordance with his highest ideal—who loves his\nwife and children—who discharges his obligations—who makes a happy\nfireside for the ones he loves—who succors the oppressed—who gives his\nhonest opinions—who is guided by principle—who is merciful and just?\n\nIs the man spiritual who loves the beautiful—who is thrilled by music,\nand touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic and the\nself-denying? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought and deed to\nennoble the human race?\n\nThe defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that the\nfoundations are insecure.\n\nThey should have the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon. If the\nBible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders must admit\nthat Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but about the\nstars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about geology and\nastronomy even four thousand years ago.\n\nThe champions of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the truth\nabout the creation of man, the Garden of Eden, the temptation, the\nfall and the flood. They must take the ground that the sacred book is\nhistorically correct; that the events related really happened; that the\nmiracles were actually performed; that the laws promulgated from Sinai\nwere and are wise and just, and that nothing is upheld, commanded,\nindorsed, or in any way approved or sustained that is not absolutely\nright. In other words, if they insist that a being of infinite goodness\nand intelligence is the author of the Bible, they must be ready to show\nthat it is absolutely perfect. They must defend its astronomy, geology,\nhistory, miracle and morality.\n\nIf the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special\ncreation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago,\nto deceive the scientific world of to-day.\n\nIf the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back to\nthe barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible' is true, polygamy is\nthe highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, nature has a master,\nand the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect.\nIf the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer\neternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a\ncollection of mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is\na luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is\nfalse and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.\n\nThe defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to candidly\nanswer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired? Second,\nIs the Bible true? And when they answer these questions, they should\nremember that if the Bible is true, it needs no inspiration, and that if\nnot true, inspiration can do it no good.—North American Review, August,\n1888.\n\nWhy Am I an Agnostic\n\nI.\n\n\"With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls.\"\n\nTHE same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious questions\nas in others. There is no subject—and can be none—concerning which any\nhuman being is under any obligation to believe without evidence. Neither\nis there any intelligent being who can, by any possibility, be flattered\nby the exercise of ignorant credulity. The man who, without prejudice,\nreads and understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an\northodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of\nany country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a\nbeliever.\n\nMost people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is not God,\nthat the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the Christian religion,\nlike other religions, is the creation of man, usually say: \"There must\nbe a Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the Bible is not\nhis word. There must be somewhere an over-ruling Providence or Power.\"\n\nThis position is just as untenable as the other. He who cannot harmonize\nthe cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot\nharmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a\nsupposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pestilence and\nfamine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the\nstrong over the weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will\nfind it impossible to account for martyrs—for the burning of the good,\nthe noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous.\n\nHow can the Deist satisfactorily account for the sufferings of women and\nchildren? In what way will he justify religious persecution—the flame\nand sword of religious hatred? Why did his God sit idly on his throne\nand allow his enemies to wet their swords in the blood of his friends?\nWhy did he not answer the prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless?\nAnd when he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why did he\nnot also hear the prayer of the slave? And when children were sold from\nthe breasts of mothers, why was he deaf to the mother's cry?\n\nIt seems to me that the man who knows the limitations of the mind, who\ngives the proper value to human testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic.\nHe gives up the hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of\ncomprehending the supernatural, or of conceiving of an infinite\npersonality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all\nmeaning falls.