Science Monthly_ (July, 1877) entitled “The Accusation of Atheism,” in
which the able but unphilosophical editor undertakes to show that
although modern “advanced” science may not profess to recognize the God
of the Bible, yet we have no right to infer that this “advanced” science
is atheistical. The God of the Bible is to be suppressed altogether; but
“advanced” scientists, who have already invented so many wonderful
things, are confident that they have sufficient ability to invent even a
new God. Our good readers may find it a little strange; but we are not
trifling. The invention of a new God is just now the great _postulatum_
of the infidel pseudo-philosophers. The less they believe in the living
God who made them, the more would they be delighted to worship a
mock-god made by themselves, that they might not be accused of belonging
to that class of fools who have said in their heart: There is no God.
Prof. Youmans starts with the bright idea that if Dr. Draper had
entitled his book “a history of the conflict between ecclesiasticism and
science” instead of “between religion and science,” he would have
disarmed criticism and saved himself from a great deal of philosophical
abuse. We cannot see, however, how criticism could have been disarmed by
the mere adoption of such a change. The whole of Dr. Draper’s work
breathes infidelity; it falsifies the history of Christianity; it
denounces religion as the enemy of science; and from the first page to
the last it teems with slander and blasphemy; it is, therefore, a real
attack upon religion. On the other hand, we must assume that Dr. Draper
knew what he was about when he opposed “religion” to science; he said
just what he meant; and this is, perhaps, the only merit of his
production. If the title of the book were to be altered so as to “disarm
criticism,” we would suggest that it should be made to read: _A
malicious fabrication concerning a fabulous conflict between religion
and science_.
Then Prof. Youmans proceeds to say that religious people “are alarmed at
the advancement of science, and denounce it as subversive of faith.”
This is not the case. Religious people are not in the least alarmed at
the advancement of science, nor do they feel the least apprehension that
science may prove subversive of faith; quite the contrary. They love
science, do their best to promote it, accept thankfully its discoveries,
and expect that it will contribute to strengthen, not to subvert, the
revealed truths which form the object of theological faith. We admit, at
the same time, that there is a so-called “science” for which we have no
sympathy. Such a pretended “science” originated, if we do not mistake,
in the Masonic lodges of Germany, whence it gradually spread through
England and America by the efforts of the same secret organization. The
promoters of this neoteric science boast that their cosmogony, their
biology, their sociology, their physiology, etc., are “subversive” of
our faith; which would be true enough, if their theories were not at the
same time “subversive” of logic and common sense. But when we show that
their vaunted theories cannot bear examination, when we point out the
manifold absurdities and contradictions they fall into, when we lay open
the sophisms by which their objectionable assertions are supported, and
challenge them to make a reply, they invariably quail and dare not open
their mouths, or, if they venture to speak, they ignore criticism with a
convenient unconcern which is the best palliation of their defeat. As an
example of this we may remind Prof. Youmans that we ourselves have given
a refutation of Prof. Huxley’s lectures on evolution, and that we have
yet to see the first attempt at a reply. We have also refuted a defence
of Prof. Huxley written by Prof. Youmans himself in answer to Rev. Dr.
W. M. Taylor, and we have shown how his own “scientific” reasoning was
at fault in every point; but of course his scientific acuteness did not
allow him to utter a word of reply. No, we are not afraid of a “science”
which can be silenced with so little effort. Were it not that there is a
prevailing ignorance so easily imposed upon by the charlatanism of false
science, there would be no need whatever for denouncing it: it denounces
itself sufficiently to a logical mind.
Prof. Youmans pretends that the difficulty of religious people with
regard to advanced science is simply that of “narrowness or ignorance
inspired by a fanatical earnestness.” We are greatly obliged by the
compliment! Prof. Youmans is, indeed, a model of politeness, according
to the standard of modern progress; but it did not occur to him that,
before speaking of the “narrowness and ignorance” of his critics, he
should have endeavored to atone for his own blunders which we pointed
out in our number for April. To our mind, a man whose ignorance of logic
and of many other things has been demonstrated has no right to talk of
the ignorance of religious people. And as to “fanatical earnestness,” we
need hardly say that it is in the _Popular Science Monthly_ and in other
similar productions of “scientific” unbelievers that we find the best
instances of its convulsive exertions. But let us proceed.
