{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20248/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20248","id":"gutenberg_20248","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20248","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Janet Blenkinship\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM\n\n  _By_\n\n  DR. D. M. BROOKS\n\n\n  FREETHOUGHT PRESS ASSOCIATION\n  NEW YORK\n\n  _Copyright, 1933_\n  BY FREETHOUGHT PRESS ASSOCIATION\n\n\n\n\n_Dedicated to_\n\nJOSEPH LEWIS IN AMERICA\n\nAND\n\nCHAPMAN COHEN IN ENGLAND\n\nOF WHOM\nIT MAY BE SAID:\n\n_\"How often it has happened that one man, standing at the right point of\nview, has descried the truth, and, after having been denounced and\npersecuted by all others, they have eventually been constrained to adopt\nhis declarations!\"_--(DRAPER.)\n\n_For the old Gods came to an end long ago. And verily it was a good and\njoyful end of Gods!\n\nThey did not die lingering in the twilight--although that lie is told!\nOn the contrary, they once upon a time laughed themselves to death!\n\nThat came to pass when, by a God himself, the most ungodly word was\nuttered, the word: \"There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods\nbefore me.\"\n\nAn old grim beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself thus.\n\nAnd then all Gods laughed and shook on their chairs and cried: \"Is\nGodliness not just that there are Gods, but no God?\"\n\nWhoever hath ears let him hear._\n\n  _\"Thus Spake Zarathrustra\"_--FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                                                             ix\n\n      I. THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS                           21\n\n     II. THE KORAN, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS                        31\n\n    III. THE PROPHETS MOHAMMED, JESUS,\n         AND MOSES CHARLATANS OR VICTIMS\n         OF MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISEASE                               65\n\n     IV. SOUNDNESS OF A FOUNDATION FOR A\n         BELIEF IN A DEITY                                            94\n\n      V. THE PERSISTENCE OF RELIGION                                 115\n\n     VI. RELIGION AND SCIENCE                                        120\n\n    VII. RELIGION AND MEDICINE                                       126\n\n   VIII. RELIGION AND ASTRONOMY                                      148\n\n     IX. RELIGION AND GEOGRAPHY                                      151\n\n      X. RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS                          154\n\n     XI. RELIGION AND GEOLOGY, PHILOLOGY,\n         AND EVOLUTION                                               157\n\n    XII. RELIGION AND WITCHCRAFT                                     163\n\n   XIII. RELIGION AND MORALITY                                       193\n\n    XIV. CHRISTIANITY AND WAR                                        211\n\n     XV. CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY                                    214\n\n    XVI. CHRISTIANITY AND LABOR                                      224\n\n   XVII. RELIGION AND WOMAN                                          242\n\n  XVIII. THE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE GREAT\n         ILLUSION                                                    251\n\n    XIX. THE DOOM OF RELIGION; THE NECESSITY\n         OF ATHEISM                                                  269\n\n     XX. CONTEMPORARY OPINION                                        309\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nPlain speaking is necessary in any discussion of religion, for if the\nfreethinker attacks the religious dogmas with hesitation, the orthodox\nbeliever assumes that it is with regret that the freethinker would\nremove the crutch that supports the orthodox. And all religious beliefs\nare \"crutches\" hindering the free locomotive efforts of an advancing\nhumanity. There are no problems related to human progress and happiness\nin this age which any theology can solve, and which the teachings of\nfreethought cannot do better and without the aid of encumbrances.\n\nHavelock Ellis has stated that, \"The man who has never wrestled with his\nearly faith, the faith that he was brought up with and that yet is not\ntruly his own--for no faith is our own that we have not arduously\nwon--has missed not only a moral but an intellectual discipline. The\nabsence of that discipline may mark a man for life and render all his\nwork ineffective. He has missed a training in criticism, in analysis, in\nopen-mindedness, in the resolutely impersonal treatment of personal\nproblems, which no other training can compensate. He is, for the most\npart, condemned to live in a mental jungle where his arm will soon be\ntoo feeble to clear away the growths that enclose him, and his eyes too\nweak to find the light.\" The man who has allowed his mental capacities\nto clear his way through the dense underbrush of religious dogma finds\nthat he has emerged into a purer and healthier atmosphere. In the\nbright light of this mental emancipation a man perceives the falsities\nof all religions in their historic, scientific, and metaphysical\naspects. The healthier mental viewpoint holds up to scorn and discards\nthe reactionary religious philosophy of morals, and the sum total of his\nconclusions must be that religion is doomed; and doomed in this modern\nday by its absolute irrelevance to the needs and interests of modern\nlife. And this not only by the steadily increasing army of freethinkers,\nbut by the indifference and neglect of those who still cling to the fast\nslipping folds of religious creeds--- the future freethinkers.\n\nIt was Spinoza who remarked that, \"The proper study of a wise man is not\nhow to die but how to live.\" Religious creeds can but teach how man\nshould live, so that when he dies, he may be assured of salvation; and\nthe important thing is not what he does to help his fellow men while he\nis living, but how closely he lives in conformity to a reactionary code\nof dogmas. Religion has always aimed to smooth the sufferer's passage to\nthe next world, not to save him for this world.\n\nFreethought has dethroned the gods from the pedestal, and has replaced,\nnot an empty idol, but an _ideal_, the ideal of a man who is his own\ngod.\n\nIt has become increasingly apparent that what men have hitherto\nattributed to the gods are nothing but the ideals they value and grope\nfor in themselves. The ideal of the freethinker, the conception that\nplaces the supreme worth of human life in the expanding horizon of man's\nusefulness to man, is forever menaced by the supernaturalism of the\ntheist which manifests itself in the multifarious religious sects that\nare the most active and constant menace to civilization and to mankind\ntoday. That religion in the past has produced suffering incalculable and\nhas been the greatest obstacle in the advance of secular knowledge is a\nfact too well attested to by history to be denied by any sincere and\nunbiased intelligent man. That today it constitutes a cultural lag, an\nactive menace to the best interests of humanity and the last refuge of\nhuman savagery, is the contention of the freethinker.\n\nThe conception of the God-idea as held by society in general stands in\nthe same position as the vermiform appendix does to the anatomy of man.\nIt may have been useful in some way thousands of years ago, but today it\nconstitutes a detriment to the well-being of the individual without\noffering any compensatory usefulness. Agree or disagree with this\ncontention you may, but only when you are made aware of the facts that\ncan be brought to the aid of this conviction. Just as the fundamental\nprinciple of justice is outraged when a man or an institution is\ncondemned by jurist or popular opinion when an opportunity is not given\nto present the facts on both aspects of the case, just so is no man\njustified in making a decision between theism and atheism until he\nbecomes acquainted with both sides of the controversy. Freethought but\nasks a hearing and the exercise of the unbiased reason of the man who\nhas not hitherto been made aware of its contentions.\n\nIn the religious revolution of this twentieth century, the battle ground\nis squarely seen to be between supernaturalism and secularism. Although\nthe supernaturalists are well entrenched and fortified, it is well to\nremember that it is the man with vision who finally prevails. The time\nhas passed when the freethinker could be held up to the community as an\nexample of a base and degraded individual. No manner of pulpit drivel\ncan delude even the unthinking masses to this misconception. The\nfreethinker is today the one who beholds the vision, and this vision\ndoes not transcend the natural. It is a vision that is earth-bound; a\nvision it may be called, since it leaps the boundary of the present and\ninfers for him what the future of a secular organization of the entire\nconstituency of humanity will bring forth. This vision is but a product\nof his scientific armamentarium and is the means by which he is assured\nof victory over the well-entrenched and fortified position of the\nsupernaturalists who are still creed-bound to use antiquated and useless\nweapons. The supernaturalist's armamentarium of God, Bible, Heaven,\nHell, Soul, Immortality, Sin, The Fall and Redemption of Man, Prayer,\nCreed, and Dogma, leave as much impression on the mind of intelligent\nman as would an arrow against a battleship. And the comparison is apt,\nthe supernaturalists have made full use of force, be it in physical\nwarfare or in mental coercion. The freethinker has as much use for\nphysical force and war as he has for mental coercion; both are abhorrent\nto him.\n\n_Supernaturalism vs. Secularism_--that, and that alone is the field of\nargument. The supernaturalist, be he the fundamentalist of whatever\ndenomination, or the more advanced modernist, is as tenaciously clinging\nto the transcendental, to revelation, to the infallibility of the Bible,\nif not in all respects at least in some (although this is a\ncontradiction _per se_), to the interdisposition of a deity in the\naffairs of mankind, as were his ancestors of five hundred years ago. In\nthese aspects as well as in the armamentarium enumerated above, the\nsupernaturalists are agreed and are making their last stand.\n\nThe secularists, the opinion of the theists to the contrary, are also\nagreed. It matters not what a man calls his mental process; be he\ninfidel, sceptic, rationalist, agnostic, or atheist; he is firm in the\nconviction that religions of all varieties are rapidly sinking into the\nlimbo of all other ancient superstitions. To him it is but a matter of\ntime for the inevitable crumbling and disappearance of these\nsuperstitions, and the time involved is directly proportional to the\nease and rapidity with which scientific knowledge is disseminated to men\nwho have the mental capacity to understand the value of this knowledge\nand its utter destruction of all forms of supernaturalism. When man\nbecomes fully cognizant of the fact that all the knowledge acquired by\nthe human race has been the result of human inquiry, the result of\nreasoning processes, and the exercise of mind alone, then secularism\nwill have overcome the long night of supernaturalism. And it is this\nmental attitude of secularism that proceeds with an ever accelerated\nrapidity to overcome the problems that confront humanity by substituting\nhuman inquiry for divine revelation. Thus this attitude of man to\nproceed through life dependent only on his own resources will expand and\nstrengthen his mentality by doing away with the inferiority complex of\nthe God-idea. This vision of man, the master of his own destinies, the\nsearcher for truth and the shaper of a better life for the only\nexistence that he knows anything about, this reliance of _man upon man_,\nand without the supposed interference of any god, constitutes atheism in\nits broadest and true sense.\n\nScience and reason, the constituents of secularism, are the mortal\nenemies of supernaturalism. Secularism, however, is at a disadvantage at\nthis stage of our mental development, since it is approached only by the\ncalm light of the intellect. And intellect can but make an appeal to\nreason. If the seeds of these appeals fall on the fertile minds of\nmentally advanced humanity, they will flourish; if they fall on the\nbarren ground of creed-bound minds, they take no root. Recognition of\nfacts and honest deductions are not natural to the human mind. As far as\nreligious matters are concerned, the vast majority of men have not\nreached a mental maturity; they are still in the infantile state where\nthey have not as yet learned that the sequences of events are not to be\ninterrupted by their desires. The easier path lies in the giving way to\nthe unstable emotions. The primitive instincts are for emotion and for\nloose imaginings, and these are the provinces of supernaturalism.\n\nSupernaturalism arouses the stupid interests and the brutish passions,\nand from these are born the bitter fruits of ignorance and hatred. The\nsecularist is one in whom the intellect is passionate, and the passions\ncold. The supernaturalist on the other hand reverses the order, and in\nhim the passions are active and the intellect inert. In each man there\ndwells a tyrant who creates for him a deity materialized out of these\nfactors of ignorance and fear. It is science and reason which must\ndestroy for him this monstrous apparition. But, as yet, there is no\nindication that our mental development in relation to social progress\nhas made the great strides that our purely material progress has made.\nThe twentieth century man utilizes and enjoys the material benefits of\nhis century, but his mental progress lies bound and drugged by the\nviewpoints of 2000 years ago.\n\nSir Leslie Stephen has declared, \"How much intellect and zeal runs to\nwaste in the spasmodic efforts of good men to cling to the last fragment\nof decaying systems, to galvanize dead formulae into some dim semblance\nof life! Society will not improve as it might when those who should be\nleaders of progress are staggering backward and forward with their eyes\npassionately reverted to the past. Nay, we shall never be duly sensitive\nto the miseries and cruelties which make the world a place of torture\nfor so many, so long as men are encouraged in the name of religion to\nlook for a remedy, not in fighting against surrounding evils, but in\ncultivating aimless contemplations of an imaginary ideal. Much of our\npopular religion seems to be expressly directed to deaden our sympathies\nwith our fellow men by encouraging an indolent optimism; our thoughts of\nthe other world are used in many forms as an opiate to drug our minds\nwith indifference to the evils of this; and the last word of half of our\npreachers is, 'dream rather than work.'\"\n\nThere is always a great deal of discrepancy between that which is best\nfor the gods and that which is best for the individual and for society\nin general. One cannot serve man perfectly and the traditional gods as\nwell. It is, therefore, the contention of freethinkers that if man had\ngiven to the service of man all that he had given to the gods in the\npast, our present stage of civilization would be much in advance of\nwhere it is today.\n\nIf there is anything in the discussion to follow that may seem\nirreverent to the reader, the author wishes to call attention that he\nhas but presented well substantiated facts. It is not only his opinion\nthat he is voicing, but it is the facts as he has found them recorded in\nthe researches of numerous sincere men. Finally, it is the conviction of\nall freethinkers that, as Professor James H. Leuba has stated, \"It is,\nfurthermore, essential to intellectual and moral advances that the\nbeliefs that come into existence should have free play. Antagonistic\nbeliefs must have the chance of proving their worth in open contest. It\nis this way scientific theories are tested, and in this way also,\nreligious and ethical conceptions should be tried. But a fair struggle\ncannot take place when people are dissuaded from seeking knowledge, or\nwhen knowledge is hidden.\"\n\nThe cultivation of the intellect is a duty that is imposed on all men.\nEven those who still cling to the dying beliefs must admit the force of\nwhat Winwood Reade said, \"To cultivate the intellect is therefore a\nreligious duty; and when this truth is fairly recognized by men, the\nreligion which teaches that the intellect should be distrusted and that\nit should be subservient to faith, will inevitably fall.\"\n\nWhen the principles of freethought shall have dispelled the intellectual\ncloud of the God-idea and the vanishing dream of a heaven which has too\nlong drawn men's eyes away from this earth, then, and then only, will\nthese words of Cicero have widespread meaning:\n\n\"Men were born for the sake of men, that each should assist the\nothers.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS\n\n    _To early man, the gods were real in the same sense that the\n    mountains, forests, or waterfalls which were thought to be their\n    homes were real. For a long time the spirits that lived in drugs or\n    wines and made them potent were believed to be of the same order of\n    fact as the potency itself. But the human creature is curious and\n    curiosity is bold. Hence, the discovery that a reported god may be a\n    myth._\n\n    MAX CARL OTTO.\n\n\nThe geologists estimate that the age of the earth is somewhere between\n80 and 800 millions of years; that the Neanderthal race existed for more\nthan 200,000 years; that between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, as the\nFourth Glacial Period softened towards more temperate conditions, a\ndifferent human type came upon the scene and exterminated Homo\nNeanderthalensis. These first \"true men\" descended from some more\nape-like progenitors and are classed by ethnologists with the same\nspecies as ourselves, and with all human races subsequent to them under\none common, specific term, Homo Sapiens.\n\nThe age of cultivation began with the neolithic phase of human affairs\nabout 10,000 or 12,000 years ago; about 6000 or 7000 years ago men began\nto gather into the first towns and to develop something more than the\nloose-knit tribes which had hitherto been their highest political\norganization. Altogether, there must have elapsed about 500,000 years\nfrom the earliest ape-like human stage of life on this planet to the\npresent time.\n\nIt necessarily follows that the age of our present civilization is by no\nmeans that which the Bible stipulates, but is merely an atom in the vast\nspace-time of this earth. The reason for this disparity is that with the\ndevelopment of the mind of man throughout the ages there was conceived\nalso his self-made religious systems, based on a subjective\ninterpretation of the universe, and not on an objective one, devoid of\nemotional bias.\n\n\"Primitive man did not understand the natural cause of shadows, echoes,\nthe birth and death of vegetable and animal organisms. Of this ignorance\nreligion was born, and theology was evolved as its art of expression.\"\n(_Draper._)\n\nOur story takes us back some twelve thousand years to neolithic man.\nSquatting in his rude hovel or gloomy cave, he listens to the sounds of\na storm without. The howling of the wind, the flashes of lightning, and\ncrashing of thunder give rise to that elemental emotion--fear. Fear was\nalways with him, as he thought of the huge stones that fell and crushed\nhim, and the beasts which were so eager to devour him. All things about\nhim seemed to conspire for his death: the wind, lightning, thunder, rain\nand storm, as well as the beasts and falling trees; for in his mind he\ndid not differentiate animate from inanimate objects. Slowly, through\nhis groping mind there evolved the thought, due to past experience, that\nhe could not contend with these things by physical force, but must\nsubdue them with magic; his magic consisted of the beating of crude\ndrum-like instruments, dances, and the mumbling of words.\n\nUpon falling asleep he dreams, and awakening, he finds that he is still\nin the same place where he had lain the night before. Yet, he is certain\nthat during the night he had traveled to his favorite wood and killed an\nanimal whose tender flesh he was still savoring. Since the conception\nof a dream was as yet foreign to him, the logical conclusion he arrived\nat was that he had both a body and a spirit. If he possessed a body and\na spirit, then all things about him, he reasoned, must likewise possess\na similar spirit. Some spirits, he felt, were friendly; some, hostile to\nhim. The hostile spirits were to be feared; but that powerful factor,\n\"hope,\" had at last entered into his mind, and he hoped to be able to\nwin them over to the camp of friendly spirits.\n\nIn this manner, man passed from the stage of contending against the\nspirits to one of placating them. It was believed that certain men\ncarried more favor with the spirits than others, and these became the\noriginal priests, called the \"Shamans.\"\n\nAnother expedient for warding off evil spirits was by means of the\nfetish. The primitive fetish was an object containing an active friendly\nspirit, which, if worn by the individual, protected him from the evil\nspirits. In a short while the manufacture of fetishes became a sacred\nprofession, and the men who were thought to fashion the best ones became\nthe professional holy men of the period, the priests.\n\nAt first, idols were used to drive away the evil spirits, and then, the\nconception changed to one of attracting the good spirits to man. From\nthe individual fetish man passed to tribal ones, which in their first\nform were huge boulders and trees.\n\nAs the primitive mind gained cunning, it slyly smeared the surface of\nthe idol with oily substances, hoping that the spirit, like some wild\nbeast, would come and lick, be gratified, and remain in the idol. When\nsome favorable signs denoted that a good spirit had entered into the\nidol, it was regularly smeared with oils and then blood, in the hope\nthat the spirit would be pleased sufficiently to remain there\npermanently. As time went on, it became a custom, a rite, and the\nspirit having performed to the satisfaction of the tribe, ways were\ninvented to manifest their gratitude. Instead of smearing the idol with\nblood, it was thought more fitting that an animal be killed and offered\nto the good spirit contained within the idol. In this manner arose the\nbeginning of \"sacrifice.\" It was at this time, when man began to\npersuade the idols or spirits to do things for his benefit that religion\nbegan.\n\nSlowly, slowly, down through the ages, as the mind of man progressed,\nhis self-made religious conceptions advanced. He now worshiped idols,\nand these idols were his gods. The Celts, the Babylonians, the Greeks,\nthe Romans, all had their idols. All were certain that their gods were\nthe true ones, and that the others were all inferior and even false\ngods. But, is the modern worshipper who is contemptuous of the ancients\nvery different from them?\n\nThe centuries pass by, and in their wake is man's self-conceived\nreligion. Now, some men take the prerogative in the manufacture of\nreligion, and there evolve Brahmanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism,\nConfucianism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism, all inspired, all\nsupernatural, and with their myriads of followers who believed and still\nbelieve that theirs is the only true creed.\n\nVery recently, in the time-scale of our development, man adopted the\nmethods of \"Big Business,\" and the religion of many gods and idols,\npolytheism, has given way to one Supreme God, monotheism. Man found that\nit made for simplicity and saved his valuable time if he worshiped one\ngod, instead of obeying the hitherto many. The \"Chosen People\" took it\nupon themselves to bring the next divinely concocted conception of a\nSupreme God, and they manufactured the creed of Judaism.\n\nAfter many years, a rift arose among the Jews, and the sectarians were\ndefeated and expelled. Foiled in their first object, they cast aside\nthe laws of Moses and offered the Hebrew religion without the Hebrew\nceremonies to the Greek and Roman world. Jesus was the man who prepared\nthe way for this remarkable event.\n\nWhen Mohammed conceived the divine conception that he would follow in\nthe footsteps of his brother-prophets, Moses and Jesus, the latest of\nthe major religions was revealed.\n\nAt the present time, the Hebrews and Christians, although worshiping the\nsame Jehovah, are disputing with each other, and indeed, amongst\nthemselves, with regard to the various attributes, amorous pursuits, and\nlineal descendants of the Godhead. Jehovah himself appears to be on the\ndecline and his unity is steadily disintegrating into a paradoxical\ntrinity. But we are progressing, for in 1300 years no new prophet has\narisen, and no new divine revelation is perturbing our race; the old\nones, however, are causing quite enough disturbance.\n\nIt would be of value for the modern religionist who believes that the\nworship of a deity in our own age is far removed from the worship of an\nidol by our savage ancestors, to retrace his steps and compare the\nsavage mind worshiping his particular idol and a so-called civilized\nmind of today worshiping his deity.\n\nThe savage prayed to his idol, that is, he _begged_. He begged the idol\nto watch over his flock or his fields. The modern prays, that is he begs\nof his idol, his deity, to prosper his business, to guard his life, and,\nas one of my \"super-devout\" acquaintances recently informed me, on the\neve of an important golf match, for the Deity to give him endurance; in\nother words, \"to cut down his golf score.\"\n\nThe savage voiced his incantations; the modern sings hymns, that is he\nflatters. There is still a great deal of the charlatanry of the magician\nin the construction of the houses of prayer, with the sunlight shut out\nand only filtering through the leaded and multi-colored panes, the\nsemidarkness, the solemnity, the rise and swell of the organ; all things\ncombined to overcome the senses, to play upon the emotions, and to\nsubdue the reason.\n\nThe savage made sacrifices to his idols, that is, he paid tribute,\nchiefly out of fear, but partly in the hope of getting something better\nin return. The modern does not offer human or animal sacrifice, it is\ntrue; but it must be borne in mind that the wealth of the savage\nconsisted of his sheep, oxen, oils, and wines, not money. Today, the\ndevout offer a sacrifice of money to the Deity. We are all familiar with\nthe requests of religious institutions for gifts, which nearly always\nfinish with the phrase, \"And the Lord will repay you many fold.\" In\nother words, sacrifice part of your worldly goods to the idol, and he\nwill repay with high interest. He will give in return long life and much\nriches. The savage was afraid to utter the real name of his god, it was\ntaboo. The modern says, \"Take not the name of the Lord in vain.\" Even\ntoday, the followers of Moses consider it taboo to utter the name of\nJehovah except in prayer.\n\nThe present-day methods of worship are no different from those of the\nsavage; the method of supplication has changed with the advance of the\nyears, but the fundamental ideas at the base of all worship are just as\ncrude today as they were 4000 years ago. Primitive man was no more a\nfetishist than is the modern Catholic. The latter still wears medals and\nimages suspended from the neck and pinned to the inner clothing.\n\nMoreover, a survey of the various religions extant indicates that the\nreligious factor is no less prevalent today than it was in primitive\nsocieties.\n\nIn Greenland, one finds, that through nearly all of its vast area\nreligion has no place, but that is chiefly the result of its being\nlargely uninhabited. In Alaska, the population is for the most part\nCatholic, although the natives are animists. In Canada, 33 per cent are\nCatholic, the rest are mainly Protestant. In the United States, 20 per\ncent are Catholic, 3.5 per cent are Jewish, and the remainder are\nProtestants. Mexico, Central and South America, are almost entirely\nRoman Catholic. In Europe, Russia was until recently dominantly Greek\nOrthodox; the Scandinavian peninsula, the English Isles, and Central\nEurope are dominantly Protestant, while France, Portugal, Spain, Italy,\nand the rest of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea are\nCatholic. The rest of the continent is divided between Jews and\nMohammedans. In Asia, the entire vast area of Siberia is only sparsely\nsettled and its religions include Animism, Taoism, and Christianity. In\nChina, we find the land of three truths, Confucianism, Taoism, and\nBuddhism. India, Tibet, and Burma are dominated by Hinduism and\nBuddhism; Arabia, Persia, and the rest of the continent are Mohammedan.\nIn Japan, there are the Shintoists. The East Indies, where the\npopulation is native, are Animistic. In Australia, the dominant religion\nis Protestantism. In North Africa, the west coast inhabitants are\nMohammedans, while the Abyssinians are Christians. There are some Coptic\nChristians, in Egypt, while in the Congo and South African countries\ndown to the Cape Settlements, the natives are Animists. The Cape\nSettlements themselves are Protestants.\n\nMore concretely, it is estimated that 10.7% of the inhabitants of the\nglobe are Protestants; 16.2% are Catholics; 7.1% are Greek Orthodox; 10%\nare Animists; 1.4% are Shintoists; 18.2% are Confucians and Taoists;\n12.8% are Hindus; 8.4% are Buddhists; 13.4% are Moslems; and 1.8% are\nHebrews and unclassified sects. Truly, a religious babel! and 10% of all\nthe inhabitants of the globe, about the same number of people who\nprofess to Protestantism, are Animists. This is the lowest stage of\nprimitive religion, and millions of humans are still quagmired in the\nsloth of a primitive faith which once must have been the faith of all\nhuman beings.\n\nThe Mohammedan, the Jew, the Christian, will readily agree that the\nanimism, the fetishism, and idolatry of the savage were man-made foolish\nbeliefs. They can readily perceive that there was nothing supernatural,\nnothing revealed, in such beliefs; but they do not realize that to him,\nin his infantile development, the fetish and the idol were just as\nsupernatural and superior as the modern conception of a Supreme Being.\nIn each age man creates his god, in his own image, and within the\nconfines of his own mental development. The mind of man has expanded so\nthat it has conquered more and more of his environment; it has grown and\nwrested from nature those secrets which constitute his civilization.\nAlong with this has progressed the conception of a deity, but only to a\ncertain extent. The mind has embellished the outward appearance of its\ngods, consolidated them, and built upon them intricate systems of\ntheology, upon which feed vast hordes of clergy; but the basic\nconception, the fundamental principle, that there must be something\nsupernatural to explain something which we cannot explain at the present\nmoment, that conception still drugs the mind of man. Primitive man did\nnot understand the meaning of lightning, thunder, shadows, echoes, etc.,\nand he placed these among the supernatural phenomena. The modern mind\nexplains these phenomena, understands the laws governing their\nproduction. Yet, it is this same modern mind which persists in going\nback to our savage ancestors and their mental sloth, by attributing the\nmyriads of phenomena which still elude its present stage of mental\ndevelopment, to a particular idol, this time, a Supreme Being.\nBrahmanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism,\nZoroastrianism, Hebrewism, Mohammedanism, Christianity--which is the\ntrue religion?\n\nLet us suppose for a moment that an inhabitant of Mars, if there be\nsuch, were by a \"miracle\" to be transported to this earth and endowed\nwith the mental capacity of the average inhabitant of the earth (a thing\nwhich perhaps would not be so flattering to our guest), were to be\napproached by a zealot of each one of these faiths, who hoped to convert\nthis stranger to its ranks. Since the factor of coercion by force of\nenvironment to which each of these earthlings was subject would\nnaturally be absent, the Martian would be in a position to make a fair\nchoice. How much would the visitor be impressed by the statements of the\nChristian, Mohammedan, or Jew, when advised that unless he embraced\ntheir particular creed, he would be damned to eternal torture in their\nparticular Hell?\n\nIf a Christian were to accost him and endeavor to put the fear of God\ninto him, and if our visitor, being from Mars, already knew that of the\nworld's population, only about 27 per cent are Christians, and the other\n73 per cent are Non-Christians, is it logical to suppose that he would\never be convinced that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Supreme\nBeing would select only one quarter of his children whom he had created\nfor redemption, with the infallible knowledge that nearly three-quarters\nof them would be confined to Hell for not believing what He could have\nmade them believe if He were truly omnipotent, omniscient, and\nbenevolent? Would he not rather reply that on his planet such a \"Father\"\nwho would select some of his children for rewards, and maliciously\ntorture his other children, would not be designated as a God but a\nDevil? Were the Martian to be further informed that each one of God's\nchildren was represented in actual figures by hundreds of millions and\nthat these have been living on the planet Earth for hundreds of\nthousands of years, and were the visitor to contemplate the vast\nincomprehensible number of souls that have been confined to Hell by such\na father, might he not cut his visit short? He would be apt to repeat\nwith James Mill, \"Think of a being who would make a Hell, who would\ncreate the human race with the infallible foreknowledge and therefore\nwith the intention that the great majority of them should be consigned\nto horrible and everlasting torment.\" I believe that our guest would\nassert that if such a Being actually existed and demanded worship, he\nwould certainly have revealed his true belief to the first man Adam, and\ntherefore saved his children an inestimable amount of suffering.\n\nWere the visitor to be further pressed by the zealot with the vision of\neternal hell, I believe he would retort that there is no reason for God\nto punish those who doubt or deny faith in His existence, since it is\nHis own doing; and if He desired each one of His children to worship Him\naccording to the precepts of a certain creed, He surely would have\ninstilled that creed into man's make-up together with the rest of his\ncharacteristics. Undoubtedly, He would not esteem any creed which damned\nthe human intellect by cursing the doubts which are the necessary\nconsequence of its exercise, or the creed which cursed the moral faculty\nby asserting the guilt of honest error.\n\nIf our visitor would but glance at the history, the evolution, of\nreligious beliefs, he would realize and soundly assert that all\nreligions are human in their origins, erroneous in their theories, and\nridiculous in their threats and rewards.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE KORAN AND THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS\n\n    _The Jews emerge into history, not a nation of keen spiritual\n    aspirations and altruistic ethics, but that pagan people,\n    worshipping rocks, sheep and cattle, and spirits of caves and wells,\n    of whom the Old Testament, tending towards its higher ideal, gives\n    fragmentary but convincing evidence_.\n\n    JAMES T. SHOTWELL.\n\n    _Consider Jahveh. Cruel god of a horde of nomadic invaders settling\n    in a land of farmers, he had his images, ranging in elaboration from\n    an uncut mazzebah or asherah, to a golden bull. He was plural by\n    place and tribe and function. What did the prophetic movement do\n    with his sacred powers? It identified his taboos with a written\n    constitution_.\n\n    HORACE M. KALLEN.\n\n    _The mental attitude of these priest-dominated ancestors of ours is\n    amazing. They were like children in the hands of unscrupulous\n    teachers. In reading these old chronicles it is impossible not to be\n    shocked by the incongruity ever arising out of the juxtaposition of\n    theory and practice_.\n\n    LLEWELYN POWYS.\n\n\nOur Martian visitor, having withstood the blasts of the Zealot, is\napproached by a Mohammedan who places in his hands the Koran and tells\nhim that it is a divinely inspired revelation, as revealed by Allah\nthrough his prophet, Mohammed. Having already had some experience with\nearthly religionists, the Martian is disposed to avail himself of the\nhistorical evidence regarding the life of Mohammed.\n\nHe finds that Mohammed, from all accounts, was a demagogue, a charlatan,\nand a victim of mental disease. It strikes him strangely that such an\nindividual should be chosen by Allah as his disciple on earth to make\nknown his commands. He notes Mohammed's appearance on earth in 600 A.D.\nand wonders why the Creator should have procrastinated for such a long\ntime; but decides to read the revelations anyhow.\n\nHe discovers that \"from the literary point of view, the Koran has little\nmerit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic, and\nincoherence strike him at every turn. He finds it humiliating to the\nhuman intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the\nsubject of innumerable commentaries and that millions of men are still\nwasting time in absorbing it.\"\n\nA Hebrew next takes his turn at this obstinate guest and sets before him\nthe Old Testament. Again, the Martian is informed that it is an inspired\nbook actuated by God.\n\nIn his attempt to find the historical evidence corroborating this book,\nthe Martian finds that authentic history begins for the Israelites with\nthe constitution of Saul's monarchy about 1100 B.C. All that precedes\nthis--the deluge, the dispersal of mankind, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, the\ncaptivity in Egypt, Moses, Joshua, and the conquest of Canaan, is more\nor less mythical.\n\nIn the Old Testament, our Martian reads the first chapter, glances at\nthe chronology, and is immediately bewildered since he has a fair\nknowledge of our scientific advances. As he reads on, he becomes aware\nof a host of errors, contradictions, and manifest absurdities. When he\nquestions the zealous Hebrew, he comes in contact with what he is\ninformed is Concordism, which he perceives is a false science that\nconsists in determining, at any cost, a perfect harmony between modern\nscience and the knowledge possessed by God's people. He is thus told\nthat the days of creation were not days at all, but periods; although\nthe Bible mentions the morning and evening of each day. Delving further\nin this most holy of revelations, he learns that God is represented in a\nmanner most unworthy of what such a being should be represented. He\nfinds the Lord walking in the cool of the evening, showing his hind\nquarters to Moses, ordering abominable massacres, and punishing chiefs\nwho had not killed enough people. On further perusal, there is revealed,\n\"A great deal of Oriental bombast, incoherence and absurdity, that the\nmarvels recounted are often ludicrous or grotesque.\"\n\nIn a chance moment, when the Hebrew had relaxed his hold for a second, a\nvile heretic points out to the visitor (_Exodus XXII, 18_): \"Thou shalt\nnot suffer a witch to live!\" and explains the witchcraft delusion to\nhim.\n\nFrom a comparison between Exodus XXXIV and Exodus XX, he is at a loss to\ndecipher which are the true commandments that the Lord gave to Moses.\nThe first five books of the Pentateuch, he finds, are attributed to\nMoses, although they contain the account of the latter's death. On\ninquiry, he learns that this is still maintained by the synagogue. His\nMartian intellect is unable to comprehend the logic of a God who would\ndemand human and animal sacrifice, and the story of Abraham about to\nsacrifice his son Isaac fills him with disgust. His estimate of the\nmentality of Jehovah receives a severe jolt when he reads in Leviticus\nXVI, \"Herewith shall Aaron come unto the holy place with a young bullock\nfor a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the\nholy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh,\nand he shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the linen mitre\nshall he be attired; they are the holy garments; and he shall bathe his\nflesh in water and put them on. And he shall take of the congregation of\nthe children of Israel two he-goats for a sin offering, and one ram for\na burnt offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin\noffering, which is for himself, and he shall make atonement for himself\nand for his houses. And he shall take the two goats and set them before\nthe Lord at the door of the tent of the meeting.\"\n\nOur visitor reads on to Leviticus XVIII, after which he must stop to\nquestion the Hebrew, for here he finds, \"None of you shall approach to\nany that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness; I am the\nLord. The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother,\nshalt thou not uncover; she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her\nnakedness. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover; it\nis thy father's nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of\nthy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or\nabroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. The nakedness of\nthy son's wife--the nakedness of the wife of thy father--the nakedness\nof thy father's sister, thy mother's sister, the nakedness of thy\ndaughter-in-law, thy brother's wife, the nakedness of a woman and her\ndaughter, thou shalt not uncover. And unto a woman separated by her\nuncleanliness thou shalt not approach to uncover her nakedness. Thou\nshalt not be carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with\nher. Thou shalt not be with mankind as with womankind. And thou shalt\nnot be with any beast to defile thyself thereto; neither shall any woman\nstand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.\"\n\nThe Martian, totally aghast, is constrained to exclaim that he cannot\nbelieve that a Deity should find it necessary to place this in a divine\nrevelation. The Hebrew Zealot relents somewhat to explain that perhaps\nthis was not revealed, but found its way into the divine text as a\nmoral lesson to the primitive tribes for which it was written. To this,\nour guest counters with the remark that if this be a parable of manners\nand morals, then, from what he observes on the earth, we, Earthlings,\nhave certainly outgrown the need for such coarse and obscene statements\nmade some 2000 years ago; and that on Mars, although the inhabitants are\nnot blessed with such divine revelations, common sense and reason have\ntaught their most primitive men the same lessons in morality while they\nwere yet in their infancy.\n\nReflecting on this maze of contradictions, the Martian determines to\nanalyze the Old Testament and the Hebrew religion in the same manner\nthat he would investigate any other problem presented to him.\n\nThirty-five hundred years ago, the Hebrews were a pastoral, primitive\npeople inhabiting the wilderness known today as the Arabian Desert.\nTheir religion was that of all other primitive peoples--Animism, an\nillusion which made primitive man recognize everywhere spirits similar\nto his own spirit. They worshiped the spirits of the sun and the moon,\nthe mountains and rocks, as well as the spirits of the dead.\n\nIt appears certain that the barrenness of this desert land necessitated\nthese wandering tribes to migrate to adjacent areas of greater\nfertility. To the north lay the fertile valleys of the Tigris and\nEuphrates and the coast of the Mediterranean Sea; to the west lay the\nland of the Egyptians. Time and time again, these Bedouin tribes hurled\nthemselves against the inhabitants of the northern fertile valleys.\nBabylonia, to the northeast, was the first country to be invaded, and\nlater Canaan to the northwest. Successful at times in establishing\nthemselves in Babylonia and Canaan, they were at other times driven back\ninto the desert when the native inhabitants in turn attacked the\ninvaders. Migrating into Egypt in search of food, they were made a\ncaptive nation and escaped again into the desert when the Egyptians were\nengaged in fighting the savage invaders from Libya.\n\nThe leader of this flight from Egypt was the prophet Moses. The Martian\ndecides to investigate the character and deeds of this influential\nfigure at another time. It is probable that the exodus gave the proper\nstimulus for the beginnings of a distinctive Hebrew religion, and was\nthe reason for their finally establishing themselves in Canaan, with\nJehovah as their chief deity. It has often been proclaimed that the\nvalue of Judaism has been in first establishing a religion of\nmonotheism; but it must not be forgotten that centuries before the\nHebrews escaped into the desert, the Egyptians were tending to\nmonotheism. It is known that one god was exalted over all the rest in\nEgypt, and that as far back as 1375 B.C. King Ikhnaton made the religion\nof Egypt an absolute monotheism. The Hebrews, in proclaiming their\nYahveh as the one and supreme deity, were but following what they had\nassimilated from the Egyptians. The faith of these desert marauders, at\nthe time of their entrance into Canaan, was as crude and savage as the\nHebrews themselves. Brought into contact with the gods of the\nPhoenicians and Babylonians, their Yahveh underwent a change, as have\nall other creeds since that time when brought into contact with another\ncreed. The final idea of Yahveh accepted by the Hebrews was not the\nproduct of a sudden revelation but of a gradual evolution.\n\nThe Hebrews, about the twelfth century B.C., gained access into Canaan,\nand at first were successful in warfare, so that under King David they\npresented the aspect of a united nation. However, following the\nextravagant reign of King Solomon, the nation was embroiled in a\nrevolution, and the land was divided into two kingdoms--Israel in the\nnorth, Judah in the south. These two tiny kingdoms were habitually at\nwar with each other and, finally, in 722 B.C. Israel was conquered,\nwhile in 586 B.C., Judah was defeated and its population either\nscattered or taken into captivity.\n\nIn 538 B.C., Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylonia and set the exiles\nfree. Returning to their own land, the exiles took back with them the\nlaw code which the priests had manufactured for them. Then began a\nperiod of priestly domination and corruption, a period of subjugation to\nRome, of insurrection against Rome, and the capture and destruction of\nJerusalem in 70 A.D. With the capture of Jerusalem, the Hebrew nation\nwas finally dispersed.\n\nJust as the Martian was able to trace the evolution of the Hebrews from\nthe stage of the marauding tribes of the Arabian desert who wandered\ninto Egypt, Canaan, and Babylonia, and finally established a kingdom for\nthemselves which was dispersed by Rome; just so could he trace the\nevolution of their religious beliefs from their incipient crudities to\ntheir not too great refinement at 70 A.D. This evolution of the Hebrew\nreligion is best exemplified by an analysis of the Old Testament itself.\n\nThere are several canons, or official collection of books which comprise\nthe Old Testament. The Jews and Protestants accept fewer books than the\nRoman Catholics. The Jewish Canon consists of those so-called sacred\nbooks of which the Synagogue possessed Hebrew texts about a century\nbefore the Christian era. \"About 150 B.C. the sacred books of the Jews\nwere translated into Greek for the use of those Egyptian Jews who could\nnot read Hebrew. This translation is called the Septuagint, from a\ntradition that seventy or seventy-two translators had worked upon it.\"\n(_Salomon Reinach, \"Orpheus._\") The earliest manuscripts of the Hebrew\nBible date only from the tenth century A.D., but there are very much\nolder manuscripts of the Greek and Latin translations in existence. At\nthe time of Jesus Christ, three divisions of the Old Testament were\nrecognized. These were, the Law, the Prophets, and the other Scriptures.\nThe first five books, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and\nDeuteronomy, are known as the Pentateuch, and are attributed to Moses\nhimself; although, as has been noted, they contain the account of his\ndeath. This conception of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch was\naccepted by the Israelites as early as the fifth century B.C. and has\nbeen maintained by the Synagogue since that time. Following the example\nof the Hebrews, the Christian Churches accepted this version as to\norigin, and the Roman Catholic Church still upholds this view. The\nJewish Synagogue and the various Christian Churches further hold that\nthe Old Testament is a collection of works inspired or dictated by God.\nEven as late as 1861, the famous Dean Burgon, in a sermon preached at\nOxford University, declared, \"The Bible is none other than the voice of\nHim that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it,\nevery verse of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the\ndirect utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word\nof God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike\nthe utterance of Him who sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring,\nsupreme.\" The Martian compared this statement with the words of the\nscholar Loisy, \"If God himself wrote the Bible, we must believe Him to\nbe either ignorant or untruthful.\"\n\nAs he delves further into the intricacies of the construction of the\nBible, our visitor perceives that the Old Testament gradually evolved\nfrom the tenth century to the second century B.C., and in its present\nform is mainly a fifth century compilation, so distorting the facts\nthat it has taken scholars one hundred and fifty years to get them\nstraight. \"It may rightly be said that there is not a single book in the\nBible which is original in the sense of having been written by one man,\nfor all the books are made up of older documents or pre-existing sources\nwhich were combined with later materials, undergoing, in this way,\nseveral revisions and editions at the hands of different scribes or\ncompilers. Deep traces have therefore been left upon the text of the\nBible by these several stages of expansions, additions, modifications,\nrevisions, and incorporations--they appear to the scholar of biblical\nliterature much like the striations grooved in the rocks by large\nglaciers to the student of Geology.\" (_Trattner, \"Unravelling the Book\nof Books._\")\n\nThe Martian ascertains that to most thinking men it has become very\nobvious that the Bible is the work of man, and not the inspiration of a\ngod; that an increasing number of liberal theologians are discarding the\ntheory of the divine inspiration of the Bible. He likewise clearly\nperceives that there are as yet many men that have given this matter but\nlittle thought; with the Divine inspiration looming up as a corner stone\nin the Hebrew faith he realizes that it behooves him to carry his\ninvestigations further.\n\nThe Christians, accepting the Old Testament as a book dictated by God,\nhad fixed the age of the earth as 4004 B.C. The harm done by the\nChristian ecclesiastics in attempting to force science to conform to the\nridiculous concept of the construction of the universe as contained in\nthe Bible, and as interpreted by the Church, the Martian considers in a\nfurther chapter. Scientists incline to the view that the earth has\nexisted as a separate planet for something like two thousand million\nyears (2,000,000,000). The rocks give a history of 16,000,000,000. Just\nas in the study of the origin of primitive beliefs, one finds that man\nmade his gods and invented all that they are reported to have said, so a\nstudy of the Old Testament reveals that the ancient Hebrew invented his\nGod, and manufactured the vast mass of myth and fable that are recorded\nas the words and deeds of God. Throughout the ages, the words of these\nancient Hebrews have been taken as the words of a god.\n\n\"Everything goes to show that the Hebrew literature was produced like\nother literatures. Hebrews were not the first to tell tales. When they\ndid come to write 'for our learning' they borrowed from other people.\nThe only reason why anything more than a literary attention is paid to\nthese old Jewish writings is that Jesus was a Jew. When Christianity was\nfounded--a difficult date to fix--there was no such thing as a Bible.\nThe old Brahmans and Buddhists had Holy Scriptures; the Egyptians had a\nBook of the Dead, and the Sayings of Khuenaten; the Persians had the\nZend-Avesta; the Chinese had sacred books. They were all as sacred as\nthe Jewish books. Priests made them sacred. Priests generally rewrote\nand edited them, even if they had not originally imagined them. There is\nnothing to guide the man of common sense save knowledge and reason.\nEvery priest swears his religion and his scriptures are true. But they\ncannot all be true. If the first are true, then the Jews are past\nfurther consideration, for they were not the first in the field with\nsacred writings.... Holy scriptures are merely Jewish classics. We have\nhad to accept these old writings of the Hebrews as holy and inspired\nbecause the priests said so, and for no other reason whatsoever. There\nis no other reason.\" Assuming the existence of a deity, a man exercising\nhis common sense would be compelled to deny that the Old Testament is\ninspired of God, because it abounds in stupidities and errors such as\nno god could inspire. \"But because the Jews accumulated these writings,\nthe subsequent adopters of Christianity, realizing that Jesus was a Jew,\nand had been a professing Jew, promptly annexed these tales of fancy and\nof fear, of muddled, sensual, silly things and said they must be\naccepted with the teachings of Jesus. And in the course of time, people\nhad to believe these old Jewish writings were the Word of God.\" (_W. H.\nWilliamson, \"Thinker or Believer_.\")\n\nThe Hebrews had as one of their gods, Yahveh, whom they endowed with\ntheir qualities; qualities inherent in a primitive people: jealousy and\nmight, trickery and fickleness. They evolved a worship that contained in\na modified form many of the ceremonials that they witnessed when they\ncame into contact with the Babylonians and Phoenicians. Their Bible\nthey maintained to be a collection of books which appeared at intervals,\nwith divine inspiration, during a thousand years of Jewish history.\nSimilarly, they insisted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that Judges,\nKings, and Chronicles go back to the times they describe, that the\nprophecies were added from the ninth century onward, and so on.\n\nThe Martian found that not a single book of the Old Testament is older\nthan the ninth century B.C. and that in the fifth century B.C. all the\nolder books and fragments were combined together into the Old Testament\nas we have it, and were drastically altered so as to yield a version of\nearly Jewish history which is not true. The manipulation of the Hebrew\nwritings by the Jewish priests had for its object to represent the\nJewish priesthood, and its rights and customs, as having been\nestablished in the days of Moses. Deuteronomy and Leviticus have been\nclassed as priestly forgeries. Nearly every occurrence, from the\ncreation of the world to the death of Moses, is related twice and, in\nsome cases, three times; and as the Pentateuch is supposed to have been\nwritten by Moses one must assume that Moses had double and triple\nvision.\n\nChronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are impudent forgeries of the fourth\ncentury, giving a totally false version of the events. The Martian finds\nthat the terms used for these fabrications are \"redaction\" or\n\"recension,\" but, in his understanding, he finds the word most\ndescriptive of the process to be forgery. \"The main point is that\npractically all the experts assure you that in scores of material points\nthe Old Testament history has been discredited, and has only been\nconfirmed in a few unimportant incidental statements; and that the books\nare a tissue of inventions, expansions, conflations, or recensions\ndating centuries after the event.\"\n\nThe Martian in his analysis becomes aware of instances related in the\nOld Testament that on his planet would have to be termed\nforgeries,--deliberate falsifications or fabrications of documents or of\nthe signature to them. \"Now the far greater part of the more learned\nclerical authorities on the Bible say that many books of the Old\nTestament pretend to be written by men who did not write them; that many\nbooks were deliberately written as history when the writers knew that\nthey were not history; and that the Old Testament as a whole, as we have\nit, is a deliberate attempt to convey an historical belief which the\nwriters knew to be false. But these learned authorities do not like the\nword forgery. It is crude.\" (_Joseph McCabe, \"The Forgery of The Old\nTestament.\"_) They veil the meaning of this word in the elegance, the\nsubtlety, the resources, of diplomatic language. They talk of certain\nbooks in terms of \"their legendary character,\" \"their conformity to a\nscheme,\" and \"their didactic purpose.\" To the Martian these are but an\nextremely polite description of what he would call a forgery.\n\nA theologian in speaking of David states that \"Keen criticism is\nnecessary to arrive at the kernel of fact,\" and, \"the imaginative\nelement in the story of David is but the vesture which half conceals,\nhalf discloses certain facts treasured in popular tradition.\" The\nMartian thinks this is polite language, but the word forgery is much\nmore concise and to the point, and he finds an excellent example of this\ndescribed by Joseph McCabe in \"The Forgery of the Old Testament.\" He\nstates, \"Some time ago we recovered tablets of the great Persian king,\nCyrus, and Professor Sayre gives us a translation of them, and he\ncompares them, as you may, with the words of Daniel, 'In that night was\nBelshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain, and Darius the Median took\nthe kingdom.' The tablets of Cyrus describe the taking of Babylon, and\nare beyond the slightest suspicion. The Persians had adopted the\nBabylonian custom of writing on clay, then baking the brick or tablet,\nand such documents last forever. And these and other authentic and\ncontemporary documents of the age which 'Daniel' describes show:\n\n     1. That Belshazzar was not the king of Babylon.\n\n     2. That the name of the last king was Nabonidos.\n\n     3. That the city was taken peacefully, by guile, not by bloodshed.\n\n     4. That it was Cyrus, not Darius the Median, who took it.\n\n     5. That Darius, who is said (XI, 1) by Daniel to have been the son\n     of \"Ahasuerus\" (Xerxes), was really his father.\n\n     6. That all the Babylonian names in Daniel are absurdly misspelt\n     and quite strange to the writer.\n\n     7. That the writer described the Chaldeans in a way that no writer\n     could have done before the time of Alexander the Great.\n\nIt is now beyond question that the man who wrote Daniel, and pretended\nto be alive in 539 B.C. (when Babylon fell), did not live until three or\nfour centuries later. The book is a tissue of errors, as we find by\nauthentic documents and by reading the real Babylonian names on the\ntablets.\"\n\nThe Martian discovers glaring instances of forgery in the book of Isaiah\nand the Psalms of David, which, while they pretend to have been written\nby Isaiah and David, are really compilations by various writers.\nSimilarly, he finds that the Book of Esther has been pronounced by\nscholars as a clumsy forgery of the second century, and that the story\nof the slaying of Goliath by David is not consistent with the\nunlegendary tradition that the slayer of Goliath was Elhanan, and the\nperiod of this adventure not in Saul's but in David's reign. The Book of\nPsalms, although attributed to King David, was not written by King\nDavid; and the Book of Proverbs, although attributed to Solomon, was not\nwritten by King Solomon.\n\nThe Book of Genesis relates the mythical traditions of the Hebrews from\nthe creation of the world to the death of Joseph. \"A French physician of\nthe eighteenth century, Astruc, was the first scholar to point out that\nthe two principal designations of God in Genesis, Elohim and Jahveh, are\nnot used arbitrarily. If we place side by side the passages in which God\nis called Elohim, and those in which he is called by the other name, we\nget two perfectly distinct narratives, which the author of the\nPentateuch, as we possess it, has juxtaposed rather than fused. This one\ndiscovery suffices to discredit the attribution of these books to\nMoses, who could not have been an unintelligent compiler, and also\ndiscredits the theory of the divine inspiration of the Bible text. A\ncomparison of the two narratives shows that all which relates to the\ncreation of Eve, the Garden of Eden, and Adam's transgression, exists\nonly in the Jehovist text. Thus it is evident that two versions of the\nCreation are given in Genesis. But there are traces in the Old Testament\nof a third legend, akin to that of the Babylonians, in which Marduk\ncreates the world by virtue of a victory over the waters of chaos\n(Tiamat). This conception of a conflict between the creator and hostile\nforces was contrary to the monotheistic thesis, and has disappeared from\nour two versions of Genesis; but the suppression sufficiently proves\nthat it was very ancient and had long been accepted.