\n\nThe mind of man pursues the path of least resistance, and the\nconclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature and\nstructure of his mind, on his experience, on hereditary drifts and\ntendencies, and on the countless things that constitute the difference\nin minds. One man, finding himself in the midst of mysterious phenomena,\ncomes to the conclusion that all is the result of design; that back of\nall things is an infinite personality—that is to say, an infinite man;\nand he accounts for all that is by simply saying that the universe was\ncreated and set in motion by this infinite personality, and that it is\nmiraculously and supernaturally governed and preserved. This man\nsees with perfect clearness that matter could not create itself, and\ntherefore he imagines a creator of matter. He is perfectly satisfied\nthat there is design in the world, and that consequently there must\nhave been a designer. It does not occur to him that it is necessary to\naccount for the existence of an infinite personality. He is perfectly\ncertain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is\nequally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The\nabsurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration.\nHe takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was\nnot. He assumes that a creator existed from eternity, without cause,\nand created what is called matter out of nothing; or, whereas there was\nnothing, this creator made the something that we call substance.\n\nIs it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite\npersonality? Can it imagine a beginningless being, infinitely powerful\nand intelligent? If such a being existed, then there must have been an\neternity during which nothing did exist except this being; because, if\nthe Universe was created, there must have been a time when it was not,\nand back of that there must have been an eternity during which nothing\nbut an infinite personality existed. Is it possible to imagine an\ninfinite intelligence dwelling for an eternity in infinite nothing?\nHow could such a being be intelligent? What was there to be intelligent\nabout? There was but one thing to know, namely, that there was nothing\nexcept this being. How could such a being be powerful? There was nothing\nto exercise force upon. There was nothing in the universe to suggest an\nidea. Relations could not exist—except the relation between infinite\nintelligence and infinite nothing.\n\nThe next great difficulty is the act of creation. My mind is so that I\ncannot conceive of something being created out of nothing. Neither can\nI conceive of anything being created without a cause. Let me go one\nstep further. It is just as difficult to imagine something being created\nwith, as without, a cause. To postulate a cause does not in the least\nlessen the difficulty. In spite of all, this lever remains without a\nfulcrum.\n\nWe cannot conceive of the destruction of substance. The stone can be\ncrushed to powder, and the powder can be ground to such a fineness that\nthe atoms can only be distinguished by the most powerful microscope, and\nwe can then imagine these atoms being divided and subdivided again\nand again and again; but it is impossible for us to conceive of the\nannihilation of the least possible imaginable fragment of the least\natom of which we can think. Consequently the mind can imagine neither\ncreation nor destruction. From this point it is very easy to reach the\ngeneralization that the indestructible could not have been created.\n\nThese questions, however, will be answered by each individual according\nto the structure of his mind, according to his experience, according\nto his habits of thought, and according to his intelligence or his\nignorance, his prejudice or his genius.\n\nProbably a very large majority of mankind believe in the existence of\nsupernatural beings, and a majority of what are known as the civilized\nnations, in an infinite personality. In the realm of thought majorities\ndo not determine. Each brain is a kingdom, each mind is a sovereign.\n\nThe universality of a belief does not even tend to prove its truth. A\nlarge majority of mankind have believed in what is known as God, and an\nequally large majority have as implicitly believed in what is known as\nthe Devil. These beings have been inferred from phenomena. They were\nproduced for the most part by ignorance, by fear, and by selfishness.\nMan in all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and\ndeath, of substance, of force, for the ebb and flow of things, for earth\nand star. The savage, dwelling in his cave, subsisting on roots\nand reptiles, or on beasts that could be slain with club and stone,\nsurrounded by countless objects of terror, standing by rivers, so far as\nhe knew, without source or end, by seas with but one shore, the prey of\nbeasts mightier than himself, of diseases strange and fierce, trembling\nat the voice of thunder, blinded by the lightning, feeling the earth\nshake beneath him, seeing the sky lurid with the volcano's glare,—fell\nprostrate and begged for the protection of the Unknown.\n\nIn the long night of savagery, in the midst of pestilence and famine,\nthrough the long and dreary winters, crouched in dens of darkness,\nthe seeds of superstition were sown in the brain of man. The savage\nbelieved, and thoroughly believed, that everything happened in reference\nto him; that he by his actions could excite the anger, or by his worship\nplacate the wrath, of the Unseen. He resorted to flattery and prayer. To\nthe best of his ability he put in stone, or rudely carved in wood, his\nidea of this god. For this idol he built a hut, a hovel, and at last a\ncathedral. Before these images he bowed, and at these shrines, whereon\nhe lavished his wealth, he sought protection for himself and for\nthe ones he loved. The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They\npretended to have received messages from the Unknown. They stood between\nthe helpless multitude and the gods. They were the carriers of flags of\ntruce. At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man, and upon\nthe labor of the deceived they lived.