“Atheism,” continues the professor, “has now come to be a familiar and
stereotyped charge against men of science, both on the part of the
pulpit and the religious press. Not that they accuse all scientific men
of atheism, but they allege this to be the tendency of scientific
thought and the outcome of scientific philosophy. It matters nothing
that this imputation is denied; it matters nothing that scientific men
claim that their studies lead them to higher and more worthy conceptions
of the divine power, manifested through the order of nature, than the
conceptions offered by theology. It is enough that they disagree with
current notions upon this subject, and any difference of view is here
held as atheism. In this, as we have said, the theologians may be
honest, but they are narrow and bigoted.”
Mr. Youmans does not perceive the tendency of “scientific” thought to
foster atheism. Not he! Darwin’s theory of development has for its
principal object to destroy, if possible, the history of creation and to
get rid of the Creator. This Mr. Youmans does not perceive. Tyndall, in
his Belfast lecture, professes atheism as the outcome of scientific
philosophy, and, though he has offered some explanations to screen
himself from the imputation, he stands convicted by his own words. Of
this Mr. Youmans takes no notice. Büchner ridicules the idea that there
is a God, and teaches that such an idea is obsolete, contrary to modern
science, and condemned by philosophy as a manifest impossibility. Mr.
Youmans seems to hold that this is not genuine atheism. Huxley, to avoid
creation, gives up all investigation of the origin of things as useless
and unscientific, and the advanced thinkers in general are everywhere at
work propagating the same view in their scientific lectures, books,
journals, and magazines. Yet Prof. Youmans wishes the world to believe
that the tendency of advanced scientific thought is not towards atheism!
Is he blind? The man who writes Nature with a capital letter, who denies
creation, who contributes to the best of his power to the diffusion of
infidel thought, can hardly be ignorant of the fact that what is now
called advanced science is, in the hands of its apostles and leaders, an
engine of war against God. But he knows also that to profess atheism is
bad policy, for the present at least. Science, as he laments in many of
his articles, has not yet advanced enough in the popular mind; people
are still “narrow” and “ignorant,” and even “fanatic”—that is, their
religious feelings and conscientious convictions do not yet permit a
direct and outspoken confession of the atheistic tendency of modern
“scientific” thought. Hence he is obliged to be cautious and to put on a
mask. Such are, and ever have been, the tactics of God’s enemies. Thus
Prof. Huxley, in his lectures on evolution, while attacking the Biblical
history of creation, pretends that he is only refuting the “Miltonian
hypothesis.” The same Prof. Huxley, with Herbert Spencer and many others
of less celebrity, endeavors to conceal his atheism, or at any rate to
make it appear less repulsive, by the convenient but absurd admission of
the Great Unknown or Unknowable, to which surely neither he nor any
other scientist will offer adoration, as it would be an utterly
superfluous, unscientific, and unphilosophical thing to worship what
they cannot know. And Prof. Youmans himself follows the same tactics, as
we shall see in the sequel. Hence we do not wonder that he considers Mr.
Draper’s words “a conflict between religion and science” as unfortunate,
and only calculated to provoke criticism and theological abuse. It would
have been so easy and so much better to say “between ecclesiasticism and
science.” This would have saved appearances, and might have furnished a
plausible ground for repelling the accusation of atheism.
But, says Prof. Youmans, “this imputation is denied.” We answer that the
imputation cannot be evaded by any such denial. If there were question
of the intimate convictions of private individuals, their denial might
have some weight in favor of their secret belief. Men very frequently do
not see clearly the ultimate consequences of their own principles; and
it is for this reason that an atheistic science does not always lead to
personal atheism. As there are honest Protestants who believe on
authority, though their Protestant principle sacrifices authority to
private judgment, so also there are many honest scientists who,
notwithstanding their admission of atheistic theories, believe in God.