\"\n\nThe Martian finds that theologians have attempted to crawl out of\ndesperate situations in their interpretation of the Old Testament by a\nmethod of reading into a passage or extracting out of it ideas\naltogether foreign to its original intent. This method they call\n\"Allegory.\" By means of this process they have been able to extract any\nmeaning which suits their purposes, and by this method of juggling could\nprove anything. A classic example is that licentious piece of literature\ncalled the \"Song of Solomon,\" in which it is claimed that a woman's\nbreasts, thighs, and belly are the symbols of the union of Jahveh and\nthe Synagogue.\n\nContinuing his researches, the Martian notices a number of passages in\nthe Old Testament that lead him to the conclusion that the Hebrews were\noriginally polytheists. The name Elohim, he finds, is plural (singular,\nEloah), meaning the gods. Again, in another passage of Genesis, God is\ndescribed as saying, \"Let us make man in our image (I, 26),\" and further\non, \"The man is become as one of us.\" It becomes evident to him that\nthe Hebrews, like their neighbors, worshiped \"baalim\" or the gods of the\nheathens. The \"teraphim,\" the etymology of which is unknown, were little\nportable idols which seem to have been the Lares of the ancient Hebrews.\nDavid owned some (I Samuel XIX, 13-16), and the prophet Hosea, in the\neighth century before Christ, seems still to have considered the\n\"teraphim\" as indispensable in worship (Hos. III, 4). These evidences of\npolytheism and fetichism in the people of Israel destroy, in the mind of\nthe Martian, the claim of these people to have been faithful from their\nearliest origin to a spiritual monotheism. Rather does he find that they\ntook the religions of other peoples with whom they came in contact.\n\nThe Old Testament contains numerous instances of the practice of magic.\nMoses and Aaron were magicians who rivalled Pharaoh's magicians (Ex.\nVII, 11-20); and Balaam was a magician who pronounced incantations\nagainst Israel and afterwards passed over to the service of Jehovah.\nJacob resorted to a kind of sympathetic magic to procure the birth of a\nspeckled sheep (Gen. XXX, 39). \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,\"\nis written in Exodus XXII, 18, and this phrase offered an affirmation of\nthe reality of witchcraft during the period of the Witchcraft Delusion.\nThe Martian notes that the sentence, \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to\nlive,\" has caused more suffering, torture, and death than probably any\nother sentence ever framed. His mind revolts at the stupidity and the\nslavish adherence to so-called authority of the human mind, which is\nmanifested in this example of what occurred in the period of the\nWitchcraft Delusion, when the words of an ignorant and barbaric Hebrew\nwere taken by Christian followers to be the words of a god. And yet our\nMartian guest recognizes that in this day all men are aware of the\nfallacy of this utterance in a book which is still claimed to be\ninfallible.\n\nThe Martian then considers the many ancient Hebrew rites and religious\ntaboos that have come down through the ages, and are still practiced in\na modified form by the modern Hebrew. Thus, in the Old Testament, there\nare numerous instances recorded of the practices of slaughtering of\ninnocent animals who were offered as peace offerings to Yahveh. As time\npassed, the practice of slaughtering and then burning the sacrificial\nanimal gave way to the practice of only giving the blood of the animal\nas an offering. This custom has come down to the present day in the\nmodern worship of Jehovah; the blood of animals is still forbidden to\nthe modern Hebrew. Therefore, the orthodox Jew has the neck of the\nchicken slit by a \"Shochet\" who allows the blood to drip to the\nground--a modern blood offering to the Gods. The explanations given by\nthe rabbis of our day are spurious. Similarly, the orthodox Jew of our\ntime still persists in salting the meat before cooking, a process which\nis intended to remove the blood, which is the portion of the Gods.\n\nThe reason that the pious Jew abstains from pork leads to the\nconsideration of Totemism as found in the Old Testament. Totemism is a\nkind of worship rendered to animals and vegetables considered as allied\nand related to man. The worship of animals and plants is found as a\nsurvival in all ancient societies and is the origin of the belief in the\ntransmigration of souls. Totemism seems to have been as widespread as\nthe animism from which it is derived, and has been closely intertwined\nin the development of religious beliefs. Totemism in a modified form is\nfound in the Old Testament where animals speak on occasion, as the\nserpent in Genesis, or Balaam's ass. In the most remote periods it is\nprobable that every clan had at least one totem animal which might no\nmore be killed or eaten than the human individuals of the clan. The\ntotem was protected by taboo. The totem was sacred and in this capacity\nit was looked upon as a source of strength and holiness, and to live\nbeside it and under its protection was considered as a righteous custom.\nIn certain communities the idea that it was necessary to abstain from\neating certain totems survived the progress of material civilization.\nThe cow is taboo to the Hindus, the pig is taboo to the Mohammedans and\nto the Jews. The pious Jew abstains from pork because his remote\nancestors, five or six thousand years before our era, had the wild boar\nas their totem. This is the origin of this alimentary taboo; among the\nancient Hebrews it arose, and only comparatively recently has it been\nsuggested that the flesh of these taboo animals was unwholesome. In the\neighteenth century, philosophers propagated the erroneous notion that if\ncertain religious legislators had forbidden various aliments, it was for\nhygienic motives. Even Renan believed that dread of trichinosis and\nleprosy had caused the Hebrews to forbid the use of pork. To show the\nirrational nature of this explanation, it will be enough to point out\nthat in the whole of the Bible there is not a single instance of an\nepidemic or a malady attributed to the eating of unclean meats; the idea\nof hygiene awoke very late in the Greek world. To the Biblical writers,\nas to contemporary savages, illness is supernatural; it is an effect of\nthe wrath of spirits.\n\nPrimitive man ascribed all diseases either to the wrath of God, or the\nmalice of an evil being. The curing of disease by the casting out of\ndevils and by prayers were the means of relief from sickness recognized\nand commanded by the Old Testament. The hygienic explanation of an\nalimentary prohibition as still insisted upon by the rabbis is entirely\nerroneous and marks the expounder of such an explanation as one who is\nentirely ignorant of the evolution of religious beliefs. The entire\nmatter is well stated in one sentence by Reinach, \"Nothing can be more\nabsurd, generally speaking, than to explain the religious laws and\npractices of the remote past by considerations based on modern science.\"\n\nThe Martian is able to trace some curious customs that were exhibited by\nthe ancient Hebrews as well as most other ancient peoples, and which\nhave persisted to this day. The customs remain the same, the meanings\nhave become lost in the blind adherence to custom. It is known that the\nold Jewish mourning customs originated with the desire for protection\nfrom the liberated spirit of the deceased. The loud cries uttered by the\nmourners were thought to frighten away the spirits. The change of dress,\nthe covering of the head with ashes, and the shaving of the hair of the\nmourners were done with the purpose of making themselves unrecognizable\nto the spirits. Hence, the custom still prevails of wearing the mourning\nveil. The covering of mirrors when death occurs in the household may\nwell be an attempt to prevent the spirit from lingering in the vicinity.\nSimilarly, even today, the orthodox Jew, in case of grave illness in his\nfamily, changes the given name of the sufferer. To confuse the evil\nspirit causing the disease?\n\nFurther survivals of totemism as found in the Old Testament are\nillustrated by the worship of the bull and the serpent. Portable gilded\nimages of bulls were consecrated and Hosea protested against the worship\nof the bull in the kingdom of Israel (Hos. VIII, 5; X, 5). The famous\ngolden calf of the Israelites, which was the object of Moses' anger, was\na totemic idol. The worship of the serpent was practiced by Moses\nhimself (Num. XXI, 9). A brazen serpent was worshiped in the temple of\nJerusalem, and was only destroyed by Hezekiah about 700 B.C. (2 Kings\nXVIII, 4).\n\nThe ancient Hebrews, as well as their neighbors, were phallic\nworshipers. To primitive people it is but a natural phase to have the\nphallus become the exponent of creative power, and as such to be\nworshiped. To these primitive minds there was nothing immoral in genuine\nphallic worship. Signs of phallicism among the ancient Hebrews can be\nclearly pointed out; the serpent was a phallic symbol. \"That the serpent\nwas the phallus is proved by the Bible itself. The Hebrew word used for\nserpent is 'Nachash,' which is everywhere else translated in the Bible\nin a phallic sense, as in Ezekiel XVI, 36, where it is rendered\n'filthiness' in the sense of exposure, like the 'having thy Boseth\nnaked' of Micah.\" (_J. B. Hannay, \"Christianity, the Sources of its\nTeaching and Symbolism.\"_) The ark itself was a feminine symbol, and\nphallicism would explain why Moses made an ark and put in it a rod and\ntwo stones. \"The Eduth, the Shechina, the Tsur, and the Yahveh were\nidentical; simply different names for the same thing, the phallus. They\noccupied the female ark with which they formed the double sexed life\nsymbol. The Hebrew religion had thus a purely phallic basis, as was to\nbe expected from a ritual and symbolism derived from two extremely\nphallic nations, Babylon and Egypt.\" (_J. B. Hannay, Ibid._) An\nintelligent reading of Exodus XXXIV, 13, and 1 Kings XIV, 23 and 24,\nwill prove the above contention.\n\nOnce more our Martian guest is besieged by the Hebrew Zealot to examine\nthe divine revelation of his religion. This time the Martian notes, \"I,\nYahveh, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers\nupon the children unto the third and fourth generations\" (Deut.), which\nseems to him to savor of a cruel and monstrous being. He cannot perceive\nof a just being favoring slavery (Ex. XI), or of a merciful father\nordering human sacrifice (Ex. XIII), (Lev. XXVII, 29), (Num. XIII, 3).\nHe is dumbfounded to find references to cannibalism (Lev. XXVI,\n14-16-28; Deut. XXVIII, 53-58; Jer. XIX, 9; Ezek. V, 10; Kings VI,\n26-29-33). A Benevolent Being, he reasons, would not sanction war and\ndestruction of the captured enemy, yet there are instances of this\n(Deut. XXI, 10-14; Deut. XX, 13-14; Deut. VII, 1-2-16). The reading of\nNumbers V, 11-29, and Deuteronomy XXII nauseated him. The Hebrew Zealot,\nobserving the utter disgust with which the reader was regarding his\nrevelation, is obliged to explain to the bewildered barbarian unbeliever\nthat the Old Testament is the foundation for all of our morals and that\nwithout it we would have developed into a very shocking and immoral\nrace.\n\nSince the visitor wishes to remain courteous he proceeds, but with a\ngreat deal of hesitation, to further examine the revelation of God. At\nthis point he is assured that this work is read in most schools and\ntaught to small children. However, our guest is again disillusioned; for\nno sooner does he arrive at Genesis, XII, 11-20, than he finds that\nAbraham, good Abraham, the pure, the father of all Hebrews, makes of the\nsacred relationship of marriage a means of personal gain and safety by\nbetraying his own wife. Now it is the Martian's turn to inquire of the\nHebrew whether the latter had ever read this story to his own daughter?\nOr, the story of Abraham's affair with Hagar, his handmaiden? Was the\nHebrew's young daughter aware that Isaac, son of Abraham, was as ready\nand willing to prostitute his wife for protection for himself as was his\nfather Abraham?\n\nThe Martian is puzzled by the word \"sporting\" in Genesis, XXVI, 8-11,\nand is informed of its meaning. A few moments after reading Genesis XIX,\n1-7, he informs his would-be converter that if Lot had lived in Mars and\nhad offered his daughters to appease the mob, the account of that\nincident would never have found its way into any work on morals.\nMoreover, he failed utterly to see how the account of Lot's daughters\ngetting him into a drunken state, followed by a statement such as, \"Thus\nwere both the daughters of Lot with child by their father,\" could ever\nhave any moral value.\n\nThe story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel does not appeal to this infidel\nMartian, since he still believes that integrity and faithfulness are\nvirtues. Yet, in his endeavor to respect the courtesy due to his host,\nhe reaches for pencil and pad, and notes the various moral lessons he\nhad derived thus far from the Old Testament. He wrote lust, incest,\ninfidelity, and prostitution; arriving at the story of Dinah, Genesis\nXXXIV, 1-2, he wrote that in addition to those vices already listed,\nrape should be given a prominent place. The stories of Joseph and\nPotiphar's wife, Judah and Tamar, King David and his wives, the rape of\nTamar by her brother Ammon, did not impress the Martian as stories for\nthe delectation of children, since he was crude enough to hold that\nanything which would shock the mind of a child, could not have any moral\nvalue and would thus be automatically excluded from any religion. He,\ntherefore, returned the volume to the Hebrew with the remark that as an\nadult he found the stories of De Maupassant and Balzac more interesting,\neven though they belonged to the same genre.\n\nOur guest now repaired to one of our golf courses where, during the\ninterval of a few hours, the fresh air, the sunshine, and exercise\ndispelled the mental nausea which the reading of the Old Testament had\noccasioned in him. Returning to his quarters, he is approached by one of\nthe Christian Brethren and the New Testament is placed in his hands with\nthese remarks, \"The Christian recognizes that in the Old Testament the\nJews have given to the Christian world its greatest heritage.\" The fact\nthat in exchange for this priceless heritage, the Christians have given\nto the Jews a series of persecutions unequaled in the annals of human\nwarfare is explained by the quality of the Brotherhood of Man that\nnaturally manifests itself after a complete conversion to the Bible's\nprecepts. The Old Testament contains the first revelations of God; the\nNew Testament, the last revelations. Our Christian Brother \"forgets\" to\nremind the visitor that the difference of opinion regarding these two\nTestaments of God has caused more sorrow, bloodshed, harm, devilment,\nmisery, and devastation than any other single item in the life and\nhistory of the human race.\n\nThe Martian is hard pressed to reconcile the fact that Mohammedanism six\nhundred years after the appearance of Christianity triumphed over\nChristianity in a great portion of the earth's surface; yet he is\ninformed that Christianity is _the_ religion of God, that Allah made the\nMohammedans, Jehovah the Jews, the Trinity the Christians, and the rest\nof the believers were illegitimate children of the above gods, was the\nonly conclusion he could reach. In a few moments the myth of Christ\nbegins to unfold itself before his eyes in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse. He finds,\n\"The so-called Messianic texts which are supposed to prefigure Jesus in\nthe Old Testament have all been either misunderstood or deliberately\nmisinterpreted. The most celebrated is that in Isaiah VII, 14, which\npredicts that a virgin shall bear a son, Emmanuel, but the word, Al-mah,\nwhich the Septuagint rendered \"virgin\" means in Hebrew a young woman,\nand this passage merely deals with the approaching birth of a son to the\nking or the prophet himself. This error of the Septuagint is one of the\nsources of the legend relating to the virginal birth of Jesus. As early\nas the second century A.D. the Jews perceived it and pointed it out to\nthe Greeks, but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and\nfor over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error.\"\n\nHis attentive reading convinces him that not one of the Gospels is the\nwork of an eyewitness to the scenes recorded; a little side\ninvestigation reveals that there were a great many writings called\nGospels, from which the Church finally adopted four, guaranteeing their\ninspiration and absolute veracity, no doubt because they were in favor\nin four very influential churches, Matthew at Jerusalem, Mark at Rome or\nat Alexandria, Luke at Antioch, and John at Ephesus. Moreover, what the\nGospels tell him, he perceives is what different Christian communities\nbelieved concerning Jesus between the years 70 and 100 A.D. In Matthew\nXXVI, 39, Mark XIV, 35, and Luke XXII, 42, there are words such as those\nJesus is supposed to have uttered during the slumber of these very same\nApostles. This occurrence enlightens him as to what St. Augustine meant\nwhen he wrote, \"I should not believe in the Gospel if I had not the\nauthority of the Church for so doing.\" If the documents are stuffed with\nthe authority of the Church, these Gospels cannot be utilized for a\nhistory of the real life of Jesus.\n\nA study of the Epistles of St. Paul reveals that St. Paul taught that\nsin and death came into the world by Adam's fall. In spite of a diligent\nsearch the Martian found no mention of this in the words ascribed to\nJesus. From St. Paul's utterances he learns that Christ came to redeem\nmankind by his voluntary oblation of himself. He was the Son of God!\nPaul, not knowing that in the future a special form of conception would\nbe superimposed on Jesus, states that he was of human birth. The Martian\ndetermined to ascertain what effect the teachings of St. Paul have had\non Christianity. He learns that, \"Ever since St. Paul, the ruling idea\nof Christianity has been that of the redemption of man, guilty of a\nprehistoric fault, by the voluntary sacrifice of a superman. This\ndoctrine is founded upon that of expiation; a guilty person must suffer\nto atone for his fault; and that of the substitution of victims, the\nefficacious suffering of an innocent person for a guilty one. Both are\nat once pagan and Jewish ideas; they belong to the old fundamental\nerrors of humanity. Yet, Plato knew that the punishment inflicted on a\nguilty person is not, nor should it be, a vengeance; it is a painful\nremedy imposed on him for his own benefit and that of society. At about\nthe same period Athenian law laid down the principle that punishment\nshould be as personal as the fault, thus St. Paul founded Christian\nTheology on two archaic ideas which had already been condemned by\nenlightened Athenians of the fourth century before our era, _ideas which\nno one would dream of upholding in these days, though the structure\nbuilt upon them still subsists_.\"\n\nIn chapter V of the first Epistle of St. John, these words strike the\nvisitor, \"There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, and\nthe Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One.\" If these two\nverses are authentic, they would be an affirmation of the doctrine of\nthe Trinity, dating from the first century, at a time when the Gospels,\nthe Acts, and St. Paul ignore it. It was first pointed out in 1806 that\nthese verses were an interpolation, for they do not appear in the best\nmanuscripts, notably all the Greek manuscripts down to the fifteenth\ncentury. The Roman Church refused to bow to evidence. The Congregation\nof the Index, on January 13, 1897, with the approbation of Leo XIII,\nforbade any question as to the authenticity of the text relating to the\n\"three heavenly witnesses.\" It appeared strange to the Martian that a\ngod should need the lies of his disciples to be incorporated in a divine\nrevelation. But his confusion was even greater when he read, \"We worship\none God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the\nPersons nor dividing the substance--and yet, they are not three\nEternals, but One Eternal, not three Almighties, but One Almighty. So,\nthe Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and yet they are\nnot three Gods, but One God.... The Father is made of none, neither\ncreated nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor\ncreated, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,\nneither made nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.... And in this\nTrinity, none is afore or after the other; none is greater or less than\nanother; but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and\ncoequal.\"\n\nHe thought this would make a great puzzle, truly an insoluble conundrum,\nto take back to bewilder his Martian friends. However, he was able to\ncomprehend the remarks of Vigilantius, \"who returned from a journey in\nItaly and the Holy Land disgusted with official Christianity. He\nprotested vehemently against the idolatrous worship of images, the\nlegacy of Paganism to the Church, a practice directly opposed to that\nof the Mosaic law which Jesus came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. It\nwas idle to reply that these images were the Scriptures of the\nilliterate, that they were not the object of, but the stimulus to,\nworship. Experience showed that the majority of the faithful confounded\n(as indeed they still do) the sign with the thing signified.\" (_Salomon\nReinach, \"Orpheus.\"_)\n\nThe result of the critical examination of the New Testament by the\nMartian is that just as most of the Old Testament books are not only\nanonymous but highly composite productions, that as certain writings\ntraditionally ascribed to Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, and others are\nutterly lacking in the necessary evidences in support of authorship, but\nbear unmistakable evidence of having gone through a long compilatory\nprocess; so does each gospel, despite its seeming unity, give evidence\nof being a composite literary product. Scholars have agreed that Mark\nfirst set forth the doings of Jesus and \"it was out of Mark that both\nMatthew and Luke took the framework of their own writings, cleverly\nfitting into its arrangement their own distinctive material and coloring\nthe whole by their own individual treatment.\" (_Trattner, \"Unravelling\nthe Book of Books.\"_) It is estimated that Mark was written shortly\nbefore the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. \"This means that a\nchasm of 30 or 40 years separates Mark's written document from the\nministry of Jesus--a long enough time to create a plastic body of oral\nteachings and a highly colored tradition embellished with fanciful\nstories.\"\n\nLuke was a Greek physician living somewhere on the shores of the AEgean\nSea. He had been a friend of Paul, just as Mark had been with Peter.\nLuke had no personal acquaintance with Jesus and had to get his\ninformation from what others said, or from what the friends of\n\"eye-witnesses\" had seen.\n\nThe Gospel of \"Matthew\" is an anonymous composition which, on analysis,\nhas been found to incorporate nearly fifty per cent of what is found in\nMark. It is now believed by many scholars to have been written between\nthe years 75 and 80 A.D. at Antioch not, of course, by the Apostle\nMatthew, but by some unknown editor.\n\nThe Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, is vastly different in style,\narrangement, and in the description of the words, actions, and general\nspiritual character of Jesus. Many scholars believe that it was written\nin the city of Ephesus, somewhere around the year 100 A.D. \"Church\ntradition ascribed it to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, one of\nthe fishermen whom Jesus called to be a disciple. Years ago this view\nwas easily entertained, but there now exists too much refractory\nevidence against assigning this Greek Gospel to an Aramaic-speaking\nGalilean. That an untutored fisherman could have written so elaborate\nand so highly philosophical an account of Jesus has always presented a\nthorny problem. And so to most scholars John's authorship of the Fourth\nGospel is unthinkable.\"\n\nNot one of the Gospels is the work of an eyewitness, and the four\nGospels do not complete each other; they contradict each other; and when\nthey do not contradict, they repeat each other. The Christ of John is a\ntotally different person from the Christ of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.\nLoisy, in his \"_Quelques Lettres_,\" states, \"If there is one thing above\nothers that is obvious, but as to which the most powerful of theological\ninterests have caused a deliberate or unconscious blindness, it is the\nprofound, the irreducible incompatibility of the Synoptical Gospels, and\nthe Fourth Gospel. If Jesus spoke and acted as he is said to have\nspoken and acted in the first three Gospels, he did not speak and act as\nhe is reported to have done in the fourth.\"\n\nThe Martian is forced to the conclusion that the New Testament, with its\nversion of the Virgin Birth, Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary, Zacharias\nand the Angel Gabriel, Jesus and the Sinner, are on par with the\neroticism of the Old Testament. The interpolations, the myth, and fable\nalso compare with the first revelation, and, in his opinion, he prefers\nAndersen's Fairy Tales, or AEsop's Fables.\n\nMeanwhile, a Protestant Brother mentions the name of Luther, and the\nconclusions he draws are that the exciting cause of the Reformation was\nan extravagant sale of indulgences conceded to the German Dominicans.\nThe Augustinians grew jealous of the Dominicans, and an Augustinian\nMonk, Martin Luther, affixed to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral\nninety-five articles against the abuse of indulgences. This started the\nfray in Germany with Luther at the head of this heresy. The gravest\ndifference of opinion had to do with the Communion. \"Luther retained\none-half of the mystery, and rejected the other half. He confesses that\nthe body of Jesus Christ is in the consecrated element, but it is, he\nsays, as fire is in the red-hot iron. The fire and the iron subsist\ntogether. This is what they called impanation, invination,\nconsubstantiation. Thus, while those they called Papists ate God without\nbread, the Lutherans ate God and bread; soon afterwards came the\nCalvinists, who ate bread and did not eat God.\" In short, Luther was in\nharmony with the Roman Church in nothing but the doctrines of the\nTrinity, Baptism, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection. Luther thought\nit was time to abolish private mass. He pretended the devil had appeared\nto him and reproached him for saying mass and consecrating the\nelements. The devil had proved to him, he said, that it was idolatry.\nLuther declared that the devil was right and must be believed. The mass\nwas abolished in Wittenberg, and soon afterwards throughout Saxony; the\nimages were thrown down, monks and nuns left their cloisters, and, a few\nyears later, Luther married a nun called Catharine von Bora. This tale\ndid not greatly impress our guest.\n\nA Catholic Brother, not to be outdone, extols the glories of his\nUniversal Church, and the Martian again sets out to investigate. This\ntime he finds:\n\nThe quotations in the New Testament which the Catholic creed interprets\nas giving divine authority to its representatives on earth is a late\ninterpolation; the Trinity as stated above is a paradox which no\nrational being can understand, and its dogmas and idolatry are\nconsistent with a civilization of 4000 years ago.\n\nA study of the lives of its popes put to shame the statement that they\ncould possibly be the earthly representatives of a Benevolent Being. \"In\nthe ninth and tenth centuries the papacy passed through a period of\nshameful disorder. The Rome of John X was a cloaca in which the Popes\nset the example of the worst misconduct.\" (For a good short account of\nthe lives of the popes, see Draper's, \"History of the Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe.\")\n\nDuring the complete control by the Church of civilization in Europe, it\nhas retarded the progress of humanity for at least 2000 years, and its\nprecepts and fundamental principles are today detrimental to the advance\nof mankind. It has to its credit a long series of judicial murders for\ndifferences of opinion. The Crusades, instigated by the popes and\nseconded by the monks, cost millions of lives and exhausted the\nresources of Christian Europe; they aggravated fanaticism, exaggerated\nthe worship of saints and relics to the point of mania, and encouraged\nthe abuse of and traffic in indulgences. There had never been a single\nopinion persecuted by the Church in the Middle Ages the adoption of\nwhich would not have brought about a diminution of her revenues; the\nChurch has always primarily considered her finances. The papacy was\nresponsible for the Inquisition, and it actively encouraged and excited\nits ferocity. It gave birth to the Witchcraft Mania. The first Grand\nInquisitor, Torquemada, received the congratulations of the Pope. It\ndiabolically applauded the St. Bartholomew Massacre, and instigated the\nnumerous religious wars that tore Europe asunder, and was the cause of\nthe loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and incalculable suffering.\nWith such savage alacrity did it carry out its object of protecting the\ninterests of religion that between 1481 and 1808 it had punished three\nhundred and forty thousand persons, and of these, nearly 32,000 had been\nburnt.\n\n\"It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has taught, and still\nteaches that intellectual liberty is dangerous, that it should be\nforbidden. It was driven to take this position because it had taken\nanother. It taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is\nnecessary to salvation. It has always known that investigation and\ninquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads, or may lead, to\nheresy, and that heresy leads to Hell. In other words, the Catholic\nChurch has something more important than this world, more important than\nthe well-being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity for\njoining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for the saving of\nyour soul. If the history of the world proves anything, if proves that\nthe Catholic Church was for many centuries the most merciless\ninstitution that ever existed among men. We, too, know that the\nCatholic Church was, during all the years of its power, the enemy of\nevery science. It preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies,\npriests to physicians. It hated geologists, persecuted the chemists, and\nimprisoned the naturalists, and opposed every discovery of science\ncalculated to improve the condition of mankind. There is no crime that\nthe Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that it did not reward,\nand no virtue that it did not persecute. It was the greatest and most\npowerful enemy of human rights. In one hand, it carried an alms dish,\nand in the other, a dagger. It argued with the sword, persecuted with\npoison, and convicted with faggot.\" R. G. Ingersoll, \"_Rome or Reason_.\"\n\n\"From the time of Newton to our own day, the divergence of science from\nthe dogmas of the Church has steadily increased. The Church declared\nthat the earth is the central and most important body in the Universe,\nthat the sun and moon and stars are tributary to it. On these points she\nwas worsted by astronomy. She affirmed that a universal deluge had\ncovered the earth; that the only surviving animals were such as had been\nsaved in the Ark. In this, her error was established by geology. She\ntaught that there was a first man who, some 6000 or 8000 years ago, was\nsuddenly created or called into existence in a condition of physical and\nmoral perfection, and from that condition he fell. But anthropology has\nshown that human beings existed far back in geological time, and in a\nsavage state but little better than that of the brute.... Convicted of\nso many errors, the papacy makes no attempt at explanation. It ignores\nthe whole matter. Nay, more, relying on the efficacy of audacity,\nalthough confronted by these facts, it lays claim to infallibility.\"\n\nThe persecutions of Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus, together with the\nfacts hitherto stated, did not impress the Martian with the\n\"infallibility\" of the Church. The only great spiritual power that could\nhave interposed to prevent the outbreak of the World War was the papacy.\nPope Pius X had his Nuncio admonish the Austrian emperor, but he failed\neven to get an audition from that old imbecile. The next Pope, Benedict\nXV, was under the influence of a majority of pro-German cardinals. He\nstrove to remain neutral. He attempted to solace the Belgians with\nwords, but he did not reprove the murderous invaders. He protested\nagainst the new and devilish methods of warfare but he did not condemn,\nhe did not excommunicate those that used them. Had the papacy lost its\nmuch-used power of commanding kings and nations, and had it lost its\ngreatest threat, a threat which hitherto could have thrown the masses of\nits adherents into a panic, the threat of excommunication? No, the\npapacy still blessed the banners of the armies, just as it did during\nthe middle ages, and sent its adherents out to slaughter; but first took\ngreat care that the minds of the devout be completely drugged with the\npoison of its creed. A creed that told its followers that do what you\nmight, no matter how dastardly that act might be, so long as you repent\nand confess your sins, life everlasting will be the reward. What is the\nvalue of a church that has claimed the moral leadership of the world\nwhen such things can happen?\n\nNow that the Martian has become acquainted with the three major\nreligions which dominate the world, Judaism, Christianity, and\nMohammedanism, and has been amazed and shocked at the significance of\ntheir teachings in the history of civilization, his curiosity is further\naroused, and he decides to obtain some information of the respective\npersonalities responsible for the amassing of devotees to these creeds,\nall \"infallible,\" and all detrimental to progress. This time his\ninterest leads him to ancient and contemporary sources, of a literal\nrather than verbal nature; sources dealing with the three most\ninfluential prophets in the history of mankind, Jesus, Moses, and\nMohammed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE PROPHETS MOHAMMED, JESUS, AND MOSES CHARLATANS OR VICTIMS OF MENTAL\nAND PHYSICAL DISEASE\n\n    _The prophet or seer is a man of strong imaginative powers, which\n    have not been calmed by education. The ideas which occur to his mind\n    often present themselves to his eyes and ears in corresponding\n    sights and sounds.... Prophets have existed in all countries and at\n    all times; but the gift becomes rare in the same proportion as\n    people learn to read and write_.\n\n    WINWOOD READE.\n\n\nReligious apologists are forever reminding us that we must interpret\nboth the lives and the works of their prophets and recorders in the\nspirit and meaning of the ages in which they lived. To this I agree; but\nthe apologists have so mutilated the meaning of the words of the seers\nand built about them such a mass of nonsense, myth, and fable that it\nbecomes nearly impossible after the lapse of centuries to differentiate\nthe actual man from the fabled man. But there are certain facts that do\ncome down to us recorded by disinterested observers from which can be\nderived finally some conception of their mode of life, and the content\nand significance of their teachings.\n\nAlthough time causes great changes in customs and manners, it only\neffects a negligible variation in the vast majority of diseases which\naffect the body and mind of man. We know from the examination of the\nskeletal remains of prehistoric man that the diseases of the bone of\nthousands of years ago were similar in their manifestations to those\nsame diseases of bone of today. From the writings of the early Egyptian,\nGreek, and Roman physicians we identify diseases by their symptoms, and\nrecognize that the symptoms of these diseases have not changed\nthroughout the ages. Therefore, with the knowledge of the signs and\nsymptoms of various diseases which we have today, we can safely assert\nthat if an ancient complained of the same group of signs and symptoms\n(which is now termed a \"disease complex\"), he was suffering from the\nsame disease which we can identify in modern man.\n\nWhat applies to physical disease is just as applicable to mental\ndisease. In speaking of mental disease, it is important for the layman\nto keep in mind a few fundamental principles held by the physician. The\nphysician in speaking of mental disease means a more or less permanent\ndeparture from the normal or usual way of thinking, acting, or feeling.\nIn the examination of a patient with mental disease the physician looks\nfor delusions, illusions, and hallucinations.\n\nA delusion is a false belief, concerning which the individual who holds\nit is unable to admit evidence such as would be admitted by ordinary\nindividuals.\n\nAn illusion is a deception of the senses, a misinterpretation of sensory\nimpressions; the normal person can be convinced of this deception. The\nmirage, for example, is an optical illusion which has a starting point\nin an external stimulus.\n\nA hallucination is a deception of any of the five senses, in which there\nis no starting point but it is fabricated in a disordered mind.\nIllustrations of hallucinations are the hearing of voices when none are\npresent, smelling of odors, the seeing of visions in a vacuum.\n\nWith the elementary understanding of fundamental symptoms of mental\ndiseases as a point of departure, let us consider the cases of Mohammed,\nJesus, and Moses, three of the most influential prophets in the history\nof civilization.\n\n\nMOHAMMED\n\nOf the three, Mohammed should be considered before the others for\nseveral reasons. First, there is no question regarding the actual\nexistence of Mohammed. We know that he was born at Mecca about 571 A.D.\nand died at Medina on June 8th, 632 A.D. From the facts of his life and\nthe religion which he founded we are able to see the manner in which\nlegend and superstition were superimposed on its original simple form.\nThe historical records of his life and teachings are easier of access\nsince he is nearer our time than the other two prophets, and we can get\na better understanding of his character.\n\nIt was Gibbon who said, \"It may be expected that I should balance his\nfaults and his virtues, that I should decide whether the title of\nenthusiast or impostor more properly belongs to that extraordinary\nman.... At the distance of twelve centuries, I darkly contemplate his\nshade through a cloud of incense.\"\n\nIn attempting to peer through this cloud of religious incense we find\nthe following facts: In the city of Mecca, probably in August, in the\nyear 571, Mohammed, the Prophet of Allah, was born. There seems little\ndoubt that he was descended from those lofty Koreish, whose opposition,\nwhich at first nearly succeeded in holding his name in perpetual\noblivion, eventually caused him to emerge into the light of deathless\nfame.\n\nHis birth was surrounded by all manner of signs and omens, we are told.\nThe labor of his mother, Amina, was entirely painless, earthquakes\nloosed the bases of mountains and caused great bodies of water, whose\nnames were unfortunately not specified, to wither away or overflow; the\nsacred fire of Zoroaster which, under the jealous care of the Magi, had\nspouted ceaseless flames for nearly a thousand years, was extinguished.\nAll the idols in the world except the Kaaba tumbled to earth.\nImmediately after the babe was born an ethereal light dazzled the\nsurrounding territory, and, on the very moment when his eyes were first\nopened, he lifted them to heaven and exclaimed: \"God is great! There is\nno God but Allah and I am his Prophet!\" All these poetic fancies have\nbeen appropriately denounced by Christian scribes, who have claimed that\nnature would never have dignified the birth of a pagan like Mohammed\nwith such marvelous prodigies as undoubtedly attended the advent of\nChrist.\n\nHowever, Mohammed was born shortly after the death of his father. At the\nage of six his mother died also, and he spent the first ten years among\nthe Bedouins under the care of a foster-mother named Halima. At the age\nof four it was noticed that the child had signs of convulsive seizures\nwhich later commentators thought were of an epileptic nature. He was\nbrought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib, and his early manhood\nwas spent in caring for the flock and in attending caravan expeditions.\n\nWhen the prophet was twenty-five years old, his uncle secured for him a\nposition with a caravan owned by a wealthy widow, Khadija. Thanks to\nMohammed's keen business sense the caravan was highly successful, and he\nwas induced to personally report his success to Khadija. That lady, a\nwealthy widow of forty years, and the mother of three children, was\nhighly pleased at Mohammed's story. As she listened to the proof of his\nbusiness ability and fondly scanned his large, nobly formed head, his\ncurling coal-black hair, his piercing eyes, and his comely form, it\nnaturally occurred to her that this vigorous and handsome young fellow\nwould make an excellent successor to her deceased husband. She had her\nway and they were married. During the next fifteen years Mohammed led a\ntranquil life. His future was provided for and he had plenty of leisure\nto occupy himself as he chose. In these years Mohammed and his wife\ncontinued to be conventional worshipers of idols, who nightly performed\nrites in honor of various gods and goddesses, among whom were Allah and\nhis female consoler Al-Lat. And so, by the year 610, Mohammed, at the\nage of forty, was nothing more than a respectable but unknown tradesman\nwho had experienced no extraordinary crises, whose few existing\nutterances were dull and insipid, and whose life seemed destined to\nremain as insignificant and unsung as any other Arab's.\n\nAt this time, he began to retire for days at a time to a cave in the\nfoothills of Mount Hira, a hill several miles north of Mecca. Meanwhile\nhis business languished. As the months passed, he still continued to act\nin the same incomprehensible manner; it was noticed that little by\nlittle certain members of his immediate family attended him to his\nrefuge or gathered with him in some one of their houses. This continued\nfor several years until it was rumored that Mohammed, the camel driver,\nwas confidently claiming the honor of having made a great discovery;\nnamely, that \"There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet.\"\n\nBy what process of thought had Mohammed come to exalt Allah not merely\nabove all Arabian gods, but above the gods of all times? Furthermore,\nwhy was he so certain of his own intimate association with Allah? We\ncan understand this if we consider Mohammed in the light of a victim of\nmental disease.\n\nOne account informs us that as Mohammed was wandering near the cave at\nMount Hira, \"an angel from the sky cried to him, 'O Mohammed, I am\nGabriel!'\" He was terrified and hurried home to impart his experience to\nhis wife.\n\n\"I see a light,\" he said to his wife, \"and I hear a sound. I fear that I\nam possessed.\" This idea was most distressing to a pious man. He became\npale, haggard; he wandered about on the hill near Mecca crying for help\nto God. More than once he drew near the edge of the cliff and was\ntempted to hurl himself down, and so put an end to his misery at once.\nHe lived much in the open air, gazing on the stars, watching the dry\nground grow green beneath the gentle rain. He pondered also on the\nreligious legends of the Jews, which he had heard related on his\njourneys; and as he looked and thought, the darkness was dispelled, the\nclouds disappeared, and the vision of God in solitary grandeur rose\nwithin his mind, and there came upon him an impulse to speak of God.\nThere came upon him a belief that he was a messenger of God sent on\nearth to restore the religion of Abraham, which the pagan Arabs had\npolluted with idolatry, the Jews in corrupting their holy books. At the\nsame time he heard a Voice, and sometimes he felt a noise in his ears\nlike the tinkling of bells or a low deep hum, as if bees were swarming\nround his head.\n\nAt this period of his life the chapters of the Koran were delivered in\nthroes of pain. The paroxysms were preceded by depression of spirit, his\nface became clouded, his extremities turned cold, he shook like a man in\nan ague, and he called for coverings. His face assumed an expression\nhorrible to see, the vein between his eyebrows became distended, his\neyes were fixed, his head moved to and fro, as if he was conversing,\nand then he gave forth the oracle or Sura.\n\nThe hitherto mentally and emotionally normal trader, husband, and father\nwas thus suddenly swept off his feet and carried irresistibly away on a\nmighty tide. His perturbed spirit now soared to the heights of Heaven,\nnow plunged into the chasms of hell. Moments of ethereal bliss would be\nfollowed by periods of profoundest melancholy.\n\n\"It is related that the Angel Gabriel, who thus far had labored only in\nthe field of Christian endeavor, was chosen by Allah as bearer of the\ndivine revelation to Mohammed. One day, while the trader-poet was\nwrestling with his doubts among the foothills of Mount Hira, he saw a\nwondrous apparition floating downward on celestial wings. 'Thou art\nGod's Prophet, and I am Gabriel,' announced the awe-inspiring guest\nbefore he departed to receive the blessing of Allah for having so\nsuccessfully executed the heavenly command. Gabriel was a very valuable\nambassador, for through the to-and-fro journeying of this indefatigable\nmessenger Allah was able to remain at ease in heaven, thus keeping up\nthe appearance of intangible, majestic remoteness so necessary for\ndignified gods. And thus Mohammed came into his own. From that moment\nMohammed looked upon himself as Allah's vice regent, through whom\nAllah's incontestable decrees were to be given to man.\" (_Mohammed_--_R.\nF. Dibble._) Mohammed's every doubt had now vanished, his soul was\ncompletely at ease, and from his lips there burst the wildly exultant\nchant, \"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet.\"\n\nThe obliging Gabriel, he said, had borne him on a winged steed over\nMedina to the Temple of Jerusalem, and from there he continued his\ncelestial journey until he was carried completely out of this world to\nthose ethereal realms of bliss where the Seven Heavens are. Up and up he\nflew, while he carefully noted the order of precedence of those prophets\nwhose model he had proclaimed himself to be. Jesus and John were in the\nsecond or third--he was not quite sure which--Moses was in the sixth,\nwhile Abraham alone had the supreme distinction of residing in the\nSeventh Heaven. There, at the apex of indescribable glory, Mohammed had\nentered the awful presence of his Maker, Who, after some chit-chat,\ncharged him to see that all Moslems should hereafter prostrate\nthemselves in prayer toward the Temple of Solomon five times a day. The\ntruth of this narrative rests upon two solid facts: from that day to\nthis, all devout Moslems have continued to bow themselves five times\ndaily in prayer, and sceptics may still see, upon the rock where stands\nthe Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem, the identical print of the Prophet's\nfoot where he leaped upon the Heavenly Charger.\n\nHis thoughts, whether conceived in a white heat of frenzy, or with\ndeliberate coolness and sly calculations for the main chance, were\nprobably not written down in any definite manner during his lifetime. It\nis not even certain whether he could read or write. He delighted in the\nappellation, \"The Illiterate Prophet,\" possibly on account of his\nhumility and possibly because he knew that inspired ignorance had been\nthe indisputable prerogative of all successful prophets in the past.\nIndeed, the very fact that he was unlearned was rightly supposed to\nincrease the miraculous nature of his revelations. As he tossed the\ndivine emanations from his lips, they were sometimes recorded by\nhireling scribes upon palm leaves, leather, stones, the shoulder blades\nor ribs of camels and goats. But often they were not immediately written\ndown at all; the Prophet would go around spouting forth his utterances\nto his followers, who, trained from infancy to memorize verses and songs\nof every sort with infallible precision, would piously commit them to\nmemory. Such is the Koran, and through its instrumentality, Allah the\nWise, The Only Wise, revealed his immutable decrees: to the good, the\nrewards of a Paradise that utterly beggared the Christian Heaven; to the\nbad, the punishments of a Hell that contained an infinity of such\nrefined tortures of heat, and even of cold as neither the most\nimaginatively gifted Jew or Christian had yet conceived.\n\nReinach aptly states, \"It is humiliating to the human intellect to think\nthat this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable\ncommentaries and that millions of men are still wasting time in\nabsorbing it.\" Over one hundred and sixty million are adherents of the\nKoran.\n\nIn an objective analysis, excluding the emotional factors of religious\nbias, Mohammed would as unquestionably be considered a victim of mental\ndisturbances as an individual living in our own day and manifesting the\nsame symptoms.\n\nMohammed was the subject of illusions, hallucinations, and delusions. He\nhad suicidal tendencies, and he had alternating periods of exhilaration\nand depression. To simply assert that he was an epileptic does not\nexplain these symptoms. For epileptics cannot throw a fit at will.\nHowever, we know that ten per cent of epileptics develop mental\ndiseases, no particular psychosis but a loss of mental and moral sense.\n\nThere are two types of individuals who can produce seizures such as\nMohammed was wont to evoke at will. One type is the hysterical, and the\nother is that degraded individual who for the sake of collecting alms\nwill place a piece of soap in his mouth, enter a crowded street, fall\nto the ground, and proceed to foam at the mouth and twist and contort\nhimself as an epileptic does. That is the charlatan, the faker, and that\nbrings us to the second aspect of his (Mohammed's) character.\n\n\"Outside of Arabia, Paganism was in general disrepute. The dissolute and\ndeclining Romans were cracking lewd jokes in the very faces of their\ngods, the myriad followers of Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster were\neither too remote or too helpless to matter in one way or another.\nTalmudic Judaism and Oriental Christianity despised idolatry and\nworshipped the same Jehovah, even though they disputed with each other,\nand indeed, among themselves, concerning the various attributes, amorous\npursuits, and lineal descendants of the Godhead. Now, to one who chose\nto regard himself as a prophet, Monotheism had distinct advantages over\nPolytheism.\" (_Mohammed--R. F. Dibble._)\n\nIn the first place, it was rather confusing to attempt to obey the\nbehests of conflicting deities; in the second place, the different\nprophets of Jehovah in Judaism and Christendom had, so far as Mohammed\nknew, been uniformly successful, for he was familiar with the glorious\nhistory of Abraham, Moses, and David, and he always held to the perverse\nconception that Jesus was not crucified. However deep in the dumps\nprophets may have been on occasion, they have invariably believed one\nthing: victory for their particular cause would inevitably come. Neither\nan unbroken series of worldly failures nor the chastisement of his god\nhave ever shaken the faith of a first-class prophet in himself or, as he\nwould doubtless prefer to say, in his Divinity. Arabia, broken,\nunorganized, inglorious, idolistic Arabia, obviously lacked one Supreme\nBeing whose prerogative was greater than all other Supreme Beings, and\nthat Being, in turn, needed a messenger to exploit His supremacy. The\nmessengers who had served Jehovah had certainly prospered well; but\nJehovah Himself appeared to be on the decline. His Unity was steadily\ndisintegrating into a paradoxical Trinity. Why, therefore, not give\nAllah, the leading icon in Arabia, an opportunity? Such considerations\nquite probably never entered the head of Mohammed with any definiteness;\nyet his behavior for the rest of his days seems to indicate that these,\nor similar conceptions, were subconsciously egging him on.\n\nOf certain facts, moreover, he was definitely aware. He may have had\nlittle or no formal education, but his memory was retentive and\ncapacious, and his caravan journeys, together with the scores of\nconversations he had held at the yearly fairs, as well as at Mecca, with\nmany cultivated strangers, had packed his mind with a mass of highly\nvaluable matter. In these ways he had learned both the strength and the\nweakness of the Jews and Christians; their fanatical enthusiasm and\ndespairs; their spasmodic attempts to proselytize as well as the\nwidespread defection from their faiths. \"Since his conception of\nreligion was largely personal, for he looked upon Moses, Jesus, and the\nrest of the prophets as merely capable men who had founded and\npromulgated religions; and since Arabia had no pre-eminent ruler, why\nshould he not seize the reins of power and carry on the great tradition\nof prophethood? What a magnificent opportunity beckoned, and how\nfortunate that he had been the first to recognize the call! By keeping\nonly what was best of the Arabic faith, the Kaaba and the Black Stone,\nand by a judicious selection of the most feasible ideas which lay\nimbedded in Jewish and Christian precepts, he might establish a code\nthat would supersede all others, and then might dictate to all Arabs\nalike. What prophets had done, he would also do and do better.\"\n(_Mohammed--R. F. Dibble._)\n\nSuch are the thoughts of a charlatan and _a_ demagogue. If Mohammed\nactually had such ideas, we can never know; but a study of his further\nactions and conquests surely shows that he must have had something of\nthe same trend of thought in mind.\n\nHis \"fits\" before the oncoming of a new Sura have been mentioned.\nEventually, he so perfected his technique that he could throw a\ncataleptic fit and produce a message without any previous preparation.\nHe would drum up a crowd with his ludicrous snortings and puffings until\nthe resounding cry, \"Inspiration hath descended on the Prophet!\" assured\nhim that he had a sufficiently large audience to warrant the\nout-spurting of a new Sura. While in a room that was obviously empty, he\ndeclared that all seats were occupied by angels; he cultivated suave and\nbenign expression; he flattered and astounded his followers by telling\nthem facts which he had presumably acquired through private information;\nhe took the most painstaking care of his person, painting his eyes and\nperfuming his entire body daily, and wearing his hair long. Ayesha, one\nof the Prophet's wives, remarked that the Prophet loved three things:\nwomen, scent and food, and that he had his heart's content of the first\ntwo, but not of the last. In fact, Mohammed, himself, argued that these\ntwo innocuous diversions intensified the ecstasy of his prayers. In the\nKoran's description of heaven so much emphasis was put on food that a\njolly Jew objected on the grounds that such continual feasting must of\nnecessity be followed by a purgation. The Prophet, however, swore that\nit would not even be necessary to blow the nose in Paradise, since all\nbodily impurities would be carried off by a perspiration \"as odoriferous\nas musk.\"\n\nWhen his wife Khadija was dying he comforted her with the assurance that\nshe, together with three other well-known women, the Virgin Mary,\nPotiphar's wife, and \"Kulthum,\" Moses' sister, would occupy his chamber\nin Paradise.\n\nOn Mohammed's escape to Medina, a long series of holy wars began which,\nlike all holy wars, were characterized by extreme brutality. The Koran\nof the period contains such pacific doctrines as these: \"The sword is\nthe key of Heaven and Hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a\nnight spent in arms is of more avail than two months of fasting or\nprayer; whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven. At the day of\nJudgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion, and odoriferous\nas musk; and the loss of limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels\nand cherubim ... God loveth not the Transgressors; kill them wheresoever\nye find them.\"\n\nMohammed, no less than many other religiously-minded emperors and tsars,\nappears to have conducted himself in battle according to the wise\nprinciple that a head without a halo is infinitely more desirable than a\nhalo without a head. Yet he was profoundly convinced that the ultimate\nvictory of Islam depended upon the sword. The Koran of this period\nbreathes defiance against the enemies of Islam on almost every page. Its\nprofuse maledictions, once confined to the evildoers of Mecca, now\ninclude all unbelievers everywhere. When Mohammed once had captured a\nfortress inhabited by a tribe of Jews, his judgment was, \"The men shall\nbe put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, and the spoil\ndivided amongst the army.\" Then, trenches were dug, some seven hundred\nmen were marched out, forced to seat themselves in rows along the top of\nthe trenches, beheaded, and then tumbled into a long gaping grave.\nMeanwhile, the Prophet looked on until, tiring of the monotonous\nspectacle, he departed to amuse himself with a Jewess whose husband had\njust perished.\n\nHe continued these conquests until, at his death, in 632, he was the\nmaster of nearly all Arabia and revered almost as a god. Yet, when Omar,\nhis first lieutenant, captured Jerusalem in 636, he ensured the\nconquered Jews and Christians free exercise of their religion, and the\nsecurity of their persons and their goods. But when the Crusaders took\nJerusalem in 1099, they massacred all the Mohammedans, and burnt the\nJews alive. It is estimated that 70,000 persons were put to death in\nless than a week to attest the superior morality of the Christian faith.\n\nThe successors of Mohammed, the Caliphs, in less than a century\nconquered Syria, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Turkestan, Spain, Northern\nAfrica, Sicily, and Southern France. Today, 160,000,000 are followers of\nMohammed,--a man who began as a humble religious leader, and ended as an\nadroit politician and powerful general; a man who hid during battles,\nwho often broke faith with friend and foe alike, a charlatan and\ndemagogue of general intellectual incompetency, and a victim of mental\ndisease.\n\n\nJESUS\n\nWhen we come to consider the life of Jesus, a far different and more\nintricate problem is met with. None but the most illogical and purposely\nignorant of religious apologists will admit that the life of Jesus has\nbeen misrepresented by his followers to suit their particular aims. Had\nthe followers of the moralist Epictetus or the Rabbi Hillel written\nlives of these two teachers they would be quite similar to the reputed\nlife of Jesus. The moral sentiments attributed to Christ in the Gospels\nwere borrowed from the Jewish rabbis and the numerous cults that\nflourished in that age. The birth, death, and resurrection of Christ is\nquite similar to the myths of that time concerning the savior gods\nAdonis, Isis, Osiris, Attis, Mithra, and a multitude of others. (_For a\nfull exposition of the subject, the reader is referred to E. Carpenter,\n\"Pagan and Christian Creeds.\"_)\n\nThe evidence for the point of view that Jesus was actually a historic\ncharacter is so slight that such scholars as J. M. Robertson, Prof. W.\nB. Smith, Professor Drews, Dr. P. L. Couchoud, and many others deny the\nhistoric reality of Christ on the ground that the Gospels are totally\nunreliable as history, that Paul bears no witness to a human Jesus, and\nthat the pagan and Jewish writers are strangely silent about the Messiah\nJesus.\n\nThere are in existence only twenty-four lines from Jewish and Pagan\nwriters referring to Jesus. These include a reference in Tacitus'\nAnnals, and brief references by Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. These\nthree references are considered spurious by many scholars, and even if\nthey were all to be accepted it would mean that the total pagan\ntestimony as to the historicity of Jesus is confined to three very vague\nand brief references written a century after the reputed time of Jesus.\nThe longest reference to Jesus is in the writings of the Jewish\nhistorian, Josephus. The passage referring to Jesus in his \"Jewish\nAntiquities\" has been considered as spurious even by conservative\nscholars. A group of scholars has always deemed it very probable,\nhowever, that this spurious reference may have replaced an unfavorable\nreference to Jesus in the original. Working on this theory, Dr. Eisler\nhas purged of interpolations this work by a painstaking and scholarly\ninvestigation.\n\nHowever, it must be pointed out that with regard to Jesus' actual\nexistence, what divided the Christians and non-Christians was not the\nquestion whether or not Jesus existed; but the vastly more pertinent\nand essentially different question whether or not the obscure Galilean\ncarpenter, executed by a Roman governor as king of the Jews, was really\na superhuman being who had overcome death, the longed-for-savior of\nmankind, foretold by the Prophets, the only-begotten Son of God Himself.