\n\nThe Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who bowed before his idol;\nand yet it must be confessed that the god of stone answered prayer and\nprotected his worshipers precisely as the Christian's God answers prayer\nand protects his worshipers to-day.\n\nMy mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that substance is\neternal; that the universe was without beginning and will be without\nend; that it is the one eternal existence; that relations are transient\nand evanescent; that organisms are produced and vanish; that forms\nchange,—but that the substance of things is from eternity to eternity.\nIt may be that planets are born and die, that constellations will fade\nfrom the infinite spaces, that countless suns will be quenched,—but the\nsubstance will remain.\n\nThe questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond the powers of the\nhuman mind.\n\nHeredity is on the side of superstition. All our ignorance pleads\nfor the old. In most men there is a feeling that their ancestors were\nexceedingly good and brave and wise, and that in all things pertaining\nto religion their conclusions should be followed. They believe that\ntheir fathers and mothers were of the best, and that that which\nsatisfied them should satisfy their children. With a feeling of\nreverence they say that the religion of their mother is good enough\nand pure enough and reasonable enough for them. In this way the love of\nparents and the reverence for ancestors have unconsciously bribed the\nreason and put out, or rendered exceedingly dim, the eyes of the mind.\n\nThere is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to live and die where\ntheir parents lived and died—a tendency to go back to the homes of\ntheir youth. Around the old oak of manhood grow and cling these vines.\nYet it will hardly do to say that the religion of my mother is good\nenough for me, any more than to say the geology or the astronomy or\nthe philosophy of my mother is good enough for me. Every human being is\nentitled to the best he can obtain; and if there has been the slightest\nimprovement on the religion of the mother, the son is entitled to that\nimprovement, and he should not deprive himself of that advantage by\nthe mistaken idea that he owes it to his mother to perpetuate, in a\nreverential way, her ignorant mistakes.\n\nIf we are to follow the religion of our fathers and mothers, our fathers\nand mothers should have followed the religion of theirs. Had this been\ndone, there could have been no improvement in the world of thought. The\nfirst religion would have been the last, and the child would have died\nas ignorant as the mother. Progress would have been impossible, and on\nthe graves of ancestors would have been sacrificed the intelligence of\nmankind.\n\nWe know, too, that there has been the religion of the tribe, of the\ncommunity, and of the nation, and that there has been a feeling that\nit was the duty of every member of the tribe or community, and of every\ncitizen of the nation, to insist upon it that the religion of that\ntribe, of that community, of that nation, was better than that of any\nother. We know that all the prejudices against other religions, and\nall the egotism of nation and tribe, were in favor of the local\nsuperstition. Each citizen was patriotic enough to denounce the\nreligions of other nations and to stand firmly by his own. And there\nis this peculiarity about man: he can see the absurdities of other\nreligions while blinded to those of his own. The Christian can see\nclearly enough that Mohammed was an impostor. He is sure of it, because\nthe people of Mecca who were acquainted with him declared that he was\nno prophet; and this declaration is received by Christians as a\ndemonstration that Mohammed was not inspired. Yet these same Christians\nadmit that the people of Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ\nrejected him; and this rejection they take as proof positive that Christ\nwas the Son of God.\n\nThe average man adopts the religion of his country, or, rather, the\nreligion of his country adopts him. He is dominated by the egotism of\nrace, the arrogance of nation, and the prejudice called patriotism. He\ndoes not reason—he feels. He does not investigate—he believes. To him\nthe religions of other nations are absurd and infamous, and their gods\nmonsters of ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average man is\ntaught, first, that there is a supreme being; second, that he has made\nknown his will; third, that he will reward the true believer; fourth,\nthat he will punish the unbeliever, the scoffer, and the blasphemer;\nfifth, that certain ceremonies are pleasing to this god; sixth, that\nhe has established a church; and seventh, that priests are his\nrepresentatives on earth. And the average man has no difficulty in\ndetermining that the God of his nation is the true God; that the will of\nthis true God is contained in the sacred scriptures of his nation;\nthat he is one of the true believers, and that the people of other\nnations—that is, believing other religions—are scoffers; that the only\ntrue church is the one to which he belongs; and that the priests of his\ncountry are the only ones who have had or ever will have the slightest\ninfluence with this true God. All these absurdities to the average man\nseem self-evident propositions; and so he holds all other creeds in\nscorn, and congratulates himself that he is a favorite of the one true\nGod.