"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest,
but the most complete, of all the distinctions between man and the lower
animals. It is, however, impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that
this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand, a
belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and
apparently follows from a considerable advance in the reasoning
powers of man, and from a still greater advance in his faculties
of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed
instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument
for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus
be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant
spirits, possessing only a little more power than man; for the belief
in them is far more general than of a beneficent Deity. The idea of a
universal and beneficent Creator of the universe does not seem to
arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued
culture."
I would refer the reader who wishes to pursue the subject further, to
Livingston's writings, to Sir J. Lubbock's "Prehistoric Times," and his
"Origin of Civilization," and also to the _Anthropological Review_ for
August, 1864.
Mr. Wendling's next argument to prove the existence of a personal God
is the once celebrated but now obsolete "design" argument of Catwell and
Paley; but he seems either not to know or he ignores the fact that this
"design argument" has been so thoroughly refuted by the sternest logic
and most indisputable natural facts that the more advanced theologians
of the present day have wholly abandoned it. To reproduce these, or to
give any elaborate refutation, it is unnecessary here. The whole
matter may be disposed of briefly by one or two simple syllogisms which
everybody can comprehend. The famous "design argument," then, may be
formulated into simple syllogistic propositions thus:--
Whatever manifests design must have had a designer:
The world manifests design;
Therefore, the world must have had a designer.
This is the whole Christian reasoning on the subject in a nutshell, and
it has been considered by them perfectly conclusive and unanswerable.
The logic is certainly unexceptionable, that is, the conclusion is quite
legitimate from the premises; but it so happens that the premises are
unsound, and in such a case the most unexceptionable logic goes for
naught. If premises be erroneous, though the reasoning be ever so good,
the conclusion must be erroneous. The major premiss of the foregoing
syllogism, that "whatever manifests design must have had a designer,"
is a pure assumption, if by design is meant adaptation in Nature. So,
likewise, is the minor premiss an assumption if by design is meant
anything more than the adaptation pervading the universe, or at least
that part cognizable to us. That the _fitness and adaptation_ observable
in Nature do not establish intelligent design, is amply shown by the
highest authorities--by the most eminent naturalists (Haeckel, Darwin,
&c.) of the present day, to whom the reader is referred, and I need
not here amplify in that direction. Nor is it at all necessary for my
present purpose and work. It is only necessary to apply the _teductio ad
absurdum_ to the above argument from design to show its utter fallacy.
We will admit the premises and carry the reasoning of our Christian
friends out a little further. By granting the truth of their major
proposition and reasoning, logically from it we can prove more than is
wholesome for the theologian, as thus:--
Whatever manifests design must have had a designer:
God, in his alleged personality and attributes, manifests design;
Therefore, God must have had a designer.
It will thus be seen that Mr. Wendling's design argument from Catwell
and Paley proves entirely too much for his own good, and hence it is
that the astute theologians of the day have abandoned Paley and his
design argument to their fate, where they have been duly relegated by
the incisive logic of the modern materialist.
Finally, Mr. Wendling comes to the moral argument, and in _conscience_
finds proof of the existence of a personal God. He complacently avers
that "God made man with this omnipresent 'I ought' implanted in his
nature." Now, in the first place, it is a great mistake that this
"I ought" or conscience is _universally_ implanted in man--is
"omnipresent," as Mr. Wendling puts it. That there are tribes without
the moral sense of conscience, is sustained by the same unimpeachable
authorities referred to in proof of the absence in them of any theistic
conception or belief; and even in civilized (?) society we unfortunately
find an occasional specimen of the _genus homo_ with no noticeable trace
of that "variable quality" we call conscience.
That conscience is _innate_ in man, and a God-given faculty, instead of
acquired by development, is another convenient assumption without any
substantial foundation. If conscience is a Divine gift to humanity, how
is it that consciences differ so widely, not only in _degree_, but in
_kind_? If conscience is a Divine "monitor" and "guide" from heaven, why
is it that it so often becomes a very blind guide, and leads people into
many by-paths? How is it that under the sanction of conscience the most
horrid crimes and cruelties against humanity have been committed in
the name of God, its alleged author? How is it, if conscience is an
"unerring guide" to conduct, implanted by God, that it has guided
man, in the name of its author, to let out the life blood of his
fellow-creatures in rivers, on account of differences of opinion
_conscientiously_ entertained? Does God give one man one sort of
conscience and another man another and wholly different sort, leading
them in opposite directions, and then prompt the conscience of one to
put the other (his fellow) to death for conscience sake and for God's
sake? If so, it is very questionable work, surely, for a good (?) God
to be engaged in! If God implants the conscience in man, why not be
fair and just and give _all_ men consciences? and give them all the same
article? and not give one man a tolerably good article of conscience
(the Freethinker, for example) and then go and give others (some of
our Christian friends, for example) so poor an article, so to speak--so
flexible and elastic--that it allows them to murder, cheat, lie,
slander, rob widows and orphans, and run away with other people's money
and other men's wives without compunction--without any troublesome pangs
from this universal "I ought" over which Mr. Wendling grows so eloquent!