\n\nTo the Jews, Jesus was indeed a heretic and an agitator of the lower\norders; to the pagans, he was a magician who through sham miracles and\nwith subversive words had incited the people to rebellion, and as a\nleader of a gang of desperate men had attempted to seize the royal crown\nof Judaea, as others had done before and after him. The non-Christian\nwriters referred to Jesus as a wizard, a demagogue, and a rebel.\n\nWe are fortunate, at this date, to have brought to our attention a\nmasterful work by Dr. Robert Eisler, a work which will be as\nrevolutionary to the study of Christianity as was Darwin's \"Origin of\nthe Species\" in the realms of science; and, similarly, the former work\nwill be the basis upon which much progress will be made in a great\nfield. Dr. Eisler unfolds a great mass of hitherto unknown information\nconcerning the life, the actual appearance, and the doings of Jesus. He\ndefinitely establishes the proof of Jesus' actual existence, and makes\nclear many hitherto obscure utterances and deeds of this Prophet.\n\nThe descriptions which follow are based on the material in this work of\nDr. Eisler, \"The Messiah Jesus.\"\n\nIn the complete statement of Josephus on Pilate's governorship, we find,\n\"At that time there appeared a certain man of magical power, if it is\npermissible to call him a man, whom certain Greeks call a Son of God,\nbut his disciples, the True Prophet, said to raise the dead, and heal\nall diseases. His nature and his form were human; a man of simple\nappearance, mature age, small in stature, three cubits high,\n_hunchbacked_, with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so\nthat they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair but with a\nparting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazarites,\nand with an undeveloped beard. Only in semblance was he superhuman for\nhe gave some astonishing and spectacular exhibitions. But again, if I\nlook at his commonplace physique, I, for one, cannot call him an angel.\nAnd everything whatsoever he wrought through some invisible power, he\nwrought through some word and a command. Some said of him, 'Our first\nlaw giver is risen again, and displays many healings and magic arts.\nOthers said, 'He is sent from God.' Howbeit in many things he disobeyed\nthe law and kept not the Sabbath according to our fathers' custom.\n\n\"And many of the multitude followed after him and accepted his\nteachings, and many souls were excited, thinking that thereby the Jewish\ntribes might be freed from Roman hands. But it was his custom most of\nthe time to abide over against the city on the Mount of Olives, and\nthere, too, he bestowed his healings upon the people. And there\nassembled unto him of helpers one hundred and fifty, and a multitude of\nthe mob.\n\n\"Now, when they saw his power, how he accomplished whatsoever he would\nby a magic word, and when they had made known to him their will, that he\nshould enter into the city, cut down the Roman troops, and Pilate and\nrule over us, he disdained us not. And having all flocked into\nJerusalem, they raised an uproar against Pilate, uttering blasphemies\nalike against God and against Caesar.\n\n\"And when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they assembled\ntogether, with the high priests and spake, 'We are powerless and too\nweak to withstand the Romans. But seeing that the 'bow is bent,' we will\ngo and impart to Pilate what we have heard, and we shall be safe, lest\nhe hear of it from others and we be robbed of our substance and\nourselves slaughtered, and the children of Israel dispersed.\n\n\"And they went and imparted the matter to Pilate, and he sent and had\nmany of the multitude slain. And he had that wonder-worker brought up,\nand after instituting an inquiry concerning him, he passed this sentence\nupon him, 'He is a malefactor, a rebel, a robber thirsting for the\ncrown.' And they took him and crucified him according to the custom of\ntheir fathers.\"\n\nSuch is the history of Jesus as contrasted with the myth of Jesus in the\nNew Testament. This description of the actual appearance of Jesus for\nthe first time gives us a clue to the mental and physical\ncharacteristics of this Prophet.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that at the time that Jesus achieved manhood,\nhis people and his nation were under the complete domination of Rome,\nand oppressed by a race whom the Jews looked upon as cursed barbarians\nand idolaters. The country was overrun with religious zealots who\nstormed over the cities and villages preaching the immediate destruction\nof the world and the proximity of the long-awaited coming of the\nMessiah.\n\nThe fact that Jesus had to bear the hard fate of a deformed body may go\nfar in helping to explain this remarkable character. It is common\nknowledge how frequently weak and deformed children have to suffer from\nthe cruelty and neglect of environment, a factor which cannot but\nproduce a peculiar reaction on the childish mind which has a\nfar-reaching effect in later life. This accounts for Jesus' indifference\ntowards his mother and brothers; of a delicate constitution, he must\nhave suffered from insults a great deal more than the others, which\nthrows some light on the severe punishment demanded by Jesus for\ncomparatively harmless insults. Under such circumstances it is easy to\nexplain how every \"neighbor,\" and next-of-kin, although to the weak\nnaturally an \"enemy,\" came to be included in the sphere of that\nall-embracing love which is the nucleus of Jesus' teaching. For the\ncripple has to face the dilemma either of warping everything into a\npowerful, misanthropic hatred, or else to overcome this feeling of\nrevenge for the high moral superiority of a Plato, Mendelssohn, or a\nKant. Jesus chose the latter of the two courses, and we may well imagine\nthat it was not at Golgotha that he had the first occasion to cry out,\n\"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do!\"\n\nIn the case of Jesus, the whole paradoxical thought of his being the\nvicarious sin-offering and world redeemer can best be understood as the\nsolution, proposed in the Deutero-Isaiah, of the question which had\noccupied Job--to wit: Why must the innocent suffer? If the maimed in\nbody refuse to consider himself as forsaken by his God, as a sinner\npunished for some guilt of which he is unconscious, he cannot but assume\nthat there is such a thing as a vocation to suffering, and believe in\nthe inscrutable plan of salvation in which his own life and sufferings\nare called upon to play some part. Nothing but this conviction of being\nthus elected can afford him the desired compensation for his depressed\nand hampered ego.\n\nA repressed nature of this type will, in seeking such a compensation,\nescape from the harsh reality into the realm of dreams. This is the\nbasis of what the physician recognizes in hysteria, and in the mental\ndisease termed \"Dementia Praecox.\" The glorious daydreams of the\nmillennium, the time of bliss when all strife and all hate will\ndisappear from the earth, when all the crooked will be made straight,\nfind their best explanation in this peculiarity. They console the\nsuffering and heavy-laden for the bitter reality which, in the light of\nthe old messianic prophecies, appears only as a nightmare, promptly to\nbe chased away by the dawn of a new day, a new, a perfect era. The\nDavidic Jesus, in spite or rather because of his servile form, feels\nthat he is himself the secret incognito king of that wonderful realm,\nthe monarch whom God some time in the future, nay, right here and before\nthe passing of the present generation, will transform while at the same\ntime \"revealing\" his kingdom.\n\nIt is but natural that in the mental development of such individuals\nthey should seek to be great, glorious, and to achieve the supernatural,\nsince they, themselves, are denied the ordinary satisfactions. If, in\naddition, such individuals believe that they have had a divine call, if\nthe disability of the body so preys on the mind that the sensitive\nstructure gives way to delusions, then there results an aberration from\nthe normal and usual processes of thought,--to be sure not the rabid,\nviolent form of mental disease, but yet a deviation from the normal\nmanner of thinking. Such was the case with the Prophet Jesus.\n\nAfflicted in body but endowed with a sensitive mind, exposed to an\nunusual environment of seething unrest and political ferment, and firmly\nconvinced in the current fancies regarding the approaching destruction\nof the world, the conquest of the Evil Power, and the Reign of God,\nJesus became the subject of a delusion that he was the only true Messiah\nwho had been presaged by the prophets of old.\n\nThe greatest difficulty encountered in every attempt to present the life\nand work of Jesus according to the evidence of his own words preserved\nin the sources is the sharp, irreconcilable contradiction between the\nso-called \"fire and sword\" sayings on the one side, and the beatitudes\non the peacemakers and the meek, the prohibition to kill, to be angry,\nto resist wrong, and the command to love one's enemy, contained in the\nSermon on the Mount, on the other.\n\nIn the early period of his messianic career, the period of the Sermon on\nthe Mount, Jesus was a thorough quietist. But if we realize that the\ndelusion that he was \"The Messiah\" had entered his mind so vehemently\nthat he firmly believed that the end of the world was imminent, and that\nit was his duty to save as many as possible, we can understand his\nacquiescence to the violence which followed.\n\nMoreover, he was clearly forced to the fatal road by the idea that he\nmust set on foot a movement of hundreds of thousands, the picture of the\nexodus from Egypt with the fantastic figures given in the Old Testament.\nThe Messianic rising he was to initiate could not be regarded as\nrealized if he left the country with a band of some hundred elect. If he\nwished, however, to put at least two-fifths of the population in motion,\nthe method of sending out messengers had proved altogether\nunsatisfactory. He must try the effect of his own words in a place\nwhere, and at a time when, he was sure to reach the greatest multitude\nof his people. That could only be in Jerusalem, at the time of the great\npilgrimage at the feast of the Passover. Moreover, the desired result\ncould only be obtained of course if he openly proclaimed himself to be\nthe Messiah.\n\nThen it was that the Prophet of quiet reversed his words and armed his\ndisciples. Jesus was fully aware of the illegality of this arming of his\ndisciples and of his own direction to purchase a weapon; none the less,\nhe saw no escape from this bitter necessity. The prediction of the\nprophet must be fulfilled, according to which the righteous servant of\nthe Lord must be numbered among the lawless transgressors. True it is\nthat he did not lead the revolt himself, but tarried with his disciples\nat the Last Supper at a house near by the fighting. When he becomes\naware that his secret hiding place on the Mount of Olives has been\nbetrayed, Jesus hopes for a miracle from God up to the last. Captured,\nhe is led away to the palace of the high priest's family on the Mount of\nOlives, where, while Jesus is questioned by the high priest, Peter,\nunrecognized, warms himself at the fire in the courtyard and thrice\ndenies his master. He was then taken to the Roman governor's\ncourt-martial, where sentence was passed and he was led off to the place\nof execution and there deserted by all his followers except a few\nGalilean women. Then was heard the last despairing cry of the desolate,\ndying martyr, \"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?\"\n\nThus ended the career of this deformed Prophet with the sensitive\ndeluded mind; a martyr who attempted only to effect reforms amongst his\nown people, in his own small locality.\n\n\nMOSES\n\nWith regard to the life, the deeds, and the words of the Prophet Moses\nwe have no history; only myth and legend. The existence of Moses is not\ndemonstrated by the Biblical books which are falsely ascribed to him,\nyet we cannot be certain that such a character did not exist. In any\nevent, we must judge his character from the writings ascribed to him.\n\nThe legend of the child cast upon the waters is to be found in the\nfolklore of all nations. This legend, concerning Moses, relates that one\nday Pharaoh's daughter, while bathing with her maids in the Nile, found\na Hebrew child exposed on the waters in obedience to a new decree. She\nadopted the boy, gave him an Egyptian name, and brought him up in her\npalace as a prince. She had him educated and the fair inference is that\nhe was schooled in the culture of the Egyptians. The royal lady made of\nthe Hebrew slave-child an Egyptian gentleman.\n\nYet, although his face was shaved, and outwardly he appeared to be an\nEgyptian, at heart he remained a Hebrew. One day, when he was grown,\nMoses went slumming among his own people to look at their burdens, and\nhe spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew. He was so overcome by passion at\nthis scene that he killed the man on the spot. The crime became known,\nthere was a hue and cry raised, and the king had a search made for Moses\nwith the intention of slaying him. With all hope of a career in Egypt\nended, Moses escaped to the Peninsula of Sinai, and entered the family\nof an Arab sheik.\n\nThe Peninsula of Sinai lies clasped between two arms of the Red Sea. It\nis a wilderness of mountains covered with a thin, almost transparent\ncoating of vegetation which serves as pasture to the Bedouin flocks.\nAmong the hills that crown the high plateau there is one which at the\ntime of Moses was called the \"Mount of God.\" It was holy ground to the\nEgyptians, and also to the Arabs, who ascended as pilgrims and drew off\ntheir sandals when they reached the top. Now is it strange that Sinai\nshould have excited reverence and dread? It is indeed a weird land. Vast\nand stern stand the mountains, with their five granite peaks pointing to\nthe sky. Avalanches like those of the Alps, but of sand, not of snow,\nrush down their naked sides with a clear tinkling sound. A peculiar\nproperty resides in the air, the human voice can be heard at a\nsurprising distance and swells out into a reverberating roar, and\nsometimes there rises from among the hills a dull booming sound like the\ndistant firing of heavy guns.\n\nLet us attempt to realize what Moses must have felt when he was driven\nout of Egypt into such a harsh and rugged land. Imagine this man, the\nadopted son of a royal personage, who was accustomed to all the splendor\nof the Egyptian court, to the busy turmoil of the streets of the\nmetropolis, to reclining in a carpeted gondola or staying with a noble\nat his country house. In a moment all is changed. He dwells in a tent,\nalone on the mountain side, a shepherd with a crook in his hand. He is\nmarried to the daughter of a barbarian; his career is at an end.\n\nHe realizes that never again will he enter that palace where once he was\nreceived with honor, where now his name is uttered only with contempt.\nNever again will he discourse with grave and learned men in his favorite\nhaunts, and never again will he see the people of his tribe whom he\nloves and for whom he endures this miserable fate. They will suffer but\nhe will not help them; they will mourn, but he will not hear them. In\nhis dreams he hears and sees them. He hears the whistling of the lash\nand the convulsive sobs and groans. He sees the poor slaves toiling in\nthe fields and sees the daughters of Israel carried off to the harem\nwith struggling arms and streaming hair. He sees the chamber of the\nwoman in labor, the seated, shuddering, writhing form, the mother\nstruggling against maternity, dreading her release, for the king's\nofficer is standing by the door, ready, as soon as a male child is born,\nto put it to death.\n\nThe Arabs who gave him shelter were also children of Abraham, and they\nrelated to him legends of the ancient days. They told him of the\npatriarchs who lay buried in Canaan with their wives; they spoke of the\nGod whom his fathers had worshiped. Then, as one who returns to a long\nlost home, the Egyptian returned to the faith of the desert, to the God\nof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As he wandered on the mountain heights,\nhe looked to the west and saw a desert; beyond it lay Canaan, the home\nof his ancestors, a land of peace and soon to be a land of hope. For\nnow, new ideas rose tumultuously within him. _He began to see visions\nand to dream dreams._ He heard voices and beheld no form; he saw trees\nwhich blazed with fire and yet were not consumed. He became a prophet\nand entered into the ecstatic stage. _That is, he began to have\nillusions and hallucinations._\n\nDwelling on the misery and suffering of his people, his mind becomes\ndeluded with the idea that he has been chosen by his new-found God to\nliberate his people from the tyranny of their oppressors.\n\nMeanwhile the king had died, and a new Pharaoh had ascended the throne.\nMoses returns to Egypt to carry out the great designs which he had\nformed. He announces to the elders of his people, to the heads of the\nhouses, and the sheiks of the tribes that the God of Abraham had\nappeared to him in Sinai and had revealed his true name. It was Jehovah.\nHe had been sent by Jehovah to Egypt to bring away his people, to lead\nthem to Canaan.\n\nIn company with his brother, Aaron, Moses asked Pharaoh to liberate the\nchildren of Israel, but after several vain attempts to dazzle Pharaoh\nwith his skill as a magician, he was met with an obstinate refusal.\nMoses before Pharaoh descends to the level of a vulgar sorcerer, armed\nwith a magic wand, whose performances only draw our smiles. This\ncharlatanry having been unsuccessful, the wizard connives with his\naccomplice Jehovah to have inflicted upon the Egyptians the ten plagues.\nThen the loving and kind Father, having killed innumerable Egyptians, as\nthe story relates, so terrorizes the minds of his other children in\nEgypt, that Pharaoh is finally convinced that he must allow the Chosen\nPeople to leave his domain. The Israelites quitted Egypt carrying away\nwith them the gold and silver of their oppressors. They then entered\nthe desert.\n\nThe magic art of Moses enabled them to pass dry-footed through the Red\nSea, whereas the Pharaoh who was pursuing them was engulfed with his\nwhole army. Again the Chosen People are liberated by means of the death\nof multitudes of Egyptians. Truly, Jehovah at that time must have loved\nthem well, or did some other Deity form the Egyptians? It matters not\nthat the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh are\nromantic incidents, not only unknown to the Egyptian texts, but even to\nthe earliest of Hebrew prophets. It matters not, for the story is the\nimportant thing, even though it is an inspired story, inspired by the\nJehovah who tortured and killed the Egyptians to show how well he loved\n_his_ people.\n\nThis Wild West story, with its multitudes of slaughters, proceeds to the\nwilderness of Sinai; and there again, the Prophet Moses goes into a\nsecret seance and finally announces that God had delivered laws to him,\nwhich had been issued from the clouds.\n\nWhat a great showman was this Prophet! Barnum must have been a devoted\nadmirer of Moses, for Moses was the first to create the two-ring circus;\nfor these laws given by Jehovah are described in two places, and the\ncircus varies in both places. Exodus XX and Exodus XXXIV are the two\ntexts which differ considerably.\n\nTo further convince the Children of Israel, Moses tells them the story\nof how he had cajoled Jehovah into allowing him to see what no man had\nhitherto seen, the form of Jehovah, for it appears that Jehovah was so\npleased with this murderer, charlatan, and wizard that he allowed him to\nglimpse His hind quarters. At least, Jehovah had a sense of humor!\n\nWhat a bag of tricks this Prophet had at his command! The Prophet waves\nhis arms and tugs at his gown, and lo and behold! The Lord has spoken!\nThe following is a specimen of the revelations which the Lord is\nsupposed to have dictated to Moses. (Leviticus XIV, 25.)\n\n\"The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering and\nput it upon the tip of the _right_ ear of him who is to be cleansed and\nupon the thumb of his _right_ hand, and upon the great toe of his\n_right_ foot, and the priest shall pour of the oil into the palm of his\nown _left_ hand and shall sprinkle with his _right_ finger some of the\noil that is in his _left_ hand seven times before the Lord.\"\n\nSurely, it must have been a God with a superior mentality who dictated\nthis, for it surpasses our feeble comprehension. And we can well imagine\nJehovah's wrath when the priest confuses his _right_ and _left_.\n\nTwirling his arms again, Moses gives forth this oracle (Numbers XV,\n37-41): \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Speak unto the Children\nof Israel, and bid them that they make them a fringe upon the corner of\ntheir garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the\nfringe of each corner a cord of blue, etc., etc.\"\n\nJehovah chooses Blue as the divine color. Royal Purple. Divine Blue.\nThen there is the familiar myth of the Prophet's tapping of the rock to\nbring forth water in the desert; the story of the manna; the tale of the\ndoves.\n\nThus can the fabled life of Moses be divided into two stages, the early\nperiod of illusions, hallucinations, and delusions, and the later stage\nof wizardry, charlatanry, and demagoguery. Neither must we think that we\nmoderns are the first to peer through this sham, for what the\nIsraelites thought of these laws appears from the bitter criticism of\nMoses and Aaron, which the Haggadah put into the mouth of the rebel\nKorah.\n\n\"When we were given the ten commandments, each of us learnt them\ndirectly from Mount Sinai; there were only the ten commandments and we\nheard no orders about 'offering cake' or 'gifts to priests' or\n'tassels.' It was only in order to usurp the dominion for himself and to\nimpart honor to his brother Aaron, that Moses added all this.\"\n\nMoses, Jesus, and Mohammed--these prophets whose adherents number\nhundreds of millions, about whom there has been built up those vast\nsystems of theology,--what is there of the divine in their characters?\nWhat supernatural in their deeds? What wisdom poured forth from their\nlips which did not come from other philosophers? What immense structures\nhave been founded on these shifting sands, on this morass of ignorance\nand childish fable? How long can these structures endure, aided by the\nbolstering up of the theologists, and how long must it be before the\nlight of reason will pierce these foundations of blindness and force\nthem to topple over? How much longer before humanity can begin to build\non a sound foundation?\n\nMoses, Jesus, and Mohammed; revolutionists three. Moses at the head of a\nweak, squabbling, and disgruntled group of Hebrew desert marauders.\nJesus sanctioning the insurrection against Rome. Mohammed at the head of\nhis Arabian marauders.\n\nIf the freethinkers firmly believe that in them dwell the hope for a\nbetter humanity, for an exhilarated progress, for universal freedom and\nliberty for all mankind, and emancipation from fear and superstition,\nthen they, too, must destroy. They must first undo the wrong before they\ncan proceed to build on a right foundation.\n\nThey must build on the corner stone that all religion is human in its\norigin, erroneous in its theories, and ridiculous in its threats and\nrewards. Religion is the greatest impediment to the progress of human\nhappiness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nSOUNDNESS OF A FOUNDATION FOR A BELIEF IN A DEITY\n\n    _It is better to bury a delusion and forget it than to insult its\n    memory by retaining the name when the thing has perished_.\n\n    F. H. BRADLEY.\n\n    _A thousand miraculous happenings have been honoured by the\n    testimony of the ancients, which in later times under a more\n    exacting and sceptical scrutiny can no longer be believed. Inherent\n    in man's nature is his disposition to be gulled.... Emotion is\n    encouraged to supplant cool reason, fanaticism to supplant\n    tolerance. Not by such means can our race be saved_.\n\n    LLEWELYN POWYS.\n\n\nOur interplanetary visitor is firmly convinced that all religion, no\nmatter what its antiquity or its modernity may be, is an invention of\nour groping earthly minds. It occurs to him that it would be interesting\nand proper to lay aside all theology, all creed, all the superficial\ntrappings placed by man about his conceptions of a deity, and consider\nonly the basic God-idea. The literature on the subject revealed to him\nthat even on this broad and basic principle not all religionists were\nagreed. He found a threefold classification:\n\n(1) Those who held to the belief in an anthropomorphic personal God who\nwas benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.\n\n(2) Those who saw in the constitution of our universe an impersonal\nSupreme Power, who had created the universe, but who had not given us\nany revelation, and thus has no need for worship by prayer and\nsacrifice.\n\n(3) Those who very recently conceived of the deity as a \"cosmic force,\"\nan \"ultimate,\" or as a mathematical or physical law. Such are the\nhypotheses of Jeans and Eddington. The Martian set about, therefore,\nwith the principle that, \"God is a hypothesis, and as such, stands in\nneed of proof.\"\n\n(1) The belief in a personal God:\n\nThe Martian, as our guest, had by this time had ample opportunity to\nsurvey our civilization, and to acquaint himself with the things with\nwhich God in His goodness had endowed His earthly children. A proponent\nof a personal God informs him that his deity is an infinite personal\nbeing of consciousness, intelligence, will, good, unity, and Beauty; the\nSupreme, the infinite personality, who was loving, benevolent,\nomnipotent, and omniscient. Like the American from Missouri, the visitor\nhastened to see for himself the marvelous workings of such an exalted\nbeing, for surely such a being, with such attributes as he was credited\nwith, would certainly be in an excellent position to bestow great gifts\nupon his earthly children.\n\nThe Martian is informed that the vast majority of our inhabitants, no\nmatter what their geographical distribution may be, are suffering from a\n\"financial depression\" brought on by the last World War. War and cruelty\nare synonymous in the mind of our seeker for God; and immediately, there\narises a conflict between the conception of an omnipotent, all-wise and\nloving God and one who would permit war and cruelty. Fearing that he has\nnot comprehended the meaning of an omnipotent being, he turns to the\nlexicon for verification, only to learn that it means an all-powerful\nbeing. How, then, could an omnipotent being permit wholesale and\nprivate murder? Is He not rather a demon than a God? On the other hand,\nif this being is not omnipotent, then He is a useless god, and there is\nno need for all the fears which religion breeds, no need for creed and\nworship. Every war, particularly this last one, is an indictment of God.\n\"God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world,\" is seemly only to\nminds drugged with an irrational creed.\n\n\"If there is a God, he is quite careless of human well-being or human\nsuffering. The deaths of a hundred thousand men mean no more to him than\nthe deaths of a hundred thousand ants. A couple of million men locked in\na death struggle on the battlefield is only a replica of the struggle\nthat has been going on in the animal world throughout time. If there be\na God, he made, he designed all this. He fashioned the hooks for the\nslaughter, the teeth for the tearing, the talons for destruction, and\nman with his multiplied weapons of destruction has but imitated his\nexample. A world without God, and in which humanity is gradually\nlearning the way to better things, is an inspiration to renewed effort\nafter the right. A world such as this, with God, is enough to drive\ninsane all with intelligence enough to appreciate the situation.\"\n(_Chapman Cohen: \"War, Civilization and the Churches.\"_)\n\nWhen the Martian investigated the annals of the World War he found,\ndespite the opportunities Providence had had of showing its benevolence,\nthe affair of the sinking of the _Lusitania_, the torpedoing of hospital\nships, vessels that were not engaged in fighting but in bringing home\nwounded men who had fought in \"God's Cause.\" He found descriptions of\nthe slaughter of men and women and children in air raids, and he\nnaturally concludes that the \"providence of God\" is an insult to the\nearthly intelligence.\n\nGreatly disturbed, he picks up one of our newspapers and the stories of\nhate and racial antagonism rear their ugly heads. These, together with\njealousy and fear, seem to him to be the outstanding features of our\nattitudes. A benevolent, loving, omnipotent father, guiding our\ndestinies, yet allowing such monstrosities to exist! The conundrum grows\ndeeper as he proceeds.\n\nIt is a bright day, and the Martian is aware of a head-ache brought on\nby the effort to understand the ways of earthlings, and therefore\ndecides to drive through the city streets. Yet this drive affords him no\nrelaxation, for on every side two diametrically opposed sights meet his\nkeen eyes--luxury and poverty. Poverty and starvation, yet the Lord's\nPrayer: \"Our Father which art in Heaven, give us this day our daily\nbread!\" No Martian father would allow his children to starve; if he did,\nthe law would fine him and imprison him. Since these earthlings are\nneglected by their Heavenly Father, and are powerless to indict him, the\nleast they could do would be to stop paying tribute to him. If the God\nof these earthlings bothers not about them, why should they trouble\nabout God? The Son of God who could once create a miraculous batch of\nfish to satisfy a few fishermen, can do nothing to help these starving\nmillions! Aloud he muses, \"Is there no place on Earth which is free from\nthis contradiction?\"\n\nHis automobile happens to stop in front of an immense edifice marked\n\"Hospital,\" and his curiosity is sufficiently aroused to cause him to\nalight and enter. The physician in charge courteously asks his\ndistinguished visitor to inspect this refuge for those suffering with\npain. He remembers that a religionist had told him that disease is a\nvisitation of the Lord for our sins, in the same breath with which he\nhad added that the Lord was loving and compassionate. If that were so,\nthen this was the ideal place to witness the infinite goodness and\ncompassion of the Creator of all earthlings. But, the first scene to\nmeet his gaze was that of a woman in childbirth. The torture, the\nexcruciating pain, and the mental anguish of the human female before his\neyes, defied his Martian power of expression. This process of birth, it\nwas explained to him, was not a pathological one, nor a disease, but a\nphysiological function. To this, the Martian could not refrain from\nreplying, \"From your own words, Doctor, it is readily understood that\nyour women experience a torture more acute, more nerve-wracking, and of\nlonger duration than your Jesus experienced during his crucifixion. And\nyour world commiserates and sheds oceans of tears when they contemplate\nthe anguish of Jesus on the cross; but no mention is made of the agony\nwhich is the fate of every woman who brings another human being into\nthis 'best of worlds.'\"\n\n\"But, my dear Martian,\" exclaims the physician, \"the Heavenly Father has\nordained that in anguish shall woman bring forth her young.\" The other\ndeliberated on the compassion of the Benevolent Father in silence, and\ncontinued on his rounds through the hospital.\n\nNearby was the crib containing a baby of a few days, suffering with a\ncongenital heart disease. The infant's lips were blue, so was the body\nblue, and the gasping for breath and heaving of the small chest were\npitiful to behold.\n\n\"This infant,\" nonchalantly remarked the physician, \"was born with a\ngreatly defective heart. It will live for a few days, it will thirst for\nair, it will have intense air-hunger, the lungs will fill with fluid and\nthen it will drown in its own secretions.\"\n\nThe Martian recalled the time he had plunged under the water and\nremained there too long; vividly, he remembered the thirst for air, the\nseeming bursting of the lungs, the compression and vise-like grip of\nthe muscles of the throat and chest, and he could not help exclaiming,\n\"Benevolent, Compassionate Being!\"\n\nThe physician continued, \"This child,\" pointing to a beautiful, robust\nboy of ten years, \"was in perfect health, until he fell in the street\nand received a minor cut which the parents treated with home remedies,\nbut which in a few days was diagnosed as Tetanus.\" And the doctor went\non to explain that the compassion of the Lord is great when this occurs,\nfor the child gets convulsions, the jaws become locked, and beads of\ncold sweat stand out on the child's forehead in his anguish; the\nconvulsions increase in severity and in duration so that finally they\nare continuous and the child lies with the heels and back of the head\nonly touching the bed, the rest of the body is arched. The convulsions\nthen become so severe that the body is so bent backwards at times that\nthe head and trunk touch the heels. The misery of such a child is\nsufficient to cause a physician to lose his reason. Again the Martian\nmurmurs, \"Verily, the compassion of the Lord is beyond understanding.\"\n\nThe child in the next bed had just become paralyzed by an attack of\npoliomyelitis (infantile paralysis). The Martian observes how the Lord\nin His compassion saved a certain number of these children upon whom he\nvents His anger for their sins, by inflicting upon them this hideous\ndisease. He saves their lives, but to serve as an everlasting reminder,\nas a covenant between them and their Lord, He paralyzes their limbs. The\nspectacle of these children attempting to move, making intense effort to\nmove paralyzed limbs, was the most revolting and heart-breaking sight\nthat he had ever witnessed. This time, too, the Martian remarked,\n\"Verily, the Lord in His infinite wisdom and goodness strange tasks does\nperform.\"\n\nThe physician then informed him of the many men and women who have died\nof cancer. A large number of these individuals had reached a period in\nlife where they could just afford to relax from their struggles for mere\nsustenance; men and women who had reached a calm lake after journeying\nthrough troubled and tortuous waters; who had fought the \"good fight,\"\nand had won the just reward of resting after their labors. But no, the\nLord must trouble them for their sins.\n\nA group of these sufferers is shown to the Martian, and the normal\ncourse of this disease is explained. This time all he can do is to\nprotest that he firmly asserts that not one of our savage chiefs, even\nwere he of the most primitive tribe, of the cruelest imagination, of the\nmost base and insane nature, would nor could conceive of such torture as\nthe Loving Father conceived when he decided upon cancer as a visitation\nfor our sins. The roasting of a witch alive is but a mere trifle\ncompared to the long-drawn-out agony, the slow wasting, the anguish of a\ncancer patient watching himself sink to death. And when death mercifully\nreleases this sufferer from his hellish torture the preacher murmurs,\n\"Lord, thy will be done.\"\n\nThe Martian talks for a few moments with a sufferer from this disease\nand ascertains that the latter is a devout and true religionist, that he\nhas been a good, moral church-goer, and has lived strictly according to\nthe tenets of his creed, that he firmly and passionately believes that\nhe has lived so that he will merit the reward of heaven, an everlasting\nsojourn in a land where there is no pain and suffering. And yet, this\ndevout religionist, when he was informed that he had an incurable\ncancer, traveled the length and breadth of his land, from one surgeon to\nanother, allowing himself to be cut to pieces, in order that he might\nremain on this earth but a moment longer. To stay and suffer the\ntortures of the damned when he might go to heaven and get his reward in\nthe land where there is no pain!\n\n\"I wonder,\" mused the Martian, \"did the grim spectre of death finally\ninstill a grain of scepticism into his mind?\"\n\nLater, in the quiet of his chambers, he reviews the day's\nimpressions--cruelty, hate, fear, jealousy, racial antagonism, poverty,\nluxury, disease, pain, superstition, church, religion, and intolerance.\n\n\"If we suppose that the universe is the creation of an Omnipotent and\nBenevolent God, it becomes necessary to ask how pain and evil arise.\nPain and evil are either real or unreal. If they are real then God, who,\nbeing omnipotent, was bound by no limitations and constrained by no\nnecessities, willfully created them. But the being who willfully creates\npain and evil cannot be benevolent. If they are unreal, then the error\nwhich we make when we think them real is a real error. There is no doubt\nthat we believe we suffer. If the belief is erroneous, then it follows\nthat God willfully called falsehood into existence and deliberately\ninvolved us in unnecessary error. It follows once again that God cannot\nbe benevolent.\n\n\"If we regard pain and evil as due to the wickedness of man and not as\nthe creation of God, we are constrained to remember that man himself is\none of God's creations (God being conceived as all creative), and\nreceived his wickedness, or his capacity for it, from whom? If we say\nthat man had no wickedness to begin with but willfully generated\nwickedness for himself, we have to face the double difficulty of\naccounting for: (a) How man, who is an emanation from God, can will with\na will of his own which is not also a piece of God's will; and (b) how a\nbenevolent God could, assuming pain and evil to be a purely human\ncreation, deliberately allow them to be introduced into a world that\nknew them not, when it was open to Him to prevent such introductions.\"\n(_C. E. M. Joad, \"Mind and Matter.\"_)\n\nHe had seen that crime and immorality exist now, just as they had\nexisted before the belief in one personal God, and just as they promise\nto exist beyond our time. He had scrutinized evidence revealing the\nincontestable fact that most criminals were religious, and absolutely\nand proportionately, a smaller number of criminals were non-believers in\na personal deity. Judging by these alone, a belief in a benevolent,\nloving, omniscient, omnipotent, and compassionate Being could not be\nsustained. Furthermore, if such a God ever existed, he certainly would\nhave revealed his true religion to the first man, Adam. If he required\nprayer to satisfy his vanity, he surely would have told Adam how, when,\nwhy, and where to pray. Then again, once having neglected to inform his\nfirst model about all this, since He is omnipotent, he would certainly\nhave instilled into the minds of men \"the\" true creed so that no doubt\ncould have ever entered into any one's mind. What a universe of\nsuffering He would have saved!\n\nThe Martian is aware that a great number of earthlings hold that every\nevent must have a cause, therefore the Universe must have had a cause,\nwhich cause was God. Everything as it now exists in the universe is the\nresult of an infinite series of causes and effects. Everything that\nhappens is the result of something else that happened previously and so\non backwards to all eternity. Applying this reasoning that everything is\nthe effect of some cause, and that a cause is the effect of some other\ncauses, the theists work back from effect to cause and from cause to\neffect until they reach a First Cause. By predicating a First Cause,\nhowever, the theist removes the mystery a stage further back. This\nFirst Cause they assume to be a cause that was not caused and this First\nCause is God. Such a belief is a logical absurdity, and is an example of\nthe ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery. If\neverything must have a cause, then the First Cause must be caused and\ntherefore: Who made God? To say that this First Cause always existed is\nto deny the basic assumption of this \"Theory.\" Moreover, if it is\nreasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it\nunreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always\nexisted? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to\nexplain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.\n\nThe effect noted in any particular case is not of necessity related to a\nsingle cause, and science gives no assurance that causes and effects can\nbe traced backward to a simple First Cause. A man is so unfortunate as\nto contract pneumonia. What is the cause? An infection of the\nrespiratory tract by the pneumococcus. It is not quite so simple as to\nultimate causation. The person afflicted was harboring these germs in\nhis nose and throat, and his resistance was weakened by wetting his\nfeet. The day was cold and his shoes were thin. The humidity and\ntemperature were such that rain fell. The temperature and humidity were\ncaused by air currents hundreds of miles distant from the scene, and so\nad infinitum. In this series of complications where may we discern a\nfirst cause? When applied to the much more difficult problem of physical\nphenomena, we can conceive of an endless cycle of causes, but we cannot\nconceive of a First Cause. \"Cause and effect are not two separate\nthings, they are the same thing viewed under two separate aspects.... If\ncause and effect are the expressions of a relation, and if they are not\ntwo things, but only one, under two aspects, 'cause' being the name for\nthe related powers of the factors, and 'effect' the name for their\nassemblage, to talk, as does the theist, of working back along the chain\nof causes until we reach God, is nonsense.\" (_Chapman Cohen: \"Theism or\nAtheism.\"_)\n\nA great many theists attempt to deduce the existence of an invisible\ncreator and ruler of the universe from the visible features of nature\nsuch as the design, regularity of movement and structure, and the\nvarious aspects of beauty which one may find in studying natural\nobjects. This argument from design in nature has been overruled by a\nstudy of the evolutionary processes. Paley based his argument on the\nassertion of a mind behind phenomena, the workings of which could be\nseen in the forms of animal life. The theists no longer use Paley's\noriginal arguments, but a great deal of the theistic arguments are still\nbased on his assumptions. From the humanistic point of view, and the\ntheist bases his entire arguments from design in nature from the\nhumanistic view, an understanding of the merciless character of organic\nevolution shows clearly that the forces at work in nature are full of\nwaste, there are numerous plans that are futile, there is an unrelenting\npreying of one form of life upon the other, and it is not always the\n\"higher\" form that is victor; there are myriads of living organisms\ncoming to life only to perish before reaching an age at which they can\nplay their part in the perpetuation of the species; and there is a\nuniverse of pain and misery that serves no useful purpose. The impartial\neye of science observes ugliness as well as beauty, disorder as well as\norder, in nature. If there is evidence of design in a rose, there is at\nleast as much evidence of design in the tubercle bacillus, and the\ntetanus bacillus. Whatever in nature produced the peacock produced the\nitch-mite; whatever produced man produced the spirochete of syphilis. If\nthis earth is evolving for the better, the past is still vivid in all\nits cruelty. The old and familiar argument from design and beauty in\nnature is so inconsistent with the facts at hand, that most theists have\nabandoned this attitude, and the retreat from this position has been\nturned into a veritable rout by the steady advance of scientific\nknowledge. God could by exercising His omnipotence reveal His existence\nwith overpowering conviction at any moment; yet, men have been searching\nfor centuries for just the slightest evidence of His presence.\n\nThe Martian, moreover, holds that the entire argument is irrelevant, for\neven if he grants that there is a supernatural being that fashions that\nwhich we behold at work in the universe, how can we say that he designed\nall this without first knowing what his intention was? Only by knowing\nthe intention in the mind of a supernatural being before the act, can we\ninfer that something was designed. When the theist finds intention and\ndesign in nature he is but reading his own feeling and desires into\nnature. Considering the universe as a whole, the Martian fails to find\nanything that suggests a conscious and purposive god, and certainly\nnothing to suggest a being that considers the welfare of man. The\nindividual is not much interested in God as manifested in nature, what\nhe is vainly seeking is _God as Providence_; he is seeking an\nintelligence that his clergy tell him is devoted to his welfare, an\nintelligence that will guide his stumbling efforts, that will relieve\nhim from war and misery, that will shield the innocent from pain and\npoverty. He finds that his clergy cannot point to one clear trace of the\naction of God in human affairs. In the whole long record of man's career\nthe finger of God cannot be found pointing to one well-substantiated\nfact.\n\nThe Martian considers the theistic argument that it would be impossible\nto have an orderly universe merely resulting from the inherent\nproperties of natural forces, and that \"directivity\" is necessary to\nkeep the universe on its present track. Keeping in mind the scientific\nconception of the universe and the knowledge at hand concerning the\natoms and their properties, it is inconceivable that any other\narrangement than the present one should have resulted. The Martian\ncannot marvel as most earthlings do that the present order exists as it\ndoes; the marvel to him would be if any other order should be or that\nany radical alteration in it should occur. He perceives that the state\nof the universe at any moment is the result of all the conditions then\nprevailing, and that the natural forces possess the capacity to produce\nthe universe as we see it. It matters not what the ultimate nature of\nthese forces may be, electrons, protons, electricity, or wave energy;\nthese material forces possess the capacity to produce the universe as we\nsee it. If these forces do not possess this capacity it is indeed\ndifficult for the Martian to conceive in what way even a \"directing and\nsupreme mathematician\" an \"ultimate,\" or any supernatural power however\ndesignated could produce this capacity. Unless the capacity for\nproducing the universe as we see it existed in the atoms themselves, no\namount of direction could have produced it. The property of the atom and\nits combinations to produce the material universe is therefore inherent\nin the atoms themselves and does not necessitate the operation of a\ndeity. The order manifest in the universe is the necessary consequence\nof the persistence of force. If a supernatural, intelligent force\nexisted, the Martian believes that the claims of the theist could in no\nway be better substantiated than if this controlling force would in some\nway manifest an inhibitive influence and prevent certain things\noccurring which would have transpired but for his interference. Such\nmanifestations have not occurred. It is impossible for the theist to\nshow any instance in which the normal consequences of known forces did\nnot transpire in which the aberration could not be accounted for by the\noperation of other known forces.\n\nA \"law\" of nature is not a statute drawn up by a legislator; it is the\ninterpretation and the summation which we give to the observed facts.\nThe phenomena which we observe do not act in a particular manner because\nthere is a law; but we state the \"law\" because they act in that\nparticular manner. It cannot be said that the laws of nature are the\nresult of a lawmaker; it cannot be affirmed that a supreme intelligence\ntold things in nature to act just that way and no other. If the theist\nclaims that a supreme intelligence issued laws for his own pleasure and\nwithout any reason, then he must admit that there is something which is\nnot subject to law and the train of natural law is interrupted. If it is\nclaimed that a supreme intelligence had a reason for the laws which he\ngave, the reason being to create the best possible universe, then it\nfollows that God himself was subject to law and there is no advantage in\nintroducing God as an intermediary. This contention would make it appear\nthat there is a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God\ndoes not serve the purpose of the theist since he is not the ultimate\nlawgiver.\n\nThe anthropomorphic conception of God, our Martian finds, is now denied\nby most cultured theists; nevertheless, they still maintain a belief in\na deity endowed with consciousness. Professor H. N. Wieman states that,\n\"God is superhuman, but not supernatural. He is a present, potent,\noperative, observable reality.... He is more worthy of love than any\nother beloved ... He is one to whom men can pray and do pray, and who\nanswers prayer.\" This can be understood to be not greatly removed from\nthe fundamentalists' conception of God, but when he continues to say,\n\"God is that interaction between individuals, groups, and ages which\ngenerates and promotes the greatest possible mutuality of good,\" and \"it\nresponds to prayer and is precisely what answers prayer, when prayer is\nanswered,\" the personal \"He\" has suddenly changed to the unpersonal\n\"It.\" Emotions and intelligence are connected with nerve structures in\nall sentient beings that we have experience and knowledge of. How can we\nattribute these qualities to a being who is described to us as devoid of\nany nerve structure?\n\nIn former ages the theist saw God in the color and construction of a\nflower, in the starry heavens, and in a sunset or sunrise. The\nbiologists have driven the theists from this misconception, the\nphysicists have explained the phenomena of sunset and sunrise, and with\nthe advance of astronomy the heavens no longer proclaim the glory of\nGod, and the theistic arguments have shifted from worlds to atoms. At\nthe present moment the vision of God has narrowed down to a perception\nof the divine intelligence noted in the design of the atom. Astronomy,\nphysics, geology, chemistry, medicine, psychology, ethics, aesthetics,\nand the social sciences have left no room for a theistic explanation of\nthe universe. The mystics who proclaim God in their intuitive trances\nare being crowded out into the light of reason by the researches of\npsychologists. There are still many gaps in our knowledge, and if the\ntheist persists in finding the manifestation of a supreme being in these\nvague zones of our present ignorance, he is at the mercy of the science\nof the future. Science is concerned with mind as much as it is with the\nmaterial aspects of atoms and stars, hence the sciences of psychology,\nethics, and aesthetics. The entire universe is the province of science\nand it is rapidly providing a scientific interpretation of all the\ncontents of the universe. It may well be a few more centuries before the\nscientific explanation is partially complete, but it must be kept in\nmind that science as we conceive the term is less than 2500 years old,\nand out of this infantile period, at least 1000 years must be deducted\nfor the intellectual stagnation of the dark ages.\n\nIn tracing the retreat of the clergy from the arguments from the First\nCause, the arguments from design, causation, and directivity, the\nMartian recalls the words of Vivian Phelips, \"How is it that God allowed\nearnest and learned divines to commit themselves to arguments in proof\nof His existence, the subsequent overthrow of which has been a potent\ncause for unbelief?\"\n\n\"The finite mind cannot expect to understand the Infinite,\" retorts a\ntheist to our Martian. \"What manner of reasoning is this,\" asks our\nMartian, \"that denies my finite mind the right to question the 'proofs'\nof the existence of an Infinite, when these same 'proofs' are derived by\nfinite minds? The theist cannot infer God from the cosmic process until\nhe can discover some feature of it which is unintelligible without him.\"\n\n(2) The belief in a deity, but the rejection of revelations, theology,\npriestcraft, and church.\n\nTo the Martian the opinion held by these individuals presented two\ndifficulties. First, if the adherents of this hypothesis considered\ntheir deity as a providence which took an active part in the life of\nthis world, then the objections heretofore stated against belief in a\npersonal god are still valid. Secondly, if they considered this being as\nonly a creator, who then leaves this world to its own resources, they\nare only assuming a philosophical existence behind phenomena. Such a\nbeing, they believe, they deduce intellectually. But actually who\ncreated this creator? They assume a god who remains always hidden behind\nphenomena, but such a god has no connection with the God that the\nreligious man worships and to whom he prays for guidance and for\nblessings, for actual interference in the life of this world. Such\ntheories impress our visitor as but a feeble attempt at new concepts of\nthe same hypothetical deity, and it seemed to him that we already had\nsufficient ideas of God to trouble our earthly minds.\n\n(3) The god of the Physicists.\n\nIt was brought to the Martian's attention that two scientists, Sir\nArthur Eddington, a British astronomer, and Sir James Jeans, a\nmathematical physicist, had still another concept of God.\n\nAccording to Eddington, \"Phenomena all boil down to a scheme of symbols,\nof mathematical equations.\" He admits that this mathematics of nature\ndoes not explain anything. They do not define reality, they only define\nthe relations that exist between the phenomena of reality. So far does\nhe go, and then his limited mind, our Martian perceives, meets an\nobstacle that he cannot explain. He, therefore, abandons the formula and\nreturns to the human mind which has conceived this formula. From the\n\"spiritual essence of Man's nature,\" he assumes the spiritual nature of\nthe cosmos itself, which he finds in what religion has known for\ncenturies as God. To him, it is impossible to explain the universe\nexcept in terms of spirit.\n\nProfessor Jeans insists that in the equations which reveal the relations\nbetween phenomena, there may reside also the revelation of the ultimate\nwhich these phenomena express. He believes that there may exist \"a great\narchitect of the universe who is a pure mathematician.\"\n\nHowever, the Martian argues, \"Is it not a fact that in your earthly\nexperience, you have created your gods in your own image? Your savages\ncreated God in the only fashion their mental capacities could supply, in\nthe shape of an idol; now the modern physicist creates his god in the\nlight of his own intimate vision, which is that of a mathematician! This\nis just another attempt to formulate an hypothetical existence of a\nsupernatural being.\"\n\nThe theologians, by this time thoroughly aroused, lay down a verbal\nbarrage, and learned Jesuits place before the visitor a recent\npublication entitled, \"The Question and Answer\" by Hilaire Belloc. The\nauthor, acting as the mouthpiece of the Roman Catholic Church, attempts\nto prove two things: namely, whether God is, and that the witness to\nRevelation is the Roman Catholic Church. Were it not for the fact that\nthe work was published by permission of the Church, one could logically\nsuppose from its arguments that the author was attempting to give the\nanswer, \"No,\" to the question propounded, as to whether God is. There is\none sentence, however, to which the Martian agrees: this one, \"But\nreligions, though not very numerous, considering the vast spaces of time\nover which we can study them, and the vast number of millions to which\nthey apply, differ and contradict each other; on which account, any one\napproaching this problem for the first time, and being made acquainted\nat the outset with the variety of religions, would naturally conclude\nthat every religion is man-made, and every religion an illusion.\"\n\nOn reading the opening remarks, the Martian exclaims, \"This earthling\nplainly tells us at the beginning that he will make his theories fit in\nwith his conclusion! He informs us that he does not seek the truth, no\nmatter where it may lead, but he only deems it necessary to fit ideas,\nno matter how distorted, in order that the final conclusion will\nsimulate what he deliberately sets out to prove.\"\n\nMr. Belloc's statement, \"How many men will agree that wanton cruelty,\ntreason to family or the state, falsehood for private gain, breach of\nfaith, are admirable?\" strikes the Martian as absurd when viewed in the\nlight of the historical annals of the Church itself. Mr. Belloc's creed\nmust have considered these very vices as virtues, judging from the\nactions of his Church.\n\nIn calling the Roman Catholic Church the witness to revelation, the\nauthor continues with, \"Yet, that it should suffer from men's hatred and\npersecution.\" If God has divinely ordained this institution as His\nChurch on earth, and in His omnipotence and omniscience allows this\nChurch to be hated, then how do the religionists assume that their god\nis a god of love? The author tells us that He is a god of hate, such a\ngod as was conceived of by the barbarians and the Hebrews--cruel,\nvengeful, and monstrous. Does not this apologist confuse his god with\nhis devil? Then again, has it not occurred to this apologist that he is\nin all futility attempting to prove something which is a contradiction\nwithin itself? If God is, and is benevolent, is it not logical to assume\n(since the theologians assume all sorts of attributes to this deity)\nthat he would not have constructed the minds of men when He created them\nso as to desire to doubt His being; would not have tortured the minds of\nmen with cruel doubt as to His existence?\n\nIf He is omnipotent, it would have been just as easy to instill into the\nminds of men only the strongest desire to believe in His reality; and\neven that would not be necessary had He so arranged matters that by His\neverlasting presence He would reveal Himself or His deeds to man in such\na conclusive manner that even the feeblest of intellects could not\ndoubt His existence.\n\nIf He is omniscient, as the parable asserts, that not a hair falls from\nthe head of man, not a sparrow dies without His knowledge, it must\ntherefore be apparent that He created man with the foreknowledge that\nman would doubt His existence. This is a contradiction in itself.\n\nThe Martian notes that in the entire length of the work not a reference\nis made to the time-worn theological defense, \"the revelation\" which the\nChurch has always claimed for its scriptures.\n\nAppended as an afterthought, as an apology, as it were, for the\nphilosophical defense and not the theological, the Jesuit father reminds\nthe reader of its messiah, Jesus and the New Testament. The Jesuit\nstates, \"The New Testament writings, considered merely as trustworthy\nhistorical documents, inform us that--\" but at this point the Martian\ninterrupted the speaker, for the audacity of any learned man terming the\nNew Testament writings \"historical\" was beyond his comprehension. It\nbrought forcibly to his attention the great change which the apologies\nfor the Church had undergone, and the new methods which they assumed.\nThe old theological defense of the deity was gone; not even philosophy\nwas deemed strong enough support for the present day. How the Church had\nfallen! The Church which had persecuted, anathematized, burned, and\ntortured the scientist, the geologist, the astronomer, the geographer,\nthe biologist, the chemist, and the physician; this same Church in its\nlast extremus, casts aside theology as its weapon and its appeal to the\nminds of the sceptics whom they aim to convert. The Church casts aside\nits own theology, having learned by bitter experience and recanting of\nopinions, bulls, and infallible statements by infallible popes, and now\nsuccumbs to the opinions it has formerly anathematized. In the present\nage the Church calls science to its aid, and utterly disregards its\nobsolete theology which it still practices, and attempts, by means of\nthe misinterpretation of scientific facts and statements of a few men\nsuch as Eddington and Jeans, to force science into some illogical and\nunscientific concordance with the conception of a supreme being.\n\nIronically it occurs to the Martian that the shades of Hypatia, Bruno,\nGalileo, Copernicus, Vanini, Darwin, and the vast numbers of Waldenses,\nAlbigenses, Huguenots, Jews, and the victims of the Inquisition and the\nWitch Hunt, must, as they contemplate the present tactics of that Holy\nInstitution, the Church, find some consolation in the depths of that\nhell to which the Church consigned them. The Martian logically deduces\nthat by employing science for its defense, the Church admits the\nimpotence of \"divine revelation,\" in this age, to convince even its own\nadherents of the problematical existence of a divine being. _Theology is\nno longer recognized as authoritative even by theologians!