THE Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following statement: _There
is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any human being is
under any obligation to believe without evidence_.
One would suppose that it would be impossible to formulate an objection
to this statement. What is or is not evidence, depends upon the mind
to which it is presented. There is no possible "insinuation" in this
statement, one way or the other. There is nothing sinister in it, any
more than there would be in the statement that twice five are ten. How
did it happen to occur to the Archdeacon that when I spoke of believing
without evidence, I referred to all people who believe in the existence
of a God, and that I intended to say "that one-third of the world's
inhabitants had embraced the faith of Christians without evidence"?
Certain things may convince one mind and utterly fail to convince
others. Undoubtedly the persons who have believed in the dogmas of
Christianity have had what was sufficient evidence for them. All I said
was, that "there is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any
human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence." Does
the Archdeacon insist that there is an obligation resting on any human
mind to believe without evidence? Is he willing to go a step further and
say that there is an obligation resting upon the minds of men to believe
contrary to evidence? If one is under obligation to believe without
evidence, it is just as reasonable to say that he is under obligation to
believe in spite of evidence. What does the word "evidence" mean? A man
in whose honesty I have great confidence, tells me that he saw a dead
man raised to life. I do not believe him. Why? His statement is not
evidence to my mind. Why? Because it contradicts all of my experience,
and, as I believe, the experience of the intelligent world.
No one pretends that "one-third of the world's inhabitants have
embraced the faith of Christians without evidence"--that is, that all
Christians have embraced the faith without evidence. In the olden time,
when hundreds of thousands of men were given their choice between being
murdered and baptized, they generally accepted baptism--probably they
accepted Christianity without critically examining the evidence.
Is it historically absurd that millions of people have believed in
systems of religion without evidence? Thousands of millions have
believed that Mohammed was a prophet of God. And not only so, but have
believed in his miraculous power. Did they believe without evidence? Is
it historically absurd to say that Mohammedanism is based upon mistake?
What shall we say of the followers of Buddha, who far outnumber the
followers of Christ? Have they believed without evidence? And is it
historically absurd to say that our ancestors of a few hundred years ago
were as credulous as the disciples of Buddha? Is it not true that the
same gentlemen who believed thoroughly in all the miracles of the
New Testament also believed the world to be flat, and were perfectly
satisfied that the sun made its daily journey around the earth? Did they
have any evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that they believed
without evidence?