\n\nIf the average Christian had been born in Turkey, he would have been a\nMohammedan; and if the average Mohammedan had been born in New England\nand educated at Andover, he would have regarded the damnation of the\nheathen as the \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nNations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and hallucinations, and\nthese find expression in their laws, customs, ceremonies, morals, and\nreligions. And these are in great part determined by soil, climate, and\nthe countless circumstances that mould and dominate the lives and\nhabits of insects, individuals, and nations. The average man believes\nimplicitly in the religion of his country, because he knows nothing of\nany other and has no desire to know. It fits him because he has been\ndeformed to fit it, and he regards this fact of fit as an evidence of\nits inspired truth.\n\nHas a man the right to examine, to investigate, the religion of his own\ncountry—the religion of his father and mother? Christians admit that\nthe citizens of all countries not Christian have not only this right,\nbut that it is their solemn duty. Thousands of missionaries are sent to\nheathen countries to persuade the believers in other religions not only\nto examine their superstitions, but to renounce them, and to adopt\nthose of the missionaries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard the\nreligion of his country and to hold in contempt the creed of his father\nand of his mother. If the citizens of heathen nations have the right\nto examine the foundations of their religion, it would seem that the\ncitizens of Christian nations have the same right. Christians, however,\ngo further than this; they say to the heathen: You must examine your\nreligion, and not only so, but you must reject it; and, unless you do\nreject it, and, in addition to such rejection, adopt ours, you will be\neternally damned. Then these same Christians say to the inhabitants of\na Christian country: You must not examine; you must not investigate; but\nwhether you examine or not, you must believe, or you will be eternally\ndamned.\n\nIf there be one true religion, how is it possible to ascertain which\nof all the religions the true one is? There is but one way. We must\nimpartially examine the claims of all. The right to examine involves the\nnecessity to accept or reject. Understand me, not the right to accept\nor reject, but the necessity. From this conclusion there is no possible\nescape. If, then, we have the right to examine, we have the right to\ntell the conclusion reached. Christians have examined other religions\nsomewhat, and they have expressed their opinion with the utmost\nfreedom—that is to say, they have denounced them all as false and\nfraudulent; have called their gods idols and myths, and their priests\nimpostors.\n\nThe Christian does not deem it worth while to read the Koran. Probably\nnot one Christian in a thousand ever saw a copy of that book. And yet\nall Christians are perfectly satisfied that the Koran is the work of an\nimpostor, No Presbyterian thinks it is worth his while to examine the\nreligious systems of India; he knows that the Brahmins are mistaken, and\nthat all their miracles are falsehoods. No Methodist cares to read the\nlife of Buddha, and no Baptist will waste his time studying the ethics\nof Confucius. Christians of every sort and kind take it for granted that\nthere is only one true religion, and that all except Christianity are\nabsolutely without foundation. The Christian world believes that all\nthe prayers of India are unanswered; that all the sacrifices upon the\ncountless altars of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome were without effect.\nThey believe that all these mighty nations worshiped their gods in vain;\nthat their priests were deceivers or deceived; that their ceremonies\nwere wicked or meaningless; that their temples were built by ignorance\nand fraud, and that no God heard their songs of praise, their cries of\ndespair, their words of thankfulness; that on account of their religion\nno pestilence was stayed; that the earthquake and volcano, the flood\nand storm went on their ways of death—while the real God looked on and\nlaughed at their calamities and mocked at their fears.\n\nWe find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their\nreligion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil\nand climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage\nof the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of\neducation, on the liberty of thought and action; and that in this\nmighty panorama of national life, reason has built and superstition has\ndestroyed.\n\nBeing satisfied that all believe precisely as they must, and that\nreligions have been naturally produced, I have neither praise nor blame\nfor any man. Good men have had bad creeds, and bad men have had good\nones. Some of the noblest of the human race have fought and died for the\nwrong. The brain of man has been the trysting-place of contradictions.\n\nPassion often masters reason, and \"the state of man, like to a little\nkingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrection.\"\n\nIn the discussion of theological or religious questions, we have almost\npassed the personal phase, and we are now weighing arguments instead of\nexchanging epithets and curses. They who really seek for truth must be\nthe best of friends. Each knows that his desire can never take the place\nof fact, and that, next to finding truth, the greatest honor must be won\nin honest search.