_\n\nWill the theologians now discard their theology based on the\nsupernatural, and build a system of theology based on science? Is this\nall that is left to the theologian: that he must use the pitiful\n\"Theology of Gaps\"? That is, wherever there are gaps in scientific\nknowledge, the theologians insert their idea of God! This is but the\nreplacing of the question mark with a meaningless label.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE PERSISTENCE OF RELIGION\n\n    _We believe what we believe, not because we have been convinced by\n    such and such arguments, but because we are of such and such a\n    disposition._\n\n    C. E. M. JOAD.\n\n\n    _The mind of the ordinary man is in so imperfect a condition that it\n    requires a creed; that is to say, a theory concerning the unknown\n    and the unknowable in which it may place its deluded faith and be at\n    rest._\n\n    WINWOOD READE.\n\n    _Generations followed and what had been offered as hypothetical\n    theological suppositions were through custom and tradition taken for\n    granted as unquestioned truth._\n\n    LLEWELYN POWYS.\n\n\nThe Martian has had his attention drawn to the statement that religion\nin some form or other has existed from most primitive times down to the\npresent day. The theologians point to this as a proof of the existence\nof a supreme being. An investigation of this assertion leads the Martian\nto the conclusion that religions have continued to exist mainly because\nof the power which inherited superstitions wield over mankind. Men are\nborn with a marked tendency towards superstitions.\n\nCertain isolated families of men are born with an inherited tendency\ntowards tuberculosis. Most of these are born, not with an active\ntuberculosis, but some as yet imperfectly understood tendency, a defect\nin their protoplasmic make-up that renders them an easy prey to the\ntubercle bacillus if they are exposed to it. Similarly, generations of\nmen have been born with a weakened mental vitality towards superstition;\na weakened mental capacity that renders their minds an easy prey to that\nfear which manifests itself in superstition, creed, religion--the\nGod-idea. It was Karl Marx who remarked that, \"The tradition of all the\ngenerations of the past weighs down like an Alp upon the brain of the\nliving.\"\n\nSince the days of our racial childhood, our beliefs have been handed\ndown from generation to generation, and they have persisted since in all\nages it was forbidden to question their existence. Man has persuaded\nhimself that it is so just because he has said it for so long and so\noften. The force of repetition is great; it is, in fact, taken by a vast\nmajority of men as the equivalent of proof.\n\nMost men have to accept their religions ready made. Their daily tasks\nleave them no time or opportunity for a personal search. The toil for\nbread is incessant, there is not sufficient leisure to verify the\nsources of their religious beliefs. Moreover, the ecclesiastic's answers\nto the riddles of life are easier, by far, to grasp than the answers of\nscience. These two factors, of innate mental inertia and force of\nrepetition, are well manifested by the present tactics of advertising.\nThe manufacturer of any product well knows that constant repetition and\nthe dangling of his product before the eyes of the public will lead to a\nwidespread acceptance of the advertising slogans propounded for his\narticle.\n\nThe force of so-called authority has aggravated this mental inertia. It\ntakes a tremendous amount of will power and mental courage for any\nindividual to assert an opinion that runs counter to the accepted mode\nof thinking. It is much easier and much more pleasant to give oneself\npassively to that delusion of grandeur, that delusion that pleasantly\ndrugs the mind with the assumption that there is a supreme being who is\npersonally interested in our well-being; a providence who, like a school\nmaster, at his pleasure dispenses rewards and punishments; as\nimmortality, Heaven and Hell. So firmly has this become entrenched in\nthe minds of men that the irrationalities which manifest themselves\nagainst such a conception make no impression. Schopenhauer well states,\n\"Nothing is more provoking, when we are arguing against a man with\nreasons and explanations, and taking all pains to convince him, than to\ndiscover at last that he _will_ not understand, that we have to do with\nhis _will_.\"\n\nThe Martian, knowing the widespread extent of religious beliefs and\ntheir supposed influence in our daily lives, is prepared to find in our\nannals a vast literature that would attest to the overwhelming benefits\nthat mankind had derived from his religious beliefs.\n\nHe is amazed to find that the little good which religion had\naccomplished, had occurred at the time when our race was in its infancy.\nJust as fear is instilled into the mind of the child to protect it from\nthe dangers of its environment before the child has reached the age when\nit can use its reason for protection, just so had religion, by its\nimplantation of fear, served its purpose in the days of our racial\nchildhood. The child, however, as soon as it learns to reason, replaces\nthose fears by a logical comprehension of the laws governing his\nenvironment. But in religious matters this fear has clung to man\ntenaciously; and while at first serving a protective function, at the\npresent stage of civilization constitutes an embryonic impediment. The\nassertion of ecclesiastics that without the aid of religious learning\nand influence our civilization would have been retarded is a statement\nthat a study of the development of man shows to be directly opposed to\nthe facts; that religion has been the greatest impediment in the road to\nprogress. This will be shown in the subsequent chapters. The\noft-repeated assertion that, during the Middle Ages, ecclesiastic\ninfluence was the saving grace is well refuted by Dr. William J.\nRobinson:\n\n\"We are told by the Church apologists that during the Middle Ages the\npriests and monks kept up the torch of learning, that, being the only\nliterate people, they brought back the study of the classics.\nHistorically speaking, this is about the most impudent statement that\none could imagine. It was the Church that retarded human progress at\nleast one thousand years, it is the Church that put a thick,\nimpenetrable pall over the sun of learning and science, so that humanity\nwas enveloped in utter darkness, and if the priests and monks later\nlearned to read and write (from the Arabs, Jews, and Greeks exiled from\nConstantinople after 1453), it is because they wanted to keep the power\nin their hands; the people they did not permit to learn either to read\nor write. _Even the reading of the Bible, bear in mind, was considered a\ncrime._ We are told that the priests and monks built hospitals and gave\nalms to the poor. Having gotten enormous tracts of the best land into\ntheir hands, so that the people were starving, they were willing to\nthrow a bone occasionally to the latter. It cost them nothing and it\ngave them a reputation for charity. They built enormous monasteries with\nwell filled cellars, and lived on the fat of the land, while the people\nlived in wretched hovels, working their lives away for a crust of bread.\nThe beasts, the domestic animals lived a more comfortable life than did\nthe men, women, and children of the people. And the Church never, never\nraised a finger to ameliorate their condition. It kept them in\nsuperstitious darkness and helped the temporal lords--for a long period\nthe spiritual were also the temporal lords--to keep them in fear,\nsubjection and slavery.\"\n\nThe Martian being an impartial observer examined what had been done by\nChristianity for the intellectual and material advancement of humanity\nduring her long reign, and what had been done by science and purely\nsecular knowledge in its brief period of activity, the period when\nscience and secular knowledge had partially liberated themselves from\necclesiastical domination. He came to the conclusion that in instituting\na comparison he had established a contrast.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nRELIGION AND SCIENCE\n\n    _Science, then, commands our respect, not on the basis that its\n    present assumptions and deductions are absolutely and for all time\n    true, but on the ground that its method is for all time true--the\n    method of discovery, the method of observation, research,\n    experimentation, comparison, examination, testing, analysis and\n    synthesis._\n\n    MAYNARD SHIPLEY, \"The War on Modern Science.\"\n\n    _In the bare three and one-half centuries since modern science\n    began, the churches had conducted an unremitting crusade against it.\n    That much of this crusade had turned into a rear-guard action was\n    due less to the weakness of the defenders of the faith than to the\n    invulnerability of their non-resistant victim._\n\n    HORACE M. KALLEN, \"Why Religion?\"\n\n\nSome sixty years ago in the \"Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic\nFaith,\" the Church stated, \"But never can reason be rendered capable of\nthoroughly understanding mysteries as it does those truths which form\nits proper subject. We, therefore, pronounce false every assertion which\nis contrary to the enlightened truth of faith.... Hence, all the\nChristian faithful are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate\nconclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to\nthe doctrine of faith, especially when condemned by the Church, but are\nrather absolutely bound to hold them for errors wearing the deceitful\nappearance of truth. Let him be anathema....\n\n\"Who shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit\nof freedom that one may be allowed to hold true their assertions even\nwhen opposed to revealed doctrine.\"\n\nCan anything stronger be said to discourage research, investigation,\nexperiment, and retard progress? And only sixty years ago! It is but the\nrestatement of what the Church has uttered so many times and for so\nlong--that all knowledge, material as well as spiritual, is to be found\nin the Bible as interpreted by the Church. It was this myth which had\nstultified the mind of man for 1500 years (during the period in which\nthe Church was dominant); it was this that had killed the urge to search\nand seek for the truth, which is the goal of all science, the means by\nwhich humanity is set on the road to progress. This was the damnable\nprecept foisted on the minds of men which enslaved them throughout the\nages, and from which we are just emerging. This was the precept that\nplunged the world into the Dark Ages, and retarded the advance of\nmankind for centuries.\n\nThis is the reason that it is utterly impossible for the intellectually\nhonest scientist, and for that matter any individual, to reconcile\nscience with religion. On the one hand, that of religion, we have the\nforces of intolerance, superstition, and the endeavor to besmirch,\nrepress, and ridicule every advance favorable to mankind; to cloak with\nmeaningless words obsolete rites, to stand in the way of human progress,\nbecause it does not permit men to think boldly and logically. Science,\non the other hand, does not hesitate to tear down old conceptions, and\nhas only one motive, the ultimate truth. Religion has the purpose of\nkeeping the masses in the narrow and false path of only accepted\ndoctrines. The true scientist is the man with the open mind, one who\nwill discard the worthless and accept only the proven good. The\nreligionist closes his mind to all facts which he is unwilling to\nbelieve, everything which will endanger his creed. Religion teaches the\nindividual to place all hope, all desire, in a problematical hereafter.\nThe stay on earth is so short compared to the everlasting life to come,\nthat of what interest is this life; all things are vain. The misery, the\nsuffering, of his fellow men leave him cold; he can only think of living\nin the light of his narrow creed so that he may gain his future reward.\nHow well this philosophy has fitted in with the schemes of the select\nfew for the control of the many!\n\nTruth to the scientific mind is something provisional, a hypothesis that\nfor the present moment best conforms to the recognized tests. It is an\nevolving conception in a constantly changing universe. It is not that\nscience has attained true conclusions; not that the evidence at hand\nmust remain immutable; but that the scientific method of analyzing and\nformulating assumptions on the basis of discovery, on ascertained facts,\nis a superior method to the closed \"infallible\" method of \"revelation.\"\nThese assumptions, based upon the known facts, lead to a working\nhypothesis which in turn develops into a theory. If the theory is\nadopted it must account for the facts known. But the theory is not held\nas final, it is always changed or abandoned if necessary to conform to\nthe new discovered data. Science welcomes the critical attitude that\nleads to the refinement of its theories. There may be today various\ntheories held by scientists in which they are mistaken, but the question\nof the _method_ by which they arrive at conclusions can no longer be\nunder consideration with regard to its validity.\n\nTo the scientific mind, knowledge is something to be arrived at by study\nand research. To the religionist, knowledge is something that is\ncontained in an infallible and supernatural statement or insight.\nReligion exalts the transcendental; science manipulates only the\nmaterial. To the consistent religionist, his belief, as such, determine\nthe fact; to the scientist it is the evidence that establishes the fact.\nTo the religionist truth is something that is unchanging, that is fixed,\nfinal, and heretical to question. Confronted with a constantly changing\nuniverse, he would delude himself that his inner convictions give him a\nfinality concerning his evolving environment. It is therefore not so\nmuch Science that the religionist is fighting, but the _scientific\nmethod_. This scientific method of approach, he rightly perceives, has\nso pervaded our mode of thinking that it is the subtle and most\ndisintegrating force that is shattering the religious foundations.\n\nDr. James T. Shotwell, speaking of the scientific method, concludes,\n\"But whatever strictures philosophy may pass upon the _conclusions_ of\nscience, as merely relative and provisional, there is no clearer fact in\nthe history of thought, that its _attitudes_ and _methods_ have been at\nopposite poles from those of religion. It does no good to blink the\nfact, established as it is by the most positive proofs of history and\npsychology. Science has made headway by attempting to eliminate mystery\nso far as it can. Religion, on the other hand, has stressed mystery and\naccepted it in its own terms. Science is the product of bold adventure,\npushing into the realm of the mysterious to interpret its phenomena in\nterms of the investigator; religion enters this same realm to give\nitself up to the emotional reactions. Science is the embodiment of the\nsense of control, religion yields the control to that power which moves\nin the shadow of the woods by night, and the glory of the morning\nhills....\n\n\"Science does not justify by faith, but by works. It is the living\ndenial of that age-long acceptance which we accord to the mystery--as\nsuch. It renounces authority, cuts athwart custom, violates the sacred,\nrejects the myths. It adjusts itself to the process of change whose\ncreative impulse it itself supplies. Not _semper idem_ but _semper\nalterum_ is the keynote of science. Each discovery of something new\ninvolves the discarding of something old. Above all, it progresses by\ndoubting rather than by believing.\" (_James T. Shotwell: \"The Religious\nRevolution of To-day.\"_)\n\n_There has never been an advance in science of widespread importance\nwhich in some manner or other endangered some mouldy religious concept,\nthat the Church has not bitterly opposed; an advance which in time has\nproven of inestimable benefit for all mankind. A glance at the history\nof human progress will reveal scores of such instances._\n\nThe two rival divisions of the Christian Church, Protestant and\nCatholic, have always been in accord on one point, that is, to tolerate\nno science except such as they considered to be agreeable to the\nScriptures. It was the decree of the Lateran Council of 1515 that\nordered that no books should be printed but such as had been inspected\nby the ecclesiastical censors, under pain of excommunication and fine.\n\nIt is easily understood that having declared the Bible to contain all\nknowledge both scientific and spiritual, and then passing a decree\nordering no books to be printed which did not agree on all points with\nthe Church's interpretation of the Bible, the Church was in absolute\ncontrol of all thought, both written and spoken.\n\nIt was to no advantage for the scholar to investigate any new fields,\nfor all knowledge which was possible for the mind to discover had\nalready been revealed in the Scriptures. Thus declared the Church. We\nunderstand why it was that Copernicus did not permit his book to be\npublished until he was dying. We understand also that when Galileo and\nBruno had the courage of their convictions, and gave voice to their\nbeliefs, they were persecuted. Galileo was made to recant a discovery\nthat the youngest of children now takes for granted. Bruno was burnt at\nthe stake.\n\nWe know that astronomy was at a standstill under Church domination,\nchemistry was forbidden, and the study of natural philosophy was\ncontradicted; while anthropology, which showed on what mythical\nfoundations the story of the fall of man rests, was squelched. The\nattitude of the Church on geography was hostile to the truth, as witness\nthe persecutions of those who dared to venture that the earth was round.\nBotany, mathematics, and geometry, as well as the natural sciences,\nslumbered. Geology, which proved that the earth was more than 6000 years\nold, was anathematized; archeologists had the greatest difficulty to\nexpound the truth concerning the antiquity of the human race. In purely\ncivil matters, the clergy opposed fire and marine insurance on the\nground that it was a tempting of Providence. Life insurance was regarded\nas an act of interference with the consequence of God's will. Medicine\nmet the most strenuous of opposition.\n\nIt is impossible in this short study to analyze the specific forms of\nretardation which the Church exhibited to all of these branches of\nlearning, whose only endeavor it was to search for the truth, to state\nthe facts, and to alleviate and make more bearable man's sojourn on this\nearth. However, a few of the many instances of retardation on the part\nof the Church will be pointed out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nRELIGION AND MEDICINE\n\n    _Now, when physiologists study the living brain of an ape, they have\n    no grounds for supposing that they are dealing with a dual\n    structure. The brain is not a tenement inhabited by a spirit or\n    soul. The spirit or soul is but a name for the manifestations of the\n    living brain. The leading neurologists of the world are agreed that\n    the same is true of the human brain. It was only when they abandoned\n    the dual conception--an inheritance from the dark ages of\n    medicine--that they began to understand the disorders of man's mind\n    and how to treat them._\n\n    _Modern medicine thus strikes at the very root of Christian\n    doctrine. For, if man is truly mortal, if death ends all, if the\n    human soul is but the manifestation of the living brain, as light\n    and heat are the manifestations of a glowing bar of steel, then\n    there can be no resurrection of the dead. Man has the seeds of\n    immortality in him, but the gift is for the race, not for the\n    individual._\n\n    SIR ARTHUR KEITH.\n\n\nMedicine and religion have been closely associated from the most\npristine time. Primitive medicine had its origin in conjunction with the\nmost primitive of religious conceptions, namely, animism; an illusion\nthat made primitive man recognize in all things, and everywhere, spirits\nsuch as his supposed spirit; a belief that the world swarms with\ninvisible spirits which are the cause of disease and death. And thus\nprimitive medicine is inseparable from primitive modes of religious\nbelief. All these phenomena which we consider today natural--the\nrustling of leaves in a forest, the crash of thunder, the flash of\nlightning, winds, clouds, storms, and earthquakes--were to primitive\nman the outward and visible signs of angry gods, demons, and spirits.\nSimilar spirits caused disease and death, and these evil spirits that\nproduced disease and death were to be placated and cajoled by man, just\nas he did his other deities, by magic, by burnt offerings, and\nsacrifice.\n\nThe first holy man, the first priest, was the \"shaman,\" and it was his\nduty not only to placate and cajole the spirits that were thought to\ncontrol the physical well-being of the individual members of the tribe;\nbut it was his duty also, by the exercise of his magic, to alleviate and\ncure illness by exorcism. The \"shaman\" was therefore the first medicine\nman, the first witch doctor, the first physician. He relied chiefly upon\npsychotherapy as does the modern witch doctor of Christian Science.\n\nMedicine could not begin to be medicine until it was disassociated from\nmagic, religion, and theology. This struggle has been going on from the\ntime of the \"shaman\" to the present moment. Primitive medicine stands\nmidway between magic and religion, as an attempt to safeguard health by\ncontrol of so-called supernatural processes, and the warding off of evil\ninfluences by appeal to the gods.\n\nIn all primitive societies, priest, magician, and medicine man were one\nand the same; and medicine remained stationary until it could divorce\nitself completely from religion. Primitive medicine, then, springs from\nfolklore, legends, credulity, and superstitions; the same forces that\ngive rise to all forms of religious beliefs.\n\nHuxley has stated, \"Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed,\" and\nfrom the earliest of times those men who had a scientific trend of mind\nrealized this, however vaguely, and have attempted to divorce science\nfrom religion. The science of medicine has been divorced from\nsuperstition, but its twin brother religion lies as firmly bogged in\nthe mire of superstition today as it did in the days of the incantations\nof the first theologist, the \"shaman.\" And it is due to this close\nassociation of religion and medicine that ideas of the greatest\nscientific moment have been throttled at birth or veered into a blind\nalley through some current theological lunacy. Medicine has advanced\nthrough its disassociation with supernaturalism, while religion still\nremains the last refuge of human savagery.\n\nAnd so it had been that throughout those long, sterile, and barbarous\nages primitive man ascribed all diseases either to the wrath of God, or\nthe malice of an Evil Being. With the rise of the Greek philosophers,\nthe human mind for the first time began to throw off the fogs of\nsuperstition. In Greece, 500 years before Christ, Hippocrates developed\nscientific thought and laid the foundations of medical science upon\nobservation, experience, and reason. Under his guidance, medicine for\nthe first time was separated from religion. He relieved the gods of the\nresponsibility for disease and placed it squarely upon the shoulders of\nman. His findings were passed on to the School of Alexandria, and there\nmedical science was further developed. At this stage of history all\nadvances stopped, and for the following reason:\n\nWith the coming of Christianity this science, as well as all others, was\nstultified. A retrogression took place to the ideation of the most\nprimitive of men, namely, the conception of physical disease as the\nresult of the wrath of God, or the malice of Satan, or by a combination\nof both. The Old Testament attributes such diseases as the leprosy of\nMiriam and Uzziah, the boils of Job, the dysentery of Jehoram, the\nwithered hand of Jeroboam, the fatal illness of Asa, and many other\nills, to the wrath of God, or the malice of Satan. The New Testament\nfurnishes such examples as the woman \"bound by Satan,\" the rebuke of\nthe fever, the casting out of the devil which was dumb, the healing of\npersons whom \"the devil oftimes casteth into the fire,\" and various\nother episodes. Christian theology then evolved theories of miraculous\nmethods of cure, based upon modes of appeasing the divine anger, or of\nthwarting satanic malice. The curing of disease by the casting out of\ndevils, by prayers, were the means of relief from sickness recognized\nand commanded by the Bible. Thus Christianity perverted the beginning of\na science of medicine to a system of attempted cure of disease by fraud.\n\nThe treatment of disease descended to the cures found in holy and\nhealing wells, pools, and streams; in miracles and the efficacy that was\nto be found in the relics of saints. Instead of reliance upon\nobservation, experience, and thought, attention was directed toward\nsupernatural agencies. In contrast to the Greek physicians who were\nattempting to lay a scientific foundation, we have the Christian idea\nprevailing that the water in which a single hair of a saint had been\ndipped was to be used as a purgative; water in which St. Remy's ring had\nbeen dipped cured lunacy; oil of a lamp burning before the tomb of St.\nGall cured tumors; wine in which the bones of a saint had been dipped\ncured fevers; St. Valentine cured epilepsy; St. Christopher cured throat\ndisease; St. Eutropius, dropsy; St. Ovid, deafness; St. Vitus, St.\nAnthony, and a multitude of other saints, the maladies which bear their\nnames.\n\n\"In the year 1585, in the town of Embrun, France, the male generative\norgan of St. Foutin was greatly revered. A jar was placed beneath his\nemblem to catch the wine with which it was generally anointed; the wine\nwas left to sour, and then it was known as the 'Holy Vinegar.' The women\ndrank it in order to be blessed with children.\" (_Joseph Lewis,\n\"Voltaire.\"_)\n\nEnormous revenues flowed into various monasteries and churches in all\nparts of Europe from relics noted for their healing powers. The\necclesiastics perceived that the physician would interfere with these\nrevenues and gifts of the shrines, and deemed it the will of God to\npersecute and condemn physicians. St. Ambrose declared, \"The precepts of\nmedicine are contrary to celestial science, watching and prayer.\" St.\nAugustine declared, \"All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to\nthese demons, chiefly do they torment fresh baptized Christians, yea,\neven the guiltless, new-born babe.\" Gregory of Nazianzus declared that\nbodily pains are provoked by demons, and that medicines are useless, but\nthat they are often cured by the laying on of consecrated hands. St.\nNiles and St. Gregory of Tours gave examples to show the sinfulness of\nresorting to medicine instead of trusting to the intercession of saints.\n\nEven as late as 1517, Pope Leo X, for a consideration, issued tickets\nbearing a cross and the following inscription, \"This cross measured\nforty times makes the height of Christ in His humanity. He who kisses it\nis preserved for seven days from falling sickness, apoplexy, and sudden\ndeath.\"\n\nThe Council of Le Mons, in 1248, forbade monks to engage in surgery. At\nthe beginning of the twelfth century, the Council of Rheims forbade\nmonks to study medicine; and shortly after the middle of the twelfth\ncentury, Pope Alexander III forbade monks to study or practice medicine.\nIn the thirteenth century, the Dominican Order forbade all ecclesiastics\nto have any connection with medicine; and when we remember that the\npolicy of the Church had made it impossible for any learned man to enter\nany other profession, the only resource left for a scholar was the\nChurch; so effectively did the Church kill all scientific endeavors.\n\nThe Reformation made no sudden change in the sacred theory of medicine.\nThe Church of England accepted the doctrine of \"royal touch,\" and in a\nprayer book of that period is found a service provided for that occasion\nwhich states that \"They (the kings), shall lay their hands on the sick,\nand they shall recover.\"\n\nPestilences were taught to be punishments inflicted by God on society\nfor its shortcomings. Modern man has no conception of the ravages of\ninfections and epidemics that swept over Europe in the Middle Ages, and\nto a lesser extent, until less than fifty years ago. Tacitus described\nthe plague in Rome thus: \"Houses were filled with dead bodies, and the\nstreets with funerals.... Alike, slaves and plebeians were suddenly\ntaken off amidst lamentations of their wives and children, who, while\nthey mourned the dead, were themselves seized with the disease, and,\nperishing, were burned on the same funeral pyre.\"\n\nIn 80 A.D. an epidemic swept Rome causing 10,000 deaths daily. During\nthe ages until the present century, wave after wave of pestilence swept\nover Europe. The plague in 1384 A.D. took no less than 60 million lives.\nIt was estimated that twenty-five per cent. of the population of the\nthen known world perished in that one epidemic. Between 1601 and 1603,\n127,000 died of the plague in Moscow. The epidemic of 1630 took 500,000\nlives in the Venetian republic; Milan alone lost 88,000. In 1605, London\nlost 69,000; 70,000 died in Vienna in 1679; the following year Prague\nlost 83,000, all from this disease. The horrors of such visitations are\nbeyond description, and can scarcely be imagined. For a time, attempts\nwere made to collect and bury the dead. Wagons would pass through the\nstreets at night collecting the victims. The drivers, benumbed with\ndrink, frequently failed to ascertain whether death had occurred. Living\npatients, desperately ill, were piled into the wagons with corpses\nbeneath, about, and on them. These gruesome loads were dumped pell-mell\ninto huge pits hastily dug for the purpose. In some instances, living\nvictims crawled out of these pits and survived to tell the tale. As the\nepidemics progressed, attempts to dispose of the dead were abandoned.\nPutrefying bodies were everywhere. Whole cities were left desolate, the\nfew survivors having fled.\n\nIt is not to be wondered at that such epidemics swept over Europe when\nit was taught that these were the vengeance of God. How could it be\ndiscovered that the real causes were the crowded conditions and bad\nsanitation of the cities, the squalor, the misrule, and gross immorality\noccasioned by the Holy Wars, when hordes of soldier-bandits plagued the\ncountryside? The devout continued to live in their squalor, to trust in\nthe Lord, and to die by the millions.\n\nIn all pestilences down to the present time, the Church authorities,\ninstead of aiding and devising sanitary measures, have preached the\nnecessity of immediate atonement for offenses against the Almighty. The\nchief cause of the immense sacrifice of lives in these plagues was of\ncourse the lack of hygienic precautions. But how could this be\ndiscovered when, for ages, living in filth was regarded by great numbers\nof holy men as an evidence of sanctity!\n\nSt. Hilarion lived his whole life long in utter physical uncleanliness.\nSt. Athanasius glorifies St. Anthony because he had never washed his\nfeet. St. Abraham's most striking evidence of holiness was that for\nfifty years he washed neither his hands nor his feet; St. Sylvia never\nwashed any part of her body save her fingers; St. Euphraxia belonged to\na convent in which the nuns religiously abstained from bathing; St. Mary\nof Egypt was eminent for filthiness; St. Simeon Stylites was in this\nrespect unspeakable--the least that can be said is that he lived in\nordure and stench intolerable to his visitors. For century after century\nthe idea prevailed that filthiness was akin to holiness.\n\nAnother stumblingblock hindering the beginnings of modern medicine and\nsurgery, was the theory regarding the unlawfulness of meddling with the\nbodies of the dead. The dissection of the human body was prohibited\nsince the injury to the body would prevent its resurrection on the Last\nDay. Andreas Vesalius was the pioneer in the movement for increased\nknowledge of anatomy, and in 1543, when his work appeared, he was\ncondemned to death by the Inquisition as a magician. He escaped this\nfate by undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem only to be shipwrecked on\nthe Island of Zante when he attempted to return, and there died in\nmisery and destitution.\n\nIn the year 1853, cholera, after having committed serious ravages in\nmany parts of Europe, visited Scotland. It was evident to most thinking\npeople that, due to the extreme poverty and squalor of most of the\nScottish towns at that time, a great number of people would necessarily\nsuccumb to this disease unless stringent sanitary measures were\ninstituted immediately. Instead, the Scotch clergy proposed to combat\nthis scourge with prayer and fasting, which would have lowered the\nresistance to this disease by producing physical exhaustion and mental\ndepression. They proposed the ordering of a national fast day in which\nthe people were to sit the whole day without nourishment in their\nchurches and retire to their beds at night weeping and starved. Then it\nwas hoped that the Deity would be propitiated, and the plague stayed. To\ngive greater effect to this fast day, they called upon England to help\nthem, and the Presbytery of Edinburgh dispatched a letter to the\nEnglish minister, requesting information as to whether the queen would\nappoint a national fast day. The English minister, to his credit,\nadvised the Presbytery of Edinburgh that it was better to cleanse than\nto fast, and cleanse they must swiftly or else, in spite of all prayers\nand fastings of a united but inactive nation, the cholera would\ndevastate them.\n\nThere are today, in this twentieth century, two pestilences which could\nbe wiped from the face of the earth. \"There are two pestilences which\nthus unfortunately involve moral conceptions. They are the plagues of\nSyphilis and Gonorrhea. Against them medicine has developed methods of\ncontrol. They could be eradicated, but as yet civilization has not\nadvanced entirely beyond the ancient idea that disease is imposed by God\nas a measure of vengeance for our sins. It still rejects protection,\nwhen without it these plagues will continue to exact death and suffering\non a scale which probably exceeds that of any one of the medieval\nplagues. Those who today look upon Syphilis and Gonorrhea as punishment\nfor sin have not progressed beyond the ideas of medieval Europe.\n\n\"Ignorance and bigotry are the twin allies of the plagues of Syphilis\nand Gonorrhea. Medicine and civilization advance and regress together.\nThe conditions essential to advance are intellectual courage and a true\nlove for humanity. It is as true today as always in the past that\nfurther advances or even the holding of what has already been won,\ndepend upon the extent to which intellectual courage and humanity\nprevail against bigotry and obscurantism.\" (_Haggard, \"Devils, Doctors,\nand Drugs.\"_)\n\nAs a result of the lack of control of these plagues there are in the\nworld at the present moment thousands of children suffering from\ncongenital syphilis who would never have been born but for the desire of\nChristians to see sinners punished. With regard to the spread of sex\nknowledge, the clergy's attitude is dangerous to human welfare. The\nartificial ignorance of sex subjects which orthodox Christians attempt\nto enforce upon the young is extremely dangerous to mental and physical\nhealth. The young are much less likely to act wisely when they are\nignorant, than when they are instructed.\n\nThese two venereal diseases are no more controlled under the moral\nstandards of today than they were two centuries ago, and yet medical\nscience offers for these diseases what it can offer for few others; both\na prevention and a cure. And it is due to the ignorance and the bigotry\nof the theists that the spread of sex knowledge is hampered so that a\nsane conception of sex and the prevention of venereal disease does not\neradicate these diseases. The theists have, therefore, without sense or\njustice, founded their morality on disease; neglecting the fact that all\ndisease is immoral in the widest sense, since it is detrimental to the\nhappiness of man, and that no one disease is more so than another. The\nmorality of the body is health--not disease. So much for the actual\nfacts and reality. In passing to the theoretical, we again see the truth\nof the statement that religion is the last resort of human savagery.\n\nTo postulate that a supreme being is omnipotent, omniscient, and\nall-loving, and then to assume that he inflicts disease on his children\nas punishment for sin is a sadistic mental aberration. In his\nomniscience he full well knows beforehand what each of his children will\ndo. He foreordains their sins and then punishes his children for sins\nthat he wills them to commit. It is just as if a syphilitic father\nshould punish his syphilitic child because the child has that congenital\ndisease for which the father is responsible. If the theist insists that\nhis deity is all that he claims him to be, then it is only logical that\ninstead of man asking his god for forgiveness, what actually should be\nis that God should ask the forgiveness of man for his bungling and\nerror.\n\nChristianity has attempted from its inception to eradicate the sexual\ninstinct and in so doing has antagonized an instinct that is as\nfundamental as that of self-preservation. All it has accomplished is a\ndistortion. The church, by claiming that it alone was privileged to\nregulate sexual desires, has done one of two things to each of its\nadherents. It has either made him a hypocrite or driven him insane. Much\nof the insanity in this country could be overcome were religion and sex\npermanently divorced; and an immediate amount of inestimable good could\nbe accomplished when one considers that fifteen per cent of all mental\ndisease is caused by syphilis.\n\nPhysical disease having been considered as a malicious trick of Satan,\nit was but natural that the disease of the mind was also attributed to\nsatanic intervention. The conception that insanity was a brain disease,\nand that gentleness and kindness were necessary for its treatment, was\nthrottled by Christian theology for fifteen centuries. Instead the\necclesiastic burdened humanity with a belief that madness was largely\npossession by the Devil. Hundreds of thousands of men and women were\ninflicted with tortures both physical and mental. It was not until 1792\nthat the great French physician Penel, and William Tuke in England,\nplaced the treatment of mental disease on a rational and scientific\nbasis. And this, in spite of such ecclesiastical attacks as were seen in\nthe _Edinburgh Review_ of that period. These two men, Penel and Tuke,\nwere the first acknowledged victors in a struggle of science for\nhumanity which lasted nearly two thousand years.\n\nThe clergy resisted Jenner when he introduced vaccination, and yet the\napplication of this measure of defense against disease has probably\nsaved more lives than the total of all the lives lost in all wars. The\nclergy maintained that \"Smallpox is a visitation from God, and\noriginates in man, but Cowpox is produced by presumptious, impious men.\nThe former, heaven ordained, the latter is perhaps a daring and profane\nviolation of our holy order.\"\n\nIn the seventeenth century, the Jesuit missionaries in South America\nlearned from the natives the value of the so-called Peruvian Bark in the\ntreatment of ague. In 1638, quinine, derived from this bark, was\nintroduced into Europe as a cure for malaria. It was stigmatized as \"an\ninvention of the Devil.\" The ecclesiastical opposition to this drug was\nso strong that it was not introduced into England until 1653.\n\nThe medieval Christians saw in childbirth the result of a carnal sin to\nbe expiated in pain as defined in Genesis. Accordingly the treatment\ngiven the child-bearing woman was vastly worse than the mere neglect\namong the primitive peoples. Her sufferings were augmented by the fact\nthat she was no longer a primitive woman and child-bearing had become\nmore difficult. In these \"Ages of Faith\" which could be better called\nthe \"Ages of Filth,\" nothing was done to overcome the enormous mortality\nof the mother and child at birth. Attempts, however, were made to form\nintra-uterine baptismal tubes by which the child, when it was locked by\nsome ill chance in its mother's womb, could be baptized and its soul\nsaved before the mother and child were left to die together. But nothing\nwas done to save their lives. No greater crimes were ever committed in\nthe name of civilization, religious faith, and smug ignorance than the\nsacrifice of the lives of countless mothers and children in the first\nfifteen centuries after Christ among civilized mankind.\n\nApproaching our own time, we have the example of Dr. James Y. Simpson,\nprofessor of obstetrics at the University of Glasgow about 1850, first\nadministering an anesthetic to alleviate the pain of childbirth. He was\nbitterly opposed by the clergy on the ground that it was impious to\nattempt to escape from the curse pronounced against all women in\nGenesis. It was Dr. Simpson who, in defending this humanitarian\npractice, asserted that opposition, particularly on theological grounds,\nhad been presented against every humane innovation in the past.\n\nWhen Paul Ehrlich, in 1910, announced his discovery of salvarsan for the\ntreatment of syphilis, the clergy again were horror-struck that man\nshould interfere with a visitation of the Lord.\n\nThe resistance to the spread of information concerning contraception,\ncommonly known as birth control, is an example of the Church's dominance\nof government today; and yet this information is as vital to the welfare\nof humanity as is the control of cancer.\n\nIn 1926, our newspapers carried conspicuous headlines, \"Episcopal Church\nJoins Catholic to Gag Birth Control\"; four years later, 320 bishops of\nthe Episcopal Church met in London, and by a majority of 3 to 1 voted in\nfavor of contraception when \"there is morally sound reason for avoiding\ncomplete abstinence.\" The bishops had by this time become well aware of\nthe insistence of secular opinion towards this movement, and having done\ntheir best to prevent this progressive movement for the past one hundred\nyears, they finally accepted defeat, proving once again that religion\nhas never accepted anything that science has shown to be a fact or of\nbenefit to humanity until it was compelled to do so to save its face.\nThe infallible Church, however, still persists in its opposition and in\nthe Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, published in January, 1931, it is said,\n\"The conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of\nchildren. Those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its\nnatural power, and purpose, are against nature and commit a deed which\nis shameful and intrinsically vicious.\" So speaks the infallible Pope,\nbut the great majority of physicians hold that there are few things more\nperilous to mental health, intellectual efficiency, moral equanimity,\nand physical well-being than prolonged denial of the sex urge for the\naverage, normal human being. Every physician can furnish numerous case\nhistories to substantiate the statement that continual sexual abstinence\nis prejudicial to the health and happiness of the man and woman, and is\nthe causation of hundreds of semiderelicts and psychoneurotics.\nFurthermore, the rising tide of insanity in this country would be\nstemmed were religion and sex permanently divorced.\n\nToday the modern clergy still endeavor to explain natural phenomena by\nsupernatural theories, and while they do not assign preternatural powers\nto witches and demons, they yet persist in attempting to pervert facts\nof science, and delude themselves with faith in some supernatural force.\nThe clergy state that the physician cures disease through the mediation\nof God, the physician merely playing the part of the agent of God,\nthrough whom the real cure is effected. Is anything more ridiculous and\nat the same time more contradictory, than to suppose that an\nall-powerful god should have to appoint an intermediary to perform his\nwork? And if it is only by God's will and aid that a cure takes place,\nthen it follows that God must be willing for the individual to be cured;\nwhy in the name of reason, did He not prevent the initial step, the\ncontracting of the disease? What a mass of suffering, of mental anguish\nmight thus have been spared us! Thus, this omnipotent being either did\nnot desire to spare us this misery and suffering, in which case he must\nsurely be a monster incarnate; or, on the other hand, he is powerless\nto halt it, and thus cannot be omnipotent.\n\nWhile the clergy maintain that a cure is only effected by God's will,\nthe physician knows otherwise. The physician accomplishes his cures\nalone, and definitely cures and saves the lives of human beings by his\nown skill, intelligence, and application of methods which have been\ndeveloped by the exercise of secular knowledge, not theological\nnonsense. When man is so unfortunate as to contract an infection of the\nappendix, and that inflammation succeeds to pus-formation so that this\ndiseased and non-essential part of the human anatomy is on the point of\nrupturing and causing a fatal peritonitis, it is not by God's will and\nintervention that a cure is effected, but by the intervention of the\nsurgeon who removes the diseased part. If man depended upon God's will\nto save him, as he did in the past, the appendix would rupture,\nperitonitis would set in, and despite prayers and sacrificial offerings,\nthe Deity would exact his life.\n\nWhen an innocent infant, in the first few weeks of life, develops an\nintussusception (an infolding of the bowel which causes an acute\nobstruction), the prayers and supplication of the parents avail not a\nparticle; if the surgeon did not save the infant's life by operating and\nremoving the obstruction, the benevolent being would allow the child to\ndie.\n\nThe adult who develops a hernia, which is due to a defect in the\nconstruction of the human body, which is assigned to an omniscient being\nwho still persists in forming bodies that are defective, and this hernia\nbecomes strangulated (twisted), the deity sits calmly by in omnipotent\ninaction, while the prompt interference of the surgeon saves the\nindividual's life.\n\nWhen the surgeon observes a superficial cancerous growth, or an internal\ngrowth which can be removed in its entirety, does he trust to the Lord\nto halt this pernicious development? No, the surgeon does not consult\nGod, but resorts to his own knowledge and skill to save a human life.\n\nThe diphtheritic child who is strangling to death with a diphtheritic\nmembrane in its throat is not permitted by the physician to be left to\nthe benevolent being's will, nor to the prayers of the parents. The\nphysician's prayer is the diphtheria antitoxin, which in his hands is\nthe life-saving device.\n\nWhen the physician administers quinine for malaria, or salvarsan for\nsyphilis, he effects cures for these diseases by using agents to which\nthe clergy strenuously objected when they were first introduced. And\nwhen the ecclesiastic attributes to the Deity whatever laws man has been\nable to evolve out of his own experience and wisdom, he establishes,\nfallaciously, the corollary that if God is responsible for the cures, He\nis also responsible for the non-cures. Then what of the countless number\nthat died of disease before man evolved those cures, and what of the\nwholesale murder of His children in the past ages?\n\nDo certain diseases still baffle the physician? Surely it is less often\nthan the pestilences of old which baffled sacrifice and prayer. The\ncruelest laws ever devised by man have more equity and benevolence in\nthem than the appalling and irrational jurisprudence of the Deity.\n\nDo certain diseases as yet remain to plague man? Then it is only because\nreligion has for the past 2000 years been the greatest obstacle in the\ndevelopment of cures for these diseases. Every single individual, in the\npast 2000 years, who has succumbed to a disease for which medical\nscience has no cure, has died directly at the hands of religion. The\nobstruction which religion has placed on the development of medical\nscience has laid at its feet the responsibility for the deaths of\ncountless millions throughout the ages.\n\nThe religionist replies that man's mind cannot fathom the will of God.\nWhich is an irrational statement for it is a well established fact, and\nindeed, a criterion of insanity, that when the deranged are confronted\nwith facts which are conclusive and with creations of the imagination,\nthey cannot differentiate fact from fancy, and maintain, instead, that\nfancy is the real fact. The religionists are guilty of the same breach\nof reason. They suffer with what may be termed, \"dementia religiosa.\"\nThe remarkable feature of the latter disease is its wide prevalence.\n\nDr. Haggard in his book, \"Devils, Drugs, and Doctors,\" declares, \"The\nearly and Medieval Christians accepted the doctrine of the power of\ndemons in the lives of men; they saw this power particularly in the\ndemoniac production of diseases. They believed in miracles and\nespecially in the miraculous healing of diseases. The demonological\nbelief of the Christians was inherited from the doctrine of the Jews,\nwho were believers in demons and the 'possession by the devil.' Jesus\nhimself cured by casting out of devils. Following his example,\nChristians everywhere became exorcists. Jewish demonology was continued\namong Christian converts, and the belief in supernatural interpositions\nin human affairs was widely accepted. _Nothing has retarded the growth\nof scientific medicine during the past 2000 years so much as the iron\ngrip of theology in maintaining practices based on belief in this\nsupernatural origin of disease._\" The fabled curing of disease by\ncasting out devils, and the New Testament recordings of Jesus's\nconviction that disease was caused by evil spirits, have had an\ninestimable detrimental result on the development of medical science.\nThe fact that Jesus believed in the demoniacal production of diseases\nand cured them by exorcism was deemed so important by the author of the\nGospel according to Mark that he has actually recorded the Aramaic words\nJesus was reported to have used in addressing his patients. In Mark\nV:41, Jesus is reported to have given the command \"Talitha cumi\" to a\nlittle Jewish girl whom her parents believed dead. In Mark VII:34, Jesus\nis reported as uttering the magical word \"Ephphatha,\" as he \"put his\nfingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue\" in behalf of\n\"one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech.\"\n\nAn excellent and timely illustration of what occurs when secular\nknowledge has not yet replaced ecclesiastical ignorance and bigotry,\nparticularly in the field of medicine, is furnished by an article from\none of Philadelphia's leading newspapers, _The Evening Bulletin_, of\nDecember 23, 1932. We quote it verbatim:\n\n\"Faith Healers Arrested; Two Charged with Choking to Death 5-Year-Old\nGirl, Linden, Texas, Dec. 23, 1932. Despite a purported confession,\nofficers to-day continued an investigation of the death of a\nfive-year-old girl, allegedly at the hands of two itinerant preachers\nwho sought to 'drive out the devil' they believed responsible for her\npartial paralysis. Murder charges were filed against Paul Oaks and his\nbrother, Coy Oaks, and precautions taken to prevent possible mob\nvengeance. Sheriff Nat Curtright said the accused men admitted they had\nchoked the child to death in an attempt to cure her. Officers said the\npreachers had been conducting meetings in rural communities and had\npreached on the subject of faith healing. George Wilson, a neighbor,\nofficers said, found the two men kneeling over the prostrate form of the\nchild. They ordered him to leave, declaring he was a 'devil.' He said\nthe child's father was in the room.\"\n\nMedieval exorcism still practised in one of the leading nations of the\nworld! In America, which prides itself on its scientific advances,\ntowards whom the rest of the world looks for guidance in scientific\ndiscoveries and practices!\n\nTo have retarded the growth of medicine for the past 2000 years! Think\nof the strides made in medicine in the past hundred years, and dwell on\nthe comfort humanity derives from it, in contrast to the filth, misery,\nand pestilences of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries.\nWould so much progress have been possible had man still persisted in the\nbelief that disease was due to demoniac intervention, and that the sum\ntotal of all knowledge humanly possible was contained in the Bible?\n\nIt is no longer necessary for children to choke to death with\ndiphtheria. Yellow fever, and small pox in civilized countries are, or\ncould be, wiped from the face of the earth. Malaria is controlled;\ntuberculosis will shortly be a rarity; typhoid fever and cholera have\nbeen eradicated wherever there is sanitation; erysipelas can be\ncontrolled; hydrophobia prevented; childbirth fever has lost its\ntremendous mortality; tetanus can be checked; syphilis and gonorrhea can\nbe controlled; diabetes and pernicious anemia can be controlled; surgery\nis reclaiming vast multitudes and restoring to useful and happy lives\nthousands who would have hitherto died. So much has been done; but it is\nespecially true that there is as much, at least, yet to be done. But all\nthis has been achieved so recently. What might not have been won had not\nthe minds of men been polluted from infancy, warped by the first\nprofessional holy men, the religionists, the priests? Had the idea of a\nsupernatural force been allowed to die in the Dark Ages, as it surely\nwould have, as man's mind expanded and developed, humanity would today\nfind itself more advanced on the road to progress. But as it was, the\nmyth of religion was foisted on the superstitious brain, and man\nresigned himself to his fate, and lived in such a manner as to please\nthis hypothetical supernatural being. The inevitable result was the\nabject misery, both material and spiritual, of Europe during the period\nwhen the Church was in absolute control.\n\nIf this myth and mystification had died with the dead ages, as it should\nhave done, what a fitter place to live in this world would be today!\nConsider the needless misery and the agony of those who died of the\nvarious plagues; and think of the advanced stage of medicine of\nAlexandria, three hundred years before the Christian era, where the\nphysicians were welcomed to the famous library by the emperors. The\nstate gave them their livelihood and their duties were to advance\nmedicine by study and research. Anatomy was studied and dissection was\nallowed. With the coming of Christianity, the remnants of this library\nwere destroyed, and with them went all progress in that field. If such\nhad been the enlightened state in Egypt three hundred years before\nChristianity appeared, then why had not science made the same progress\nthen as it does now? Because, to the knowledge stored in the library at\nAlexandria had not been added a progression of learning, a continued\nprocess of research; if this had not been halted by Christianity, how\nmuch vaster would our achievements be today?\n\nIt was not necessary for all of those millions to have been the victims\nof plagues, of inquisitions, of witchcraft burnings, of religious\npersecutions and wars. The sorrow and pain brought to untold numbers\nthroughout the centuries could have been prevented; and would have been\nif man had been interested in the welfare of his fellowmen instead of\nthe glorification of an almighty being. Future generations may well\ndeclare religion to have been the curse of humanity. The Church had\ncursed the human intellect by cursing the doubts which are the\nnecessary consequence of its exercise. She had cursed even the moral\nfaculty by asserting the guilt of honest error.\n\nMedicine which has for its sole objects the alleviation of man's\nsufferings, to cure them when possible, to relieve more often the pains\nand ills which make this life a living hell, what might it not have\naccomplished ages ago had religion not interfered with its progress?\nWhatever cures are known, and preventions that are practiced now, could\nhave been common knowledge centuries ago. And what of the multitudes\nthat perished who might have been saved, and what of the misery which\nmight have been prevented, had not this curse fallen upon man?\n\nSince 1906, there have been only five deaths from yellow fever in the\nUnited States. Outbreaks of cholera and plague are unknown. In former\nyears, puerperal fever took the lives of from five to fifty of each one\nhundred parturient mothers. At present, an average of one out of 1250\nmothers dies of this infection following childbirth. Deaths from many\ndiseases are less than one-tenth of their former number. These include\nwound infections, diphtheria, scarlet fever, malaria, dysentery,\ntyphoid, small pox, and many dietary and metabolic diseases. Since 1880,\nthe medical sciences have accomplished a total net saving of human life\nfrom all diseases which, if equally distributed among the population,\nwould add sixteen years to the life span of each person. In 1880, the\naverage duration of human life, that is, the average age at which death\noccurred, was 41.78 years. In 1925, the average duration of life was\n58.29 years. In other words, those born at this time live on the average\n16.5 years longer than those born at any time prior to 1880. In a\npopulation of 120,000,000 this would mean a total of 1,920,000,000\nadditional years of life. Such a figure is as difficult to conceive of\nas are the interstellar spaces. This is one contribution, numerically\nexpressed, which medical science and its offspring, preventive medicine,\nhave made to humanity in the short space of fifty years.\n\nIndeed if, as the religionists believe, there is a god, he could not\nhave punished his subjects more than by instilling in them the \"dementia\nreligiosa.\" If the Church had not taught that the sum total of all\nknowledge was contained in the Bible, and prohibited, on pain of death\nand confiscation of property, the promulgation of any discoveries, men\nwould have reasoned as they are accustomed to at the present day, and we\nwould not be 2000 years behind in all branches of learning.\n\nBut there has never been an advance in science of widespread importance,\nwhich in some manner endangered some mouldy religious concept, that the\nChurch has not bitterly opposed; an advance which in time has proven of\ninestimable good for all mankind. (A glance at the history of human\nprogress will reveal scores of such instances.) The opposition to\nmedicine, as previously noted, is only one of many examples which might\nhave been chosen. In proportion, as the grasp of theology upon education\ntightened, medicine declined, and in proportion, as the grip relaxed,\nmedicine developed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nRELIGION AND ASTRONOMY\n\n\nIn the early Church, astronomy, like other branches of science, was\nlooked upon as futile, since the New Testament taught that the earth was\nsoon to be destroyed and new heavens created.\n\nThe heavenly bodies were looked upon by the theologians as either living\nbeings possessing souls, or as the habitation of the angels. However, as\ntime passed, the geocentric doctrine, the doctrine that the earth is the\ncenter of the universe and that the sun and planets revolve about it,\nwas the theory that held the highest respect.\n\nCopernicus, in 1543, was first to bring clearly before the world the\nthen astounding theory that the earth and planets revolve about the sun.\nBut not until he was on his deathbed did he dare to publish it, for he\nwell knew the opposition with which it would be met. Even then he\npublished it with an apologetic lie by a friend Osiander, that\nCopernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as a\nfact, but as a hypothesis.\n\n\"Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific\ntruths--a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science--forced\nin coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.\" (_White: \"History of\nWarfare of Science with Theology.\"_)\n\nDuring the next seventy years the matter slumbered, until Galileo upheld\nthe Copernican doctrine as the truth, and proved it to be the truth by\nhis telescope. Immediately the Church condemned the statements of\nCopernicus and forbade Galileo to teach or discuss them. All books which\naffirmed the motion of the earth were forbidden, and to read the work of\nCopernicus was declared to risk damnation. All branches of the\nProtestant Church, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, vied with each other\nin denouncing the Copernican doctrine.\n\nOne man, Giordano Bruno dared to assert the truth in the hearing of the\nPapacy. For this heresy he was hunted from land to land, finally trapped\nin Venice, imprisoned at Rome, burned alive, and his ashes scattered to\nthe winds!\n\nAgainst Galileo, the war against the Copernican theory was concentrated.\nHis discoveries were declared to be deceptions, and his announcements\nblasphemy when, in 1610, he announced that his telescope had revealed\nthe moons of the planet Jupiter.\n\nIn 1615, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition at Rome, and forced\nto promise that he would \"relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun\nis the center of the world, and immovable, and that the earth moves, nor\nhenceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever verbally\nor in writing.