Ingersoll of attacking a theology which, he tells us, is "opposed to
all reason," and now "well nigh obsolete." I would simply say if it is
"obsolete," it is the stock in trade of the Christian Church today. Take
away from it this obsolete theology (which is "opposed to all reason,")
and there is nothing left of Christianity worth speaking of; for the
morality Christianity contains does not of right belong to it It is
Pagan. It has been _appropriated_ by Christianity, and is not original
with it. There is not a single moral precept in the Bible, but was
taught before that book was written. (For proof of this, see Sir
Wm. Jones, Max Muller, Lord Amberly, and "Supernatural Religion.")
Therefore, when you take away the dogmas of Christianity--its "obsolete
theology"--you take away Christianity itself to all intents and
purposes. And hence the utter inconsistency and absurdity of our
opponents in taxing us with merely attacking a dead theology, when that
dead theology is all there is of a religion which they defend and
wish to perpetuate. Seeing, then, that the theology of Christianity is
admittedly dead, why not give it up and come over to us? for all you
have left--the brotherhood of man--belongs to us: it is our RELIGION OF
HUMANITY.
As the only salient point, to my mind, in Mr. Bray's reply to Ingersoll
is dealt with in the following letter, which I addressed to the
_Spectator_, and which appeared in its columns, I have only space here
to reproduce that letter:--
To the Editor of the Canadian Spectator:
Sir,--In your issue of the 10th instant, in a discourse in reply to Col.
Ingersoll, I find the following:--
"The lecturer, who seemed to imagine that he understood everything else,
was compelled to acknowledge that he did not understand why there should
be so much hunger and pain and misery. Why, the world over, life should
live upon life. When he has cast Jehovah out of the Universe, he is
pained and puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow. With
God he cannot account for it; without God he cannot account for it. If
Col. Ingersoll, or any other of that school, can give me an intelligent
theory of life, and satisfactory solution of the problem of the presence
of evil and pain without God, I am prepared to consider it."
Now, Sir, having the honor (or dishonor, as the case may be,) to belong
to that school, I venture to take up the gauntlet thus thrown down. From
our stand-point we are able, we think, to give an intelligent theory of
these things; and although it may not be wholly devoid of mystery, we
claim it is less mysterious than the Christian theory. We claim that
the Materialistic explanation of the Universe and its phenomena is more
reasonable and less mysterious than the Theistic; and this is why
we find ourselves compelled to adopt it and become Atheists. On the
Materialistic hypothesis of development and evolution we are certainly
_not_ "puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow," however
much we may be pained at their fearful prevalence. It is only on the
hypothesis of being under the governance of an omnipotent and infinitely
_benevolent_ Being that we are utterly unable to account for such-a
state of things. Although the ultimate tendency of the forces of
the-Universe seems to be towards a higher, and higher, and more perfect
condition, not only for man, but all animals, and even plants, yet
these-forces are, as Science abundantly proves, utterly without
mercy--without pity for man or any other animal. Therefore, on the
evolution philosophy of things, we can reasonably predicate pain,
sorrow, and wrong; and are not puzzled at their existence. It is only on
the theory of a _good_ God controlling the Universe that we stand dumb
with confusion and wonderment in the presence of all this woe, pain,
misery, and wrong-with which the world is filled--this terrible
"struggle for life," where the-strong prey upon the weak, where animal
eats animal, and man eats-man!
The theologians have had upwards of two thousand years to reduce the
Materialistic paradoxes of Epicurus on the existence of evil, but have
they done so? If there be a God, and He is all-powerful, He _could_
remove the _surplus_ evil and pain from the world, and if He is all-good
He _would_ remove it, is an argument which has never yet been answered
by a Paley, a Butler, a Dawson, or any other Christian Theist or Bible
apologist. I use the phrase "_surplus_ evil and pain" for this reason:
As a sort of apology for the rank malevolence abroad in the world, and
as an argument for the existence of a beneficent God, Christian Theists
tell us that pain is necessary as an antecedent to the proper enjoyment
of pleasure; that it is necessary to the growth and development of
character; that the storm of the ocean is an essential pre-requisite to
the adequate enjoyment of the subsequent calm; that all smooth sailing
would be monotonous and insipid. Now, we will admit this for the sake
of the argument; but there yet remains the mass of _surplus_ evil to
be accounted for, which is wholly unnecessary for such corrective and
distributive purposes. It may, perhaps, be necessary that the tempest
toss the ship about on the bosom of the ocean in order that the living
freight may have a keener appreciation of the succeeding calm, and also
to develop awe and sublimity in their breasts; but to accomplish this it
is scarcely to the purpose to send all to the bottom of the ocean! That
we may have a proper relish for our food and a due appreciation of the
blessings of a good appetite, it may be necessary that we feel the pangs
of hunger and starvation occasionally; but to give us this wholesome
discipline it would seem hardly necessary that millions of human beings
should actually be starved to death!
Now, on the theory of _inexorable law_* instead of a _beneficent
Providence_, we are not surprised that a ship which is not strong enough
to ride the storm should go to the bottom, even though five hundred
bishops and clergymen be aboard supplicating an unknown God for succor.
On the theory of inexorable and merciless law in which we are fast
bound, we are not "puzzled" that millions of human beings should
starve to death when these laws or conditions of Nature are violated in
over-population and a false political and social economy. Or when a Tay
bridge goes down with its living freight under the pressure of train
and tempest, the Atheist is neither surprised nor puzzled: but the
Christian, who worships a benevolent (?) God and believes that not a
hair falls from his head without His notice, can only look at such a
malevolent horror in dumb silence and amazement--he has no explanation.
Our theory of the presence of evil in the world is, therefore, at
least rational; but, is the Christian theory rational? Is it rational
to-suppose that all the pain, sorrow, and evil in the world have been
caused by the puerile circumstance of a woman eating an apple? This
would be as monstrously unjust as it is irrational and absurd.
As to the origin and maintenance of life "without God," it is quite as
comprehensible and rational without God as with one with the Christian
conditions and qualifications. An universe of matter containing
the "promise and potency of all forms and qualities of life" is
as intelligible and comprehensible as a God _outside_ the Universe
embodying the potency of all life. From the time that Lucretius declared
that "Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without
the meddling of the Gods," and Bruno that matter is the "universal
mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb," down
to Prof. Tyndall, who discerns in matter "the promise and potency of
every form and quality of life," scientists have never been able to
discover the least intrusion of any creative power into the operations
of
* Materialists, in using the phrase "law of Nature," use a
popular expression, but not in the popular sense as
presupposing a law-giver. By "law of Nature" we simply mean
natural sequence--the uniformity of Nature's operations.
Nature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference
by any God or gods. In the primeval ages of ignorance and barbarism the
gods were supposed to do everything, from the production of wind, rain,
tempest, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia
and potato-bugs. Science now explains all these things and a thousand
others. Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no room for the gods in
the Universe, and nothing left for them to do. And there cannot be any
room _beyond_ it for them, for "above Nature we cannot rise."
The Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is
but _one existence_, the _Universe_, and that it is eternal--without
beginning or end--that the matter of the Universe never could have been
created, for _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (from nothing nothing can come,) and
that it contains within itself the potency adequate to the production of
all phenomena. This we think to be more conceivable and intelligent
than the Christian theory that there are two existences--God and the
Universe--and that there was a time when there was but one existence,
God, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and "masterly
inactivity" He finally created a Universe either out of Himself or out
of nothing--either one of which propositions is philosophically absurd.
And in either case, to say that God would be infinite would be equally
absurd.
Respectfully,