\n\nWe see that many ships are driven in many ways by the same wind. So\nmen, reading the same book, write many creeds and lay out many roads to\nheaven. To the best of my ability, I have examined the religions of many\ncountries and the creeds of many sects. They are much alike, and the\ntestimony by which they are substantiated is of such a character that to\nthose who believe is promised an eternal reward. In all the sacred books\nthere are some truths, some rays of light, some words of love and\nhope. The face of savagery is sometimes softened by a smile—the human\ntriumphs, and the heart breaks into song. But in these books are also\nfound the words of fear and hate, and from their pages crawl serpents\nthat coil and hiss in all the paths of men.\n\nFor my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has not claimed. Such\nis the nature of my brain that Shakespeare gives me greater joy than all\nthe prophets of the ancient world. There are thoughts that satisfy the\nhunger of the mind. I am convinced that Humboldt knew more of geology\nthan the author of Genesis; that Darwin was a greater naturalist than he\nwho told the story of the flood; that Laplace was better acquainted with\nthe habits of the sun and moon than Joshua could have been, and that\nHaeckel, Huxley, and Tyndall know more about the earth and stars, about\nthe history of man, the philosophy of life—more that is of use, ten\nthousand times—than all the writers of the sacred books.\n\nI believe in the religion of reason—the gospel of this world; in the\ndevelopment of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual wealth, to\nthe end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end\nthat he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe\nthe world.\n\nLet us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of countless mysteries;\nstanding beneath the boundless heaven sown thick with constellations;\nknowing that each grain of sand, each leaf, each blade of grass, asks\nof every mind the answer-less question; knowing that the simplest thing\ndefies solution; feeling that we deal with the superficial and the\nrelative, and that we are forever eluded by the real, the absolute,—let\nus admit the limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage and\nthe candor to say: We do not know.\n\nNorth American Review, December, 1889.\n\nII.\n\nTHE Christian religion rests on miracles. There are no miracles in the\nrealm of science. The real philosopher does not seek to excite wonder,\nbut to make that plain which was wonderful. He does not endeavor to\nastonish, but to enlighten. He is perfectly confident that there are\nno miracles in nature. He knows that the mathematical expression of the\nsame relations, contents, areas, numbers and proportions must forever\nremain the same. He knows that there are no miracles in chemistry; that\nthe attractions and repulsions, the loves and hatreds, of atoms are\nconstant. Under like conditions, he is certain that like will always\nhappen; that the product ever has been and forever will be the\nsame; that the atoms or particles unite in definite, unvarying\nproportions,—so many of one kind mix, mingle, and harmonize with just\nso many of another, and the surplus will be forever cast out. There are\nno exceptions. Substances are always true to their natures. They have no\ncaprices, no prejudices, that can vary or control their action. They are\n\"the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.\"\n\nIn this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity, the\nintelligent man has absolute confidence. It is useless to tell him that\nthere was a time when fire would not consume the combustible, when water\nwould not flow in obedience to the attraction of gravitation, or that\nthere ever was a fragment of a moment during which substance had no\nweight.\n\nCredulity should be the servant of intelligence. The ignorant have not\ncredulity enough to believe the actual, because the actual appears to be\ncontrary to the evidence of their senses. To them it is plain that the\nsun rises and sets, and they have not credulity enough to believe in the\nrotary motion of the earth—that is to say, they have not intelligence\nenough to comprehend the absurdities involved in their belief, and the\nperfect harmony between the rotation of the earth and all known facts.\nThey trust their eyes, not their reason. Ignorance has always been\nand always will be at the mercy of appearance. Credulity, as a rule,\nbelieves everything except the truth. The semi-civilized believe in\nastrology, but who could convince them of the vastness of astronomical\nspaces, the speed of light, or the magnitude and number of suns and\nconstellations? If Hermann, the magician, and Humboldt, the philosopher,\ncould have appeared before savages, which would have been regarded as a\ngod?\n\nWhen men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of the correlation of force,\nand of its indestructibility, they were believers in perpetual motion.\nSo when chemistry was a kind of sleight-of-hand, or necromancy,\nsomething accomplished by the aid of the supernatural, people talked\nabout the transmutation of metals, the universal solvent, and the\nphilosopher's stone. Perpetual motion would be a mechanical miracle; and\nthe transmutation of metals would be a miracle in chemistry; and if we\ncould make the result of multiplying two by two five, that would be a\nmiracle in mathematics. No one expects to find a circle the diameter of\nwhich is just one fourth of the circumference. If one could find such a\ncircle, then there would be a miracle in geometry.\n\nIn other words, there are no miracles in any science. The moment we\nunderstand a question or subject, the miraculous necessarily disappears.\nIf anything actually happens in the chemical world, it will, under like\nconditions, happen again.\n\nNo one need take an account of this result from the mouths of others:\nall can try the experiment for themselves. There is no caprice, and no\naccident.