\"\n\nPope Paul V solemnly rendered the decree that \"the doctrine of the\ndouble motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false and\nentirely contrary to Holy Scripture.\"\n\nThe climax of this instance of the infallibility of the Church occurred\nwhen in his seventieth year Galileo was again brought before the\nInquisition; he was forced to abjure under threats of torture and\nimprisonment by command of Pope Urban a truth which, in this day, is\ntaken for granted by the youngest of children. Galileo was then kept in\nexile for the rest of his days, died, and was buried ignobly, apart\nfrom his family, without fitting ceremony, without monument or epitaph.\n\nAs late as 1873 there was published, in St. Louis, a work by a president\nof a Lutheran teachers' seminary in which he stated that the earth is\nthe principal body of the universe, that it stands fixed, and that the\nsun and moon only serve to light it.\n\nAstronomy brings forth a noble array of men who have, by their intense\ndesire for the truth, persevered against the Church, and in spite of the\nvilest opposition of that Church, brought to the attention of man laws\nthat have given a meaning and order to our universe.\n\nCopernicus escaping persecution only by death; Bruno burned alive;\nGalileo imprisoned; Kepler reviled, and Newton bitterly attacked. In\nthis manner has religion aided astronomy!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nRELIGION AND GEOGRAPHY\n\n\nThe ancient Greeks, especially the Pythagoreans, Plato, and Aristotle,\nhad evolved theories of the earth's sphericity, which, while vague, were\nbasic for subsequent accurate ideas that developed later.\n\nWhen Christianity sprang into existence Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom,\nand Cosmos evolved a complete description of the earth. They considered\nthe earth as a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas, as a\nkind of house, with heaven as its upper story and the earth as its\nground floor. To the north of the earth was a great mountain; at night\nthe sun was pushed into a pit and pulled out again in the morning, with\nheaven as a loft and hell as a cellar. In the Atlantic Ocean, at some\nunknown distance from Europe, was one of the openings into hell, into\nwhich a ship sailing to this point, would tumble. The terror of this\nconception was one of the chief obstacles of the great voyage of\nColumbus. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli held to the opinion\nthat a great firmament, or floor, separated the heavens from the earth;\nthat above it were the waters and angels, and below it, the earth and\nman.\n\nDuring the time that the sphericity of the earth was still undecided,\nanother question arose that was considered of far greater importance,\nnamely, the conception of the antipodes and the problem of deciding\nwhether human beings existed on the earth's opposite side. It was\nLactantius who asked, \"Is there any one so senseless as to believe that\nthere are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? That the\ncrops and trees grow downward? That the rains and snow and hail fall\nupwards toward the earth? I am at a loss as to what to say of those,\nwho, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their folly, and\ndefend one vain thing by another.\"\n\nSt. Augustine insisted that men could not be allowed by the Almighty to\nlive there, since, if they did, they could not see Christ at His second\ncoming, descending through the air.\n\nIn the eighth century, a Bishop Virgil of Salzburg dared to assert that\nthere were men living in the antipodes. He was strongly attacked by St.\nBoniface of Germany, who appealed to Pope Zachary for a decision. The\nPope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made the following\nresponse: He declared it, \"Perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil's\nsoul.\" And again another infallible statement by the infallible Pope\nZachary became a doctrine of the Church.\n\nIn Italy, in 1316, Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, promulgated\nthe opposite view to that of the Church, for which he was persecuted by\nthe Inquisition, and barely escaped with his life. In 1327, Cecco\nd'Ascoli, an astronomer, was burned alive at Florence for daring to\nassert that men lived in the antipodes.\n\nThe difficulties that beset Columbus are well known. How he was hounded\nboth in Portugal and in Spain by the clergy; and even after his\ndiscovery of America, the Papacy still maintained its theory of the\nflatness of the earth and the nonsense of the antipodes. Pope Alexander\nVI and Pope Julius II attempted to settle the disputes between Spain and\nPortugal by drawing some remarkable maps that may still be found; but no\none dares to disturb the quiet of the ridiculous bulls that the popes\nissued on this dispute.\n\nIn 1519 Magellan made his famous voyage and proved the earth to be round\nand that men actually lived in the antipodes. But the force of\necclesiastical stultification was so great, as it is today, that men\nstill believed the opposite view for two hundred years after the voyage\nof Magellan.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nRELIGION AND CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS\n\n\nThe establishment of Christianity, beginning a new evolution of\ntheology, arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for\nmore than 1500 years. The work begun by Aristotle and carried on to such\na high state of relative perfection by Archimedes, was stifled by the\nearly Christians. An atmosphere was then created in which physical\nscience could not grow. The general belief derived from the New\nTestament was that the end of the world was at hand, and the early\nChurch Fathers poured contempt upon all investigators of the science of\nnature.\n\nThen, too, for science there was established an insurmountable barrier,\nin that the most careful inductions of science from ascertained facts\nmust conform to the view of nature given in the myth and legends of the\nBible. For 1500 years science was forced to confine itself to a system\nof deducing scientific truth from scriptural texts. It was the accepted\nword of the clergy that science was futile and dangerous which led to\nthe discrediting of Roger Bacon's works.\n\nIn 1163 Pope Alexander III forbade the study of physics to all\necclesiastics, which of course, in that age, meant prohibition of all\nsuch scientific studies to the only persons likely to follow them.\n\nRoger Bacon was first to practice extensively the experimental method of\nscience. Through his researches the inventions of clocks, lenses, and\nthe formula for extracting phosphorus, manganese, and bismuth were\nbrought to light. Bitterly attacked by the clergy, he attempted to\ndefend himself by stating that much which was ascribed to demons\nresulted from natural means. This statement but added fuel to the flame.\nFor in 1278 the authorities of the Franciscan Order assembled at Paris,\nsolemnly condemned Bacon's teachings, and the general of the\nFranciscans, Jerome of Ascoli, afterwards Pope, threw him into prison,\nwhere he remained for fourteen years. At the age of eighty, he was\nreleased from prison declaring, \"Would that I had not given myself so\nmuch trouble for the love of science.\"\n\n\"Sad is it to think of what this great man might have given to the world\nhad ecclesiasticism allowed the gift. He held the key to treasures which\nwould have freed mankind from ages of error and misery. With his\ndiscoveries as a basis, with his method as a guide, what might not the\nworld have gained! Nor was the wrong done to that age alone; it was done\nto this age also.... Thousands of precious lives shall be lost, tens of\nthousands shall suffer discomfort, privations, sickness, poverty,\nignorance, for lack of discoveries and methods which, but for this\nmistaken dealing with Roger Bacon and his compeers, would now be\nblessing the earth.\" (_White: \"Warfare of Science.\"_)\n\nCenturies afterwards, for stating the same claim, namely, that much\nwhich was attributed to demons, resulted from natural causes, Cornelius\nAgrippa, Weyer, Flade, Loos, Bekker, and a multitude of other\ninvestigators and thinkers, suffered confiscation of property, loss of\nposition, and even torture and death.\n\nIn the latter half of the sixteenth century, John Baptist Porta, who was\nthe first to show how to reduce the metallic oxides and thus laid the\nfoundation of several important industries, was summoned to Rome by\nPope Paul II, and forbidden to continue his researches.\n\nBoth in Protestant and Catholic countries instruction in chemistry and\nphysics was discouraged by Church authorities, and in England the\ntheologians strenuously opposed the Royal Society and the Association\nfor the Advancement of Science.\n\nFrancis Bacon and Boyle were denounced by the clergy, and Lavoisier was\nsent to the scaffold by the Parisian mob. Priestley had his home, his\nlibrary, instruments, and papers containing the results of long years of\nscientific research burned by a Birmingham mob that had been instigated\nby Anglican clergymen. He was driven into exile, and the mob would have\nmurdered him if they could have laid their hands upon him.\n\nYet, in spite of the opposition of the clergy, an opposition of such\nforce that one may well wonder how these tender embryonic sciences could\nhave withstood the terrific ecclesiastical onslaughts, the truths of\nchemistry and physics continued to diffuse themselves among the\nintelligent observers. The value to humanity of these two sciences is\nnow established as inestimable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nRELIGION AND GEOLOGY, PHILOLOGY AND EVOLUTION\n\n_The human race has suffered three grave humiliations: when Copernicus\nshowed that the earth was not the center of the universe; when Darwin\nproved that man's origin was not the result of direct creation; when\nFreud explained that man was not the master of his own thoughts or\nactions_.\n\n  LLEWELYN POWYS.\n\n\nIn the writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers are found the\ngerminal concepts of geological truths. But as Christianity took control\nof the world instead of a steady progression of knowledge in this field\nthere was a distinct retrogression. According to the prevailing belief\nthe earth was soon to be destroyed and the collecting of knowledge was\nfutile and any study of its nature was vain.\n\nSt. Jerome stated that the broken and twisted crust of the earth\nexhibited the wrath of God against sin. Tertullian asserted that fossils\nresulted from the flood of Noah. A scientific explanation of fossil\nremains was attempted by De Clave, Bitaud, and De Villon in the\nseventeenth century. The theological faculty of Paris protested against\nthe scientific doctrine as unscriptural, destroyed their treatises, and\nbanished their authors from Paris.\n\nIn the middle of the eighteenth century Buffon, in France, produced a\nthesis attempting to state simple geological truths. The theological\nfaculty of the Sorbonne dismissed him from his high position and forced\nhim to print a recantation stating, \"I declare that I had no intention\nto contradict the text of the Scripture; that I believe most firmly all\ntherein related about the creation, both as to order of time and matter\nof fact. I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the\nearth and generally all which may be contrary to the narrative of\nMoses!\"\n\nThe doctrine which Buffon abandoned is now as firmly established as that\nof the earth's rotation upon its axis. Yet, in his day, it was heatedly\nasserted by ecclesiastics that the scientific doctrine that fossils\nrepresent animals which died before Adam contradicts the theological\ndoctrine of Adam's fall, and the statement that death entered the world\nby sin--and this objection was further strengthened when the\necclesiastics became cognizant that geology had proved that the earth\nwas vastly older than the 6000 years determined by Archbishop Ussher's\ninterpretation of the Old Testament.\n\nAbout 1580, there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII, the\nRoman Martyrology, revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, which declared\nthat the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ. In 1650,\nArchbishop Ussher announced after careful study that man was created\n4004 years before the Christian era. But, this proving too vague, Dr.\nJohn Lightfoot, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, assured\nthe world that, \"Heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were\ncreated together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water ... and\nthis work took place and man was created by the Trinity on the 23d of\nOctober, 4004 B.C. at nine o'clock in the morning.\"\n\nWhen the Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archeologists, and\nanthropologists showed that man had reached a far advanced stage of\ncivilization long before the 6000 years given as the age of the earth,\ntheir efforts were ridiculed by the clergy, and these scientists were\nforced to bring their findings before the world in the face of the well\nknown methods of ecclesiastical opposition.\n\nAt a very early period in the evolution of civilization men began to ask\nquestions regarding language, and the answers to these questions were\nnaturally embodied in the myths, legends, and chronicles of their sacred\nbooks. Language was considered God-given and complete. The diversity of\nlanguage was firmly held to be explained by the story of the Tower of\nBabel; and since the writers of the Bible were merely pens in the hand\nof God the conclusion was reached that not only the sense, but the\nwords, letters, and even the punctuation proceeded from the Holy Spirit.\n\nAt the end of the seventeenth century, the ecclesiastical contention\nthat the Hebrew punctuation was divinely inspired seemed to be generally\ndisproven. The great orthodox body of \"religiosa dementia\" fell back\nupon the remainder of the theory that the Hebrew language was the first\nof all languages which was spoken by the Almighty, given by Him to Adam,\ntransmitted through Noah to the world after the deluge, and that the\nconfusion of tongues was the origin of all other tongues.\n\nIt has only been in comparatively recent time, and in spite of the\nopposition of the clergy, that language has been accepted as the result\nof evolutionary processes in obedience to laws more or less clearly\nascertained. Babel thus takes its place quietly among the other myths of\nthe Bible.\n\nIn a purely civil matter, the infallible Church from its inception had\ndisplayed a marked hostility to loans at interest. From the earliest\nperiod the whole weight of the Church was brought to bear against the\ntaking of interest for money. Pope Leo the Great solemnly adjudged it a\nsin worthy of severe punishment. In the thirteenth century, Pope Gregory\nIX dealt an especially severe blow at commerce by his declaration that\neven to advance on interest the money necessary in maritime trade was\ndamnable usury. The whole evolution of European civilization was greatly\nhindered by this policy.\n\n\nRELIGION AND EVOLUTION\n\nDarwinism, which at first was declared by the clergy to be brutal,\ndegrading, atheistic, and anti-Christian, is now included as part of the\nBible teaching.\n\nIn a similar manner, the Copernican theory, the theory of gravitation,\nthe nebular hypothesis, the theory of uniformity in geology, and every\nscientific advance has been opposed on the same grounds; that is, that\nthese are against the teachings of the Christian Church. And how many\nGalileos, Brunos, and Darwins, and other would-be benefactors to the\nhuman race have died mute because of this opposition and fear of\npersecution by the Church?\n\nIn 1877, an eminent French Catholic physician, Dr. Constantin James,\npublished an elaborate answer to Darwin's book. He called it, \"On\nDarwinism, or the Ape Man.\" A copy was sent to Pope Pius IX, who was so\npleased with it that he sent the author a reply in which he stated that\nit \"refutes so well the aberrations of Darwinism, a system which is\nrepugnant at once to history, to the traditions of all peoples, to exact\nscience, to observed facts, and even to reason itself, would seem to\nneed no refutation did not alienation from God and the leaning toward\nmaterialism, due to depravity, eagerly seek support in all this tissue\nof fables.\"\n\nThe Protestant clergy were no less vigorous in their opposition. In our\nown country it was opposed by Dr. Noah Porter, president of Yale\nCollege, and most bitterly by the Rev. Dr. Hodge and the Rev. Dr.\nDuffield, both leading authorities at Princeton University.\n\nFundamentalism in the United States furnished the spectacle of the\ntrial, in 1925, of a school teacher named Scopes, for teaching the\ntheory of evolution. Dayton, Tennessee, became the laughingstock of the\neducated world, and the derision with which this effort to obstruct\nknowledge at this late date was met with by the comments of the press in\nthis country and abroad is at least encouraging. But it is an excellent\nexample of what effect religious obscurantism may exert in backward\nsections of our country.\n\nDr. Max Carl Otto, considering the implications of evolution, calls\nattention to the following: \"Take the evolution of living forms. The\nmore we learn about biological history the clearer it becomes that the\nprocess has been, from the human point of view, incredibly bungling and\nwasteful. There have been futile experiments without number; highly\nsuccessful achievements have been thrown aside; one type of life after\nanother has arisen and has pushed up a blind alley to extinction. If\nthere is a God whose method has been Evolution, then seemingly his\nslogan was 'We'll fight it out along this line if it takes a billennium'\nbut, unlike Grant, he has always surrendered. In this maelstrom, the\nhuman species, as Thomas Huxley said--'plashed and floundered amid the\ngeneral stream of evolution, keeping its head above water as best it\nmight, and thinking neither of whence nor whither.' Many volumes have\nbeen written to give a purposive interpretation of the rise and\nevolutionary ramifications of living forms. The course of evolution\nitself is their refutation.\"\n\nWhen the Churches could no longer ignore the rising tide of secular\nopinion, they resorted to compromise and called to their aid a certain\nnumber of intellectually dishonest scientists. The attempt to harmonize\nChristianity and Evolution can only be accounted for in terms of either\ndishonesty or stupidity.\n\n\"And that is true of the whole range of science. Science is, in fact,\natheistic or nothing. It knows nothing of God, it does not bother about\nGod, its triumphs are achieved by leaving God out of account.\" (_C.\nCohen_.)\n\nWhat has heretofore been mentioned is but a mere trifle when one\nconsiders the vast number of similar incidents in which religion has\nplayed the role of barrier to progress. These examples, though few, are\nsufficient to impress the mind of any clear-minded, intelligent\nindividual with the conviction, in spite of all the sophistry and\ncasuistry of the ecclesiastical apologies, that progress in this world\nhas taken place in direct proportion to the degree that the mind of man\nhas liberated itself from the control of theology and the myth of\nreligion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nRELIGION AND WITCHCRAFT\n\n    _Better that a man's body should be destroyed than his soul. The\n    worst death of the soul is freedom to err_.\n\n    ST. AUGUSTINE.\n\n    _It would be hard to calculate the perilous import of so treacherous\n    an utterance, an utterance the latent sentiment of which has been\n    responsible for I know not how much human agony. Menacing indeed to\n    human happiness was such a claim, and in the course of time when the\n    corporate body of the church became all-powerful in Christendom, it\n    put into tyrannical practice what had been but a theological\n    theory_.\n\n    LLEWELYN POWYS.\n\n\nIt is the purpose of this chapter to trace the origin of witches,\nwizards, and devils, the widespread belief in them at the time of pagan\nRome, and the manner in which these were incorporated into Christian\ntheology.\n\nWith the rise of Christianity and the gain of political power by its\nadherents, the perverted pagan idea of witchcraft became the source of\nthe most terrible persecutions in the bloody history of religion. The\nnumerous references to witches and devils in both the Old and New\nTestaments established the authority for the organized religious mania\nthat scourged both Roman Catholic and Protestant Europe, and extended\nits tentacles into the New England colonies.\n\nInstigated by ecclesiastics, and carried into effect by the intellectual\nserfs, their adherents, hundreds of thousands of \"witches\" were tortured\nand burned during the sway of the Witchcraft Delusion. With the Bible\nas an inspiration, the clergy inflamed the superstitious minds of the\nmasses of that time with the conception of a ceaseless strife between\nthe Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan for possession of their\nsouls and their bodies.\n\nWe of the present age may readily wonder how such a belief could have\nhad so firm a grasp on the minds of our ancestors. Perhaps we will be\ntempted to attribute it to the ignorance of that time, particularly to\nthe ignorance of the untutored masses. On the contrary, this does not\napproximate the actual situation. History reveals that the greatest\nminds of that age, men eminent in law, letters, and philosophy, not only\ndefended this conception strenuously, but even engaged in the\nextermination of \"witches.\"\n\nThat men of such superior intellect could defend such a barbaric\ninstitution, which today is revolting to our senses, necessitates the\nconclusion formulated at the end of this chapter.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe ancient Greeks and Romans believed that it was possible by\nsupernatural means to inflict evil on their fellowmen, and all the sects\nof philosophers admitted this, with the exception of the Epicureans, who\ndenied the existence of evil spirits. The magicians, in Greece and Rome,\nwere at times punished because they injured men and not because they\noffended the gods. During the latter period of pagan Rome, some of the\nemperors passed laws against the magicians, if it was proven that by\ncasting the horoscope the magicians had ascertained what was, according\nto their belief, the most auspicious time to start a rebellion against\ntheir rule. The emperors, however, notably Marcus Aurelius and Julian,\nwere the patrons of magicians who foretold coming events to them. The\npublic methods of foretelling the future, such as the oracle of the\ngods, formed part of their religion.\n\nWhen the first Christians came into Rome and spread Christianity\nthroughout the empire, they were inspired by an intense religious\nenthusiasm. They thought much less of the civil than of the religious\nconsequence of magic, and sacrilege seemed much more terrible in their\neyes than anarchy.\n\nThe Christians found in Rome a vast polytheistic religion in contrast to\ntheir own in which the entire world was divided into the Kingdom of God\nand the Kingdom of Satan. For them the world seemed to be teeming with\nmalignant demons, who had in all ages persecuted and deluded mankind.\n\"According to these Christians, the immediate objects of the devotions\nof the pagan world were subsidiary spirits of finite power and imperfect\nmorality; angels, or, as they were then called, demons, who acted the\npart of mediators, and who, by permission of the Supreme and\nInaccessible Deity, regulated the religious government of mankind. The\nChristians had adopted this conception of subsidiary spirits, but they\nmaintained them to be not the willing agents, but the adversaries of the\nDeity; and the word demon, which among the pagans, signified only a\nspirit below the level of a Divinity, among the Christians signified a\ndevil.\" (_Lecky._)\n\n\"This notion seems to have existed in the very earliest period of\nChristianity; and in the second century, we find it elaborated with the\nmost minute and detailed care. Tertullian, who wrote in that century,\nassures us that the world was full of these evil spirits, whose\ninfluence might be descried in every portion of the pagan creed. If a\nChristian in any respect deviated from the path of duty, a visible\nmanifestation of the devil sometimes appeared to terrify him. The terror\nwhich such a doctrine must have spread among the early Christians may\nbe easily conceived. They seemed to breathe an atmosphere of miracles.\nWherever they turned they were surrounded and beleaguered by malicious\nspirits, who were perpetually manifesting their presence by supernatural\narts. Watchful fiends stood beside every altar, they mingled with every\navocation of life, and the Christians were the special objects of their\nhatred. All this was universally believed, and was realized with an\nintensity which, in this secular age, we can scarcely conceive. The\nbearing of this view upon the conception of magic is very obvious. Among\nthe more civilized pagans, magic was mainly a civil, and in the last\ndays of the empire, a political crime. In the early church, on the other\nhand, it was esteemed the most horrible form of sacrilege effected by\nthe direct agency of evil spirits. It included the whole system of\npaganism, explained all its prodigies, and gave a fearful significance\nto all its legends. When the Church obtained the direction of the civil\npower, she soon modified or abandoned the tolerant maxims she had\nformerly inculcated; and in the course of a few years, restrictive laws\nwere enacted, both against Jews and heretics.\" (_Lecky._)\n\nConstantine, after his conversion to Christianity, enacted laws against\nthe magicians. These were made more rigid under Constantius, his son,\nbut suspended under Julian. These persecutions were renewed by\nValentinian, spasmodically carried on to a slight extent, and then\nlapsed. During the period that elapsed between the sixth and thirteenth\ncenturies the executions for sorcery were comparatively rare.\n\nIt is to be borne in mind, then, that magic as existing in pagan Rome\nwas part of the religious conceptions of the Romans. The oracle as well\nas the various demons, which to them signified what the word \"angel\"\nsignifies to us now, formed an elaborate system of mythology and\nidolatry. The early Christians coming into contact with these\nconceptions, at first found an insurmountable difficulty in spreading\ntheir beliefs among the rural inhabitants of the Roman empire.\nPolytheism was dominant while their monotheism was as yet a persecuted\nbelief. The road of least resistance was compromise, and so this vast\nsystem of polytheism was perverted, while seemingly accepted into their\nbeliefs, by making these \"angels,\" \"demons,\" as we now understand the\nword. Since the early Christians were dominated by a belief in constant\nSatanic presence, these demons were said to be the \"Hosts of Satan.\" It\nwas firmly believed that the arch-fiend (Satan) was forever hovering\nabout the Christians, but it was also believed that the sign of the\ncross, or a few drops of holy water, or the name of Mary, could put him\nto an immediate and ignominious flight.\n\n\"In the twelfth century, however, the subject passed into an entirely\nnew phase. The conception of a witch, as we now conceive it, that is to\nsay of a woman who had entered into a deliberate compact with Satan, who\nwas endowed with the power of working miracles whenever she pleased, and\nwho was continually transported through the air to the Sabbath, where\nshe paid her homage to the Evil One--first appeared. The panic created\nby the belief at first advanced slowly, but after a time with a\nfearfully accelerated rapidity. Thousands of victims were sometimes\nburnt alive in a few years. Every country in Europe was stricken with\nthe wildest fever. Hundreds of the ablest judges were selected for the\nextirpation of this crime. A vast literature was created on the subject,\nand it was not until a considerable portion of the eighteenth century\nhad passed away that the executions finally ceased. The vast majority of\nthose accused of witchcraft were women, and again the Bible furnished\nthe authority for the belief that women were inherently wicked. That\nthe Fathers of the Church believed this is exemplified by the statement\nof Chrysostom in which he said that women were a 'necessary evil, a\nnatural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly\nfascination, and a painted ill.'\" (_Lecky._)\n\nAt this period the conception of a witch is radically different from\nthat which was prevalent in the era prior to this one. The popular\nbelief of the witchcraft ages, a belief sanctioned by most of the\nlearned men of the time, was that the earth swarmed with millions upon\nmillions of demons. They multiplied by reproduction in the usual way, by\nthe accession of the souls of wicked men, of women dying in childbirth,\nof children still-born, of men killed in duels. The air was filled with\nthem, and one was always in danger of inspiring them with the air, of\nswallowing them in food and drink. Most Christian writers and legendists\nsaid that there were so many of them they could not be counted, but\nWierus took a census of them and reported that there were only 7,505,926\ndivided into seventy-two companies, each commanded by a captain or\nprince. They could make themselves hideous, or beautiful, as suited\ntheir purposes, and assume any shape. While capable of appearing at any\ntime, they preferred the night between Friday and Saturday. Any human\nbeing who gave up to them his immortal soul could command their services\nfor a certain time. Occasionally general conferences took place, at the\npleasure of Satan, which were attended by all the demons and all the\nwitches.\n\n\"These 'sabbaths' were held on the Brocken or other high mountain. Upon\nthe spot where they met, nothing would ever grow afterwards, as their\nhot feet burnt all the fecundity out of the soil. In France, England,\nand the American Colonies, it was supposed that witches made their trips\non broomsticks; in Spain and Italy it was believed that they twirled on\nthe back of the Devil himself, who, for the occasion, transformed\nhimself into male goat. On no account would a witch, when starting for a\nsabbath, go out through the open door or window; she would pass through\nthe keyhole or up the chimney. While they were gone, inferior demons\nassumed their shape, and lay in their beds, feigning illness. Assembled\non the Brocken, the Devil, as a double-headed goat, took his seat on the\nthrone. His subjects paid their respects to him, kissing his posterior\nface. With a master of ceremonies appointed for the occasion, he made a\npersonal examination of all the wizards and witches, to see if they had\nthe secret mark about them by which they were stamped as the Devil's\nown. This mark was always insensible to pain, and it was the sure proof\nof witchery when found by the inquisitor. Any witches found by the Devil\nnot so marked received the mark from him then and there, also a\nnickname. Then they all sang and danced furiously. If a stranger came to\nbe admitted, silence reigned while he denied his salvation, spat upon\nthe Bible, kissed the Devil, and swore absolute obedience to him.\nSinging and dancing was resumed, a mythical formula being used in the\nsinging. When tired, they sat down and told of their evil deeds; those\nwho had not been bad enough were scourged by Satan himself with thorns\nand scorpions until they could neither sit nor stand. Then came a dance\nby thousands of toads who were conjured out of the ground and standing\non their hind legs kept time to the music Satan evoked from bagpipes or\na trumpet. They could all talk, and asked the witches to give them the\nflesh of unbaptized babes for food. The witches promised to do so. The\nDevil told them to remember and keep their word and then stamped his\nfoot, and the frogs disappeared instantly into the earth. Next came a\nmost disgusting banquet, except for a few of the most wicked witches,\nto whom were given rich viands on golden plates and expensive wines in\ncrystal goblets. Then came more dancing; those who did not care for that\namused themselves by mocking the sacrament of baptism. For this purpose\nthe toads were again called up and sprinkled with filthy water, the\nDevil making the sign of the cross, while the witches repeated a formula\nas absurd as that used in ordinary baptisms. Sometimes the Devil made\nthe witches take off their clothes and dance before him, each with a cat\ntied around her neck, and another dangling behind as a tail. Sometimes,\nagain, there were lascivious orgies. At cock-crow, all disappeared; the\nsabbath was over.\" (_\"The Story of the Inquisition\"--Freethought Press\nAssociation._)\n\nThis conception of a witch continued from the twelfth century to the\ntime witch-burning ceased. With this idea of a witch being constantly\ninstilled into the minds of their listeners, the clergy set loose\nfervidly religious mobs to scourge the countries of innocent women. With\nthe entire world divided into the \"Hosts of Heaven\" and the \"Hosts of\nSatan,\" with witches abounding in the air, in the water, and in the\nfood, and with their immortal souls at stake, the frenzied population\nfound evidences of witchcraft in all manner of happenings.\n\n\"Pope after pope set the seal of his infallibility upon the bloody\npersecutions. At length came Innocent VIII who, on the 7th of December,\n1484, sent forth his bull Summis Desiderantis. Of all documents ever\nissued from Rome, imperial and papal, this, doubtless, first and last,\ncaused the greatest shedding of innocent blood. Yet no document was ever\nmore clearly dictated by conscience. Inspired by the scriptural command,\n'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,' Pope Innocent exhorted the\nclergy of Germany to leave no means untried to detect sorcerers, and\nespecially, those who by evil practice destroy vineyards, gardens,\nmeadows, and growing crops. These precepts were based upon various texts\nof scripture, especially upon the famous statement in the Book of Job;\nand to carry them out, witch-finding inquisitors were authorized by the\nPope to scour Europe, especially Germany, and a manual was prepared for\ntheir use, the Witch-Hammer, Malleus Maleficarum.\" (_White: \"Warfare of\nScience.\"_)\n\nAnother important and much discussed department was the connection\nbetween evil spirits and animals. That the Devil could assume the form\nof any animal he pleased, seems to have been generally admitted, and it\npresented no difficulty to those who remembered that the first\nappearance of that personage on earth was as a serpent, and that on one\noccasion a legion of devils had entered into a herd of swine. Saint\nJerome also assures us that in the desert St. Anthony had met a centaur\nand a faun, a little man with horns growing from his forehead, who were\npossibly devils, and at all events, at a later period, the \"Lives of the\nSaints\" represent evil spirits in the form of animals as not infrequent.\nLycanthropy, however, or the transformation of witches into wolves,\npresented more difficulty. The history of Nebuchadnezzar and the\nconversion of Lot's wife were, it is true, eagerly alleged in support of\nits possibility; but it was impossible to forget that St. Augustine\nappeared to regard lycanthropy as a fable, and a canon of the Council of\nAncyra had emphatically condemned the belief. On the other hand, that\nbelief has been very widely diffused among the ancients. It had been\naccepted by many of the greatest and most orthodox theologians, by the\ninquisitors who were commissioned by the popes, and by the law courts of\nmost countries. The evidence on which it rested was very curious and\ndefinite. If the witch was wounded in the form of an animal, she\nretained that wound in her human form, and hundreds of such cases were\nalleged before tribunals. Sometimes the hunter, having severed the paw\nof his assailant, retained it as a trophy; but, when he opened his bag,\nhe discovered in it only a bleeding hand, which he recognized as the\nhand of his wife.\n\nA French judge named Boguet, at the end of the sixteenth century,\ndevoted himself especially to the subject and burnt multitudes of\nlycanthropes. He wrote a book about them and drew up a code in which he\npermitted ordinary witches to be strangled before they were burnt, but\nexcepted lycanthropes who were to be burnt alive.\n\nNow let us examine on what authority the popes and afterwards the\nreformers so rigorously persecuted the \"witches.\" Both the Old and the\nNew Testaments are riddled with references to witches, wizards, and\ndevils. For example, this passage from Exodus XXII 18, \"Thou shalt not\nsuffer a witch to live.\"\n\nFrom Matthew VIII 28-32, \"There met him two possessed with devils coming\nout of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that\nway. And, behold, they cried out, saying, 'What have we to do with thee,\nJesus, Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?'\nAnd there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine feeding. So\nthe devils besought him, saying, 'If thou cast us out, suffer us to go\naway into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, 'Go!' And when they\nwere come out, they went into the herd of swine. And behold, the whole\nherd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished\nin the waters.\"\n\nThe Old Testament, therefore, definitely commands its adherents to kill,\nand the New Testament gives a brilliant example of its chief magician,\nJesus, exorcising devils from men and driving them into swine. There\nare numerous passages of the Bible which speak of the Devil, the Devil\nand his angels, spirit of an unclean devil, dumb spirit, foul spirit,\nunclean spirit, evil spirit, witch, witchcraft, wizards, necromancers,\nsatan, the tempter, prince of the power of the air, prince of devils,\netc.\n\nThese passages in the Bible were at once the chief source and sanction\nof the terrible atrocities which extended over several centuries and\nhave come to be known, taken collectively, as the \"Witchcraft\nPersecutions.\" The Devil, with his subordinate demons and the human\nbeings who sold their souls to him, were supposed to be both capable and\nguilty of blighting the crops; causing the lightning; bringing\ndestructive storms; withholding the rain; drying up cows; killing\ndomestic and wild beasts; afflicting the nations with pestilence,\nfamine, and war; causing all manner of diseases; betwitching men, women,\nand children; planting doubts in the mind and weeds in the fields; and\nin brief, doing about everything that was disagreeable to man in\ngeneral, or that offended the priests as a caste.\n\nThus buttressed by the Bible, and with the nearly entire current of\nChurch literature setting in the same direction, it is no wonder that\nthe witchcraft delusion became one of the most appalling, if not the\nmost appalling, fact in the development of the Christian religion.\n\nThere is extant no other record of destruction and cruel slaughter\ngrowing out of such beliefs in supernatural persons and powers that can\never begin to tell such a story of degradation and mercilessness as the\nrecord made by the Christian Church. Theologians laid stress especially\nupon the famous utterances of the Psalmist that \"All the gods of the\nHeathens are devils,\" and St. Paul, \"The things which the Gentiles\nsacrifice, they sacrifice to the devils.\"\n\nThose suspected of heresy and witchcraft must confess; they were to be\ntortured until they did confess. This made suspicion equivalent to\nconfession and conviction. In the witch \"trial\" the victim must not only\nincriminate herself but her accomplices, or all whom she \"knew\" to be in\npartnership with the Devil. She was bound to be tortured until she had\ngiven the names or described the persons of those she had seen at the\n\"witches' sabbath.\" Then they would be put to the torture and the\nprocess repeated. It was not in human nature long to bear the awful\npain; soon the leading questions of the inquisitors would be answered as\nthey wanted them answered. It would be incredible were it not attested\nby such a multitude of witnesses, that men could honestly believe that\ntestimony so extorted had the slightest value. But it is indisputable\nthat hundreds of thousands of human beings were sent to a cruel death on\nthis utterly worthless \"evidence.\"\n\nAs few people realize the degree in which these superstitions were\nencouraged by the Church that claims infallibility, I may mention that\nthe reality of this particular crime was implied and its perpetrators\nanathematized by the provincial councils or synods of Troyes, Lyons,\nMilan, Tours, Bourges, Narbonne, Ferrar, Saint Malo, Mont Corsin,\nOrleans, and Grenoble; by the Rituals of Autun, Chartres, Perigueux,\nEvreux, Paris, Chalons, Bologna, Troyes, Beauvais, Meaux, Rheims, etc.,\nand by the decrees of a long series of bishops.\n\nThe infection was everywhere--Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy,\nEngland, Scotland, and even America was scourged. It has been estimated\nthat one hundred thousand perished in Germany from the middle of the\nfifteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth century.\n\nPope Gregory IX wrote a great mass of nonsense to the bishop and other\nchiefs urging stringent methods against the Stedingers, Frieslanders,\ninhabiting the country between Weser and Zeider Zee. He wrote, \"The\nDevil appears to them (the Stedingers) in different shapes, sometimes as\na goose or duck, and at other times in the figure of a pale, black-eyed\nyouth, with a melancholy aspect, whose embrace fills their hearts with\neternal hatred against the Holy Church of Christ. This Devil presides at\ntheir sabbath when they all kiss him and dance around him. He then\nenvelops them in total darkness, and they all, male and female, give\nthemselves up to the grossest and most disgusting debauchery.\"\n\nThe infallible pope of Rome!\n\nThe result was that the Stedingers, men, women, and children, were\nslain, the cottages and woods burned, the cattle stolen and the land\nlaid waste. The pope's letter is a fair example of the theological\nliterature of the time; the slaughter of the Stedingers an average\nillustration of the evangelistic methods of the Church.\n\nMillions of men, women, and children were tortured, strangled, drowned,\nor burned on \"evidence\" that today would be accepted nowhere unless by a\ncourt and jury composed of the inmates of a lunatic asylum, if even by\nthem. It is unnecessary to say that the more severe the persecution, the\nmore widespread did witchcraft become. Every person tortured accused\nothers and whole communities went mad with grief and fear and\nsuperstition. No amount of human evidence establishing the actual\nwhereabouts of the accused at the time they were asserted by the witness\non the rack to have been at the sabbath would avail. The husbands were\ntold that they had seen or held only the devil-created semblance of\ntheir wives. The originals were with Satan under the oak. The\nconfessions of tens of thousands of witches are to be found in Europe's\njudicial records of the period of the Inquisition.\n\n\"The Protestant Reformers zealously seconded the exertions of Rome to\nextirpate witchcraft; they felt that they must prove that they were as\northodox as the Catholics, and were as loyal to the Bible. No one urged\ntheir fundamental ideas more than did Luther, Calvin, Beza, the Swedish\nLutherans, Casaubon, Wesley, Richard Baxter, the Mathers,--all stood\nloyally by Rome.\" (_Lecky._)\n\nAt Lisbon, a horse whose master had taught him many tricks, was tried in\n1601 and found guilty of being possessed by the Devil, for which he was\nburned.\n\nThe witchcraft mania proper in England began in the sixteenth century\nand reached its climax in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir\nMatthew Hale, the great jurist, sanctioned the delusions and passed\nsentences of death by burning.\n\nQueen Elizabeth made witchcraft a capital offense in England; and King\nJames I wrote a book on the subject, and lent his personal aid and royal\nsupport to the persecutions.\n\nJoan of Arc, the noblest of all the victims of this belief, perished by\nEnglish hands, though on French soil, and under the sentence of a French\nbishop.\n\nIn Scotland, during the sixteenth century, as well as the seventeenth,\nwere seen the most horrible examples of what domination of superstitious\nminds by ecclesiastics could do.\n\n\"Nothing was natural, all was supernatural. The entire course of affairs\nwas governed, not by their antecedents, but by a series of miracles.\nGoing still further, they claimed the power (the clergy) not only of\nforetelling the future state, but also of controlling it; and they did\nnot scruple to affirm that, by their censures, they could open and shut\nthe Kingdom of Heaven. As if this were not enough, they also gave out\nthat a word of theirs could hasten the moment of death, and by cutting\noff the sinner in his prime, could bring him at once before the\nJudgment Seat of God.\n\n\"The Scotch clergy preached that, 'Hell was created before man came into\nthe world. The Almighty,' they did not scruple to say, 'having spent his\nprevious leisure in preparing and completing this place of torture, so\nthat, when the human race appeared, it might be ready for their\nreception.'\n\n\"Of all the means of intimidation employed by the Scotch clergy none was\nmore efficacious than the doctrines they propounded respecting evil\nspirits and future punishment. On these subjects, they constantly\nuttered the most appalling threats. The language which they used was\ncalculated to madden men with fear and to drive them to the depths of\ndespair.\n\n\"It was generally believed that the world was overrun by evil spirits\nwho went not only up and down the earth, but also lived in the air, and\nwhose business it was to tempt and hurt mankind. Their number was\ninfinite, and they were to be found at all places and in all seasons.\n\n\"At their head was Satan himself, whose delight it was to appear in\nperson ensnaring or terrifying every one he met. With this object, he\nassumed various forms. One day he would visit the earth as a black dog,\non another day as a raven, on still another day he would be heard in the\ndistance roaring like a bull. He appeared sometimes as a white man in\nblack clothes, and sometimes he became a black man in black clothes,\nwhen it was remarked that his voice was ghastly, that he wore no shoes,\nand that one of his feet was cloven. His stratagems were endless. For,\nin the opinion of divines, his cunning increased with his age; and\nhaving been studying for more than 5000 years, he had now attained to\nunexampled dexterity. He could, and he did, seize both men and women\nand carry them away through the air. Usually he wore the garb of laymen,\nbut it was said that, on more than one occasion, he had impudently\nattired himself as a minister of the Gospel. At all events, in one dress\nor other, he frequently appeared to the clergy, and tried to coax them\nover to his side. In that, of course, he failed; but out of the\nministers thus tempted, few indeed could withstand him. He could raise\nstorms and tempests. He could work, not only on the mind, but also on\nthe organs of the body, making men hear and see whatever he chose. Of\nhis victims, some he prompted to suicide, others to commit murder.\nStill, formidable as he was, no Christian was considered to have\nattained to a full religious experience unless he had literally seen\nhim, talked to him, and fought with him.\n\n\"The clergy were constantly preaching about him, and preparing their\naudiences for an interview with their great enemy. The consequence was\nthat the people became almost crazed with fear. Whenever the preacher\nmentioned Satan, the consternation was so great that the church\nresounded with sighs and groans. They believed that the Devil was always\nand literally at hand; that he was haunting them, speaking to them, and\ntempting them. The clergy boasted that it was their special mission to\nthunder out the wrath and curses of the Lord. In their eyes the Deity\nwas not a Beneficent Being, but a cruel and remorseless tyrant. They\ndeclared that all mankind, a very small portion only excepting, were\ndoomed to eternal misery.\n\n\"The Scotch clergy taught their hearers that the Almighty was\nsanguinary, and so prone to anger that he raged even against walls and\nhouses, and senseless creatures, wreaking his fury more than ever, and\nscattering desolation on every side.\n\n\"The people, credulous and ignorant, listened and believed.\n\n\"For in Scotland as elsewhere, directly the clergy succeeded in\noccupying a more than ordinary amount of public attention, they availed\nthemselves of that circumstance to propagate those ascetic doctrines\nwhich, while they strike at the root of human happiness, benefit no one\nexcept the class which advocates them; that class, indeed, can hardly\nfail to reap the advantages from a policy which by increasing the\napprehensions to which the ignorance and timidity of men make them\nliable, does also increase their eagerness to fly for support to their\nspiritual advisers; and the greater their apprehension, the greater the\neagerness.\" (_Buckle: \"The History of Civilization in England.\"_)\n\nJames I of England had become imbued with the idea of witchcraft while\nin Scotland, and he believed that his stormy passage on his return from\nDenmark was due to witches. This storm was the origin of one of the most\nhorrible of the many horrible Scotch trials on record. One Dr. Fian was\nsuspected of having aroused the wind and a confession was wrung from him\nby torture which, however, he almost immediately retracted. Every form\nof torture was in vain employed to vanquish his obduracy; the bones of\nhis legs were broken into small pieces in the boot. All the torments\nthat Scottish law knew of were successively applied. At last, the king\n(who personally presided over the tortures) suggested a new and more\nhorrible device. The prisoner, who had been removed during the\ndeliberation, was brought in and \"His nails upon his fingers were riven\nand pulled off with an instrument, called in Scottish a 'turkas,' which\nin England we call a 'payre' or 'pincers' and under everie nayle there\nwas thrust in two needles over, even up to the heads. So deeply had the\ndevil entered his heart, that he utterly denied all that which he\navouched,\" and he was burnt unconfessed.\n\nAnd this from a king of England!\n\nThe methods of obtaining a confession were as follows: If the witch was\nobdurate, the first, and it was said, the most effective method of\nobtaining confession was by what was termed \"waking her.\" An iron bridle\nor hoop was bound across her face with four prongs which were thrust\ninto her mouth. It was fastened behind to the wall by a chain, in such a\nmanner that the victim was unable to lie down, and in this position she\nwas sometimes kept for several days, while men were constantly with her\nto prevent her from closing her eyes for a moment in sleep. Partly in\norder to effect this object, and partly to discover the insensible mark\nwhich was the sure sign of a witch, long pins were thrust into her body.\nAt the same time, as it was a saying in Scotland that a witch would\nnever confess while she could drink, excessive thirst was added to her\ntorments. Some prisoners have been \"waked\" for five nights, one it is\nsaid, even for nine.\n\nThe physical and mental suffering of such a process was sufficient to\novercome the resolution of many, and to distract the understanding of\nnot a few. But other and perhaps worse tortures were in reserve. The\nthree principal ones that were habitually applied were the \"pennywinks,\nthe boot, and the caschielawis.\" The first was a kind of thumbscrew; the\nsecond was a frame in which the leg was inserted, and in which it was\nbroken by wedges driven in by a hammer; the third was also an iron frame\nfor the leg, which was from time to time heated over a brazier.\nFire-matches were sometimes applied to the body of the victim. We read\nin a contemporary legal register, of one man who was kept for\nforty-eight hours in \"vehement torture\" in the caschielawis; and of\nanother who remained in the same frightful machine for eleven days and\nnights, whose legs were broken daily for fourteen days in the boots, and\nwho was so scourged that the whole skin was torn from his body. This\nwas, it is true, censured as an extreme case, but it was only an\nexcessive application of the common torture.\n\nThe witches were commonly strangled before they were burnt, but this\nmerciful provision was very frequently omitted. An Earl of Wear tells\nhow, with a piercing yell, some women once broke half-burnt from the\nslow fire consuming them, struggled for a few moments with a despairing\nenergy among the spectators, but soon with shrieks of blasphemy and wild\nprotestations of innocence sank writhing in agony amid the flames.\n\nBut just picture this scene for a moment! The horror of such a scene!\nWhat a crime for one human to commit against another! A burnt offering\nto the gods! How well pleased the Almighty God must have been with the\nstench of burning human flesh rising to his nostrils. And how well he\nmust have rewarded his faithful servants, for was this not done in His\nname? \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\nAs Lecky points out in his famous work on the \"History of European\nMorals,\" such incidents are but illustrations of the great truth that\nwhen men have come to regard a certain class of their fellow creatures\nas doomed by the Almighty to eternal and excruciating agonies, and when\ntheir theology directs their minds with intense and realizing\nearnestness to the contemplation of such agonies, the result will be an\nindifference to the suffering of those whom they deem the enemies of\ntheir God, as absolute as it is perhaps possible for human nature to\nattain.\n\nIt is a historical fact that in 1591, a lady of rank, Eufame Macalyane,\nsought the assistance of Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the\ntime of birth of her two sons. Agnes Sampson was tried before King James\nfor her heresy, was condemned as a witch, and was burned alive on the\nCastle Hill of Edinburgh.\n\nIt is generally said that the last execution in Scotland was in 1722,\nbut Captain Burt, who visited the country in 1730, speaks of a woman who\nwas burnt as late as 1727. As late as 1736, the divines of the\nAssociated Presbytery passed a resolution declaiming their belief in\nwitchcraft, and deploring the scepticism that was then general.\n\nThe Pilgrim Fathers brought to our shores the seeds of the Witchcraft\nDelusion at a time when it was rapidly fading in England, and again\nhistory furnishes us with an example of a people with strong religious\ninstincts who, being freed from their persecutors, became in turn the\nmost violent persecutors of those that did not profess their particular\ncreed. It was particularly due to the preaching of Cotton Mather that a\npanic of fear was created through the New England Colonies. Mrs. Ann\nHibbons was tried before the Great and General Court of Massachusetts,\nsentenced and hanged on the 19th of June, 1656. \"Goody Oliver\" was\nexecuted as a witch on November 16th, 1688.\n\nThere were twenty murders in 1692, and these before a civil court. The\ntrials took place before the illegal Court of Oyer and Terminer,\nappointed by Governor Phipps, at the instigation of the\nLieutenant-Governor and Chief Justice Stoughton, and Joseph Dudley,\nformerly governor, and the Chief Judge of the Court which, in 1688, had\nsent \"Goody Oliver\" to her death at the gallows.\n\nCotton Mather defended this practice in his book, \"The Wonders of The\nInvisible World,\" and Increase Mather, the father of Cotton, was equally\nas strenuous in the \"Witch Hunt.\" Increase Mather survived this massacre\nthirty years, and his son, five years longer, but there is hardly a word\nof regret or sympathy to be found anywhere, even in their private\ndiaries and correspondence. These executions in Massachusetts form one\nof the darkest pages in the history of America.\n\nIt is not surprising that the clergy of the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies supported both in practice and theory the Witchcraft Delusion,\nbut when we find the ablest minds of the laity bursting into print with\na vehement defense of this belief, it is difficult for us, in the\npresent day, to conceive of such folly. And yet, today, we have able\nminds defending a precept of which the Witchcraft Delusion is but a\npart.\n\n\"The defenders of the belief (Witchcraft), who were men of great and\ndistinguished talent, maintained that there was no fact in all history\nmore fully attested, and that to reject it would be to strike at the\nroot of all historical evidence of the miraculous.\" (_Lecky._)\n\nThe subject was examined in tens of thousands of cases, in almost every\ncountry in Europe, by tribunals which included the acutest lawyers and\necclesiastics of the ages, on the scene and at the time when the alleged\nacts had taken place, and with the assistance of innumerable sworn\nwitnesses. The judges had no motive whatever to desire the condemnation\nof the accused, and as conviction would be followed by fearful death,\nthey had the strongest motives to exercise their power with caution and\ndeliberation. The whole force of public opinion was directed constantly\nand earnestly to the question for many centuries, and although there was\nsome controversy concerning the details of witchcraft, the fact of its\nexistence was long considered undoubted.\n\nFor many centuries the ablest men were not merely unwilling to repudiate\nthe superstition, but they often pressed forward earnestly and with the\nutmost conviction to defend it. Indeed, during the period when\nwitchcraft was most prevalent there were few writers of real eminence\nwho did not, on some occasion, take especial pains to throw the weight\nof their authority into the scales.\n\nSt. Thomas Aquinas was probably the ablest writer of the thirteenth\ncentury, and he assures us that diseases and tempests are often the\ndirect act of the Devil; and the Devil can transform men into any shape\nand transport them through the air.\n\nGerson, the chancellor of the University of Paris, and, as many think,\nthe author of \"The Imitation,\" is justly regarded as one of the master\nminds of his age; he too, wrote in defense of this belief. \"These men,\"\nhe wrote, \"should be treated with scorn, and indeed, sternly corrected,\nwho ridicule theologians whenever they speak of demons, or attribute to\ndemons any effects, as if these things were entirely fabulous. This\nerror has arisen among some learned men, partly through want of faith,\nand partly through weakness and imperfection of intellect.\"\n\nBodin was unquestionably the most original political philosopher who had\narisen since Machiavelli, and he devoted all his learning and acuteness\nto crushing the rising scepticism on the subject of witches. The truth\nis that in those ages ability was no guarantee against error; for the\nsingle employment of the reason was to develop and expand premises that\nwere furnished by the Church. And this statement is as valid today as it\nwas three hundred years ago.\n\nBodin was esteemed, by many of his contemporaries, the ablest man who\nhad then arisen in France, and the verdict has been but little\nqualified by later writers. Amid all the distractions of a dissipated\nand an intriguing court, and all the labors of a judicial position, he\nhad amassed an amount of learning so vast and so various as to place him\nin the very first rank of the scholars of his nation. He has also the\ngreater merit of being one of the chief founders of political philosophy\nand political history, and of having anticipated on these subjects many\nof the conclusions of our own day. In his judicial capacity he had\npresided at some trials of witchcraft. He had brought all the resources\nof his scholarship to bear upon the subject, and he had written a great\npart of his \"Demonomanie des Sorciers\" before the appearance of the last\nwork of Wier.\n\nJohn Wier was a physician of Cleves who had in 1563 published a work\nwhich he called, \"De Praestigus Daemonum.\" He was quite convinced that the\nworld was peopled by crowds of demons, who were constantly working\nmiracles among mankind; and his only object was to reconcile his sense\nof their ubiquity with his persuasion that some of the phenomena that\nwere deemed supernatural arose from disease.\n\n\"Wier,\" said Bodin, \"had armed himself against God. His book was a\ntissue of 'horrible blasphemies.' For the word of God is very certain\nthat he who suffers a man worthy of death to escape, draws the\npunishment upon himself, as the prophet said to King Ahab, that he would\ndie for having pardoned a man worthy of death. For no one had ever heard\nof pardon accorded to sorcerers.\"\n\nSuch were the opinions which were promulgated towards the close of the\nsixteenth century by one of the most advanced intellects of one of the\nleading nations of Europe at that time; promulgated, too, with a tone of\nconfidence and of triumph that shows how fully the writer could count\nupon the religious sympathies of his readers: the \"Demonomanie des\nSorciers\" appeared in 1581.\n\nWith a man of the caliber of Bodin writing the above, it is not to be\nwondered at that the mobs were so active in the \"Witch Hunt.\" For as\nLecky cites, \"Although the illiterate cannot follow the more intricate\nspeculations of their teachers, they can catch the general tone and\ncharacter of thought which these speculations produce, and they readily\napply them to their own sphere of thought.