The Christian world has been quite long enough teaching an irrational
and absurd doctrine about conscience. They not only blunder as to its
origin, but as to its nature and functions. Nearly every Christian
writer defines conscience as an "inward monitor" to tell us right from
wrong; a divine faculty enabling us to "_judge_ between the good and the
bad;" a "_guide_ to conduct," &c, &c. In the light of our present mental
science this definition of conscience is utterly false. Conscience is
not an _intelligent_ faculty at all--it is simply a feeling. By modern
metaphysics conscience has been relegated from the domain of the
intellect to its proper place among the emotions. Hence it _decides_
nothing, _judges_ nothing as between right and wrong, or anything else,
for that is a function of intellect. Conscience, instead of being a
"guide" or "judge," is but a blind impulse needing itself to be guided.
It is simply a feeling for the right--a thirsting for the good--but the
_intellect_ must decide what _is_ right; and the nature and character
of its decisions will depend upon various circumstances, such as
organization, education, &c.; and the decisions of different individuals
as to right and wrong will differ as those circumstances differ. We hear
a great deal about "enlightening the conscience;" but it cannot be done.
You might as well talk of enlightening a sunflower, which instinctively
turns its head to the light; or a vine, which instinctively creeps up
the portico. The intellect, however, may be enlightened. Reason,
which is the only and ultimate arbiter and guide to conduct, may be
enlightened; and we may thus modify, guide and direct the blind impulses
of conscience. The truth is, conscience in man, such as it is, is a
development--is acquired rather than innate; has been developed by
Nature instead of "implanted" by God. The moral sense, without doubt,
gradually developed in man as he rose in the scale of intelligence.
Where there is little or no intelligence, the moral sense would be
inapplicable and incongruous, and is not needed, hence does not exist.
When it is required, Nature, in perfect keeping with all her other
adaptations, develops it. Darwin, in the "Descent of Man," vol. i, pp.
68-9, says:--
"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree
probable--namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked
social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience,
as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or
nearly as well developed, as in man."
On this point John Stuart Mill also has the following in his
"Utilitarianism," p. 45:--
"If, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but
acquired, they are not for that reason less natural."
The reader is also referred to "Psychological Inquiries," by Sir B.
Brodie, for further evidence on this subject.
The moral sense, therefore, which exists in a portion of
mankind--distinct traces of which are also found in some of the lower
animals--has been gradually acquired during the evolution of man from
a lower to a higher condition. It has come down to us from primitive
barbarism through long ages of hereditary transmission. The "spiritual
yearnings" of man's nature, thought by Christians to prove a God as
their author, have, in like manner, been gradually acquired. These
subjective emotions and desires--whether you call them _carnal_ or
_spiritual_--are, unquestionably, in the light of modern science, all
matters of gradual development, hereditary inheritance, and education.
The great doctrine of EVOLUTION in nature explains them all.
Having thus dealt with the arguments of Mr. Wendling in evidence of a
personal God--a primary assumption upon which he predicates many other
assumptions--there is little else in his "Reply to Robert Ingersoll"
demanding attention. One or two, however, of his extraordinary
assertions, it may not be amiss to look into a little; especially as Mr.
Wendling, having waxed valiant over the supposed conclusiveness of his
arguments, triumphantly throws down the glove to "infidelity" in this
wise:--
"To my mind the great central thought of Christianity is that every
living soul, of every race, of every clime, of every creed, of every
condition, of every color--every living soul is worthy the Kingdom * *
* And here I challenge infidelity. I lay the challenge broadly down. I
challenge infidelity to name an era or a school in which this doctrine
was taught prior to the advent of the Ideal Man."
Here, again, Mr. Wendling's orthodoxy is badly out of joint, and his
facts at loose ends. This "central thought" that "every living soul
is worthy the Kingdom" has no place in Christianity. It is by no means
biblical doctrine, however well so humane an idea may fit into Mr.