This is mere inconsistency after all; and it can only furnish a ground
for judging of the views of individual scientists.
But our question regards the tendency of “advanced scientific thought”
irrespective of the inconsistency of sundry individuals. This question
is to be solved from the nature of the principles and of the conclusions
of “advanced” science; and if such principles and such conclusions are
shown to lead logically to atheism, it matters very little indeed that
“the imputation is denied.” This the editor of the _Popular Science
Monthly_ must admit. Now, that atheism is the logical outcome of
“advanced” science may be proved very easily. Dr. Büchner, in his _Force
and Matter_, gives a long scientific argumentation against the existence
of God. The science which led him to this profession of atheism is the
“advanced” science of which Prof. Youmans speaks. Has any among the
advanced scientists protested against Dr. Büchner’s conclusion? Have any
of them endeavored to show that this conclusion was not logically
deduced from the principles of their pretended science? Some of them may
have been pained at the imprudent sincerity of the German doctor; but
what he affirms with a coarse impudence they too insinuate every day in
a gentler tone and in a more guarded phraseology. Their doctrine is that
“whereas mankind formerly believed the phenomena of nature to be
expressions of the will of a personal God, modern science, by reducing
everything to laws, has given a sufficient explanation of these
phenomena, and made it quite unnecessary for man to seek any further
account of them.” Dr. Carpenter, from whom we have borrowed this
statement, adds: “This is precisely Dr. Büchner’s position; and it seems
to me a legitimate inference from the very prevalent assumption (which
is sanctioned by the language of some of our ablest writers) that the
so-called laws of nature ‘govern’ the phenomena of which they are only
generalized expressions. I have been protesting against this language
for the last quarter of a century.”[61]
Mr. Youmans himself implicitly admits that “advanced” science has given
up the old notion of God; and he only contends that scientists, while
disregarding the God of theology, fill up his place with something
better. “Scientific men claim that their studies lead them to higher and
more worthy conceptions of the divine power manifested through the order
of nature than the conceptions offered by theology.” Our readers need
hardly be told that this claim on the part of our advanced scientists is
preposterous and ridiculous. For if the order of nature could lead to a
conception of divine power higher or worthier than the conception
offered by theology, it would lead to a conception of divine power
greater and higher than omnipotence; for omnipotence is one of the
attributes of the God of theology. But can we believe that Mr. Youmans
entertains the hope of conceiving a power higher than omnipotence? How,
then, can he make good his assertion? On the other hand, the God of
theology is immense, eternal, and unchangeable, infinitely intelligent,
infinitely wise, infinitely good, infinitely perfect, as not only all
theologians but also all philosophers unquestionably admit. Must we
believe that our scientists will be able to conceive a higher intellect,
wisdom, or goodness than infinite intellect, infinite wisdom, or
infinite goodness? Will they imagine anything greater than immensity, or
than eternity? The editor of the _Popular Science Monthly_ has a very
poor opinion indeed of the intellectual power of his habitual readers,
if he thinks that they will not detect the absurdity of his claim.
But there is more than this. “Advanced” science has repeatedly confessed
its inability to form a conception of God. The ultimate conclusion of
“advanced” science is that the contemplation and study of nature afford
no indication of what a God may be; so much so that the leaders of this
“advanced” science, after suppressing the God of theology, could find
nothing to substitute in his place but what they call “the Great
Unknown” and “the Great Unknowable.” Now, surely, the unknowable cannot
be known. How, then, can these scientists claim that their studies lead
them “to higher and more worthy conceptions of the divine power”? Can
they conceive that which is unknown and unknowable? Have they any means
of ascertaining that a thing unknowable has power, or that its power is
divine?