\"\n\nIn 1587, Montaigne published the first great sceptical work in the\nFrench language. The vast mass of authority which those writers loved to\narray, and by which they shaped the whole course of their reasoning, is\ncalmly and unhesitatingly discarded. The passion for the miraculous, the\nabsorbing sense of diabolical capacities, have all vanished like a\ndream. The old theological measure of probability has completely\ndisappeared, and is replaced by a shrewd secular common sense. The\nstatements of the witches were pronounced intrinsically incredible. The\ndreams of a disordered imagination, or the terrors of the rack, would\naccount for many of them; but even when it is impossible to explain the\nevidence, it is quite unnecessary to believe it. \"After all,\" Montaigne\nsaid, \"it is setting a high value upon our opinions to roast men alive\non account of them.\"\n\n\"It was the merit of Montaigne to rise, by the force of his masculine\ngenius, into the clear world of reality; to judge the opinions of his\nage, with an intellect that was invigorated but not enslaved by\nknowledge; and to contemplate the systems of the past, without being\ndazzled by the reverence that had surrounded them. He was the first\ngreat representative of the modern secular and rationalistic spirit. The\nstrong predisposition of Montaigne was to regard witchcraft as the\nresult of natural causes, and therefore, though he did not attempt to\nexplain all the statements which he had heard, he was convinced that no\nconceivable improbability could be as great as that which would be\ninvolved in their reception.\" (_Lecky._)\n\nThirteen years after Montaigne, Charron wrote his famous treatise on\nWisdom. In this work he systematized many of the opinions of Montaigne.\n\nVoltaire treated the whole subject with a scornful ridicule and observed\nthat, \"Since there had been philosophers in France, witches had become\nproportionately rare.\"\n\nIn 1681, Joseph Glanvil, a divine who in his day was very famous, took\nup the defense of the dying belief. \"The Sadducismus Triumphatus,\" which\nhe published, is probably the ablest book ever published in defense of\nthe superstition, and although men of the ability of Henry More, the\nfamous philosopher Casaubon, the learned Dean of Canterbury, Boyle and\nCudworth, came to his defense, the delusion was fast losing ground.\nLecky points out that by this time, \"The sense of the improbability of\nwitchcraft became continually stronger, till any anecdote which involved\nthe intervention of the Devil was on that account generally ridiculed.\nThis spirit was exhibited especially among those whose habits of thought\nwere most secular, and whose minds were least governed by authority.\"\n\nBut the belief did not become extinguished immediately. In France, in\n1850, the Civil Tribunal of Chartres tried a man and woman named\nSoubervie for having caused the death of a woman called Bedouret. They\nbelieved she was a witch, and declared that the _priest_ had told them\nshe was the cause of an illness under which the woman Soubervie was\nsuffering. They accordingly drew Bedouret into a private room, held her\ndown upon some burning straw, and placed a red-hot iron across her\nmouth. The unhappy woman soon died in extreme agony. The Soubervies\nconfessed, and indeed, exulted in their act. At their trials they\nobtained the highest possible characters. It was shown that they had\nbeen actuated solely by superstition, and it was urged that they only\nfollowed the highest ecclesiastical precedent. The jury recommended them\nto mercy, and they were only sentenced to pay twenty-five francs a year\nto the husband of the victim, and to be imprisoned for four months. In\n1850!!\n\nA great many may remember the \"Hex\" murder case near Lancaster,\nPennsylvania, in 1930! This is scarcely different from an incident which\nhad occurred in 1892 in Wemding, Germany: An hysterical woman was\n\"exorcised\" by the Capuchin Father Aurelian, who accused a peasant woman\nof bewitching him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe foregoing has shown that witchcraft is not an isolated incident in\nthe history of Christianity, as the ecclesiastics would have us believe,\nbut is a vital part of their religion. Witchcraft bears the same\nrelation to Christianity that an arm bears to the body; neither can be\nremoved without destroying the symmetrical aspect of the whole.\n\nWitchcraft is an integral part of the Christian religion, but its\nfalsity has become so obvious that even the most devout have had to\nabandon it. Yet the other precepts are still maintained; and in the\nBible which is claimed to be infallible, something is forgotten and\ndiscarded, something is declared to be ridiculous. And yet they call the\nBible infallible. Again, if witchcraft is given up, why not the chief\nwitch of the Bible, the Devil? Yet if this be yielded, then the idea of\nAtonement, the central doctrine of the Christian Church, must also go.\n\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\" If this be God's word, did God\nerr when He said it? If He erred, He probably did so in many other\nthings; if He did not Christians must either still maintain the\nWitchcraft Delusion or deny the Bible Delusion.\n\nThe Witchcraft Delusion is denied and forgotten, and no one thinks of\nquoting, \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\" But the Bible Delusion\ndespite all manner of ecclesiastical sophistry still maintains that man\nwas created miraculously some 6000 years ago from the dust of the earth,\nthat woman was made from a bone taken from the side of man, that\nlanguage came into existence in the course of a single night, that God\ninstituted a horrible massacre of the people by drowning because they\ndid not come up to his expectations. It maintains miracles, virgin\nbirths, resurrections from the dead, and a literal heaven and hell.\n\nAgain, in the New Testament, Matthew tells how the chief magician of the\nNew Testament, Jesus, exorcised the devils from men and drove them into\nswine. What could be more explicit? If men were possessed of devils in\nJesus' time, what has happened to these devils now? Surely, Jesus could\nnot misinterpret his own words or deeds, if the religionists contend\nthat we are now misinterpreting the Bible? If they state that his\nrecorders were in error, then they admit the error of the entire Bible,\nfor it is illogical for one part to be true and another to be false,\nwhen both are components of an infallible statement.\n\n\"But they who abandon belief in maleficent demons and in witches as\nalso, for this follows, in beneficent agents, such as angels, find\nthemselves in a serious dilemma. For to this are such committed: If\nJesus who came that he might destroy the Devil, and who is reported,\namong other proofs of his divine ministry, to have cast out demons from\nthe 'possessed human beings,' and in one case, to have permitted a\ncrowd of infernal agents to enter into a herd of swine; if he verily\nbelieved that he did these things, and if it be true that the belief is\na superstition limited to the ignorant or barbaric mind, then what value\ncan be attached to any statement that Jesus is reported to have made\nabout the spiritual world?\" (_Edward Clodd: \"Pioneers of Evolution.\"_)\n\nThe old adage that a chain is just as strong as its weakest link is very\napt in this case. A belief in witches is part of the Bible; and if the\ncivilized world rejects that concept, it must reject the Bible, for it\nis no longer infallible, since it is in error.\n\nDisregarding the internal evidence which declares the Bible to be\nspurious, and the scientific advances which have proven the Bible to be\na myth and a fable, if man still insists on \"revealed religion\" he must\nadmit that sorcery and witchcraft are an integral part of the Bible\nteaching. He must still either believe in witchcraft or disbelieve all\nof the Bible. For again, one part cannot be true and another false of an\ninfallible statement.\n\nI thoroughly and emphatically agree with John Wesley who, in 1769,\nwrote, \"The English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning\nin Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere\nold wives' fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly take this\nopportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent\ncompliment which so many that believe in the Bible pay to those who do\nnot believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge that these\nare at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such\ninsolence spread through the land, in direct opposition, not only to the\nBible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and\nnations. They well know (whether Christians know it or not) _that the\ngiving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible_.\"\n\nLecky, in that masterful work, \"The Rise and Influence of Rationalism in\nEurope,\" from which I have so freely quoted, states, \"A disbelief in\nghosts and witches was one of the most prominent characteristics of\nScepticism in the seventeenth century. Yet, for more than fifteen\nhundred years it was universally believed that the Bible established in\nthe clearest manner, the validity of the crime, and that an amount of\nevidence, so varied and so ample as to preclude the very possibility of\ndoubt, attested its continuance and its prevalence.... In our own day,\nit may be said with confidence, that it would be altogether impossible\nfor such an amount of evidence to accumulate around a conception which\nhas no substantial basis in fact.\"\n\nAnd yet today, in the twentieth century, we do have an amount of\n\"evidence\" accumulated around a conception which had no substantial\nbasis of fact. What a perfect analogy presents itself between one\nprecept of revealed religion and religion in its entirety. In the\nseventeenth century, scepticism confined itself to a disbelief in\nwitchcraft, one particular of revealed religion; in the twentieth\ncentury, scepticism expands and reveals the absurdity of all revealed\nreligion. Just as when we read the annals of witchcraft today we sicken\nwith the horror of this insane conception, so will posterity in the none\ntoo distant future, perhaps three more centuries, do for _all religion_\nwhat three centuries did for witchcraft. Just so will they regard\nrevealed religion in its entirety as we look upon the one factor, the\n_Witchcraft Delusion_.\n\nMen came gradually to disbelieve in witchcraft because they learned\ngradually to look upon it as absurd. This new tone of thought appeared\nfirst of all in those who were least subject to theological influences,\nand soon spread through the educated laity, and last of all, took\npossession of the clergy. So shall it be with all religions.\n\nA belief that was held for 1500 years, in the comparatively\ninsignificant period of 100 years, sinks into oblivion; for the last\njudicial execution occurred in Switzerland in 1782; and the last law on\nthe subject, the Irish Statute, was repealed in 1821. It is not,\ntherefore, too much of a stretch of the imagination to conceive what the\ninhabitants of this planet will think of all religion 300 years from\nnow. We have the sterling example of the Witchcraft Delusion before us.\nYes, despite the otherwise brilliant men of today who still maintain the\nBible Delusion, and the \"Hedgers,\" that group of religious apologists\nwho form those various sects, such as the Unitarians, the Humanists,\netc. They are but the middle ground; they are but the intermediate\nbetween the delusionists and those that maintain the philosophy that\neventually must triumph, the philosophy of atheism. When we think back\nto that group of capable men headed by Bodin, Gerson, and Joseph\nGlanvil, who turned their ability and learning to the defense of the\nWitchcraft Delusion, we find the answer to that ever-present response\nwhich the confused of this age give when confronted with the\nincompatabilities in their religion, namely, \"Oh, well, more brilliant\nmen than I believe in this delusion.\"\n\nBodin, Gerson, and Glanvil could not bolster up a dying belief; and the\nBodins, Gersons, and Glanvils of today cannot long bolster up the dying\nbelief in all religions ... no matter what their ability or capacities\nmay be. The handwriting is on the wall; the past teaches us what the\nfuture may be, but there is still much work to be done.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nRELIGION AND MORALITY\n\n    _The current religion is indirectly adverse to morals, because it is\n    adverse to the freedom of the intellect. But it is also directly\n    adverse to morals by inventing spurious and bastard virtues._\n\n    WINWOOD READE, \"Martyrdom of Man.\"\n\n\nIt had been formerly asserted by theologians that our moral laws were\ngiven to man by a supernatural intuitive process. However, Professor E.\nA. Westermarck's \"Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas,\" and\nsimilar researches, give a comprehensive survey of the moral ideas and\npractices of all the backward fragments of the human race and\nconclusively prove the social nature of moral law. The moral laws have\nevolved much the same as physical man has evolved. There is no\nindication whatsoever that the moral laws came from any revelation since\nthe sense of moral law was just as strong amongst civilized peoples\nbeyond the range of Christianity, or before the Christian era. Joseph\nMcCabe, commenting on Professor Westermarck's work states, \"All the fine\ntheories of the philosophers break down before this vast collection of\nfacts. There is no intuition whatever of an august and eternal law, and\nthe less God is brought into connection with these pitiful blunders and\noften monstrous perversions of the moral sense, the better. What we see\nis just man's mind in possession of the idea that his conduct must be\nregulated by law, and clumsily working out the correct application of\nthat idea as his intelligence grows and his social life becomes more\ncomplex. It is not a question of the mind of the savage imperfectly\nseeing the law. It is a plain case of the ideas of the savage reflecting\nand changing with his environment and the interest of his priests.\"\n\nJustice is a fundamental and essential moral law because it is a vital\nregulation of social life and murder is the greatest crime because it is\nthe greatest social delinquency; and these are inherent in the social\nnature of moral law. \"Moral law slowly dawns in the mind of the human\nrace as a regulation of a man's relation with his fellows in the\ninterest of social life. It is quite independent of religion, since it\nhas entirely different roots in human psychology.\" (_Joseph McCabe:\n\"Human Origin of Morals.\"_)\n\nIn the mind of primitive man there is no connection between morality and\nthe belief in a God. \"Society is the school in which men learn to\ndistinguish between right and wrong. The headmaster is custom and the\nlessons are the same for all. The first moral judgments were pronounced\nby public opinion; public indignation and public approval are the\nprototypes of the moral emotions.\" (_Edward Westermarck: \"Origin and\nDevelopment of the Moral Ideas.\"_)\n\nMoral ideas and moral energy have their source in social life. It is\nonly in a more advanced society that moral qualities are assumed for the\ngods. And indeed, it is known that in some primitive tribes, the gods\nare not necessarily conceived as good, they may have evil qualities\nalso. \"If they are, to his mind, good, that is so much the better. But\nwhether they are good or bad they have to be faced as facts. The Gods,\nin short belong to the region of belief, while morality belongs to that\nof practice. It is in the nature of morality that it should be implicit\nin practice long before it is explicit in theory. Morality belongs to\nthe group and is rooted in certain impulses that are a product of the\nessential conditions of group life. It is as reflection awakens that men\nare led to speculate upon the nature and origin of the moral feelings.\nMorality, whether in practice or theory, is thus based upon what is. On\nthe other hand, religion, whether it be true or false, is in the nature\nof a discovery--one cannot conceive man actually ascribing ethical\nqualities to his Gods before he becomes sufficiently developed to\nformulate moral rules for his own guidance, and to create moral laws for\nhis fellowmen. The moralization of the Gods will follow as a matter of\ncourse. Man really modifies his Gods in terms of the ideal human being.\nIt is not the Gods who moralize man, it is man who moralizes the Gods.\"\n(_Chapman Cohen: \"Theism or Atheism.\"_)\n\nIn the formation of the Old Testament, the moralization of Yahveh led to\nthe creation of a god who coincided more with the morality of the later\nwriters, the God Elohim.\n\n\"Rather must we say that morality begins in human social relations and\npasses from them to the relations maintained with the other life and\nwith the Gods. Or, if one prefers to consider ghosts and gods as\ninseparable elements of the primary organism, then we should say that\nmorality is born in that all-embracing psychical atmosphere. But it does\nnot follow from that fact that the rise and development of morality are\nconditioned by belief in Gods and in immortality. Merely human relations\nare sufficient to the production of ethical appreciations. The invisible\nghosts and Gods would never have been thought interested in the morality\nof the tribe, had not the leaders realized the importance of courage, of\nloyalty, of respect for neighbors' possessions, and the other elementary\nvirtues. It is when the disastrous consequences of their absence became\nevident that the Gods were made to sanction these virtues. God or no\nGod, immortality or no immortality, the essential morality of man would\nhave been what it is.\" (_J. H. Leuba: \"Belief in God and Immortality.\"_)\n\nThe best that is in man is generated in the experiences of his daily\nlife. The attributing of moral qualities to the gods was a much later\ndevelopment in the evolution of the moral ideas. At this stage of our\ndevelopment man is fortified by a sense of human fellowship, and in\npractice, as well as in theory, has long since given up the assumption\nthat he needed superhuman beliefs. He has fully recognized the\nindependence of morality from superhuman beliefs.\n\nJames Mill and J. S. Mill taught the greatest happiness of the greatest\nnumber as the supreme object of action and the basis of morality. And it\nwas this conception that introduced the new ethical principles of duty\nto posterity. This conception is a much nobler one than the religious\ninterpretation of morality to consist in mainly defining what man's duty\nto God is; a morality whose chief selfish inspiration is not the helping\nof one's fellowmen but the saving of one's own soul. A secular morality\nteaches that what man thinks, says, and does lives after him and\ninfluences for good or ill future generations. This is a higher, nobler,\nand greater incentive to righteousness than any life of personal reward\nor fear of punishment in a future life. There are today a rapidly\ngrowing number of eminent moral teachers who condemn the clinging to the\nbelief of personal existence after death as a hindrance to the best life\non earth. Professor J. H. Leuba, in his work, \"The Belief in God and\nImmortality,\" concludes that, \"These facts and considerations indicate\nthat the reality of the belief in immortality to civilized nations is\nmuch more limited than is commonly supposed; and that, if we bring into\ncalculation all the consequences of the belief, and not merely its\ngratifying effects, we may even be brought to conclude that its\ndisappearance from among the most civilized nations would be, on the\nwhole, a gain.\"\n\nThere are few educated men nowadays who would claim that morality cannot\nexist apart from religion. Theists are desperately attempting to\nharmonize a primitive theory of things, with a larger knowledge and a\nmore developed moral sense. Morality is fundamentally the expression of\nthose conditions under which associated life is found possible and\nprofitable, and that so far as any quality is declared to be moral its\njustification and meaning must be found in that direction. \"Our alleged\nessential dependence upon transcendental beliefs is belied by the most\ncommon experiences of daily life. Who does not feel the absurdity of the\nopinion that the lavish care for a sick child by a mother is given\nbecause of a belief in God and immortality? Are love of father and\nmother on the part of children, affection and serviceableness between\nbrothers and sisters, straight-forwardness and truthfulness between\nbusiness men, essentially dependent upon these beliefs? What sort of\nperson would be the father who would announce divine punishment or\nreward in order to obtain the love and respect of his children? And if\nthere are business men preserved from unrighteousness by the fear of\nfuture punishment, they are far more numerous who are deterred by the\nthreat of human law. Most of them would take their chances with heaven a\nhundred times before they would once with society, or perchance with the\nimperative voice of humanity heard in the conscience.\" (_Leuba._)\n\nThe primary motive of moral standards and practices is man's desire to\nseek happiness and avoid pain. And so it is not strange that morality\nhas become stronger as the power of religion has weakened. \"Right\nthrough history it has been the social instincts that have acted as a\ncorrective to religious extravagances. And it is worth noting that with\nthe exception of a little gain from the practice of casuistry, religions\nhave contributed nothing towards the building up of a science of ethics.\nOn the contrary, it has been a very potent cause of confusion and\nobstruction. Fictitious vices and virtues have been created and the real\nmoral problems lost sight of. It gave the world the morality of the\nprison cell, instead of the tonic of the rational life. And it was\nindeed fortunate for the race that conduct was not ultimately dependent\nupon a mass of teachings that had their origin in the brains of savages,\nand were brought to maturity during the darkest period of European\ncivilization.... And we know that the period during which the influence\nof Christian theism was strongest, was the period when the intellectual\nlife of civilized man was at its lowest, morality at its weakest, and\nthe general outlook hopeless. Religious control gave us heresy hunts,\nJew hunts, burning for witchcraft, and magic in place of medicine. It\ngave us the Inquisition and the _auto da fe_, the fires of Smithfield,\nand the night of St. Bartholomew. It gave us the war of sects, and it\nhelped powerfully to establish the sect of war. It gave us life without\nhappiness, and death cloaked with terror. The Christian record is before\nus, and it is such that every Church blames the others for its\nexistence. Quite as certainly we cannot point to a society that has been\ndominated by Freethinking ideals, but we can point to their existence in\nall ages, and can show that all progress is due to their presence. We\ncan show that progressive ideals have originated with the least, and\nhave been opposed by the most religious sections of society.\"\n(_Cohen._)\n\nThe puerile conception of heaven and the savage conception of hell are\nstill, in modified form, deemed necessary for a religious morality. Why\nit should be necessary for a supreme intelligence to make all things\nstraight in another world, that he could more convincingly rectify in\nthis one, is a conception which has escaped the reason of a freethinker,\nbut has been very profitable to those on earth that lead their adherents\nto believe that they hold the keys to our future abodes. Winwood Reade\nin his \"Martyrdom of Man,\" discussing the moral value of the fears of\nhell-fire, states, \"a metaphysical theory cannot restrain the fury of\nthe passions; as well attempt to bind a lion with a cobweb. Prevention\nof crime, it is well known, depends not on the severity, but on the\ncertainty of retribution. The supposition that the terrors of hell-fire\nare essential or even conducive to good morals is contradicted by the\nfacts of history. In the Dark Ages there was not a man or woman from\nScotland to Naples, who doubted that sinners were sent to hell. The\nreligion which they had was the same as ours, with this exception, that\neveryone believed in it. The state of Europe in that pious epoch need\nnot be described. Society is not maintained by the conjectures of\ntheology, but by those moral sentiments, those gregarious virtues which\nelevated men above the animals, which are now instinctive in our natures\nand to which intellectual culture is propitious. For, as we become more\nand more clearly enlightened, we perceive more and more clearly that it\nwas with the whole human population as it was with the primeval clan;\nthe welfare of every individual is dependent on the welfare of the\ncommunity, and the welfare of the community depends on the welfare of\nevery individual.\"\n\nThe teachings of Christianity towards marriage furnishes a well known\nexample of a reactionary philosophy of morals. The views of St. Paul on\nmarriage are set forth in I Corinthians VII 1-9:\n\n1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a\nman not to touch a woman.\n\n2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife,\nand let every woman have her own husband.\n\n3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence; and likewise\nalso the wife unto the husband.\n\n4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and\nlikewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.\n\n5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,\nthat ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together\nagain, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.\n\n6. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.\n\n7. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his\nproper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.\n\n8. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to\nabide even as I.\n\n9. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry\nthan to burn.\n\nThese precepts furnish an example of the harm that can be done when man\nfollows the absurd and unsocial decrees of an ascetic individual written\nin a barbaric age and maintained as law in a more advanced period. The\nenlightened physician holds that it is not good for a man not to touch a\nwoman; and one wonders what would have become of our race if all women\nhad carried St. Paul's teaching, \"It is good for them if they abide even\nas I,\" into practice. Bertrand Russell, in his \"Marriage and Morals,\"\nhas gone to the root of the matter when he states, \"He does not suggest\nfor a moment that there may be any positive good in marriage, or that\naffection between husband and wife may be a beautiful and desirable\nthing, nor does he take the slightest interest in the family;\nfornication holds the center of the stage in his thoughts, and the whole\nof his sexual ethics is arranged with reference to it. It is just as if\none were to maintain that the sole reason for baking bread is to prevent\npeople from stealing cake.\" But then it is too much to expect of a man\nliving nearly two thousand years ago to have known the psychology of the\nemotions, but we do know the great harm that his ascetic principles have\ndone. St. Paul took the standpoint that sexual intercourse, even in\nmarriage, is regrettable. This view is utterly contrary to biological\nfacts, and has caused in its adherents a great deal of mental disorder.\nSt. Paul's views were emphasized and exaggerated by the early Church and\ncelibacy was considered holy. Men retired into the desert to wrestle\nwith Satan, and when their abnormal manner of living fired their\nimagination with erotic visions, mutilated their bodies to cleanse their\nsouls. \"There is no place in the moral history of mankind of a deeper or\nmore painful interest than this ascetic epidemic. A hideous, sordid, and\nemaciated maniac, without knowledge, without patriotism, without natural\naffections, passing his life in a long routine of useless and atrocious\nself-torture, and quailing before the ghastly phantoms of his delirious\nbrain, had become the ideal of the nations which had known the writings\nof Plato and Cicero, and the lives of Socrates and Cato.\" (_Lecky:\n\"History of European Morals.\"_)\n\nThis concept that the closest of association between man and wife is an\nobnoxious deed, has strewn its evil influence down through the ages to\nthe present day. The stealth and obscurity placed upon sexual matters\nhas had its roots so firmly fixed in our manner of dealing with this\npurely normal function, that at this late date medical science is just\nbeginning to eradicate the evils. It is now well recognized by educators\nand physicians and all clear-thinking individuals that it is extremely\nharmful for men, women, and children to be kept in artificial ignorance\nof the facts relating to sexual affairs. The obscurantism placed upon\nsexual matters has caused more physical and mental distress than most of\nour organic diseases. The physician is constantly correcting the\nabnormal conceptions that exist. The sex act had become something in the\nnature of a crime which could not be avoided, instead of assuming the\nmanifestation of the consummation of the greatest love and tenderness\nthat can exist between two individuals keenly attuned to the natural\ndesires of a natural act. \"The love of man and woman at its best is free\nand fearless, compounded of body and mind in equal proportions, not\ndreading to idealize because there is a physical basis, not dreading the\nphysical basis lest it should interfere with the idealization. To fear\nlove is to fear life and those who fear life are already three parts\ndead.\" (_Bertrand Russell: \"Marriage and Morals.\"_)\n\nReligion has brutalized the marital relations, and Lecky, dealing with\nthis subject, states, \"The tender love which it elicits, the holy and\nbeautiful domestic qualities that follow in its train, were almost\nabsolutely omitted from consideration. The object of the ascetic was to\nattract men to a life of virginity, and as a necessary consequence\nmarriage was treated as an inferior state. It was regarded as being\nnecessary, indeed, and therefore justifiable, for the propagation of the\nspecies, and to free men from great evils; but still as a condition of\ndegradation from which all who aspired to real sanctity could fly. To\n'cut down by the axe of Virginity the wood of Marriage' was, in the\nenergetic language of St. Jerome, the end of the saint; and if he\nconsented to praise marriage it was merely because it produced virgins.\"\n\nIndeed, the entire ascetic attitude was well summed up by St. Jerome\nwhen exhorting Heliodorus to desert his family and become a hermit; he\nexpatiated with foul minuteness on every form of natural affection he\ndesired him to violate: \"Though your little nephew twine his arms around\nyour neck, though your mother, with dishevelled hair and tearing her\nrobe asunder, point to the breast with which she suckled you, though\nyour father fall down on the threshold before you, pass over your\nfather's body ... You say that Scripture orders you to obey parents, but\nhe who loves them more than Christ loses his soul.\"\n\nIt has only been with the advance of secular literature that the\ndegrading assumption of St. Paul that marriage is to be regarded solely\nas a more or less legitimate outlet for lust has been discarded, and the\nact of love as applied to marriage has come to have any meaning. And in\nthis modern day the conception of the relationship of the sex act to\nmarriage is far from being on the high plane where it rightly belongs.\nBertrand Russell comments, \"Marriage in the orthodox Christian doctrine\nhas two purposes: one, that recognized by St. Paul, the other, the\nprocreation of children. The consequence has been to make sexual\nmorality even more difficult than it was made by St. Paul. Not only is\nsexual intercourse only legitimate within marriage, but even between\nhusband and wife it becomes a sin unless it is hoped that it will lead\nto pregnancy. The desire for legitimate offspring is, in fact, according\nto the Catholic Church, the only motive which can justify sexual\nintercourse. But this motive always justifies it, no matter what\ncruelty may accompany it. If the wife hates sexual intercourse, if she\nis likely to die of another pregnancy, if the child is likely to be\ndiseased or insane, if there is not enough money to prevent the utmost\nextreme of misery, that does not prevent the man from being justified in\ninsisting on his conjugal rights, provided only that he hopes to beget a\nchild.\"\n\nWhat effect has Christianity had upon our moral life, upon crime,\ndrug-addiction, sexual immorality, prostitution, and perversion? These\nblights upon our moral character existed long before Christianity, and\nafter Christianity. But what effectual check has Christianity\ncontributed?\n\nThe agitation concerning increased crime after the recent world conflict\nhas brought this subject to the fore, and aroused a great deal of\ndiscussion and consideration of this problem. In its relation to\nreligion, we have but one undeniable fact to bring before the thinking\npublic. An examination of the statistics of penal institutions reveals\nthat practically all criminals are religious. _Absolutely and\nproportionately smaller numbers of criminals are freethinkers._ Although\nchurch members nowhere constitute even half the population outside the\nprisons, they constitute from eighty to ninety-five per cent of the\npopulation inside the prison. This can be verified by reference to any\ncensus of any penal institution. As strangely as this may strike a great\nmany readers, just so strange did it appear at one time to the multitude\nthat the earth was round. (It is 500 years since the earth was proven to\nbe round, yet there is a large colony of Christians near Chicago\nofficially maintaining that the earth is as flat and four-cornered as\nthe Bible states.) Neither Christianity nor any religious creed has\nproved an effectual check on civil crime.\n\nThe prostitute has been hounded and abused by ecclesiastics since\nBiblical times, yet, it is only true to say that the religionist is not\nvitally interested in prostitution. Outwardly, he may pour forth a\nverbal barrage of condemnation, but if he believes he can save her\nimmortal soul, ahunting he goes. He does not attempt to ameliorate the\nsocial welfare of this poor, degraded individual, as he thinks; her\npitiful condition in the \"everlasting present\" on this earth interests\nhim not at all, although it is this existence about which he raves, his\nonly interest is in redeeming her soul not her body. If when the\nreligionist tells the prostitute that only those who believe in Christ\nas God, in His Virgin Birth, and in His Resurrection in the Body, will\ngo to heaven, and she agrees and repents--all is well; the religionist\nhas saved a soul, and the prostitute goes about her business of\nspreading hideous venereal disease to others whose souls are saved by\nbelieving in Christ as a God. Her soul is saved and safe, but the\nscholar, the poet, the scientist, the benefactor to mankind, all those\nwho make this life bearable and livable, their souls must roast in hell\nforever if they do not believe in the creed. Divine Justice?\n\nThe greatest number of prostitutes are religious, yet prostitution\ncontinues to flourish. The ecclesiastic condemns the prostitute as the\ncause, never stopping to think that the cause must have an effect, and\nthat prostitution is but the effect. The cause is our economic\nconditions. Prostitution is purely a medico-social problem, and the more\nthe ecclesiastic keeps his hands off the problem the sooner will the\ncondition be remedied to its best. Attempts to repress prostitution\nwithout changing the economic organization will always result in\nfailure. Prostitution has always existed and will continue to exist\nuntil our economic system has undergone a radical change. So long as\ngirls have to fight with starvation or with beggarly wages, so long as\nmen are deterred from early marriage by inability to support a family,\nand so long as many married men remain polygamous in their tastes, just\nso long will prostitution exist. But we have seen that the clergy is\nnever anxious to interfere with the \"rights of the few to tyrannize the\nmany,\" and since prostitution is an economic problem, religion never\nhas, and never will be, of any help in this case. (Aside from the fact\nthat there are many instances of a few centuries ago where the Church in\na period of temporary financial distress has owned well paying\nbrothels.)\n\nWhen we think of morality we are apt to concentrate more on sexual\nmorality than on the more obtuse moral duties. Religion has from time\nimmemorial been held up to our minds as a great force in the production\nof this morality. That is another myth. In our own country it is a trite\nphrase that a man has a \"Puritan code of ethics,\" or as \"straight laced\nas a Puritan.\"\n\nWhen the Puritan Fathers landed in this country, they began an existence\nthat has revealed to the world for all time the value of a \"burning\nreligious zeal.\" In a sense they showed this zeal in regard to the\nWitchcraft Delusion.\n\nComing as they did, to avoid religious persecution in their own native\ncountry, they should have established a colony which for meekness and\nbeneficence would have shown the value of a true religious fervor.\nInstead, the persecuted immediately became the persecutors--again\nproving the worth of a mind that is imbued with a dominating religious\nzeal.\n\nSecondly, the principal vocation and recreation of these Fathers was\ntheir religion. It is only reasonable to suppose that in such a truly\nreligious atmosphere morality should have reached its zenith of\nperfection. What actually happened is well illustrated in a very\ninformative and case reporting work by Rupert Hughes, the novelist,\n\"Facts About Puritan Morals\":\n\n\"Everybody seems to take it for granted that the behavior of the early\nsettlers of New England was far above normal. Nobody seems to take the\ntrouble to verify this assumption. The facts are amazingly opposite. The\nPuritans admitted incessantly that they were exceedingly bad. The\nrecords sustain them.... The Puritans wallowed in every known form of\nwickedness to a disgusting degree. Considering the extremely meagre\npopulation of the early colonies, they were appallingly busy in evil. I\ndo not refer to the doctrinal crimes that they artificially construed\nand dreaded and persecuted with such severity that England had to\nintervene: the crimes of being a Quaker, a Presbyterian, which they\npunished with lash, with the gallows, and with exile. I do not refer to\ntheir inclusion of lawyers among keepers of disorderly houses, and\npeople of ill-fame. I refer to what every people, savage or civilized,\nhas forbidden by law: murder, arson, adultery, infanticide, drunkenness,\ntheft, rape, sodomy, and bestiality. The standard of sexual morality\namong the unmarried youth was lower in Puritan England than it is today\nfor both sexes.\n\n\"It is important that the truth be known. Is religion, is church\nmembership, a help to virtue? The careless will answer without\nhesitation, Yes! of course. The statistics, when they are not smothered,\ncry No!\n\n\"If church-going keeps down sin, then the Puritans should have been\nsinless because they compelled everybody to go to church. They actually\nregarded absence from church as worse than adultery or theft. They\ndragged prisoners from jail under guard to church. They whipped old men\nand women bloodily for staying away. They fined the stay-at-homes and\nconfiscated their goods and their cattle to bankruptcy. When all else\nfailed they used exile. Disobedience of parents was voted a capital\noffense and so was Sabbath-breaking even to the extent of picking up\nsticks.\n\n\"Yet, as a result of all this religion, the sex life of the Puritan was\nabnormal.... Their sex sins were enormous. Their form of spooning was\n'bundling,' an astonishing custom that permitted lovers to lie down in\nbed together in the dark, under covers. They were supposed to keep all\ntheir clothes on, but there must have been some mistake somewhere for\nthe number of illegitimate children and premature children was\nstupefying. Dunton tells us that there hardly passed a court day in\nMassachusetts without some convictions for fornication, and although the\npenalty was fine and whipping, the crime was very frequent.\n\n\"Nothing, I repeat, would have surprised the Puritans more than to learn\nthat their descendants accepted them as saints. They wept, wailed, and\nrefused to be comforted. They were terrified and horrified by their own\nwickedness. The harsh, granite Puritan of our sermons, on statues and\nfrescoes, was unknown in real life. The real Puritan Zealot spent an\nincredible amount of his time in weeping like a silly old woman. Famous\nPuritan preachers boast of lying on a floor all night and drenching the\ncarpet with their tears. Their church services according to their own\naccounts, must have been cyclones of hysteria, with the preacher sobbing\nand streaming, and the congregation in a state of ululant frenzy, with\nmen and women fainting on all sides.\n\n\"The authorities are the best possible, not the reports of travelers or\nthe satires of enemies, but the statements of the Puritans themselves,\ngovernors, eminent clergymen, and the official records of the colonies.\nHereafter, anybody who refers to the Puritans as people of exemplary\nlife, or morality above the ordinary, is either ignorant or a liar. In\nour own day, there is an enormous amount of crime and vice among the\nclergy. Most horrible murders abound, by ministers, of ministers, and\nfor ministers. Published and unpublished adulteries, seductions, rapes,\nelopements, embezzlements, homosexual entanglements, bigamies, financial\nturpitudes, are far more numerous than they should be in proportion to\nthe clerical population.\n\n\"Governor Bradford breaks out in his heart-broken bewilderment and\nunwittingly condemns the whole spirit and pretense of Puritanism. The\nPuritans fled from the wicked old world for purity's sake, they were\nrelentless in prayer, they were absolutely under the control of the\nchurch and clergy, and yet, their Governor says that sin flourished more\nin Plymouth Colony than in vile London!\n\n\"If our people are wicked nowadays because they lack religion, what\nshall be said of the Puritans who were far more wicked, though they\nlived, moved, and had their being in an atmosphere so surcharged with\nreligion that children and grown persons lay awake all night, sobbing\nand rolling on the floor in search of secret sins that they could not\nremember well enough to repent? It is well to remember that there has\nperhaps never been in history a community in which Christianity had so\nperfect a laboratory in which to experiment.\n\n\"The very purpose of the Colony was announced as the propagation of the\nGospel. The Bible was the law book. The Colony lacked all the things on\nwhich preachers lay the blame for ungodliness; yet, every infamy known\nto history, from fiendish torture to luxurious degeneracy flourished\namazingly. This ancient and impregnable fact has been ignored. The\nrecords have been studiously veiled in a cloud of misty reverence, and\nconcealed under every form of rhetoric known to apologists.\"\n\nWe can only conclude that religion does not seem to act as an effectual\ncheck against sexual immorality. Furthermore, high moral principles can\nbe inculcated without any religious background, and have been in spite\nof religion. A man who is moral because of his reason and his\nsensibilities, and his comprehension of the necessary social structure\nof the world is a far better citizen than the man who feebly attempts a\nmoral life because he expects a mythical existence in a delusional\nheaven or wishes to avoid hell-fire. A secular code of morals based upon\nthe best experiences of communal and national life would place its\nhighest obligation not to a deity but to the welfare of all fellowmen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND WAR\n\n\n\"Instead of diminishing the number of wars, ecclesiastical influence has\nactually and very seriously increased it; we may look in vain for any\nperiod since Constantine in which the clergy as a body exerted\nthemselves to repress the military spirit, or to prevent or abridge a\nparticular war with an energy at all comparable to that which they\ndisplayed in stimulating the fanaticism of the Crusades, in producing\nthe atrocious massacres of the Albigenses, in embittering the religious\ncontests that followed the Reformation.\" (_Lecky._)\n\nAny institution that can sanction war is the most immoral institution\nthat the mind of man can imagine. That an institution which claims to\nhave under its guidance the moral activity of this earth, has instituted\nand condoned war is a known historical fact. That the Church has blessed\nthe banners of opposing factions, and has gloried in the butchering of\ninnocent heretics, no manner of present disregard for the facts and\napology can refute and redeem. The religious and civil wars, the\nmassacre of the Albigenses and other sects, the Massacre of St.\nBartholomew, are still alive in the memories of historians and still\nrankle. The Crusades were a bloody blot in the none too peaceful times\nof the Middle Ages. Christianity hurled itself at Mohammedanism in\nexpedition after expedition for nearly three centuries. Millions of men\nperished in battle, hunger, and disease, and every atrocity the\nimagination can conceive of disgraced the warriors of the cross. When\none crusade failed, a papal bull instigated the next. Taxes were imposed\nto defray the expenses, and Europe was so drained of men and money that\nit was threatened with social bankruptcy and annihilation.\n\nThe Inquisition between 1481 and 1808 had punished 340,000 persons, and\nof these, nearly 32,000 had been burnt. This was the result of the\ndeclaration that \"The Inquisition is an urgent necessity in view of the\nunbelief of the present age.\" The Church forgot to mention the vast\namount of wealth that accrued to her by these means. But we need not\nturn to the dead ages for material, for the present still firmly holds\nits war memories.\n\n\"Armenians massacred by Turks and Kurds; Christians slaughtered by\nMohammedans is a horror as hideous in the name of religion as in the\nname of war. The persecution of Jews by Christians in the name of Christ\nis diabolical. The atrocities inflicted on Christian Belgium by\nChristian Germany stains the Teuton's hand as red as the Turk's, but\nwith a difference. The Teuton outraged his own 'holy women,' despoiled\nand murdered his own 'sisters in Christ,' while the Mohammedan hordes\nperpetrated their nameless infamies on those whom they believed to be\nthe imps of Satan. Mercifully, call these things the logical crimes of a\nstate of war! Then we must admit that savagery still is more powerful\nthan religion, and we must concede that no religion so far has achieved\nthe success that one might reasonably expect of a divine institution.\"\n(_Bell: \"Woman from Bondage to Freedom.\"_)\n\nThe World War proved the utter worthlessness of Christianity as a\ncivilizing force. The nations engaged were not fighting non-Christians;\nGermany, Austria, Russia, England, Belgium, Servia, Italy, and the\nUnited States are all Christian nations. They all worship the same God,\nthey are all brothers in Christ, but that did not prevent their cutting\neach other's throats on the battlefield. Their common religious belief\ndid not render the war less bitter nor less bloodthirsty.\n\nIs it not a fact that if the Christian nations of the world would only\nlive at peace together, war would be impossible? Neither Mohammedan\nnations nor Japan could threaten. When the Christian speaks of the\nbrotherhood of man, he means a brotherhood of _believers_ only. What\nkind of brotherhood did Christians bestow on Jews or heretics in the\nMiddle Ages? Was it the brotherhood of man that Christianity bestowed on\nthe conquered Mexican and Peruvian nations, and on the Indians of our\nown country? If Christianity had expended as much energy in teaching its\nadherents the fundamentals of a sane social life, as it did to prepare\nmankind for a mythical life in Heaven, civilization would be today\ngreatly in advance of where it is.\n\nDoes any one believe that Jew, Mohammedan, Catholic, and Protestant can\nlong live in peace together? Common social needs bring mankind together\nbut religion drives them apart. There can never be a lasting peace until\nthe myth of God is dispelled forever from the minds of men. Then and\nthen only, can the adjustment between economic and political forces lead\nto a permanent peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY\n\n\n    _Nothing during the American struggle against the slave system did\n    more to wean religious and God-fearing men and women from the old\n    interpretation of Scripture than the use of it to justify slavery._\n\n    ANDREW DICKSON WHITE.\n\n\n\nThe Christian Church has had the audacity, in modern times, to proclaim\nthat it had abolished slavery and the slave trade. It is difficult to\nunderstand how any \"righteous\" man could make that contention\nremembering that it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century\nthat slavery became illegal in Christian countries, with one exception,\nAbyssinia, the oldest of the Christian countries, which still maintains\nslavery. In our own country, a nation had to be embroiled in a civil war\nbefore slavery could be abolished. Abolished by Christianity in the\nnineteenth century, when Christianity has been dominant in most\ncivilized countries since the third century, and when the traffic in\nhuman flesh flourished right through those centuries in which\nChristianity was most powerful!\n\nA reference to the facts show that this claim is as spurious as many\nothers which the ecclesiastics have boldly affirmed throughout the ages.\nFor not only is this contrary to the truth, but it is an undeniable fact\nthat it was only by the aid and sanction of the theological forces that\nslavery was able to degrade our civilization as long as it did.\n\nOn referring to that legend which has been the source of most of our\nsuffering and inhumanity, the Bible, a direct sanction for slavery is\ngiven in the Old Testament. Leviticus XXV gives explicit instructions as\nto where and from whom slaves should be bought, and sanctions the\nrepulsive feature of separation of the slave from his family. Leviticus\nXXVII gives the \"price\" of human beings.\n\nThe Koran, which the Christians look upon as a ridiculous smattering of\nutterances of a spurious prophet, sets a superior example to the\nChristian \"Divine Revelations.\"\n\n\"God hath ordained that your brothers should be your slaves, therefore,\nlet him whom God hath ordained to be the slave of his brother, his\nbrother must give him of the clothes wherewith he clotheth himself, and\nnot order him to do anything beyond his power.... A man who illtreats\nhis slave will not enter paradise.... Whoever is the cause of separation\nbetween mother and child by selling and giving, God will separate him\nfrom his friends on the day of resurrection.\"\n\nThe New Testament follows the Old Testament, and there is nowhere to be\nfound in its contents anything to suggest the elimination of this\npractice. Jesus did not condemn this practice, but accepted slavery as\nhe accepted most institutions about him, and all superstitions. The\nteachings of Paul on the question of slavery are clear and explicit.\nPope Leo, in his letter of 1888 to the Bishop of Brazil, remarks:\n\n\"When amid the slave multitude whom she has numbered among her children,\nsome led astray by some hope of liberty, have had recourse to violence\nand sedition, the Church has always condemned these unlawful efforts,\nand through her ministers has applied the remedy of patience....\"\n\nSt. Peter was addressing himself especially to the slaves when he wrote,\n\"For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God a man endures\nsorrows, suffering wrongfully.\"\n\nThe Church certainly saw nothing wrong with slavery when she preached\npatience to her slaves. It did not condemn slavery, but condemned the\nslaves for revolting. This in 1888!\n\nIn the \"Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics\" is found: \"There is no\nexplicit condemnation in the teaching of our Lord.... It remains true\nthat the abolitionist could point to no one text in the Gospels in\ndefense of his position, while those who defended slavery could appeal\nat any rate to the letter of Scripture.\"\n\nIt is true that slavery existed under Pagan civilization, but there it\nrepresented a phase of social development, while Christian slavery stood\nfor a deliberate retrogression in social life. It was Seneca who said,\n\"Live gently and kindly with your slave, and admit him to conversation\nwith you, to council with you, and to share in your meals.\"\n\nThink of what would have occurred if one of our philosophers had\nadmonished a slave-holding Christian in the above manner.\n\n\"We are apt to think of the ancient slave as being identical with the\nmiserable and degraded being that disgraced Christian countries less\nthan a century ago. This, however, is far from the truth. The Roman\nslave did not, of necessity, lack education. Slaves were to be found who\nwere doctors, writers, poets, philosophers, and moralists. Plautus,\nPhaedrus, Terence, Epictetus, were slaves. Slaves were the intimates of\nmen of all stations of life, even the emperor. Certainly, it never\ndawned on the Roman mind to prohibit education to the slave. That was\nleft for the Christian world, and almost within our own time.\" (For a\ngood account of the close association of Christianity with slavery see,\n\"_Christianity, Slavery, and Labor,\" Chapman Cohen._)\n\nIn Rome, the slave kept his individuality, and outwardly there was no\ndistinction in color and clothing; there was very little sound barrier\nbetween the slave and the freeman. The slave attended the same games as\nthe freeman, participated in the affairs of the municipality, and\nattended the same college. The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves\nin bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon\nhis education. It has even been said that the slave class of antiquity\nreally corresponded to our free laboring class. It is also well known\nthat a well-conducted slave, by his own earnings, was able to purchase\nhis freedom in the course of a few years.\n\nThere can be no comparison, therefore, between Pagan and Christian\nslavery, except to the detriment of the latter. The Christian slave\ntrade represents one of the most frightful and systematic brutalities\nthe world has ever known. The contrast between the Pagan and Christian\nslavery is even more marked when the dependence of the Christian slave\nupon the good nature of his master is considered. Compare this with the\ndecrees of the Roman emperors:\n\n\"Masters were prohibited sending their slaves into the arena without a\njudicial sentence. Claudius punished as a murderer any master who killed\nhis slave. Nero appointed judges to hear the complaints of slaves as to\nill-treatment or insufficient feeding. Domitian forbade the mutilation\nof slaves; Hadrian forbade the selling of slaves to gladiators,\ndestroyed private prisons for them, and ordered that they who were\nproved to have ill-treated their slaves be forced to sell them.\nCaracalla forbade the selling of children into slavery.\"\n\n\"All that need be added to this is that the later Christian slavery\nrepresented a distinct retrogression, deliberately revived from motives\nof sheer cupidity, and accompanied by more revolting features than the\nslavery of ancient times.\" (_Chapman Cohen._)\n\nIn the \"History of Ethics Within Organized Christianity\" is recorded,\n\"The Church, as such, never contemplated doing away with slavery as\nsuch, even though Stoicism had denounced it as 'Contra Mundum.' Nowhere\ndoes the early Church condemn slavery as an institution. Kindness to the\nslave is frequently recommended, but this was done quite as forcibly,\nand upon a much broader ground by the pagan writers. It would be indeed\nnearer the truth to say that the Christians who wrote in favor of the\nmitigation of the lot of the slave were far more indebted to pagans than\nto Christian influence.\"\n\nThe Church itself owned many slaves, advised its adherents to will their\nslaves to her, and was the last to liberate the slaves which she owned.\nYet, the apologists for the Church would have us believe that she was\ninstrumental in the destruction of slavery, when it is a fact that there\nis nowhere a clear condemnation of slavery on the part of the Church.\n\nH. C. Lea in his \"Studies of the Church History\" says, \"The Church held\nmany slaves, and while their treatment was in general sufficiently\nhumane to cause the number to grow by voluntary accretions, yet it had\nno scruple to assert vigorously their claim to ownership. When the Papal\nChurch granted a slave to a monastery, the dread anathema, involving\neternal perdition, was pronounced against anyone daring to interfere\nwith the gift; and those who were appointed to take charge of the lands\nand farms of the Church, were especially instructed that it was part of\ntheir duty to pursue and recapture fugitive bondsmen.\"\n\nIt must not be assumed that the Catholic Church was the only\necclesiastical body to condone slavery, or that it was only the traffic\nin black slaves that flourished a few hundred years ago.\n\n\"In the seventeenth century, thousands of Irish men, women and children,\nwere seized by the order or under the license of the English government,\nand sold as slaves for use in the West Indies. In the Calendar of State\nPapers, under various dates, between 1653-1656, the following entries\noccur: 'For a license to Sir John Clotworthy to transport to America 500\nnatural Irishmen.' A slave dealer, named Schlick, is granted a license\nto take 400 children from Ireland for New England, and Virginia. Later,\n100 Irish girls and a like number of youths are sold to the planters in\nJamaica.\n\n\"Had the Church been against slavery it would have branded it as a\nwrong, and have set the example of liberating its own slaves. It did\nneither. Nay, the Church not only held slaves itself, not only protected\nothers who held slaves, but it thundered against all who should despoil\nits property by selling or liberating slaves belonging to the Church.\nThe whole history of the Christian Church shows that it has never felt\nitself called upon to fight any sound institution, no matter what its\ncharacter, so long as it favored the Church. Slavery and serfdom, war,\npiracy, child labor, have all been in turn sanctioned.\" (_Chapman Cohen:\n\"Christianity, Slavery, and Labor.\"_)\n\nIn Abyssinia, the influence of Christianity has been dominant for a\nlonger period of time than anywhere else in the world. The population of\nAbyssinia is at least ten million, and of this population not less than\none-fifth, probably more, are slaves. In 1929, Lady Kathleen Simon\npublished her book entitled, \"Slavery,\" dealing with the slave trade of\nthe world. In this work it is pointed out that slave-owning is an\nintegral part of the religion of the country, and that opposition to the\nabolition of slavery comes principally from the priesthood which\nconsiders itself the guardian of the Mosaic law, and regards slavery as\nan institution ordered by Jehovah.\n\nSlave raids are constant in this country, and are accompanied by the\ngreatest brutality and cruelty. Vast areas are depopulated by these\nraids and even at this date, gangs of slaves may be seen by travelers,\nwith the dead and dying bodies of those that have fallen strewn along\nthe roadside. \"The slave trade in Abyssinia is open, its horrors are\nwell known, and it is supported by the Christian Church of the country.\nSuch is slavery in the most Christian country in the world today, the\ncountry which has the longest Christian history of any nation in the\nworld. Its existence helps us to realize the value of the statement that\nthe power of Christianity in the world destroyed the slave trade.\nSlavery flourishes in the oldest of Christian countries in the world,\nbacked up by the Church, the Old Bible, and the New Testament. It has\nall the horrors, all the brutalities, all the degradations of the slave\ntrade at its worst. Such is Christian Abyssinia, and such, but for the\nsaving grace of secular civilization, would be the rest of the world.\"\n(_Chapman Cohen._)\n\nThe slave system that arose in Christian times, created by and continued\nby Christians in the most Christian of countries, provides the final and\nunanswerable indictment of the Christian Church.\n\nSlavery was unknown to the Africans until it was introduced by the\nChristian Portuguese. In 1517 the Spaniards began to ship negro slaves\nto Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Porto Rica. John Hawkins was the first\nEnglishman of note to engage in the traffic, and Queen Elizabeth loaned\nthis virtuous and pious gentleman the ship _Jesus_. English companies\nwere licensed to engage in this trade and during the reign of William\nand Mary it was thrown open to all.\n\nBetween 1680 and 1700, it has been said that 140,000 Negroes were\nimported by the English-African Company, and about 160,000 more by\nprivate traders. Between 1700 and 1786, as many as 610,000 were\ntransported to Jamaica alone. In the hundred years ending 1776, the\nEnglish carried into the Spanish, French, and English Colonies three\nmillion slaves.