W.'s own mind. Hence, to designate the _brotherhood of man_ the "great
central thought of Christianity"--a system which is to consign a
majority of mankind to an endless hell of fire and brimstone--is purely
gratuitous. To claim benevolent fatherhood or brotherhood for a religion
which declares that the road to hell is "broad," and many shall go
in thereat, while the way to Heaven is "narrow," and few shall go in
thereat, is to play fast and loose with the Bible. To say that "every
soul is worthy the Kingdom," and call this the "great central thought of
Christianity," in the face of what the "Word of God" cheerfully tells
us on this subject, is, indeed, a "marvellous flexibility of language,"
which I do not at all propose to tolerate in discussion with "a lawyer,"
"a politician," "a man of the world," or any other man. Hear ye! O!
non-elect, what comforting things the Scripture saith to you on your
"future prospects!"
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." "For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of
him that calleth." "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans, 8th and 9th Chapters.) "The
wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be
born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58.) "Ye believe not because ye are not of
my sheep." (John 10.) "Ye be reprobates." (II. Corinth. 13.) "Jacob have
I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9.) He hardened their hearts,
"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand." (Mark 4.) "Hath not the potter power over the
clay." &c. (Romans 9.) "He that believeth not shall be damned."
This is benevolent (?) fatherhood, and the spirit of the _brotherhood of
humanity_, with a vengance! We are distinctly told that God, "from
the beginning," has deliberately fixed upon the ultimate misery and
destruction of a portion of His hapless creatures; that He moulds them
as clay in the hands of the potter; hardens their hearts and blinds
their eyes, and then tells them He will damn them for not doing what
He has prevented them from doing, and what He knows, beforehand, they
cannot and will not do! This is what Mr. Wendling calls the "great
central thought of Christianity--that 'every soul is worthy the
Kingdom,'"--and he calls loudly upon "infidelity" to name an era or a
school in which this doctrine was taught before the "Ideal Man" taught
it. He is right! We cannot do it! We may search the philosophies and
sacred writings of the Pagans in vain for so fiendish a doctrine.
For pure, unadulterated malevolence, the Vedas, the Shaster, the
Zend-Avesta, afford no parallel for this truly Christian doctrine.
If, however, Mr. Wendling challenges us to name an era or school in
which the _brotherhood of man_ (as we understand it) was taught before
the time of the "Ideal Man," we unhesitatingly accept his challenge.
It was taught by Buddha, Confucius, and numerous Pagan writers and
philosophers long before the time of Jesus, for proof of which I refer
the reader to Prof. Max Muller, Sir Wm. Jones, Lord, Amberly, &c, or to
the writings themselves. Mr. Wendling desires us to "Tell me (him) why
it is that all the creeds of Christendom and all the civilized nations
unite in accepting the Ideal Man of Christianity despite the laws of
climate and of race?"
I will answer this question in the Irishman's fashion, by asking one or
two others. Tell me why it is, if Christianity is a divine system,
and its author omnipotent, that, after eighteen centuries of active
propagandism and aggression, compassing sea and land to make proselytes,
it has to-day, according to recent statistics, but the meagre following
of 399,200,000; while Buddhism has 405,600,000, and Brahmanism,
Mohammedanism, etc., 500,000,000? Not nearly one-third of the world's
population Christians, and the number rapidly diminishing! Tell me why
it is, if Christianity is true that its foundations are melting down
like wax in the light of Modern Science?' Tell me why it is, if the
Bible is an inspired book, a divine revelation, that scarcely a single
really eminent scientist or scholar of the present day accepts it as
such? Tell me why it is that Atheism, Agnosticism, and Rationalism are
making such rapid headway among the educated and intelligent, in every
civilized country, both in the church and out of it? That the dogmas
upon which Christianity rests are doomed; and as Froude, the historian,
says, "Doctrines once fixed as a rock are now fluid as water?"* If the
Bible can bear the light of science and historical research, how is it
that these have already irrevocably sapped its very foundations; and
that, as a consequence, the world is completely "honey-combed with
infidelity," as a Toronto paper recently asserted of that city? The
only answer Mr. Wendling can give to these questions is this: Because
Christianity is unable to show its titles; because the Bible, being
human in its origin, and, as a consequence, abounding in errors, both in
science and morals, cannot bear the penetrating light of modern science
and criticism.
* "Science and Theology, Ancient and Modern."--The
International Religio-Science Series.--Rose-Belford
Publishing Company, Toronto.