Let them understand that if their “Unknowable” is not eternal, it is no
God; if it is not omniscient, it is no God; if it is not omnipotent, it
is no God. And, in like manner, if it is not self-existent, immutable,
immense, infinitely wise, infinitely good, infinitely perfect, it is no
God. And, again, if it is not our Creator, our Master, and our Judge, it
is no God, and we have no reason for worshipping it, or even for
respecting it. How can we know that these and similar attributes can and
must be predicated of the Unknowable, since the unknowable is not and
cannot be known? If, on the contrary, we know that such a being is
omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immense, and infinitely perfect in all
manner of perfections, then it is obvious (even to Prof. Youmans, we
assume) that such a being is neither unknown nor unknowable. Thus the
unknowable can lay no claim to “divine power” or other divine
attributes; and therefore the pretended worshippers of the Unknowable
vainly attempt to palliate their atheism by claiming that their studies
have led them “to a higher and more worthy conception of the divine
power than the conception offered by theology.”
As to Prof. Youmans himself, he tells us that the divine nature is
“unspeakable and unthinkable.” This evidently amounts to saying that the
divine nature is unknowable, just as Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and others
of the same sect have maintained. The professor will not deny, we trust,
that what is unthinkable is also unknowable, unless he is ready to show
that he knows the square circle. Hence the remarks we have passed on the
doctrine of his leaders apply to him as well as to them. It is singular,
however, that neither he nor any of his sect has thought of examining
the question whether the “Unknowable” has any existence at all. For if
it has no existence, they must confess that they have not even an
unknown God, and therefore are absolute atheists; and if they assume
that it has a real existence, they are supremely illogical; for no one
has a right to proclaim the existence of a thing unknown and unknowable.
The existence of the unknowable cannot be affirmed unless it be known;
but it cannot be known unless the unknowable be known; and this implies
a manifest contradiction. To affirm existence is to affirm a fact; and
Mr. Youmans would certainly be embarrassed to show that science, however
“advanced,” can affirm a fact of which it has no knowledge whatever.
Hence atheism is the legitimate result of the doctrine which substitutes
the “Unknowable” in the place of the God of theology; and “it matters
nothing” that this consequence is _provisionally_ denied by Prof.
Youmans. Were it not that the horror inspired by the impious pretensions
of his fallacious science obliges him to keep within the measures of
prudence, it is very likely that Prof. Youmans would not only not deny
his “scientific” atheism, but even glory in its open profession. So long
as this cannot be safely done he must remain satisfied with writing
Nature with a capital N.
From these remarks we can further infer that Mr. Youmans’ complaint
about the narrowness and bigotry of theologians is utterly unfounded.
There is no narrowness in rejecting foolish conceptions, and no bigotry
in maintaining the rights of truth. Theology condemns your doctrines,
not because they “disagree with current notions,” but because they are
manifestly impious and absurd. The views you encourage are atheistical.
You admit only the Unknowable; and the Unknowable, as we have just
proved, is not God. Hence the theologians are not “narrow” nor
“bigoted,” but strictly logical and reasonable, when they condemn your
doctrines as atheistical.
And now Prof. Youmans makes the following curious argument:
“It is surprising that they (the theologians) cannot see that in
arraigning scientific thinkers for atheism they are simply doing
what stupid fanatics the world over are always doing when ideas
of the Deity different from their own are maintained. And it is
the more surprising that Christian teachers should indulge in
this intolerant practice when it is remembered that their own
faith was blackened with this opprobrium at its first
promulgation.”
Here a long passage is quoted from _The Contest of Heathenism with
Christianity_, by Prof. Zeller, of Berlin, in which we are reminded that
the primitive Christians were reproached with atheism because they “did
not agree with the prevailing conceptions of the Deity,” and that “Down
with the atheists” was the war-cry of the heathen mob against the
Christians. This suggests to Mr. Youmans the following remarks:
“It would be well if our theologians would remember these things
when tempted to deal out their maledictions upon scientific men
as propagators of atheism. For the history of their own faith
attests that religious ideas are a growth, and that they pass
from lower states to higher unfoldings through processes of
inevitable suffering. It was undoubtedly a great step of
progress from polytheism to monotheism, ... but this was neither
the final step in the advancement of the human mind toward the
highest conception of the Deity, nor the last experience of
disquiet and grief at sundering the ties of old religious
associations. But if this be a great normal process in the
development of the religious feeling and aspiration of humanity,
why should the Christians of to-day adopt the bigoted tactics of
heathenism, first applied to themselves, to use against those
who would still further ennoble and purify the ideal of the
Divinity?”