\n\nIt is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that the age of\nmiracles has passed away, and, consequently, miracles cannot at present\nbe established by miracles; they must be substantiated by the testimony\nof witnesses who are said by certain writers—or, rather, by uncertain\nwriters—to have lived several centuries ago; and this testimony is\ngiven to us, not by the witnesses themselves, not by persons who say\nthat they talked with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did\nnot give the sources of their information.\n\nThe question is: Can miracles be established except by miracles? We know\nthat the writers may have been mistaken. It is possible that they may\nhave manufactured these accounts themselves. The witnesses may have told\nwhat they knew to be untrue, or they may have been honestly deceived,\nor the stories may have been true as at first told. Imagination may have\nadded greatly to them, so that after several centuries of accretion a\nvery simple truth was changed to a miracle.\n\nWe must admit that all probabilities must be against miracles, for\nthe reason that that which is probable cannot by any possibility be\na miracle. Neither the probable nor the possible, so far as man is\nconcerned, can be miraculous. The probability therefore says that the\nwriters and witnesses were either mistaken or dishonest.\n\nWe must admit that we have never seen a miracle ourselves, and we must\nadmit that, according to our experience, there are no miracles. If we\nhave mingled with the world, we are compelled to say that we have known\na vast number of persons—including ourselves—to be mistaken, and many\nothers who have failed to tell the exact truth. The probabilities are on\nthe side of our experience, and, consequently, against the miraculous;\nand it is a necessity that the free mind moves along the path of least\nresistance.\n\nThe effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and honesty of\nthe witness and the intelligence of him who weighs. A man living in a\ncommunity where the supernatural is expected, where the miraculous is\nsupposed to be of almost daily occurrence, will, as a rule, believe that\nall wonderful things are the result of supernatural agencies. He will\nexpect providential interference, and, as a consequence, his mind will\npursue the path of least resistance, and will account for all phenomena\nby what to him is the easiest method. Such people, with the best\nintentions, honestly bear false witness. They have been imposed upon by\nappearances, and are victims of delusion and illusion.\n\nIn an age when reading and writing were substantially unknown, and when\nhistory itself was but the vaguest hearsay handed down from dotage to\ninfancy, nothing was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful, the\nmiraculous. The more marvelous the story, the greater the interest\nexcited. Narrators and hearers were alike ignorant and alike honest. At\nthat time nothing was known, nothing suspected, of the orderly course of\nnature—of the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. The\nworld was governed by caprice. Everything was at the mercy of a being,\nor beings, who were themselves controlled by the same passions that\ndominated man. Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and the\ndeductions drawn were honest and monstrous.\n\nIt is probably certain that all of the religions of the world have been\nbelieved, and that all the miracles have found credence in countless\nbrains; otherwise they could not have been perpetuated. They were not\nall born of cunning. Those who told were as honest as those who heard.\nThis being so, nothing has been too absurd for human credence.\n\nAll religions, so far as I know, claim to have been miraculously\nfounded, miraculously preserved, and miraculously propagated. The\npriests of all claimed to have messages from God, and claimed to have\na certain authority, and the miraculous has always been appealed to for\nthe purpose of substantiating the message and the authority.\n\nIf men believe in the supernatural, they will account for all phenomena\nby an appeal to supernatural means or power. We know that formerly\neverything was accounted for in this way except some few simple things\nwith which man thought he was perfectly acquainted. After a time men\nfound that under like conditions like would happen, and as to those\nthings the supposition of supernatural interference was abandoned; but\nthat interference was still active as to all the unknown world. In other\nwords, as the circle of man's knowledge grew, supernatural interference\nwithdrew and was active only just beyond the horizon of the known.\n\nNow, there are some believers in universal special providence—that is,\nmen who believe in perpetual interference by a supernatural power,\nthis interference being for the purpose of punishing or rewarding, of\ndestroying or preserving, individuals and nations.\n\nOthers have abandoned the idea of providence in ordinary matters, but\nstill believe that God interferes on great occasions and at critical\nmoments, especially in the affairs of nations, and that his presence\nis manifest in great disasters. This is the compromise position. These\npeople believe that an infinite being made the universe and impressed\nupon it what they are pleased to call \"laws,\" and then left it to run in\naccordance with those laws and forces; that as a rule it works well,\nand that the divine maker interferes only in cases of accident, or at\nmoments when the machine fails to accomplish the original design.\n\nThere are others who take the ground that all is natural; that there\nnever has been, never will be, never can be any interference from\nwithout, for the reason that nature embraces all, and that there can be\nno without or beyond.