\n\nThe cruelty experienced by these human cargoes on their transportation\ndefies description. The chaining, the branding, the mutilation, the\nclose quarters, the deaths by suffocation and disease, are a sterling\nexample of man's inhumanity to man when his conscience is relieved by\nfinding support of his inhumane actions sanctioned in that most holy of\nholies, the Bible. Exclusive of the slaves who died before leaving\nAfrica, not more than fifty out of a hundred lived to work on the\nplantations. Ingram's \"History of Slavery\" calculates that although\nbetween 1690 and 1820 no less than 800,000 Negroes had been imported to\nJamaica, yet, at the latter date, only 340,000 were on the island.\n\nSlavery in America received the same sanction by the religionists which\nit received on the continent. George Whitefield, the great Methodist\npreacher, was an earnest supporter of slavery. When the importation of\nslaves finally ceased the states began the new industry of breeding\nslaves; the leading state for this breeding, and the one which contained\nthe largest number of stud farms, was Virginia. Lord Macaulay, in a\nspeech delivered before the House of Commons on February 26, 1845, said:\n\"The slave states of the Union are of two classes, the breeding states,\nwhere the human beast of burden increases, and multiplies, and becomes\nstrong for labor; and the sugar and cotton states to which these beasts\nof burden are sent to be worked to death. Bad enough it is that\ncivilized man should sail to an uncivilized quarter of the world where\nslavery existed, should buy wretched barbarians, and should carry them\naway to labor in a distant land; bad enough! But that a civilized man, a\nbaptized man, a man proud of being a citizen of a free state, a man\nfrequenting a Christian Church, should breed slaves for exportation, and\nif the whole horrible truth must be told, should even beget slaves for\nexportation, should see children, sometimes his own children, gambolling\nfrom infancy, should watch their growth, should become familiar with\ntheir faces, and should sell them for $400 or $500 a head, and send them\nto lead in a remote country a life which is a lingering death, a life\nabout which the best thing that can be said is that it is sure to be\nshort; this does, I own, excite a horror exceeding even the horror\nexcited by that slave trade which is the curse of the African coast. And\nmark, I am speaking of a trade as regular as the trade in pigs between\nDublin and Liverpool, or as the trade in coals between the Tyne and the\nThames.\"\n\nIt has been estimated that the members and ministers of the Orthodox\nchurches in the South owned no less than 660,000 slaves.\n\nThomas Paine, in 1775, when he wrote his article on \"Justice and\nHumanity,\" was the first to demand emancipation in a lucid manner. The\ncampaign for liberation of the slaves was therefore inaugurated by a\nfreethinker, and triumphantly closed by another freethinker, Abraham\nLincoln. In this manner did the Church abolish slavery. With\ncharacteristic disregard for the truth, the religionists have laid claim\nto Lincoln, which claim has been amply refuted; but we are still\nawaiting the Church's claim to Paine as one of her devotees.\n\n\"And, truly, the case against Christianity is plain and damning. Never,\nduring the whole of its history has it spoken in a clear voice against\nslavery; always, as we have seen, its chief supporters have been\npronounced believers. They have cited religious teaching in its defence,\nthey have used all the power of the Church for its maintenance.\nNaturally, in a world in which the vast majority are professing\nChristians, believers are to be found on the side of humanity and\njustice. But to that the reply is plain. Men are human before they are\nChristians; both history and experience point to the constant lesson of\nthe many cases in which the claims of a developing humanity override\nthose of an inculcated religious teaching.\n\n\"But the damning fact against Christianity is, not that it found slavery\nhere when it arrived, and accepted it as a settled institution, not even\nthat it is plainly taught in its 'sacred' books, but, that it\ndeliberately created a new form of slavery, and for hundreds of years\ninvested it with a brutality greater than that which existed centuries\nbefore. A religion which could tolerate this slavery, argue for it, and\nfight for it, cannot by any stretch of reasoning be credited with an\ninfluence in forwarding emancipation. Christianity no more abolished\nslavery than it abolished witchcraft, the belief in demonism, or\npunishment for heresy. It was the growing moral and social sense of\nmankind that compelled Christians and Christianity to give up these and\nother things.\" (_C. Cohen: \"Christianity, Slavery, and Labor.\"_)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND LABOR\n\n    _The mortgage which the peasant has on heavenly property guarantees\n    the mortgage of the bourgeois on the farms._\n\n    MARX.\n\n    _The same Christ, the same Buddha, the same Isaiah, can stand at\n    once for capitalism and communism, for liberty and slavery, for\n    peace and war, for whatever opposed or clashing ideals you will. For\n    the life and the power of a church is in the persistent identity of\n    its symbols and properties. Meanings change anyhow, but things\n    endure. The rock upon which a church is founded is not the word of\n    God; the rock upon which a church is founded is the wealth of men._\n\n    HORACE M. KALLEN, \"Why Religion?\"\n\n\n\nDuring the Middle Ages the heads of the Church exercised all the rights\nof a feudal lord, and were even more tenacious of their privileges. The\nserfs were prohibited from migrating from one part of the country to\nanother. The daughter of a serf could not marry without the consent of\nthe lord, who frequently demanded payment for permission; or, worse\nstill, the infamous \"Right of the First Night.\" The serf was bonded in a\nhundred different ways, and it is significant of the esteem in which the\nChurch was held that in every peasant revolt which occurred, there was\nalways a direct attack on the Church.\n\nProfessor Thorold Rogers, writing of the twelfth century, gives the\nfollowing picture of the poorer classes:\n\n\"The houses of these villagers were mean and dirty. Brickmaking was a\nlost art, stone was found only in a few places. The wood fire was on a\nhob of clay. Chimneys were unknown, except in castles and manor houses,\nand the smoke escaped through the door or whatever other aperture it\ncould reach. The floor of the homestead was filthy enough, but the\nsurroundings were filthier still. Close by the door stood the mixen, a\ncollection of every abomination--streams from which, in rainy weather,\nfertilized the lower meadows, generally the lord's pasture, and polluted\nthe stream. The house of the peasant cottager was poorer still. Most of\nthem were probably built of posts wattled and plastered with clay or\nmud, with an upper storey of poles reached by a ladder.\"\n\n\"What the lord took he held by right of force; what the Church had it\nheld by force of cunning. And as, in the long run, the cunning of the\nChurch was more powerful than the force of the robber-lord, the\npriesthood grew in riches until its wealth became a threat to the whole\nof the community. In England, in the thirteenth century, the clergy\nnumbered one in fifty-two of the population, and the possessions of the\nChurch included a third of the land of England. No opportunity was lost\nby the Church to drain money from the people whether they were rich or\npoor. The trade done in candles, and sales of indulgences brought in\nlarge sums of money, and there were continuous disputes between the\nclergy and the king and the Pope as to the divisions of the spoil. The\npicture of the Church watching over the poor, sheltering them from\nwrong, tending them in sickness, and relieving them in their poverty\nwill not do. It is totally without historic foundation. When the poor\nrevolted, and apart from the great revolts, there were many small and\nlocal outbreaks, the anger of the poor was directed as much against the\nChurch as it was against the nobles.\" (_C. Cohen: \"Christianity,\nSlavery, and Labor.\"_)\n\nWhen the downtrodden masses of Spain, Mexico, and Russia revolted\nagainst the tyranny which had held them in the slough of medieval\ndegradation, they likewise, in recent times, proved that they realized\nthat their submission was as much caused by the Church, allied as it is\nwith the state, as by the government itself.\n\nThe Church did attend the sick, but its trade was in the miracle cures\nand prayers, and so they very much resembled men hawking their own\ngoods, and attending to their own business. And there is the plain,\nhistoric fact, that in defense of its miracle cures it did what it could\nto obstruct the growth of both medical and sanitary science. It did give\nalms but these constituted but a small part of what it had previously\ntaken.\n\nThrough all the changes of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth\ncenturies, it is impossible to detect anxiety on the part of the\nChurches, Roman Catholic or Protestant, to better the status of, or\nimprove the condition of, the working classes. Whatever improvements may\nhave come about, and they were few enough, came independently of\nChristianity, organized or unorganized. Controversies about religious\nmatters might, and did, grow more acute; controversies about bettering\nthe position of the working classes only began with the breaking down of\nChristianity. And when, as in Germany, there occurred a peasants'\nrevolt, and the peasants appealed to Luther for assistance, he wrote,\nafter exhorting the peasants to resignation, to the nobles:\n\n\"A rebel is outlawed of God and Kaiser, therefore who can and will first\nslaughter such a man does right well, since upon such a common rebel\nevery man is alike the judge and executioner. Therefore, who can shall\nopenly or secretly smite, slaughter and stab, and hold that there is\nnothing more poisonous, more harmful, more devilish than a rebellious\nman.\"\n\nAnd in pre-revolutionary France, the Church saw unmoved a state of\naffairs almost unimaginable, so far as the masses of the people were\nconcerned, in their misery and demoralization. And this at a time when\nhalf the land of France, in addition to palaces, chateaux, and other\nforms of wealth were possessed by the nobility and clergy, and were\npractically free from taxation.\n\nA contemporary observer writes, \"Certain savage-looking beings, male and\nfemale, are seen in the country, black, livid, and sunburnt, and\nbelonging to the soil which they dig and grub with invincible\nstubbornness. They stand erect, they display human lineaments, and seem\ncapable of articulation. They are, in fact, men. They retire at night\ninto their dens, where they live on black bread, water and roots. They\nspare other human beings the trouble of sowing.\"\n\nIn pre-revolutionary France, the clergy, counting monks and nuns,\nnumbered, in 1762, over 400,000, with total possessions estimated at two\nthousand million pounds, producing an annual revenue of about one\nhundred and forty millions. The clergy were free from taxation and the\nhigher members of the order possessed all the rights and privileges of\nthe feudal nobility. To the end the Church in France, as in our day, in\npre-revolutionary Russia, remained the champion of privilege and\nmisgovernment.\n\nIn England, during the latter half of the eighteenth century and the\nbeginning of the nineteenth century, developed the English manufacturing\nsystem. Woman-and child-labor were common in both mines and factories.\nThe regular working hours were from 5 A.M. to 8 P.M., with six full\ndays' labor per week. One investigator remarks: \"It is a very common\npractice with the great populous parishes in London to bind children in\nlarge numbers to the proprietors of cotton-mills in Lancashire and\nYorkshire, at a distance of 200 miles. The children are sent off by\nwaggon loads at a time, and are as much lost for ever to their parents\nas if they were shipped off for the West Indies. The parishes that bind\nthem, by procuring a settlement for the children at the end of forty\ndays, get rid of them for ever; and the poor children have not a human\nbeing in the world to whom they can look up for redress against the\nwrongs they may be exposed to from these wholesale dealers in them,\nwhose object it is to get everything they can possibly wring from their\nexcessive labor and fatigue.\"\n\nIn the mines conditions were still worse, and a report in 1842 states:\n\"Children are taken at the earliest ages, if only to be used as living\nand waving candlesticks, or to keep rats from a dinner, and it is in\npits of the worst character, too, in which most female children are\nemployed. It would appear from the practical returns obtained by the\ncommissioner, that about one-third of the persons employed in coal mines\nare under eighteen years of age, and that much more than one-third of\nthis proportion are under thirteen years of age.\" In certain mines there\nwas no distinction of sex so far as underground labor was concerned. The\nmen worked entirely naked and were assisted by females of all ages, from\ngirls of six years to women of twenty-one, who were quite naked down to\nthe waist.\n\nBut if oppression was rife, education at a low ebb, and misery\nprevalent, the religion of the people was receiving attention. The\nperiod was, in fact, one of revival in religion. The Wesleyan revival\nwas in full swing, and Evangelical Christianity was making great\nadvances. Between 1799 and 1804 there were founded, \"The British and\nForeign Bible Society,\" \"The London Missionary Society,\" and \"The\nMission To The Jews.\"\n\nWhen the Education Bill of 1819 came before the House of Lords, out of\neighteen Bishops who voted on the measure, fifteen voted against it!\nThus the religionists were most active during the period when a\ncondition approximating white slavery existed. And why should this not\nhave been so, when the Church is not interested in the social and\neconomic status of its adherents during their existence on this planet,\nbut is avowedly concerned with deluding its devotees into a mythical\nbelief in a life hereafter? The greatest number of slaves and the\ngreatest degradation of workers is to be found in those times and places\nwhere religious superstition is most powerful.\n\nIn our own country, as well as in England, the labor movement has\ndeveloped not merely outside the range of organized Christianity, but in\nthe teeth of the bitterest opposition to it. Christianity, since it came\ninto power, has always preached to the poor in defense of the privileges\nand possessions of the rich.\n\nIn a recent publication by Jerome Davis, which is entitled \"Labor Speaks\nfor Itself on Religion,\" the author has compiled the opinions of labor\nleaders in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Germany,\nCzechoslovakia, Mexico, China, Austria, Australia, Belgium, and Japan.\nIt is a terrific indictment by labor against organized religion. The\nauthor tells us, \"Here is labor speaking for itself, and in the by and\nlarge it feels that the Church has not understood or helped it to secure\njustice. The majority believe that the Church has a capitalistic bias.\nIt is a class institution for the upper and middle classes.\" This is\nputting the matter rather mildly when one considers their grievances\nexpressed in their own words. Again Jerome Davis asks, \"Is it possible\nthat our Church leaders are to some extent blinded by current\nconventional standards? Are they so busy sharing the wealth of the\nprosperous with others in spiritual quests that they fail to see some\nareas of desperate social need? Do they to some degree unconsciously\nexchange the gift of prophecy for yearly budgets and business boards?\"\n\nJames H. Maurer, the president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor,\nspeaks for labor and the title of his subject is, \"Has the Church\nBetrayed Labor?\" Mr. Maurer's opinion follows: \"A worker living from\nhand to mouth, and lucky if he is not hopelessly in debt besides,\nworking at trip-hammer speed when he has work, with no security against\nenforced idleness, sickness, and old age, can hardly be expected to\nbecome deeply interested in, or a very enthusiastic listener to sermons\nabout Lot's disobedient wife, who because she looked back was turned\ninto a pillar of salt. He is far more concerned about his own overworked\nand perhaps underfed wife who, due to the strain of trying to raise his\nfamily on a meager income that permits of no rest or proper medical\ncare, is slowly but surely turning into a corpse. To go to a church and\nlisten to a sermon about the sublimeness of being humble and meek, that\nno matter how desperate the struggle to live may be one should be\ncontented and not envy the more fortunate, because God in His infinite\nwisdom has ordained that there shall be rich and poor and that no matter\nhow heavy one's burdens on this earth, one should bear them meekly and\nlook for reward in the world to come and remember that God loves the\npoor--such sermons naturally sound pleasing to the ears of the wealthy\nlisteners, and the usual reward is a shower of gold and hearty\ncongratulations by the sleek and well-fed members of the congregation.\nBut to an intelligent worker such sermons sound like capitalistic\npropaganda, upon which he is constantly being fed by every\nlabor-exploiting concern in the country, and quite naturally he tries to\navoid getting an extra dose of the same kind of buncombe on Sunday....\n\n\"In Churches, men have listened for nearly two thousand years to lessons\nand sermons about 'the brotherhood of man,' 'the forging of swords of\nwar into plowshares of peace,' 'man is his brother's helper,' 'peace on\nearth, good will toward men,' 'thou shalt not kill,' We are taught to\nsay the Lord's Prayer, and ask for heaven on earth, and yet, at every\nwar opportunity, with a very few noble exceptions, the Church, at the\ncommand of the war lords, has scrapped its peace sentiments and turned\nits back to the Prince of Peace and Heaven on Earth and has shouted\nitself hoarse for hell on earth. And then the spokesmen of the churches\nof each nation at war have had the impudence to pray to a just God and\nask Him to play favorites, to use His infinite power on their side and\njoin in the mad slaughter of His own beloved children. And those\nslaughtered are the workers, and their folks at home naturally wonder\nwhy the one big international peace organization on earth, the Church,\nat the crack of the war demon's whip, deserts its principles of 'Thou\nshalt not kill,' and 'Peace on earth,' and helps to stampede its\nfollowers in the very opposite direction.\"\n\nMr. Maurer points out that labor's struggle to have a Federal Child\nLabor amendment to the Constitution ratified by the various state\nlegislatures, and to have such legislation enacted as the Workmen's\nCompensation Laws, Mothers' Pensions, and Old Age Pensions, received no\nsupport from the clergy. He concludes by citing this occurrence:\n\n\"For a good illustration of what the Church is sometimes guilty of let\nus take a glimpse at what happened in Detroit, during the month of\nOctober, 1926, when the American Federation of Labor was holding its\nannual convention there. Nearly every church in Detroit sent invitations\nto prominent labor officials to speak in their churches before Bible\nclasses, Sunday schools, and Young Men's Christian Associations. Most of\nthe invitations were accepted by the labor officials, including\nPresident Green of the A. F. of L. As soon as the big employers learned\nabout the program they not only frowned upon the idea of allowing their\nsacred temples to be contaminated with representatives of the working\nclass, but put both feet down as hard as they could on the proposition.\nDid the clergymen stand firm when men with dollars talked? To their\neverlasting shame they did not. Ninety-five percent of them bowed to the\nwill of Mammon and the representatives of labor were barred from the\nsacred temples erected in the name of God and the lowly Nazarene,\nproving conclusively to the minds of the average citizen who controls\nthe churches and whom they serve. Small wonder that many workers have a\npoor opinion of the Church, and that so many pews are empty.\"\n\nJ. B. S. Hardman, the editor of _The Advance_, the official journal of\nthe Amalgamated Clothing Workers, gives us his opinion regarding the\nreligion of labor. \"It lulls the social underdog with a sham consolation\nfor the oppression and exploitation which are his lot, and furnishes the\nexploiter and oppressor with graceful distraction and absolution from\nhis daily practice and meanness. This is the actual basis of Church\nactivity to-day. The religion of labor is godless, for it seeks to\nrestore the divinity of man.\"\n\nJames P. Thompson, the national organizer of the Industrial Workers of\nthe World, heads his article for Jerome Davis, \"Religion is the Negation\nof the Truth,\" and in his militant manner proclaims \"This organization\ndesigned to praise God and help him run the universe is known as the\nChurch. The established Church has always been on the side of the rich\nand powerful. Its robed representatives, pretending to be Godlike and\nfavorites of God, having special influence with Him, have ever\nfunctioned as the moral police agents of the ruling classes. At one time\nor another, they have asked God to bless nearly everything, from the\nslave driver's lash to murderous wars. Thus they strive to extend the\nblessings of God to the infamies of men.\n\n\"To-day, under Capitalism, they teach the working class the doctrine of\nhumility: tell them that if they get a slap on one cheek to turn the\nother, and, 'blessed are the poor.' They tell us to bear the cross and\nwear the crown, that we will get back in the next world what is stolen\nfrom us in this. In other words, they try to chloroform us with stories\nof heaven while the robbers plunder the world. For this support the\nruling classes donate liberally to the Church. The organized robbers and\norganized beggars support each other.\"\n\nJames P. Noonan, vice-president of the American Federation of Labor,\nasks a pertinent question, \"Labor observes an increasing tendency on the\npart of the Church to regulate what man may eat, drink, or smoke, where\nand how he shall spend his Sundays, the character and kind of amusements\nhe may participate in, and various other activities, many of which seem\nmore or less trivial; all of which leads the average worker to ponder\nrather seriously just why it is that the Church can vigorously advocate\nand promote legislation seeking to curtail his liberty to enjoy, in his\nown way, the limited number of leisure hours at his disposal, and yet\nturn a deaf ear to the cry of tortured men, women, and children for\nrelief from the curse of low wages, long hours, and scores of other\nindustrial conditions and abuses which inevitably pave the way for\nnumberless cases of moral turpitude.\"\n\nJames S. Woodsworth, a former minister, speaking for the Canadian Labor\nParty, exclaims: \"The Church--a class institution--what does the Church\ndo to help me and those like me? The Church supported by the wealthy,\nyes, 'He who pays the piper calls the tune.' The well-groomed parson,\nwith his soft tones prophesying smooth things, well, I'm glad I'm not in\nhis shoes!\"\n\nJames Simpson, secretary of the Canadian Labor Party, makes this\nstatement: \"I found that the conditions which called for radical change\nif the social and economic security of the people was going to be\nestablished did not concern the Church. As an institution it was\nconcerned in establishing an outlook upon life that would induce men to\ndo the right, but, if the right was not done, there was very little\ndistinction drawn between the wrong-doer and the right-doer. This lack\nof distinction did not apply so much to what were re-regarded as moral\nindiscretions as it did to the larger failures to recognize man's\nrelationship to man in the industrial and commercial activities of life.\nLabor thinks the Church is insincere. It is an exceptional case for a\nminister to take a stand on the side of the workers, even when the issue\nbetween the employers and employees is a clear case of the former trying\nto enforce conditions upon the latter which are unfair and inhuman.\"\n\nA. Fenner Brockway, the political secretary of the Independent Labor\nParty in England, writes in this manner: \"The hymns of the Church are\nobsolete; the sermons are very rarely worth listening to; the forms of\nworship are unrelated to life; and such inspiration as comes from the\ndevotion and beauty of some church services and buildings can be found\never more intimately and fully in the silences and beauty of nature.\"\n\nGeorge Lansbury is another Englishman speaking for British Labor, and he\ntells us that, \"Ordinary working people in Britain think very little\nabout Churches, or about religion. Years ago I was asked, 'Why don't\npeople accept religion? Why don't the masses go to Church?' I said then,\nas I say now, 'They, the masses, believe we Christians do not believe\nwhat we say we believe.\"\n\nLenin, Trotzky, Lunacharsky, and Yaroslavsky, are the speakers for\nRussian Labor in Soviet Russia. Their attitude toward Church and\nReligion is well known....\n\nArthur Crispien, president of the German Social Democratic Party, gives\nus his opinion. \"Men should not look upon this earth as a vale of tears\nand fly from rude realities to a world of phantasms; they should embrace\nthe beauties of the world, and realize and fulfill their social rights\nand duties. Our work lies in this world. As to the other, each is at\nliberty to decide according to his needs.\"\n\nKarl Mennicke, another former minister, points out the attitude of\nGerman Labor. \"For modern labor the feeling that human life is first of\nall a matter of eternal life, and only secondarily a matter of this\nworld, has been entirely lost. The high-strung eschatologic mood, or\nexpectation of Jesus, has no sounding board in the masses of the\nproletariat of to-day. The Christian epoch in history is obviously on\nits way to extinction. The eschatological mood of Christianity has been\na handicap, and still is, for the Christian community has difficulty\nfinding an organic relationship to the creative problems of social\nlife.\"\n\nEmanuel Radl speaks of labor and the Church in Czechoslovakia. \"In\ngeneral the churches play a far lesser part in our public life than in\nthe United States. People are accustomed to speak of the churches as\nexploded institutions that are factors only among the uneducated\nclasses. The churches are not measuring up in understanding and helping\nthe poor.\"\n\nRobert Haberman, representing the Mexican Labor Party, gives a clear-cut\nsummation of the tyranny that the clergy of that country yoked upon the\nmasses and the retardation that it has produced. It furnishes striking\nand conclusive evidence of the harm that is done when the Church and\nState are still integrally intertwined. There is no better example of\nthe efforts of a reactionary clergy to keep the masses in poverty and\nignorance than is this study of the church in modern Mexico. Mr.\nHaberman gives an account of the church activities in old Mexico and\ncoming to the present, \"By the year 1854, the Church had gained\npossession of about two-thirds of all the lands of Mexico, almost every\nbank, and every large business. The rest of the country was mortgaged to\nthe Church. Then came the revolution of 1854, led by Benito Juarez. It\nculminated in the Constitution of 1857, which secularized the schools\nand confiscated Church property. All the churches were nationalized,\nmany of them were turned into schools, hospitals, and orphan asylums.\nCivil marriages were made obligatory. Pope Pius IX immediately issued a\nmandate against the Constitution and called upon all Catholics of Mexico\nto disobey it. Ever since then, the clergy has been fighting to regain\nits lost temporal power and wealth. It has been responsible for civil\nwars and for foreign intervention.\" Under the rule of Diaz, the\nconstitution was disregarded and the Church was permitted to regain most\nof its lost privileges. \"The Church bells rang out at sunrise to call\nthe peons out, with nothing more to eat than some tortillas and chili,\nto work all day long in the burning fields, until sunset when the Church\nbells rang again to send them home to their mud huts. During their work\nthey were beaten. On Sundays they were lashed and sent bleeding to Mass.\nAfter Church they had to do Faenas (free work) for the Church, in the\nname of some saint or other--either to build a new church or do some\nspecial work for the priests. It is no wonder then, that after the\nrevolution against Diaz, in many places, as soon as the peons were told\nthey were free, their first act was to climb up the church steeples and\nsmash the bells. After that, they rushed inside the churches and\ndestroyed the statues and paintings of the saints. During the whole\nperiod of havoc and exploitation, _not once_ was the voice of the Church\nheard in behalf of the downtrodden. Illiteracy amounted to eighty-six\npercent. But the Church helped the further enslavement of the workers.\nThere was not a church ceremony, birth, marriage, or death, that did not\ncost money. The worker had to borrow for each; and the more he borrowed,\nthe more closely he riveted upon himself the chains of peonage.... The\npresent conflict started in February, 1926, when Archbishop Jose Mora\ndel Rio, head of the Church in Mexico, issued a statement in the press\ndeclaring war against the Constitution.\"\n\nGideon Chen, speaking for Chinese Labor asserts: \"The Christian Church\nin China, brought up in a Western greenhouse, with all its achievements\nand shortcomings, does not speak a language intelligible to the labor\nworld.\"\n\nKarl Kautsky, the Austrian representative of labor, takes the attitude\nthat, \"The less Labor as a whole has to do with Church questions and the\nless it is interested in the churches, the more successful will be its\nstrife for emancipation.\"\n\nOtto Bauer, another representative of Austrian labor, makes the\nassertion: \"Capitalism forces the worker into the class struggle. In\nthis class struggle he comes across the clergy and finds it the champion\nof his class adversary. The worker transfers his hate from the clergyman\nto religion itself, in whose name this clergyman is defending the\nsocial order of the middle classes. In Austria the bourgeois parties\ntake advantage of the belief of hundreds of thousands of proletarians in\na Lord in Heaven to keep them in subjection to their earthly masters.\"\n\nErnest H. Barker, the general secretary of the Australian Labor Party,\nholds forth in an article entitled, \"The Church is Weighed and Found\nWanting.\" He is quite emphatic in his statements. \"The attitude of the\nLabor Movement in Australia to the Church is one of supreme\nindifference. There is little or no point of contact between the two and\napparently neither considers the other in its activities and plan of\ncampaign.... The Church preaches the brotherhood of man. What\nbrotherhood can exist between the wealthy receiver of interest, profit,\nand rent and the struggling worker who sees his wife dragged down by\npoverty and overwork, and his children stunted and dwarfed physically\nand intellectually--between the underworked and overfed commercial or\nindustrial magnate and the underfed, overworked denizen of the slums?\n... The Church is put on trial in the minds of men. They ask, 'What did\nthe Church do when we sought a living wage, shorter hours of work, safer\nworking conditions, abolition of Sunday work, abolition of child labor?'\nThe answer is an almost entirely negative one. The few instances when\nchurch officials have helped are so conspicuous as to emphasize the\ngeneral aloofness.... In how many of the advanced ideas of our time has\nthe Church taken the lead? Is it not renowned for being a long way in\nthe rear rather than in the vanguard of progressive thought and action?\nIt resents any challenge to its ideas, doctrines, or authority.\"\n\nEmile Vandervelde, the leader of the Belgian Labor Party, discusses the\npersonal religious convictions of the Labor leaders in France and\nBelgium. \"Today as yesterday the immense majority are atheists,\nold-fashioned materialists, or at least agnostics, to whom it would\nnever occur to profess any creed, no matter how liberal it might be.\"\n\nToyohiko Kogawa, the secretary of the Japan Labor Federation, says:\n\"Labor considers the Church too other-worldly. It thinks it has no\nconcern with the interests of labor; and that the Church has lost her\naim in this world and is looking up only into heaven. And labor forgets\nwhere to go, loses its sense of direction. So labor stops thinking about\nreligion, and religion stops thinking about industry. The Church has no\nprinciple of economics, and labor has no religious aspiration.\"\n\nThe opinions of these men who are daily in contact with the problem of\nsocial justice the world over surely furnish a tremendous amount of\ninformation regarding both the unconcern of religion upon the\nfurtherance of social justice and its actual negative and harmful\ninfluence. The devout Sherwood Eddy, a sincere and noble exponent of\nsocial justice, is forced to exclaim; \"But I saw that there would be\nmuch more opposition from professing Christians if I preached a gospel\nof social justice, than ever there had been from so called 'heathen'\nnations in calling them to turn from their idols. Indeed, Mammon is a\nmuch more potent idol, it is more cruel, smeared with more human blood,\nthan Kali of Siva. They sacrifice goats to Kali and we shudder; we\nsacrifice men to Mammon and justify our 'rights.' In simple fact, though\nthey are not worthy of mention, I have met with more opposition and\nmisrepresentation, ten times over, in 'Christian' America, than I ever\nmet in fifteen years in India, or in repeated visits to China, Turkey,\nor Russia.\" (_Sherwood Eddy: \"Religion and Social Justice.\"_)\n\nReligious philosophy is slave philosophy; it teaches of a God who is\npersonally interested in the individual and who will reward present\nmisery with future bliss. The demoralizing effect of this infamous\nfraud is apparent everywhere. If a worker is constantly assailed with\nthis nonsense from the pulpit, the result is the production in him of a\nmental as well as a physical slavery; it aggravates his mental inertia,\nand the force of repetition achieving its effects, he soon resigns\nhimself to his present miserable state drugged with the delusion of a\nbetter life in the hereafter. He believes that his destiny is\npredetermined by God and that he will be rewarded in heaven for his\nsufferings on earth.\n\nWhat a marvelous opiate the ecclesiastics have been injecting into the\nminds of the masses! It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that\ncapital has aided throughout the ages and has stood by religion. The\nirony of the situation lies in the fact that the slave will fight so\nvaliantly for his tyrannical master, that the unscrupulous few who\nderive all the benefits, can, like a malignant parasite, suck the\nlife-blood of its victims while their still living prey submits without\na struggle! The worker, inebriated with his religious delusion, calmly\nallows his very substance to be the means through which his parasitic\nemployer grows fat.\n\n\"That was the net result of Christianity, and of the activity of the\nChristian Church in spreading abroad a spirit of kindliness, humanity\nand brotherhood! The coquetry of Christianity with Labor within the last\ngeneration or two is only what one would expect. But it is clear that\nthe one constant function of Christianity has been to encourage loyalty\nto existing institutions, no matter what their character so long as they\nwere not unfriendly to the Church. Slavery and the oppression of labor\ncontinued while Christianity was at its strongest and wealthiest; its\nown wealth derived from the oppression it encouraged. Slavery died out\nwhen social and economic conditions rendered its continuance more and\nmore difficult. And the conditions of labor improved when men ceased to\ntalk of a 'Providential Order,' of 'God's Decree,' and dismissed the\nevangelical narcotic served out by the Church, and began to realize that\nsocial conditions were the products of understandable and modifiable\nnatural forces.\" (_C. Cohen: \"Christianity, Slavery and Labor.\"_)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nRELIGION AND WOMAN\n\n    _She was the first in the transgression therefore keep her in\n    subjection._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; but woman has the malice\n    of both._\n\n    ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM.\n\n    _Thou art the devil's gate, the betrayer of the tree, the first\n    deserter of the Divine Law._\n\n    TERTULLIAN.\n\n\n    _What does it matter whether it be in the person of mother or\n    sister; we have to beware Eve in every woman._\n\n    _How much better two men could live and converse together than a man\n    and a woman._\n\n    ST. AUGUSTINE.\n\n    _No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise._\n\n    LUTHER.\n\n    _The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in\n    the way of women's emancipation._\n\n    ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.\n\n\nIt is noticed in most calculations of churchgoers that women have\nremained attached to the churches in a far higher proportion than men.\nThe proportion of women in the churches is vastly greater than their\nproportion in the general population. Most of the men who still\npassively attend their churches do so under the pressure of\nprofessional interest or social or domestic influence.\n\nThe degree of religiosity has always been associated with the free play\nof the emotions and woman being more imaginative and emotional than man,\nit seems clear that this strong emotional factor in woman accounts, at\nleast partly, for the greater proportion of women as churchgoers. And\nthis, be it noted, lies not in any inherent inferiority in the mental\nmake-up of woman, but rather in the environmental influences that until\nvery recently shaped woman's education in such a manner that it was\nlittle adapted to strengthening her reason, but rather calculated to\nenhance her emotionalism.\n\nEcclesiastic historians have a notorious habit of viewing pre-Christian\ntimes for the single biased purpose of only stating the aspects of that\ncivilization which they deemed inferior to that exerted by Christianity.\nResearches have established fairly well the position of women in the\nEgyptian community of 4000 years ago. It is no exaggeration to state\nthat she was free and more honored in Egypt 4000 years ago, than she was\nin any country of the earth until only recently. Scholars assure us\nthat, at a period which the Bible claims the Earth was just coming into\nbeing, the Egyptian matron was mistress of her home, she inherited\nequally with her brothers, and had full control of her property. She\ncould go where she liked and speak to whom she pleased. She could bring\nactions in the courts and even plead in the courts. The traditional\nadvice to the husband was, \"Make glad her heart during the time that\nthou hast.\"\n\nContrast this position of woman in the community and society in general\nwith the statement given in Mrs. E. Cady Stanton's \"History of Woman's\nSuffrage,\" in which she speaks of the status of the female of the\nspecies in Boston about the year 1850. \"Women could not hold any\nproperty, either earned or inherited. If unmarried, she was obliged to\nplace it in the hands of a trustee, to whose will she was subject. If\nshe contemplated marriage, and desired to call her property her own, she\nwas forced by law to make a contract with her intended husband by which\nshe gave up all title or claim to it. A woman, either married or\nunmarried, could hold no office or trust or power. She was not a person.\nShe was not recognized as a citizen. She was not a factor in the human\nfamily. She was not a unit, but a zero in the sum of civilization....\nThe status of a married woman was little better than that of a domestic\nservant. By the English Common Law her husband was her lord and master.\nHe had the sole custody of her person and of her minor children. He\ncould punish her 'with a stick no bigger than his thumb' and she could\nnot complain against him.... The common law of the State [Massachusetts]\nheld man and wife to be one person, but that person was the husband. He\ncould by will deprive her of every part of his property, and also of\nwhat had been her own before marriage. He was the owner of all her real\nestate and earnings. The wife could make no contract and no will, nor,\nwithout her husband's consent, dispose of the legal interest of her real\nestate.... She did not own a rag of her clothing. She had no personal\nrights and could hardly call her soul her own. Her husband could steal\nher children, rob her of her clothing, neglect to support the family:\nshe had no legal redress. If a wife earned money by her own labor, the\nhusband could claim the pay as his share of the proceeds.\" With such a\ncontrast in mind, it is indeed difficult to see where the truth of the\nassertion lies when it is stated that the status of woman was indeed\npitiful until Christianity exerted its influence for her betterment. And\nit is again curious to note that after a period of nearly 2000 years of\nChristian influence it was left for a sceptic such as Mrs. Stanton and\nher sceptical co-workers to bring about an amelioration of the degrading\nposition of woman in Christian society.\n\nThe degrading picture of womankind as depicted in the Old Testament is\nwell known to anyone who has glanced through this storehouse of\nmythology. It would be well for the multitude of devout female adherents\nof all creeds to take the time, just a little of the time they give to\nthe plight of the poor, benighted heathen and read some of the passages\nin the Old Testament dealing with their lot. The entire history of woman\nunder the administration of these \"heaven-made\" laws is a record of her\nserviture and humility.\n\nIn the 24th chapter of Deuteronomy we find the right of divorce given to\nthe husband. \"Let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her\nhand and send her out of his house.\" The discarded wife must acquiesce\nto \"divine justice.\" But if the wife is displeased, is there any\njustice? Under no clause of the Divorce Law could the wife have a\ndivorce on her part. None but the husband could put her asunder from\nhim.\n\nIn the 22d chapter of Deuteronomy is enacted the law for \"Test of\nVirginity,\" which states that, \"If any man take a wife, and is\ndisappointed in her, and reports, 'I found her not a maid,' then, her\nfather and mother shall bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity\nunto the elders of the city in the gate.\" The gynecological elders then\ngo into a \"peeping Tom's\" conference and \"If virginity be not found for\nthe damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her\nfather's house, and the men of the city shall stone her with stones that\nshe die.\" Most probably the male partner in her \"crime\" was the first to\ncast the largest stone.\n\nThe law laid down in the 12th chapter of Leviticus may have been\nintended for hygienic purposes but it is cruel and degrading to women\nbecause it assumes that the parturient woman who has borne a female\nchild is twice as impure as one who has borne a male child.\n\nThe \"law of jealousies\" as described in the 5th chapter of Numbers is a\ngood example of the mentality of the writers of this \"divine\nrevelation.\" God in His infinite wisdom had caused to be written for\nHim, that to test whether a woman has laid carnally with another man,\nthe priest shall, \"take holy water in an earthen vessel, and of the dust\nthat is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take and put it\nin the water ... the bitter water that causeth the curse, and shall\ncause the woman to drink the water.\" The divine revelation then\ncontinues with, \"if she be defiled, her belly shall swell and her thigh\nshall rot.\"\n\nBut after all, God did not know that in the dust of the Tabernacle\nsprawled the germs of Dysentery, Cholera, and Tuberculosis, and a few\nother such mild infections. Or did the Divine Father know that even a\nself-respecting germ could not inhabit the filthy floor of the\nTabernacle?\n\nConsequently, it is not to be wondered at that in the \"good old days of\nthe old-fashioned woman,\" the acme of hospitality was the giving of wife\nor daughter to a visitor for the night. It was not religion that put an\nend to this barbarous custom; it was the advance of civilization; not\nthe religious force, but the place rational thinking assumed in the life\nof people.\n\nThe following is a description of a religious riot which took place in\nAlexandria during the early days of the Church: \"Among the many victims\nof these unhappy tumults was Hypatia, a maiden not more distinguished\nfor her beauty than for her learning and her virtues. Her father was\nTheon, the illustrious mathematician who had early initiated his\ndaughter in the mysteries of philosophy. The classic groves of Athens\nand the schools of Alexandria equally applauded her attainments and\nlistened to the pure music of her lips. She respectfully declined the\ntender attentions of lovers, but, raised to the chair of Gamaliel,\nsuffered youth and age, without preference or favor, to sit\nindiscriminately at her feet. Her fame and increasing popularity\nultimately excited the jealousy of St. Cyril, at that time the Bishop of\nAlexandria, and her friendship for his antagonist, Orestes, the prefect\nof the city, entailed on her devoted head the crushing weight of his\nenmity. In her way through the city, her chariot was surrounded by his\ncreatures, headed by a crafty and savage fanatic named Peter the Reader,\nand the young and innocent woman was dragged to the ground, stripped of\nher garments, paraded naked through the streets, and then torn limb from\nlimb on the steps of the Cathedral. The still warm flesh was scraped\nfrom her bones with oyster-shells, and the bleeding fragments thrown\ninto a furnace, so that not an atom of the beautiful virgin should\nescape destruction.\" The cruelty of man when spurred on by the mania of\nreligious zeal!\n\nIn more historic times there are numerous instances of the tyranny\nexercised over women by the feudal system. Feudalism, composed as it was\nof military ideas and ecclesiastical traditions, exercised the well\nknown \"rights of seigniory.\" These \"rights\" comprised a jurisdiction\nwhich is now unprintable, and had even the power to deprive woman of\nlife itself.\n\nA history of the licentiousness of the monks and the early popes would\nfill a great number of volumes; and indeed, many are the volumes which\nhave been devoted to this subject. It will suffice to point out only a\nfew representative incidents. In 1259, Alexander IV tried to disrupt the\nshameful union between concubines and the clergy. Henry III, Bishop of\nLiege, was such a fatherly sort of individual that he had sixty-five\n\"natural children!\" William, Bishop of Padreborn, in 1410, although\nsuccessful in reducing such powerful enemies as the Archbishop of\nCologne, and the Count of Cloves by fire and sword, was powerless\nagainst the dissolute morals of his own monks, who were chiefly engaged\nin the corruption of women. Indeed, the Swiss clergy in 1230, frankly\nstated that they \"were flesh and blood, unequal to the task of living\nlike angels.\" The Council of Cologne, in 1307, tried in vain to give the\nnuns a chance to live virtuous lives; to protect them from priestly\nseduction. Conrad, Bishop of Wurzburg, in 1521, accused his priests of\nhabitual \"gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, quarrelling, and lust.\"\nErasmus warned his clergy against concubinage. The Abbot of St. Pilazo\nde Antealtarin was proved by competent witnesses to have no less than\nseventy concubines. The old and wealthy Abbey of St. Albans was little\nmore than a den of prostitutes, with whom the monks lived openly and\navowedly. The Duke of Nuremburg, in 1522, was concerned with the\nclerical immunity of monks who night and day preyed upon the virtue of\nthe wives and daughters of the laity.\n\nThe Church openly carried on a sale of indulgences in lust to\necclesiastics which finally took the form of a tax. The Bishop of\nUtrecht in 1347 issued an order prohibiting the admittance of men to\nnunneries. In Spain, conditions became so intolerable that the\ncommunities forced their priests to select concubines so that the wives\nand daughters would be safe from the ravages of the clergy.\n\n\"The torture, the maiming, and the murder of Elgira by Dunstan\nillustrates further, amongst thousands and thousands of similar bloody\ndeeds, the diabolical brutality of superstition perpetuated in the name\nof Christianity upon women in the earlier centuries of our epoch.\nIndeed, religious superstition always has contrived to rob, to pester,\nto deceive, and to degrade women.\" (_Bell: \"Women from Bondage to\nFreedom.\"_)\n\nDuring the Middle Ages, the ages in which the Church was in complete\ndomination of all forms of endeavor, the status of woman was no better\nthan the general conditions of the time. This Age of Faith is\ncharacterized by \"the violence and knavery that covered the whole\ncountry, the plagues and famines that decimated towns and villages every\nfew years, the flood of spurious and indecent relics, the degradation of\nthe clergy and monks, the slavery of the serfs, the daily brutalities of\nthe ordeal and the torture, the course and bloody pastimes, the\ninsecurity of life, the triumphant ravages of disease, the check of\nscientific inquiry and a hundred other features of medieval life.\"\n(_Joseph McCabe: \"Religion of Woman.\"_)\n\nThe Church was chiefly responsible for the terrible persecutions\ninflicted on women on the ground of witchcraft and this must be taken\ninto calculation when one considers what woman owes to religion. The\nReformation reduced woman to the position of a mere breeder of children.\nDuring the sway of Puritanism woman was a poor, benighted being, a human\ntoad under the harrow of a pious imbecility.\n\nThe pioneers in the Modern Woman Movement in this country were, of\ncourse, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Miss Susan B. Anthony. In their\n\"History of Woman Suffrage\" they comment on the vicious opposition which\nthe early workers encountered in New York. \"Throughout this protracted\nand disgraceful assault on American womanhood the clergy baptised every\nnew insult and act of injustice in the name of the Christian religion,\nand uniformly asked God's blessing on proceedings that would have put to\nshame an assembly of Hottentots.\"\n\nAnd while the clergy either remained silent or heaped abuse on this\nearly movement, such freethinkers as Robert Owen, Jeremy Bentham, George\nJacob Holyoake, and John Stuart Mill in England entered the fray\nwholeheartedly in behalf of the emancipation of woman. In France it was\nMichelet and George Sand that came to their aid. In Germany it was Max\nSterner, Buechner, Marx, Engels, and Liebknecht. In Scandinavia it was\nIbsen and Bjoernson.\n\nThe battle was begun by freethinkers in defiance of the clergy and it\nwas only when the inevitable conquest of this movement was manifest that\nany considerable number of clergy came to the aid of this progressive\nmovement. The righting of the wrongs imposed on womankind therefore had\nbeen started not only without the aid of the churches but in face of\ntheir determined opposition. It was not the clergy that discovered the\ninjustice that had been done to women throughout the centuries, and when\nit was finally pointed out to them by sceptics, it was the rare\necclesiastic that could see it so and attempt to right the wrong.\n\nR. H. Bell, in tracing this struggle of woman in her publication, \"Woman\nfrom Bondage to Freedom,\" has this pertinent remark to make. \"If there\nare any personal rights in this world over which Church and State should\nhave no control, it is the sexual right of a woman to say, 'Yes' or\n'No.' These and similar rights are so deeply imbedded in natural\nmorality that no clear-headed, clean-hearted person would wish to\ncontrovert them.... Enforced motherhood, through marriage or otherwise,\nis a mixed form of slavery, voluntary motherhood is the glory of a free\nsoul.\"\n\nIn the age-long struggle for freedom, woman's most rigorous antagonist\nhas always been the Church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE GREAT ILLUSION\n\n    _But the powers of man, so far as experience and analogy can guide\n    us, are unlimited; nor are we possessed of any evidence which\n    authorizes us to assign even an imaginary boundary at which the\n    human intellect will, of necessity, be brought to a stand._\n\n    BUCKLE.\n\n\nThere has been an effort made in certain religious publications to imply\nthat there is a dearth of thought and thinkers beyond the pale of\ntheism. The subsequent examination of the theological beliefs of great\nminds will show that there has never been a lack of brilliant thinkers\nwho have not sought truth apart from the dominant faith of their age. It\nwas Socrates, I believe, who first asked if it was not a base\nsuperstition that mere numbers will give wisdom. Granting this truth, it\ncertainly cannot be claimed that the philosophers of any time\nconstituted a majority of any population, nor that the philosopher, as\nsuch, was not greatly in advance of the mental status of the populace of\nhis particular age. It would seem appropriate to briefly comment on the\nopinions of the philosophers, both ancient and modern, concerning their\nviews on \"man's giant shadow, hailed divine.\"\n\nIn former ages, philosophy was the handmaiden of theology. From the time\nof Socrates and Plato, and throughout the medieval ages, the foremost\ntask of the philosopher seemed to be to attempt the proof of the\nexistence and nature of God, and the immortality of the soul. The\nleading thinkers of the seventeenth century, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza,\nLeibnitz, and Malebranche, liberated philosophy from its bondage to\ntheology. The criticism of Kant of the philosophical foundations of\nbelief destroyed the \"theological proofs,\" and modern thinkers now spend\nlittle time on the question of the existence and nature of God and the\nsoul.\n\nModern philosophy has been completely secularized, and it is a rare\noccasion to find a philosopher dwelling on the problems of God and\nimmortality. This question in philosophy, as in all other branches of\nthought, is utterly irrelevant and at present there is less insistence\non God and more on the world, man, morals, and the conditions of social\nlife.\n\nIt cannot be denied that we are under a heavy obligation intellectually\nto the Greek philosophers. And it may be that the fruitful efforts of\nthose minds were largely due to their unhampered intellectual freedom.\nThey had no \"holy books\" and few authorities to check their free\nspeculation and hence these Greek thinkers furnish the first instance of\nintellectual freedom, from which arose their intelligent criticism and\nspeculation. \"They discovered skepticism in the higher and proper\nsignificance of the word, and this was their supreme contribution to\nhuman thought.\" (_James Harvey Robinson: \"The Mind In The Making.\"_)\n\nWe know the teachings of Socrates only through his disciple Plato, as\nSocrates wrote nothing himself. From this source we gather that Socrates\nfirmly upheld the right and necessity of free thought. He was mainly a\nmoralist and reformer, and attempted to prove the existence of God by\nfinding evidence of design in nature. He rejected the crude religious\nideas of his nation, was opposed to anthropomorphism, but considered it\nhis duty to conform publicly to this belief. In his old age, he was\ncharged with rejecting the gods of the state, and was sentenced to\ndeath.\n\nThe philosophy of Plato has given rise to diverse interpretations and\nthere are those who, on reading the Dialogues, believe that it is not\namiss to state that in certain utterances there is ground to hold that\nPlato argued for the pragmatic value of a belief in God and personal\nimmortality; that he does not stress the truth of the matter, but argues\nmainly for the benefit which the State derives from the belief; that\nsuch theistic beliefs cannot be demonstrated, and may well be but a\ncraving and a hope, yet it will be of no harm to believe. He inferred\nthe existence of God from what he considered the intelligence and design\nmanifested in natural objects. Mainly, however, Plato's theism was\nfounded upon his doctrine of a universe of ideas, and as no one today\nholds that ideas are self-existing realities, the foundation of his\ntheism is destroyed. James Harvey Robinson, in his \"Mind in The Making,\"\ndiscusses the influence of Plato, and remarks, \"Plato made terms with\nthe welter of things, but sought relief in the conception of supernal\nmodels, eternal in the heavens, after which all things were imperfectly\nfashioned. He confessed that he could not bear to accept a world which\nwas like a leaky pot or a man running at the nose. In short, he ascribed\nthe highest form of existence to ideals and abstractions. This was a new\nand sophisticated republication of savage animism. It invited lesser\nminds than his to indulge in all sorts of noble vagueness and\nimpertinent jargon which continue to curse our popular discussions of\nhuman affairs. He consecrated one of the chief foibles of the human\nmind, and elevated it to a religion.\"\n\nThe philosophy of Aristotle is commonly known to be the reverse of\nPlato's. Plato started with universals, the very existence of which was\na matter of faith, and from these he descended to particulars.\nAristotle, on the other hand, argued from particulars to universals, and\nthis inductive method was the true beginning of science. The accumulated\nknowledge of his age did not furnish him facts enough upon which to\nbuild and he had to resort to speculation. It does not detract from the\nstupendous achievement of this man that the clergy of the Middle Ages,\nin control of the few isolated centers of learning, looked upon the\nphilosophy of Aristotle as final and considered his works as\nsemi-sacred, and in their immersion in un-reason and unreality, exalted\nas immutable and infallible the absurdities in the speculations of a\nmind limited to the knowledge of centuries before theirs.\n\nIn the attempt to explain plant and animal life, Aristotle formulated\nthe theory that a special form of animating principle was involved. The\n\"elan vital\" of Bergson and the theory of Joad are modern reiterations\nof this conception. Aristotle is not quite consistent when he attempts\nto give us his theistic beliefs. At times God is, for him, a mysterious\nspirit that never does anything and has not any desire or will.\nElsewhere, he conceives God as pure energy; a prime mover unmoved.\nCertain modern physicists still cling to this Aristotelian god. This\nconception of a deity was far from the beliefs of his age, and it is not\nstrange that Aristotle was charged with impiety and with having taught\nthat prayer and sacrifice were of no avail. He fled from Athens and\nshortly afterwards died in exile.\n\nThese three supreme Greek thinkers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, have\nnot contributed a single argument for the existence of a supreme being\nwhich is now not discredited. Socrates relied on the now outmoded\nargument from design; and only in a greatly modified form are the\narguments of Plato and Aristotle accepted by modern theists. Holding\nsuch heretical views in an age when history was a frail fabric of\nlegends, and the scientific explanation of nature in its extreme\ninfancy, what would their views be today?\n\nIn the consideration of the Greek thinkers of lesser importance one\nfinds that they were continually storming against the religious\nconceptions of the populace. The philosophers were ever unpopular with\nthe credulous. \"Damon and Anaxagoras were banished; Aspasia was\nimpeached for blasphemy and the tears of Pericles alone saved her;\nSocrates was put to death; Plato was obliged to reserve pure reason for\na chosen few, and to adulterate it with revelation for the generality of\nhis disciples; Aristotle fled from Athens for his life, and became the\ntutor of Alexander.\" (_Winwood Reade: \"The Martyrdom of Man.\"_)\n\nAnaxagoras, the friend and master of Pericles, Euripides, and Socrates,\nwas accused by the superstitious Athenians of atheism and impiety to the\ngods. He was condemned to death and barely escaped this fate through the\ninfluence of Pericles; which resulted in the accusation of atheism\nagainst Pericles. Euripides was accused of heresy, and Aeschylus was\ncondemned to be stoned to death for blasphemy and was saved from this\nfate by his brother Aminias. The philosophy of Parmenides was distinctly\npantheistic, and Pythagoras, who attempted to purify the religion of the\nGreeks and free it from its absurdities and superstitions, was exiled\nfor his scepticism.\n\nDemocritus, a materialist and atheist of 2500 years ago, formulated a\nmechanical view of phenomena in accordance with which everything that\nhappens is due to physical impacts. \"Such a materialism was a great\nliberation from superstition; and had it survived in its integrity, the\npath of European wisdom would have been vastly different from what it\nwas. What the path would have been, we are beginning to see to-day, for\nsince the nineteenth century we have been treading it more or less\nconsistently but by no means so gallantly and courageously as\nDemocritus.