Thus, according to the professor, as the pagans were wrong and stupid in
denouncing the Christians as atheists, so are the Christians both wrong
and stupid in denouncing the atheistic tendency of “advanced” science;
and the reason alleged is that as the pagans did not recognize the
superiority of monotheism to polytheism, so the Christian theologians
fail to see the superiority of the “scientific” Unknowable to the God of
Christianity. Need we answer this? Why, if anything were wanting to
prove that Prof. Youmans is laboring for the cause of atheism, his very
manner of arguing may be regarded as a convincing proof of the fact.
For, if his reasoning has any meaning, it means that as the Christians
rejected the gods of the pagans, so Prof. Youmans rejects the God of the
Christians; and this is quite enough to show his atheism, as he neither
recognizes our God, nor has he found, nor will he ever find, another God
worthy of his recognition; for, surely, the “Unthinkable” of which he
speaks is not an object of recognition.
On the other hand, is it true that the history of Christianity “attests
that religious ideas are a growth, and that they pass from lower states
to higher unfoldings”? Does the history of Christianity attest, for
instance, that our conception of God has passed from a lower to a higher
state? But, waiving this, it requires great audacity to contend that the
theory of the “Unknowable” and of the “Unthinkable” is an unfolding of
the conception of God. We appeal to Prof. Youmans himself. A theory of
natural science which would lay down as the ultimate result of human
progress that what we call chemistry, geology, astronomy, mechanics,
electricity, optics, magnetism, is something “unknowable” and
“unthinkable,” would scarcely be considered by him an “unfolding” of
science. For how could he “unfold” his thoughts in the _Popular Science
Monthly_, if the subject of his thought were “unthinkable”? But, then,
how can he assume that his theory of the “unthinkable” is an “unfolding”
of the conception of God? God cannot be conceived, if he is unthinkable.
We conceive God as an eternal, immense, omnipotent, personal Being.
These and other attributes of Divinity, as conceived by us, constitute
our notion of God; and this notion is as unfolded as is consistent with
the limits of the human mind. But to “unfold” the conception of Divinity
by suppressing omnipotence, wisdom, eternity, goodness, and all other
perfections of the divine nature, so as to leave nothing “thinkable” in
it, is not to unfold our conception, but to suppress it altogether.
As to the flippant assertion that the Christian conception of Divinity
is not “the final step in the advancement of the human mind toward the
highest conception of the Deity,” we might say much. But what is the use
of refuting what every Christian child knows to be false? We conceive
God as the supreme truth, the supreme good, and the supreme Lord of
whatever exists; and he who pretends that there is or can be a “higher
conception of the Deity” has himself to thank if men call him a fool.
We shall say nothing of “intolerant practices,” “stupid fanaticism,” or
“bigoted tactics.” These are mere words. As to “the aspiration of
humanity,” it may be noticed that there is a secret society that
considers its aspirations as the aspirations of “humanity,” and, when it
speaks of “humanity,” it usually means nothing more and nothing better
than its “free and accepted” members. This “humanity” has doubtless some
curious aspirations; but mankind does not aspire to dethrone God or to
pervert the notion of Divinity.
Prof. Youmans accounts for “the aspiration of humanity” in the following
manner:
“It cannot be rationally questioned that the world has come to
another important stage in this line of its progression. The
knowledge of the universe, its action, its harmony, its unity,
its boundlessness and grandeur, is comparatively a recent thing;
and is it to be for a moment supposed that so vast a revolution
as this is to be without effect upon our conception of its
divine control?”