\n\nThe first class are Theists pure and simple; the second are Theists\nas to the unknown, Naturalists as to the known; and the third are\nNaturalists without a touch or taint of superstition.\n\nWhat can the evidence of the first class be worth? This question\nis answered by reading the history of those nations that believed\nthoroughly and implicitly in the supernatural. There is no conceivable\nabsurdity that was not established by their testimony. Every law or\nevery fact in nature was violated. Children were bom without parents;\nmen lived for thousands of years; others subsisted without food,\nwithout sleep; thousands and thousands were possessed with evil spirits\ncontrolled by ghosts and ghouls; thousands confessed themselves guilty\nof impossible offences, and in courts, with the most solemn forms,\nimpossibilities were substantiated by the oaths, affirmations, and\nconfessions of men, women, and children.\n\nThese delusions were not confined to ascetics and peasants, but they\ntook possession of nobles and kings; of people who were at that time\ncalled intelligent; of the then educated. No one denied these wonders,\nfor the reason that denial was a crime punishable generally with death.\nSocieties, nations, became insane—victims of ignorance, of dreams, and,\nabove all, of fears. Under these conditions human testimony is not and\ncannot be of the slightest value. We now know that nearly all of the\nhistory of the world is false, and we know this because we have arrived\nat that phase or point of intellectual development where and when\nwe know that effects must have causes, that everything is naturally\nproduced, and that, consequently, no nation could ever have been great,\npowerful, and rich unless it had the soil, the people, the intelligence,\nand the commerce. Weighed in these scales, nearly all histories are\nfound to be fictions.\n\nThe same is true of religions. Every intelligent American is satisfied\nthat the religions of India, of Egypt, of Greece and Rome, of the\nAztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles on which they rest\nare mistakes. Our religion alone is excepted. Every intelligent Hindoo\ndiscards all religions and all miracles except his own. The question\nis: When will people see the defects in their own theology as clearly as\nthey perceive the same defects in every other?\n\nAll the so-called false religions were substantiated by miracles, by\nsigns and wonders, by prophets and martyrs, precisely as our own. Our\nwitnesses are no better than theirs, and our success is no greater. If\ntheir miracles were false, ours cannot be true. Nature was the same in\nIndia and in Palestine.\n\nOne of the corner-stones of Christianity is the miracle of inspiration,\nand this same miracle lies at the foundation of all religions. How can\nthe fact of inspiration be established? How could even the inspired man\nknow that he was inspired? If he was influenced to write, and did write,\nand did express thoughts and facts that to him were absolutely new, on\nsubjects about which he had previously known nothing, how could he know\nthat he had been influenced by an infinite being? And if he could know,\nhow could he convince others?\n\nWhat is meant by inspiration? Did the one inspired set down only the\nthoughts of a supernatural being? Was he simply an instrument, or did\nhis personality color the message received and given? Did he mix his\nignorance with the divine information, his prejudices and hatreds with\nthe love and justice of the Deity? If God told him not to eat the flesh\nof any beast that dieth of itself, did the same infinite being also tell\nhim to sell this meat to the stranger within his gates?\n\nA man says that he is inspired—that God appeared to him in a dream, and\ntold him certain things. Now, the things said to have been communicated\nmay have been good and wise; but will the fact that the communication\nis good or wise establish the inspiration? If, on the other hand, the\ncommunication is absurd or wicked, will that conclusively show that the\nman was not inspired? Must we judge from the communication? In other\nwords, is our reason to be the final standard?\n\nHow could the inspired man know that the communication was received from\nGod? If God in reality should appear to a human being, how could this\nhuman being know who had appeared? By what standard would he judge? Upon\nthis question man has no experience; he is not familiar enough with the\nsupernatural to know gods even if they exist. Although thousands have\npretended to receive messages, there has been no message in which there\nwas, or is, anything above the invention of man. There are just as\nwonderful things in the uninspired as in the inspired books, and the\nprophecies of the heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of the\nJudean prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot certainly know\nthat he is inspired, how is it possible for him to demonstrate his\ninspiration to others? The last solution of this question is that\ninspiration is a miracle about which only the inspired can have the\nleast knowledge, or the least evidence, and this knowledge and this\nevidence not of a character to absolutely convince even the inspired.\n\nThere is certainly nothing in the Old or the New Testament that could\nnot have been written by uninspired human beings. To me there is nothing\nof any particular value in the Pentateuch. I do not know of a solitary\nscientific truth contained in the five books commonly attributed to\nMoses. There is not, as far as I know, a line in the book of Genesis\ncalculated to make a human being better. The laws contained in Exodus,\nLeviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for the most part puerile and\ncruel. Surely there is nothing in any of these books that could not have\nbeen produced by uninspired men. Certainly there is nothing calculated\nto excite intellectual admiration in the book of Judges or in the wars\nof Joshua; and the same may be said of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings.\nThe history is extremely childish, full of repetitions of useless\ndetails, without the slightest philosophy, without a generalization bom\nof a wide survey. Nothing is known of other nations; nothing imparted of\nthe slightest value; nothing about education, discovery, or invention.\nAnd these idle and stupid annals are interspersed with myth and miracle,\nwith flattery for kings who supported priests, and with curses and\ndenunciations for those who would not hearken to the voice of the\nprophets. If all the historic books of the Bible were blotted from the\nmemory of mankind, nothing of value would be lost.\n\nIs it possible that the writer or writers of First and Second Kings\nwere inspired, and that Gibbon wrote \"The Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire\" without supernatural assistance? Is it possible that the author\nof Judges was simply the instrument of an infinite God, while John W.\nDraper wrote \"The Intellectual Development of Europe\" without one ray\nof light from the other world? Can we believe that the author of Genesis\nhad to be inspired, while Darwin experimented, ascertained, and reached\nconclusions for himself.\n\nOught not the work of a God to be vastly superior to that of a man? And\nif the writers of the Bible were in reality inspired, ought not that\nbook to be the greatest of books? For instance, if it were contended\nthat certain statues had been chiselled by inspired men, such statues\nshould be superior to any that uninspired man has made. As long as it is\nadmitted that the Venus de Milo is the work of man, no one will believe\nin inspired sculptors—at least until a superior statue has been found.\nSo in the world of painting. We admit that Corot was uninspired. Nobody\nclaims that Angelo had supernatural assistance. Now, if some one should\nclaim that a certain painter was simply the instrumentality of God,\ncertainly the pictures produced by that painter should be superior to\nall others.\n\nI do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human being to\nconclude that the Song of Solomon is the work of God, and that the\ntragedy of Lear was the work of an uninspired man. We are all liable to\nbe mistaken, but the Iliad seems to me a greater work than the Book of\nEsther, and I prefer it to the writings of Haggai and Hosea. AEschylus is\nsuperior to Jeremiah, and Shakespeare rises immeasurably above all the\nsacred books of the world.\n\nIt does not seem possible that any human being ever tried to establish a\ntruth—anything that really happened—by what is called a miracle. It\nis easy to understand how that which was common became wonderful by\naccretion,—by things added, and by things forgotten,—and it is easy\nto conceive how that which was wonderful became by accretion what was\ncalled supernatural. But it does not seem possible that any intelligent,\nhonest man ever endeavored to prove anything by a miracle.\n\nAs a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people who demanded no\nevidence; else how could they have believed the miracle? It also appears\nto be certain that, even if miracles had been performed, it would be\nimpossible to establish that fact by human testimony. In other words,\nmiracles can only be established by miracles, and in no event could\nmiracles be evidence except to those who were actually present; and in\norder for miracles to be of any value, they would have to be perpetual.\nIt must also be remembered that a miracle actually performed could by\nno possibility shed any light on any moral truth, or add to any human\nobligation.\n\nIf any man has, ever been inspired, this is a secret miracle, known to\nno person, and suspected only by the man claiming to be inspired. It\nwould not be in the power of the inspired to give satisfactory evidence\nof that fact to anybody else.\n\nThe testimony of man is insufficient to establish the supernatural.\nNeither the evidence of one man nor of twelve can stand when\ncontradicted by the experience of the intelligent world. If a book\nsought to be proved by miracles is true, then it makes no difference\nwhether it was inspired or not; and if it is not true, inspiration\ncannot add to its value.\n\nThe truth is that the church has always—unconsciously, perhaps—offered\nrewards for falsehood. It was founded upon the supernatural, the\nmiraculous, and it welcomed all statements calculated to support\nthe foundation. It rewarded the traveller who found evidences of the\nmiraculous, who had seen the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot\nhad been changed, and the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots on the sands of\nthe Red Sea. It heaped honors on the historian who filled his pages with\nthe absurd and impossible. It had geologists and astronomers of its own\nwho constructed the earth and the constellations in accordance with the\nBible. With sword and flame it destroyed the brave and thoughtful men\nwho told the truth. It was the enemy of investigation and of reason.\nFaith and fiction were in partnership.\n\nTo-day the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous. Ignorance\nis the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of Christianity has\ncrumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric must fall. The natural\nis true. The miraculous is false.\n\nNorth American Review, March, 1890.\n\nHUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.\n"
}