\" (_G. Boas: \"The Adventures of Human Thought.\"_)\n\nDemocritus and the Epicureans strove to deliver men from their two chief\napprehensions: the fear of the gods, and the fear of death; and in so\ndoing rejected the religious beliefs and substituted a rational and\nscientific conception of the universe.\n\nIt was Xenophanes, the Voltaire of Greece, who brought to the attention\nof his countrymen the discovery that man created the gods in his own\nimage. He attacked the conceptions of the Greek deities with these\nwords, \"Mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have\nclothes like theirs, and voice and form ... Yes, and if oxen and horses\nor lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works\nof art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses,\nand oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several\nkinds.... The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the\nThracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair.\"\n\nConsidering Greek philosophy in its entirety, we see that it was\nnaturalistic rather than supernaturalistic, and rationalistic rather\nthan mystical. These gifted men saw no clear indication for the\nexistence of a supreme being; very few of them speak of the deity in the\nrole of Providence and fewer still believed in personal immortality.\n\nProfessor Boas, in contrasting Asiatic mythology with Greek philosophy,\nremarks: \"The Asiatic myths assumed the existence of beings beyond the\nworld, not subject to mundane laws, who made and controlled the course\nof events. There was no reason why they should have made a world. They\nseemed to be living as divine a life without it as with it. The question\nwas one which persisted in Asiatic thought, and when Christianity became\ndominant in Europe, much of its theologians' time was spent in answering\nit. The only plausible answer then was that God made the world because\nHe felt like it. For no reason could be given sufficiently compelling to\nsway the will of the Omnipotent. But such an answer was unsatisfactory\nto the Greek. In his philosophy all this is changed. No god steps out of\nthe machine to initiate cosmic history. The First Cause is a physical\nsubstance, some material thing, which operates by the laws of its own\nnature. Its every movement is theoretically open to the scrutiny of\nreason. And hence, a scientific rather than a religious answer can be\ngiven to every question.\"\n\nAt the beginning of the Christian era, the cultured Romans were stoics\nor epicureans. The poet Lucretius was an epicurean who regarded the\nbelief in the gods as a product of the terrors of primitive man and\nrecommended that the mind should be emancipated from the fear of the\ngods and argued against the immortality of the soul. Seneca, Epictetus,\nand Marcus Aurelius were stoics. Cicero insinuates that the gods are\nonly poetical creations, that the popular doctrine of punishment in a\nworld to come is only an idle fable, and is uncertain whether the soul\nis immortal. Seneca wrote against the religion of his country, and the\nphilosophy of cultured Romans of the time of the physician Galen tended\ntowards atheism.\n\nThe prime factor of Greek philosophy was the insistence on intelligence\nand knowledge, and by these means it reached its pinnacle of reasoning.\nThe blight that exterminated all scientific progress, with the fall of\nthe Roman Empire, carried with it the neglect of the Greek thinkers.\nSimilar to the retrogression of scientific thought, traced in former\nchapters, is the corresponding retrogression in philosophic thought. In\nplace of the free inquiry of the Greeks we see arising the theology of\nClement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Augustine, and finally that of St.\nThomas Aquinas. At the time of St. Augustine most of the cultural Greek\nwritings had disappeared in western Europe. The greatest store of Greek\nthought was in the hands of the Arab scholars and led to a marked\nscepticism, as we see manifested in the writings of the Spanish Moors.\n\nIt is significant that during the \"age of faith\" in Europe no\nphilosopher of merit arose, and the only philosophy permitted was the\npuerile Scholastic-Aristotelic. This scholastic philosophy, hemmed in\nbetween metaphysics and theology, sought to reconcile Plato, Plotinus,\nand Aristotle with the needs of orthodoxy, and split hairs over subtle\nessences and entities. Francis Bacon impeaches, in this manner, the\nmedieval philosophers: \"Having sharp and strong wits, and abundance of\nleisure, and small variety of reading, but their wits being shut up in\nthe cells of a few authors, as their persons were shut up in the cells\nof monasteries and colleges, and knowing little history, either of\nnature or time, did out of no great quantity of matter and infinite\nagitation of wit spin out unto us those laborious webs of learning which\nare extant in their books.\"\n\nThe sole preoccupation of medieval philosophy seemed to be conjectures\nas to what would happen to man after death, and the entire system of\nthought was based on authority. The medieval philosopher turned in\ndisdain from the arduous path of investigation of actual phenomena and\nconfidently believed that he could find truth by easy reliance upon\nrevelation and the elaboration of dogmas. A few brave minds rebelled\nagainst this unnatural imprisonment of the intellect, with the usual\nconsequences. Peter Abelard was condemned for his scepticism at a\ncouncil at Sens in 1140; the philosophy of John Scotus Erigena was\ncondemned for its pantheistic ideas by a council at Sens in 1225; and\nthe pantheistic views of Bruno had much to do with his martyrdom in the\nyear 1600.\n\nMontaigne, the pioneer of modern scepticism, gave voice to his\nrepugnance for dogmas in his brilliant Essays, in which he stated that\nall religious opinions are the result of custom; and that he doubted if,\nout of the immense number of religious opinions, there were any means of\nascertaining which were accurate. Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Descartes\nwere the inaugurators of a school of thought which is characterized by\nits practical spirit; and while these men professed theistic beliefs,\ntheir systems of thought had done much, when applied and amplified by\ntheir followers, to undermine that belief. These men furnished the\nsource of a later agnosticism.\n\nThomas Hobbes agreed with Bacon and Galileo that all knowledge starts\nfrom experience, and, carrying out the inductive method of Bacon, he\nproduced his \"Leviathan\" in 1651. It was promptly attacked by the clergy\nof every country in Europe. Hobbes says of the immortality of the soul,\n\"It is a belief grounded upon other men's sayings that they knew it\nsupernaturally; or that they knew those who knew them, that knew others\nthat knew it supernaturally.\"\n\nLocke concerned himself with a philosophic inquiry into the nature of\nthe mind itself, and was looked upon as a destroyer of the faith.\nDescartes based his philosophy on the rejection of authority in favor of\nhuman reason for which his works were honored by being placed on the\nIndex in 1663. Hume, with the publication of the highly heretical\n\"Treatise on Human Nature,\" threw consternation into the ranks of the\ntheists. His theory of knowledge played havoc with the old arguments for\nbelief in God and immortality of the soul. His works were widely read\nand were instrumental in leading to the philosophical agnosticism of the\nnineteenth century.\n\nSpinoza's religious views seemed in his time little short of atheism and\nbrought him the hostility of both Jews and Christians, to which was\nadded the excommunication from the synagogue. In his philosophy God and\nnature are equivalent terms and it is pantheistic only in the sense that\nif man is to have a god at all, nature must be that god, and whatever\nman considers godlike must be found in nature. Spinoza recognizes no\nsupernatural realm and denies the survival of personal memory. Professor\nG. Boas, in his \"Adventures of Human Thought,\" discusses the attitude of\npublic opinion of the time of Spinoza. \"He was the arch-atheist, the\nmaterialist, the subverter of all that was held most dear by the\nreigning powers. It was only after the French Revolution that he came\ninto his own when certain Germans, captivated by Neo-Platonism,\nemphasized the pantheistic element in him. But by then Christianity had\nceased to be a dominant intellectual force and had become what it is\ntoday, a folk belief.\" In the \"Tractus Theologico-Politicus,\" Spinoza\nstates: \"When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is\nthe Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation,\nthey evidently do not mean what they say, for the masses take no pains\nat all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people\nendeavoring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God, and\ngiving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling\nothers to think as they do. We generally see, I say, theologians\nanxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the\nsacred text, and to fortify them with divine authority.\"\n\nIn France, Pierre Bayle cleverly satirized the absurdity of dogma, and\nLa Mettrie, an army physician, was exiled for the publication of his\n\"Man a Machine.\" He insisted that if atheism were generally accepted\nsociety would be happier. His views were taken up and expanded by such\natheists as Helvetius, d'Holbach, d'Alembert, and Diderot, who taught\nthat morality should be founded on sociology and not on theology. The\npublication of their Encyclopaedia incurred the fierce opposition of the\nChurch. Of Voltaire's anti-clericism little need be said, except to\nrecall our debt to his victory over ecclesiasticism and superstition.\nHis assertion that \"a fanaticism composed of superstition and ignorance\nhas been the sickness of all the centuries,\" still holds too great an\nextent of truth. His denial of miracles, the supernatural efficacy of\nprayer, and the immortality of the soul earned for him the undying\nenmity of the clergy. Condorcet, another deist, was the successor of\nVoltaire in the Encyclopaedic warfare.\n\nThe \"Critique of Pure Reason\" of Kant demolished the ontological and the\ncosmological arguments for the existence of God and showed the weakness\nin the teleological argument. He demonstrated that all the current\narguments for God and immortality; the entire basis of rational proof of\nreligious beliefs; were invalid. The theists protested vehemently, and\nshowed their superiority by calling their dogs \"Immanuel Kant.\" In his\n\"Critique of Practical Reason,\" however, he went on to restore the\ncredit of religion through the moral sense, the \"Categorical\nImperative,\" and, as certain commentators have stated, after having\nexcluded God from the cosmos, he attempted to find Him again in ethics.\nHolding that the moral sense is innate and not derived from experience,\nhe reduced the truth of religion to moral faith. Kant believed that he\nfound a divine command in his own conscience; but the science of ethics\nnow gives a natural account of moral laws and sentiments. The study of\nthe evolution of our moral ideas has, today, destroyed Kant's theory of\nan innate and absolute moral sense.\n\nWhen Franklin showed the nature of lightning, the voice of God was\ndisplaced from that of thunder. The sciences of ethics and psychology,\nlike modern Franklins, show plainly that conscience is no more the voice\nof God than is thunder. Schopenhauer, commenting on Kantian theology,\noffers the suggestion that Kant was really a sceptic, but became\nfrightened when he contemplated what he thought would happen to public\nmorals if belief were to be denied to the masses. Nietzsche speaks of\nKant: \"With the aid of his concept of 'Practical Reason,' he produced a\nspecial kind of reason, for use on occasions when reason cannot\nfunction: namely, when the sublime command, 'Thou shalt,' resounds.\" In\nhis old age Kant became more bold, and perhaps voiced his true views,\nfor we find that in \"Religion Within the Limits of Pure Reason,\" he is\nactively antagonistic to ecclesiasticism, so much so that, for\npublishing this work, he was censured by the Prussian king, who wrote,\n\"Our highest person has been greatly displeased to observe how you\nmisuse your philosophy to undermine and destroy many of the most\nimportant and fundamental doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and of\nChristianity.\" Indeed, many a man approaching Kant with a firm theistic\nbelief finds his belief somewhat shaken by Kantian logic.\n\nSchopenhauer's \"Will\" has nothing in common with the God-idea as\ncommonly held, and he was bitterly anti-theistic. In a dialogue entitled\n\"Religion,\" he places these words in the mouth of his character\nPhilalethes: \"A certain amount of general ignorance is the condition of\nall religions, the element in which alone they can exist. And as soon as\nastronomy, natural science, geology, history, the knowledge of countries\nand peoples, have spread their light broadcast, and philosophy finally\nis permitted to say a word, every faith founded on miracles and\nrevelation must disappear; and philosophy takes its place.\"\n\nHegel's deification of thought or reason left no room for personal\nimmortality, and his query, \"Do you expect a tip for having nursed your\nailing mother, and refrained from poisoning your brother?\" is well\nknown. A vague conception of a deity whose existence can be proved, if\nit can be proved at all, only by the abstruse arguments of a Hegel is\nnot a god of practical service to the theists.\n\nSchelling was pantheistic, and Feuerbach played havoc with the\nphilosophic evidence for God and immortality and treated all religions\nas a dream and an illusion.\n\nHerbert Spencer, James Mill, J. S. Mill, and Huxley popularized the\nagnostic standpoint. Spencer in his \"First Principles\" argues in this\nmanner: \"Those who cannot conceive of a self-existent Universe, and\ntherefore assume a creator as the source of the Universe, take for\ngranted that they can conceive a self-existent creator. The mystery\nwhich they recognize in this great fact surrounding them on every side,\nthey transfer to an alleged source of this great fact, and then suppose\nthat they have solved the mystery. But they delude themselves.\nSelf-existence is inconceivable; and this holds true whatever be the\nnature of the object of which it is predicated. Whoever agrees that the\natheistic hypothesis is untenable because it involves the impossible\nidea of self-existence, must perforce admit that the theistic hypothesis\nis untenable if it contains the same impossible idea.... If religion and\nscience are to be reconciled, the basis of reconciliation must be this\ndeepest, widest, and most certain of all facts, that the Power which the\nUniverse manifests to us is inscrutable.\"\n\nNietzsche, the great liberator of modern thought, vigorously opposed\nreligious morality, the influence of Christianity, and all religious\nbeliefs. \"When the natural consequences of an action,\" he wrote, \"are no\nlonger looked upon as natural, but are considered to be produced by the\nphantasms of superstition, by 'God,' 'Ghosts,' and 'Souls,' and appear\nas 'moral' consequences, as rewards, punishments, guidance and\nrevelation, then the whole basis of knowledge is destroyed; and the\ngreatest possible crime against humanity has been committed.\"\n\nWilliam James, claimed as a supporter of religion, argues that our inner\nexperience makes us cognizant of a spiritual world. The advance of\npsychological research does not deal kindly with this contention, and\nsuch works as Leuba's \"Psychology of Religious Mysticism\" give a\nrational explanation of the mystic state. Moreover, James did not give\nhis support to monotheism. \"That vast literature of proofs of God's\nexistence,\" he stated, \"drawn from the order of nature, which a century\nago seemed so overwhelmingly convincing, today does little more than\ngather dust in the libraries, for the simple reason that our generation\nhas ceased to believe in the kind of God it argued for. Whatever sort of\nGod may be, we know today that he is nevermore that mere external\ninventor of 'contrivances' intended to make manifest his 'glory' in\nwhich our great-grandfathers took such satisfaction.\"\n\nJames claimed to be a pluralist in the sense that there are several or\nmany spiritual beings above us, and his writings lead one to believe\nthat he was not convinced that man, as a distinct personality, survives\nthe grave.\n\nRoyce rejected all the current arguments for God and immortality and\nargues for the mysticism of internal experience. Eucken offers no\nsupport to theologians; and Bergson does not seem to express a clear\nbelief in a personal god or personal immortality.\n\nComing to the more popular of contemporary philosophers one finds that,\njust as the Greek philosophers reasoned outside the pale of the then\nheld beliefs which were theistic, so do these modern philosophers reach\nconclusions that are outside the pale of organized religion of today.\nGeorge Santayana is a materialist and sceptic who, in his \"Reason in\nReligion,\" reveals his scepticism and frowns upon personal immortality.\n\"It is pathetic,\" he comments, \"to observe how lowly are the motives\nthat religion, even the highest, attributes to the deity, and from what\na hard-pressed and bitter existence they have been drawn. To be given\nthe best morsel, to be remembered, to be praised, to be obeyed blindly\nand punctiliously, these have been thought points of honor with the\ngods, for which they would dispense favors and punishments on the most\nexhorbitant scale.... The idea that religion contains a literal, not a\nsymbolic, representation of truth and life is simply an impossible idea.\nWhoever entertains it has not come within the region of profitable\nphilosophizing on that subject.\"\n\nBertrand Russell, considered by some the keenest philosophical mind of\nthe present age, is an agnostic who maintains \"The objections to\nreligion are of two sorts, intellectual and moral. The intellectual\nobjection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the\nmoral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men\nwere more cruel than they are now, and therefore tend to perpetuate\ninhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise\noutgrow.\"\n\nThe Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce is an atheist who states that\nphilosophy removes from religion all reason for existing. C. E. M. Joad\nis a young English philosopher who repeatedly predicts the disappearance\nin the near future of the present forms of theistic beliefs. M. C. Otto\nholds to \"An affirmative faith in the non-existence of God.\" William P.\nMontague discards all organized religions for a \"Promethean Religion.\"\nJohn Dewey is a naturalistic philosopher who will have nothing to do\nwith supernatural causation and insists that all things be explained by\ntheir place and function in the environment. His philosophy is permeated\nwith the secular ideal of control of the external world.\n\nWhat consolation does organized religion receive from the views of such\nmodern philosophers as Russell, Alexander, Joad, Croce, Santayana,\nDewey, Otto, Montague, Sellars, and the Randalls? The views of an\nintellectual incompetent, such as Bryan was, are spread widecast, but\nfew know the extent of the scepticism of Edison, Luther Burbank, Albert\nEinstein, Paul Ehrlich, Ernst Haeckel, Robert Koch, Fridjof Nansen, and\nSwante Arrhenius. What consolation can the theists derive from the\nreligious views of Shelley, Swinburne, Meredith, Buchanan, Keats, George\nEliot, Thomas Hardy, Mark Twain, and Anatole France?\n\nIn the not far distant past deism and pantheism served as a polite\nsubterfuge for atheism. There is a growing tendency in this present age\nto dress one's atheistic belief in an evening suit, and for the sake of\nsocial approbation call such a belief \"religious humanism.\" A quotation\nfrom the Associated Press, appearing recently in one of our magazines,\nstates the need for this \"new religion\" as being the inadequacy of the\nreligious forms and ideas of our fathers, and the new creed to be:\n\n\"Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not\ncreated.\n\n\"Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the\nscientific spirit and method.\n\n\"The distinction between the sacred and secular can no longer be\nmaintained.\n\n\"Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human\npersonality to be the end of a man's life, and seeks its development and\nfulfilment in the here and now.\n\n\"In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer, the\nhumanist finds his religious emotions exprest in a heightened sense of\npersonal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.\n\n\"There will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind\nhitherto associated with belief in the supernatural. Man will learn to\nface the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness\nand probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by\neducation and supported custom.\n\n\"We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental\nhygiene, and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful\nthinking.\n\n\"The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which the\npeople voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.\n\n\"The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in\nreligious thoughts throughout the modern world. Science and economic\nchange have disrupted the old beliefs.\n\n\"Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms\nwith new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and\nexperience.\"\n\nProfessors John Dewey, E. A. Burtt, and Roy Wood Sellars are among the\nsigners of this statement. It is an excellent and comprehensive\nstatement, but one is left wondering why the name \"religious humanism\"?\nIt is difficult to become enthusiastic when one realizes that these men\ntake to themselves the thunder of the atheists of the past, and under\nthe misnomer, \"religious,\" place before the public what all atheists of\nthe past ages have been preaching.\n\nIt is most gratifying to perceive that such distinguished men as signed\nthis statement are frank enough to admit the extent of the religious\nrevolution, and determined enough to take a hand in the clearing away of\nthe debris that clutters the crumbling of all religious creeds. Yet it\nis only fair to point out that this statement contains nothing that\nwould not be recognized by those intrepid atheists of the past, and\nlittle more than they urged in their time. I refer to those brilliant\nFrench atheists La Mettrie, Helvetius, d'Holbach, d'Alembert, and\nDiderot.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nTHE DOOM OF RELIGION; THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM\n\n     _One should recall the charge of atheism directed against the\n     keenest thinkers of antiquity and the greatest of its moral\n     reformers. But what was personal and incidental in the past,\n     depending largely upon the genius and inspiration of seers and\n     leaders, has now become a social movement, as wide as science_.\n\n     JAMES T. SHOTWELL.\n\n     _The drift from God is a movement of events, a propulsion of vital\n     experience, not a parade of words to be diverted by other words_.\n\n     MAX CARL OTTO.\n\n\nIn the Babylonian and Assyrian mythologies we have the chief deities as\nIshtar, Tammuz, Baal, and Astarte. In the Phrygian religion we have the\nGoddess Cybele and her husband Attis. Among the Greeks we have the\nGoddess Aphrodite and the God Adonis. The Persians had their Mithra.\nAdonis and Attis flourished in Syria. In the Egyptian religion was found\nthe Goddess Isis and the God Osiris. The Semites have their Jehovah, the\nMohammedans their Allah, and the Christians the Goddess Mary, the God\nthe Father, and a son Jesus.\n\nChristianity has divided itself into Catholicism and Protestantism; and\nwhen Protestantism gave the right of interpretation of the Bible to each\nindividual, there were evolved such forms of Protestantism as Christian\nScience, Holy Rollerism, Seventh Day Adventism, Swedenborgianism, and\nthe cults of the Doukhobors, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Dunkards\nand the Salvation Army.\n\nIn the early days of the Church were seen the wrangling of sects, the\nincomprehensible jargon of Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monotheists,\nMonophysites, Mariolatrists, etc. Today we behold the incomprehensible\njargon of the first-mentioned sects.\n\nChrist, born of an immaculate virgin, died for mankind, arose from the\ndead, and ascended into Heaven.\n\nBuddha, who lived over 500 years before Jesus, was born of the Virgin\nMaya, which is the same as Mary. Maya conceived by the Holy Ghost, and\nthus Buddha was of the nature of God and man combined. Buddha was born\non December 25, his birth was announced in the heavens by a star, and\nangels sang. He stood upon his feet and spoke at the moment of his\nbirth; at five months of age he sat unsupported in the air; and at the\nmoment of his conversion he was attacked by a legion of demons. He was\nvisited by wise men, he was baptized, transfigured, performed miracles,\nrose from the dead, and on his ascension through the air to heaven, he\nleft his footprint on a mountain in Ceylon.\n\nThe Hindu Savior, Krishna, was born of a virgin 600 years before Christ.\nA star shone at his birth which took place in a cave. He was adored by\ncowherds who recognized his greatness, he performed miracles, was\ncrucified, and is to come to judge the earth.\n\nChrist died for mankind,--so did Buddha and Krishna. Adonis, Osiris,\nHorus, and Tammuz, all virgin-born gods, were saviors and suffered\ndeath. Christ rose from the dead, so have Krishna and Buddha arisen from\nthe dead and ascended into Heaven. So did Lao Kium, Zoroaster, and\nMithra.\n\nA star shone in the sky at the births of Krishna, Rama Yu, Lao Tsze,\nMoses, Quetzalcoatl, Ormuzd, Rama, Buddha, and others. Christ was born\nof a virgin, so was Krishna and Buddha. Lao Tsze was also born of a\nvirgin. Horus in Egypt was born of the Virgin Isis. Isis, with the child\nHorus on her knee, was worshiped centuries before the Christian era, and\nwas appealed to under the names of \"Our Lady,\" \"Queen of Heaven,\" \"Star\nof Heaven,\" \"Star of the Sea,\" \"Mother of God,\" and so forth. Hercules,\nBacchus, and Perseus were gods born by mortal mothers. Zeus, father of\nthe gods, visited Semele in the form of a thunderstorm and she gave\nbirth, on the 25th of December, to the great savior and deliverer,\nDionysis.\n\nMithra was born of a virgin, in a cave, on the 25th of December. He was\nburied in a tomb from which he rose again. He was called savior and\nmediator and sometimes figured as a lamb. Osiris was also said to be\nborn about the 25th of December; he suffered, died, and was resurrected.\nHercules was miraculously conceived from a divine father and was\neverywhere invoked as savior. Minerva had a more remarkable birth than\nEve; she sprang full-armed from the brow of Jupiter. He did this\nremarkable feat without even losing a rib.\n\nThe Chinese Tien, the holy one, died to save the world. In Mexico,\nQuetzalcoatl, the savior, was the son of Chimalman, the Virgin Queen of\nHeaven. He was tempted, fasted forty days, was done to death, and his\nsecond coming was eagerly looked for by the natives. The Teutonic\nGoddess Hertha, was a virgin, and the sacred groves of Germany contained\nher image with a child in her arms. The Scandinavian Goddess Frigga was\na virgin who bore a son, Balder, healer and savior of mankind.\n\nWhen one considers the similarity of these ancient pagan legends and\nbeliefs with Christian traditions if one believes with Justin Martyr,\nthen indeed the Devil must have been a very busy person to have caused\nthese pagans to imitate for such long ages and in such widespread\nlocalities the Christian mysteries. Indeed, Edward Carpenter comments,\n\"One has only, instead of the word 'Jesus' to read Dionysis or Krishna\nor Hercules or Osiris or Attis, and instead of 'Mary' to insert Semele\nor Devaki or Alcmene or Neith or Nona, and for Pontius Pilate to use the\nname of any terrestrial tyrant who comes into the corresponding story,\nand lo! the creed fits in all particulars into the rites and worship of\na pagan God.\"\n\nA legend stated that Plato, born of Perictione, a pure virgin, suffered\nan immaculate conception through the influences of Apollo (B.C. 426).\nThe God declared to Ariston, to whom she was about to be married, the\nparentage of the child.\n\nSt. Dominic, born A.D. 1170, was said to be the offspring of an\nimmaculate conception. He was free from original sin and was regarded as\nthe adopted son of the Virgin Mary.\n\nSt. Francis, the compeer of St. Dominic, was born A.D. 1182. A\nprophetess foretold his birth; he was born in a stable; angels sang\nforth peace and good will into the air, and one, in the guise of Simeon,\nbore him to baptism.\n\nThe Egyptian trinities are well known: thus, from Amun by Maut proceeds\nKhonso; from Osiris by Isis proceeds Horus; from Neph by Sate proceeds\nAnouke. The Egyptians had propounded the dogma that there had been\ndivine incarnations, the fall of man, and redemption.\n\nIn India, centuries before Christianity, we find the Hindu trinity;\nBrahma, Vishnu, and Siva. In the Institutes of Manu, a code of civil law\nas well as religious law, written about the ninth century before\nChrist, is found a description of creation, the nature of God, and rules\nfor the duty of man in every station of life from the moment of birth to\ndeath.\n\nProfessor James T. Shotwell when speaking of paganism reminds us, \"Who\nof us can appreciate antique paganism? The Gods of Greece or Rome are\nfor us hardly more than the mutilated statues of them in our own\nmuseums; pitiable, helpless objects before the scrutiny and comments of\na passing crowd. Venus is an armless figure from the Louvre; Dionysos\ndoes not mean to us divine possession, the gift of tongues, or\nimmortality; Attis brings no salvation. But to antiquity the 'pagan'\ncults were no mockery. They were as real as Polynesian heathenism or\nChristianity to-day.\" (_James T. Shotwell_: \"_The Religious Revolution\nof To-day._\")\n\nIt is seen, therefore, that from time immemorial, man does not discover\nhis gods, _but invents them_. He invents them in the light of his\nexperience and endows them with capacities that indicate the stage of\nman's mental development.\n\nReligion is not the product of civilized man. Man inherits his god just\nas he inherits his physical qualities. The idea of a supernatural being\ncreating and governing this earth is a phantom born in the mind of the\nsavage. If it had not been born in the early stages of man's mental\ndevelopment, it surely would not come into existence now. History proves\nthat as the mind of man expands, it does not discover new gods, but that\nit discards them. It is not strange, therefore, that there has not been\nadvanced a new major religious belief in the last 1300 years. All modern\nreligious conceptions, no matter how disguised, find their origin in the\nfear-stricken ignorance of the primitive savage.\n\nA Christian will admit that the gods of others are man-made, and that\ntheir creed is similar to the worship of the savage. He looks at their\ngods with the vision of a civilized being; but when he looks at his own\ngod, he forgets his civilization, he relapses centuries of time, and\n_his_ mental viewpoint is that of the savage.\n\nChristianity, with its primitive concepts, can make its adherents firm\nin the belief of great monstrosities. When its adherents believed that\nthe Bible sanctioned the destruction of heretics and witches, they were\ncertainly doing things from a Christian standpoint. It was this\nstandpoint that justified an embittered denunciation of evolution at one\ntime and then recanting, adopted it as a part of the Bible teaching.\nWhen the Spaniards blotted out an entire civilization in South America,\nwhen Catholics butchered Protestants, or Protestants butchered\nCatholics, they were all justified from the Christian standpoint.\n\nMan has been living on this planet some 500,000 years. Jesus appeared\nless than 2000 years ago to save mankind. What of those countless\nmillions of men that died before Christ came to save the world from\ndamnation? If the Christian creed, that except a man believes in the\nLord Jesus Christ he cannot be saved, is maintained, then it must be\nthat those millions of human beings who lived before Christ and had no\nchance to believe, are in hell-fire.\n\nIt is probable that one of the factors that turned primitive man's\nattention away from his cruel and short, earthly existence to the\nthought of a more lengthy and less cruel existence in a hereafter, was\nthe extreme uncertainty and short duration of his own life. And this\nprimitive trend of thought that turns man's mind from the here and now\nto a contemplation of a mythical hereafter persists to this day,\nproduces the same slavish resignation. This false release from the\nactualities constitute a mental aberration which we see in the\nhysterical and weak-minded. When such an individual is confronted by\nproblems that tax his mental strength, if that individual has not\nstrength of mind to reason and to persevere so that he overcomes his\nenvironmental difficulties, he will seek an avenue of escape in a\nfanciful existence which the physician recognizes in hysteria and\ncertain forms of mental disease. So, throughout the ages, man has sought\nrelease from the realities of his existence into a fanciful and\npleasantly delusional flight into a hereafter. \"There is no salvation in\nthat sickly obscurantism which attempts to evade realities by confusing\nitself about them. Safety lies only in clarity and the struggle for the\nlight. No subliminal nor fringe of consciousness can rank in the\nintellectual life beside the burning focal center where the rays of\nknowledge converge. The hope must be in following reason, not in\nthwarting it. To turn back from it is not mysticism, it is superstition.\nNo; we must be prepared to see the higher criticism destroy the\nhistoricity of the most sacred texts of the Bible, psychology analyze\nthe phenomena of conversion on the basis of adolescent passion,\nanthropology explain the genesis of the very idea of God. An where _we_\ncan understand, it is a moral crime to cherish the un-understood.\n(_James T. Shotwell_: \"_The Religious Revolution of Today._\") Religious\nbeliefs are clearly mental aberrations from which it is high time that\nthe progress of knowledge should lead to a logical cure. Man is steadily\novercoming and conquering his environment; the uncertainty of life and\ncruelty are much diminished as compared with the past ages, but man has\nnot as yet fully utilized the means of an emancipating measure from his\nmental enslavement and fear of his environment.\"\n\nChapman Cohen, in his \"Theism or Atheism,\" clearly states: \"We know\nthat man does not discover God, he invents him, and an invention is\nproperly discarded when a better instrument is forthcoming. To-day, the\nhypothesis of God stands in just the same relation to the better life of\nto-day as the fire drill of the savage does to the modern method of\nobtaining a light. The belief in God may continue awhile in virtue of\nthe lack of intelligence of some, of the carelessness of others, and of\nthe conservative character of the mass. But no amount of apologizing can\nmake up for the absence of genuine knowledge, nor can the flow of the\nfinest eloquence do aught but clothe in regal raiment the body of a\ncorpse.\"\n\nReligion arose as a means of explanation of natural phenomena at a time\nwhen no other explanation of the origin of natural phenomena had been\nascertained. God is always what Spinoza called it, \"the asylum of\nignorance.\" When causes are unknown, God is brought forward; when causes\nare known, God retires into the background. In an age of ignorance, God\nis active; in an age of science, he is impotent. History attests this\nfact.\n\n\"The single and outstanding characteristic of the conception of God at\nall times, and under all conditions is that it is the equivalent of\nignorance. In primitive times it is ignorance of the character of the\nnatural forces that leads to the assumption of the existence of Gods,\nand in this respect the God idea has remained true to itself throughout.\nEven to-day, whenever the principle of God is invoked, a very slight\nexamination is enough to show that the only reason for this being done\nis our ignorance of the subject before us.\" (_Chapman Cohen._)\n\nThe belief in God is least questioned where civilization is lowest; it\nis called into the most serious question where civilization is most\nadvanced. It is clear that had primitive man known what we know today\nabout nature, the gods would never have been born.\n\n\"The suspicious feature must be pointed out that the belief in God owes\nits existence, not to the trained and educated observation of civilized\ntimes, but to the uncritical reflection of the primitive mind. It has\nits origin there, and it would indeed be remarkable, if, while in almost\nevery other direction the primitive mind showed itself to be hopelessly\nwrong, in its interpretation of the world in this particular respect, it\nhas proved itself to be altogether right.\" (_Chapman Cohen._)\n\nAll intelligent men admit that human welfare depends upon our knowledge\nand our ability to harness the forces of nature. \"I myself,\" writes\nLlewelyn Powys, \"do not doubt that the good fortune of the human race\ndepends more on science than on religion. In all directions the bigotry\nof the churches obstructs amelioration ... as long as the majority of\nmen rely upon supernatural interference, supernatural guidance, from a\nhuman point of view all is likely to be confusion.... Trusting in God\nrather than in man it is in the nature of these blind worshippers to\noppose every advance of human knowledge. It was they who condemned\nGalileo, who resisted Darwin and who to-day deride the doctrines of\nFreud.\" Science has given us an account of the operation of the universe\n_sans_ God, and investigation has also given us a clear conception of\nthe evolution of all religious beliefs from the crude conceptions of the\nsavage to the but little altered form of the modern conception.\n\n\"If we are to regard the God idea as an evolution which began in the\nignorance of primitive man, it would seem clear that no matter how\nrefined or developed the idea may become, it can rest on no other or\nsounder basis than which is presented to us in the psychology of\nprimitive man. Each stage of theistic belief grows out of the proceeding\nstage, and if it can be shown that the beginning of this evolution arose\nin a huge blunder, I quite fail to see how any subsequent development\ncan convert this unmistakable blunder into a demonstrable truth.\"\n(_Chapman Cohen._)\n\nMen of today are trying to force themselves to believe that there must\nbe something true in that which had been believed by so many great and\npious men of old. But it is in vain; intellect has outgrown faith. They\nare aware of the fallacy of their opinions, yet angry that another\nshould remind them of it. And these men who today are secretly sceptics,\nare loudest in their public denunciation of others who publicly announce\ntheir scepticism. In ancient Greece, when the philosophers came into\nprominence, Zeus was superseded by the air, and Poseidon by the water;\nin modern times, all hitherto supernatural events are being explained by\nphysical laws. Plato regarded it as a patriotic duty to accept the\npublic faith although he full well knew the absurdities of that faith.\nToday, there are many Platos that hold to the same conviction. The\nfreethinkers hold to the view of Xenophanes who denounced the public\nfaith as an ancient blunder which had been converted by time into a\nnational imposture. All religion is a delusion which transfers the\nmotives and thoughts of men to those who are not men. No ecclesiastic\nhas as yet offered a satisfactory answer as to why there has been a\nmarvelous disappearance of the working of miracles, and why human\nactions alone are now to be seen in this world of ours.\n\nWe are witnessing today what happened in the Roman empire during the\ndecline of polytheism. Draper states: \"Between that period during which\na nation has been governed by its imagination, and that in which it\nsubmits to reason, there is a melancholy interval. The constitution of\nman is such that, for a long time after he has discovered the\nincorrectness of the ideas prevailing around him, he shrinks from\nopenly emancipating himself from their dominion, and, constrained by the\nforce of circumstances, he becomes a hypocrite, publicly applauding what\nhis private judgment condemns. Where a nation is making this passage, so\nuniversal do these practices become that it may be truly said hypocrisy\nis organized. It is possible that whole communities might be found\nliving in this deplorable state.\"\n\nAnd, indeed, in our own country we are witnessing an example of this\nvery thing. Religion has led to widespread hypocrisy. Our religious\ninfluences have created a race of men mentally docile and obedient to\nthe dictates of tyrannical ecclesiasticism. It has created a fear of\ntruth, and our minds are still brutish and puerile in our methods of\nreasoning. Credulity has led to stultification, and stultification of\nthe mind is the bitter fruit which we have been reaping for thousands of\nyears.\n\nThere are probably hundreds of thousands of men and women in these\nUnited States that give lip-service to their creed, but deep in the\nrecesses of their minds a small voice cries to them and shames them, for\nas soon as they reason, they become sceptics. How can we know the actual\nnumber of earthlings that are sceptics? It is impossible in our present\nstate of development. Religious persecution today is just as active as\nit was during the Middle Ages. Surely, a man is not burned at the stake\nfor his scepticism in this age; but is he not done to death? If the\ngrocer, the butcher, the doctor, the lawyer, the scholar, the business\nman, were to boldly announce his scepticism, what would happen to him?\nThe answer is well known to all. Immediately, each of his religious\ncustomers would take it upon himself to act as a personal inquisition.\nThe sceptic would be shunned socially, he would be ignored, his wares\nwould be sought after elsewhere, and he would suffer. His wife, his\nfamily, his children, would suffer with him, for our economic scheme\nmakes the would-be sceptic dependent upon the whims of the majority\nbelievers. He is forced to hold his tongue, or else is tortured. Are not\nthe wants of his family, the hunger, and ostracism torture? Thus\nthousands are forced into hypocrisy. Many others, although they have\noutgrown all fear of the god of orthodoxy, the fear of the god of social\npressure remains.\n\nThere are embodied in all creeds three human impulses: fear, conceit,\nand hatred; and religion has given an air of respectability to these\npassions. Religion is a malignant disease born of fear, a cancer which\nhas been eating into the vitals of everything that is worth while in our\ncivilization; and by its growth obstructing those advances which make\nfor a more healthful life.\n\nMorally and intellectually, socially and historically, religion has been\nshown to be a pernicious influence. Some of these influences falling\ninto these classifications have been considered in previous chapters.\n\nThe modern Christian, in his amusing ignorance, asserts that\nChristianity is now mild and rationalistic, ignoring the fact that all\nits so-called mildness and rationalism is due to the teaching of men who\nin their own day were persecuted by all orthodox Christians.\n\n\"Historically, churches have stood on the side of the powers that be.\nThey have defended slavery or have held their tongues about it. They\nhave maintained serfdom and kept serfs. They have opposed every movement\nundertaken for the liberation of the masses of men; the ideals of\nliberty, equality and fraternity are the creations of the camps of their\nenemies, of the rationalists of the eighteenth century, and the liberals\nand socialists of the nineteenth century. They have defended and\ncondoned the industrial exploitation of children. They have fought\nbitterly the enfranchisement of women. They have justified unjust war.\nThey have fought with book and bill and candle and fagot every new great\nstep in the advancement of science from gravitation to evolution.\nWardens, ever since Constantine gave the schools of antiquity into the\nkeeping of the Christian bishops, of the education of the people, they\nhave fought with all their power the establishment of free public\nschools and the spread of literacy and knowledge among the people.\"\n(_Horace M. Kallen: \"Why Religion.\"_)\n\nIf Christianity has made any progress in the assimilation of doctrines\nthat are less barbarous than heretofore, they have been effected in\nspite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as a result of the\nonslaught of freethinkers.\n\nThroughout the ages, when a thinking man had questioned the how and why\nof any secular problem, so long as that problem had no direct or\nindirect bearing upon religion, or upon any branch of knowledge that was\nassumed to be infallibly foretold in the Bible, that man was unmolested.\nThe problems falling into the above classification were extremely small\ndue to the strongly defended theological lunacy that asserted itself in\nthe declaration that all knowledge both spiritual and material was\ncontained in the Bible as interpreted by the Church.\n\nMan, however, when he broached his religious doubts, was regarded as the\nmost sinful of beings, and it was forbidden him to question and yield to\nthe conclusions that his mind evolved.\n\nThink of the irony and tragedy of this self-enslavement of the human\nmind! There is one characteristic that man prides himself as having\napart from all lower animals, his ability to reason and to think. Is it\nhis superior musculature and brute strength that has placed man upon\nhis present pinnacle of advanced civilization, or is it his mental\ndevelopment, his mind, that has taught him to harness the forces of\nnature? Has not his mind so co-*ordinated his movements that he has\nenslaved those forces of nature to be his aid? And yet, if mind is one\nthing that has enabled man to pull himself out of the morass of brute\nlife, why has it been that man himself has been so persistently decrying\nand degrading the efforts of that mind?\n\nThe answer is, that religion has provided the shackles and securely and\njealously enslaved the mind. With the aid of his religious beliefs man\nhas been ensnared into a mental prison in which he has been an all too\nwilling captive. Surely it is easier to believe than to think.\n\nNapoleon, himself a sceptic, was cognizant of this slave philosophy.\n\"What is it,\" he is reported to have asked, \"that makes the poor man\nthink it is quite natural that there are fires in my castle when he is\ndying of cold? That I have ten coats in my wardrobe while he goes naked?\nThat at each of my meals enough is served to feed his family for a week?\nIt is simply religion, which tells him that in another life I shall be\nonly his equal, and that he actually has more chance of being happy than\nI. Yes, we must see to it that the doors of the churches are open to\nall, and that it does not cost the poor man much to have prayers said on\nhis tomb.\"\n\nHow well the ecclesiastical psychologists have grasped this fact, and\nhow well they have fashioned a strong chain for the mind out of this\nweakness of human minds!\n\nChurch and government have been well aware of this psychology, and have\nfought constantly the spread of Freethought literature to the masses.\nProfessor Bury, in his \"History of Freedom of Thought,\" speaking of\nEngland, tells us, \"If we take the cases in which the civil authorities\nhave intervened to repress the publication of unorthodox opinions during\nthe last two centuries, we find that the object has always been to\nprevent the spread of free thought among the masses.\"\n\nThink but a moment how well the above is borne out by the attitude of\nthe Church in the stand that it took during the Middle Ages, when she\nprohibited the reading of the Bible by any person except her clergy.\nWhen she prohibited the printing of all books except those that she\napproved of; books that minutely agreed in all details with the\nphantastic fables of her Bible were the only ones allowed to be printed.\n\nThe Church also strenuously objected to the printing of Bibles in the\nlanguages of the masses. That most efficient shackle to the mind, that\nprecept that there was no knowledge, whether material or spiritual, that\nwas not contained in the Bible, how strenuously the Church upheld that\ndoctrine!\n\nAnd in our own day, the ridiculous assumption that \"mysteries\" (a\nspecial form of ignorance) are the special province of the Church.\nConsidering these few examples as well as all ecclesiastical endeavor,\nno rational mind can escape the fact that that primeval curse, religion,\nhas had for its object, down through the centuries, the sadistic desire\nto enslave and trample on the mind of man. It has been a defensive\nmeasure on the part of the Church, for she well recognizes that once the\nmind is free, it will free itself of the shackles of religion also.\n\nNor is this all. I execrate the enslavement of the mind of our young\nchildren by the ecclesiastics. Is anything so pitiful to behold as the\nfirm grasp that the Church places on the mind of the youngest of\nchildren? Children at play, children of four and five years of age, will\nbe heard to mention with fearful tones various religious rites, such as\nbaptism and confirmation, and to perform in their manner these rites\nwith their dolls. Fear! Fear! instilled into the minds of the\nimpressionable children! Think of the degradation that the ecclesiastics\npractice when they insist that from the time a child is out of its\ninfancy its instruction shall be placed in their hands. They take the\nmost precious possession of man, his mind, and mould it to their desire.\nThe mind of a child is plastic, it is like a moist piece of clay and\nthey mould it and form it to their desire. Warped and poured into the\necclesiastic mould of fear, the mind of the child becomes set and fixed\nwith the years. Then it is too late for rational thinking, as far as\nreligious matters go, the mind of the adult is firmly set in the form\nthat the ecclesiastic has fashioned for him in his youth. It is\nimpossible for the adult so taught to reason clearly and rationally\nconcerning his religion; the mould is too strong, the clay has set,\nreason cannot penetrate into that hardened form. That is why it is\nalmost impossible for the adult who has been exposed to this mental\nmoulding from his infancy to break away from the fears and superstitions\nlearned on his mother's knee.\n\nIf Christianity, Hebrewism, Mohammedanism, or any other creed is true,\nits truth must be more apparent at the age of twenty-five than it is at\nthe age of five. Why does the ecclesiastic not leave off his advances\nuntil the child reaches a mature age, an age when he can reason? Then,\nif theism is true, he can accept it with a reasoning mind, not a blindly\nfaithful mind. The theist realizes, however, that belief is at one pole,\nreason at the other. Belief, creed, religion, are ideations of the\nprimitive mind and the mind of the child; reason is the product of\nmature thought. Schopenhauer remarked that, \"The power of religious\ndogma when inculcated early is such as to stifle conscience, compassion,\nand finally every feeling of humanity.\"\n\nIt is an undeniable fact that if the clergy would but leave their\ntainted hands off the minds of our children until they would have\nreached a mature age, there would be no religious instinct. Religious\ninstinct is a myth. Give me but two generations of men who have not been\nsubjected to this religious influence in childhood, and there will be a\nrace of atheists.\n\nThe ecclesiastic has from earliest times taken the standpoint that the\nmasses of people are of crude susceptibility and clumsy intelligence,\n\"sordid in their pursuits and sunk in drudgery; and religion provides\nthe only means of proclaiming and making them feel the high import of\nlife.\" (_Schopenhauer._) Thus the theist is led to the conclusion that\nthe end justifies the means.\n\nTheism is a hypothesis which, among other things, attempts an\nexplanation of the universe. The theist recognizes a creator who created\nthe universe and is responsible for its operation. The atheist clearly\nperceives that the assumption of a creator does not advance him in the\nslightest degree towards the solution of the mysterious problem of the\nuniverse. The oft-repeated question still admits of no answer, \"Who\ncreated the creator\"?\n\nIt is an absurd answer to reply that the creator created himself, yet,\neven if this is granted, may not the universe have created itself? If\nthe theist puts forward the statement that God has always existed, the\natheist may well reply that if God has always existed, why can he not\nsay that the universe has always existed? The atheist is not concerned\nwith the creation of the universe; to him it presents a problem which is\nbeyond the comprehension of his present mental capacities. He\ncomprehends the fact of its being, and that is as far as he or any\nrational mind can go. Atheism confines itself to a refutation of theism,\nand avoids the theistic fallacy of assuming without any proofs or\nreasonable arguments to substantiate the assumption of an intelligent,\nomnipotent, omniscient, anthropomorphic, and anthropocentric creator.\nThe theistic assumption has but retarded the advance of practical\nknowledge, and prepared the soil for superstition and the countless\nterrors of religious beliefs.\n\nAtheism, as far as a rational explanation of the universe is covered,\nalthough it does not offer an explanation of the \"ultimate,\" or \"the\nriddle of the universe,\" does insist that any view held be one that\nshall be based on truth and conformity to reality. It further maintains\nthat if a view be propagated it should be held in the same position that\nany scientific proposition is held. It must be open to verification; if\nit be verified as any scientific theory is verified, it will be accepted\nin part, or in toto, and be proven to be true or displaced by a closer\napproximation to the truth. To certain types of men there may be a\nnegative attitude expressed in this credo, which leaves the mind\nunsatisfied. This is but an emotional bias and has nothing to do\nwhatsoever with the attainment of truth. A delusion may be more\ncomforting than the truth, but that does not necessitate the conclusion\nthat a delusion may be of more ultimate benefit than a constant striving\nfor the truth. It has often been said that atheism, in that negative\naspect, places a question mark upon our problems. However, while a\nquestion mark may indicate a negative value, it may also prove to be a\nmental provocative. A period placed at the end of a problem denotes that\nit has been definitely solved. In connection with the origin of the\nuniverse, no period can be placed at the end of that problem, and since\nwe are awaiting the solution, it is much more to the interest of further\nadvances to place the question mark there, than to consider the matter\nsolved. Surely, sufficient instances have been enumerated in this\ndiscussion to show the stultification and retardation that ensues when\nan institution maintains an insistence that a problem be held to\nconform in any of its explanatory aspects to a preconceived infallible\nstatement, or considers a problem not to exist, or closes its eyes to\nthe inconsistencies in an explanation which is being maintained by\nmental persuasion and force. When the Bible was considered as containing\nthe answer to all our problems we have seen what the result was. If\natheism places a question mark upon the problem of the universe, it does\nso in a constructive manner; for that mark points to the direction in\nwhich a logical solution may be possible. Such is the mental attitude of\nthe scientist. He places an interrogation point upon his problems and\nthat mark is the impetus, the mental stimulus, that leads him on to take\ninfinite pains in his labors and, as time passes, each question mark is\nreplaced by knowledge; it is knowledge and knowledge alone, reason not\nfaith, that furnishes the period.\n\nIt was Haeckel who asserted that, \"The most dangerous of the three great\nenemies of reason and knowledge is not malice, but ignorance, or\nperhaps, indolence.\" The question mark as applied to a problem that is\nrecognizably not solved is a signpost to the knowledge that time must\nbring. The spurious period placed at the end of a problem is the death\nwarrant for that problem and there it must lie devitalized by ignorance\nand indolence.\n\nIt has often been affirmed that what we see in this universe is\nphenomena, and all explanations but interpret the manifestations of\nthese phenomena. What is in back of and beyond these phenomena may never\nbe known, and if it be known, would be of no further use to us. It is\nequally as true that if we but see phenomena and our mental capacities\ndeny us a conception of the reality beyond phenomena, yet, we have a\ngrowing knowledge of the laws that govern these phenomena. And it is a\ncomprehensive knowledge of these invariable laws that govern the\nuniverse that are of universal value. These laws have been ascertained\nby the questioning mental attitude, and not by a futile reliance on\nfaith.\n\nHuman knowledge has expanded immensely in the last fifty years, and this\nby the purely scientific method, the materialistic method, and the\nquestioning attitude. The value of these findings when they can be\nconverted into practical applications in industry are well known to all.\n\nWe have added nothing to our store of knowledge except by the exercise\nof our mentality and reason. The application of the scientific method to\nthe workings of the mind has made more progress in explaining the mind\nin the brief period of fifty years than philosophical deductions had\nmade in the past two thousand years. Every new fact that has been\ndiscovered has fitted into the mechanistic scheme of the universe, and\nnot one new fact has been disclosed that suggested anything beyond\nnature. The theistic interpretation of the universe has been completely\ndiscredited by the scientific investigations. Science has brought to the\nconfines of invariable laws multitudes of problems that had hitherto\nbeen supposed to point to \"spiritual\" interference. Theology has been\ndriven out of the open spaces of reason and still persists in clinging\nto the twilight zone of the present unknown, only to be driven from its\nprecarious position constantly by our increasing knowledge and with\nincreasing rapidity from shadow to shadow.\n\nThere has been an increasing tendency shown by physicists to consider\nthat matter and energy are interchangeable, and that the one ultimate\nreality is energy. If this be so, we are still dealing with an ultimate\nthat is a material reality. The Nobel prize in medicine for the year\n1932 was awarded to two British investigators, Sir Charles Scott\nSherrington, professor of physiology at Oxford University, and Dr. Edgar\nDouglas Adrian, professor of physiology at Cambridge University. Their\nresearches seem to have settled definitely a problem that has long been\na bone for contention. Nerve energy has been shown conclusively to be of\nan electric type of energy. The old question of whether mind was part of\nthe material world has been shown by these experiments to be answered in\nthe affirmative. There is no duality, mind and matter are one, and mind\nis but a special property of highly specialized matter.\n\nIt is with a great deal of regret that the freethinker contemplates the\nattitude of such scientists as Jeans, Eddington, Millikan, and the\nphilosopher Professor Whitehead. Their hesitation to divorce themselves\ncompletely from all conceptions of a supernatural force leads to a great\ndeal of confusion. An acquaintance with the writings of Einstein brings\none the certainty that he is as much in accordance with the attitude of\nfreethought as is the most militant atheist. The \"cosmic sense\" and\n\"totality of existence\" of Einstein is as far removed from the\nconception of a Yahveh as is the mentality of an Australian black man\nfrom that of Einstein's mental grasp. Similarly with the cosmic\nconsciousness expressed in the writings of Jeans, Eddington, and\nWhitehead. With characteristic disregard for the truth certain modern\ntheologians have grasped this cringing attitude of the above-mentioned\nmen and have stressed their viewpoints by a dishonest interpretation\nthat these men actually give a scientific certitude to their own\ntheologic creeds and dogmas. Nothing can be further from the truth. The\nfreethinker would have each theologian who tells his adherents that\nthese men lend credence to their beliefs to consider the following: if\nthe above-named men would be asked if they believed in a deity who\nactively interposed his will and influence in the lives of men, as is\ncommonly expressed in the term \"Providence,\" if they ascribed to the\nbelief in personal immorality, if they themselves believed in the\nexistence of a \"soul,\" if they ascribed to the statement that \"prayer\"\ninfluenced the opinion of an all-powerful being to intercede for them in\ntheir problems and grief, if they believed that the Bible was a book\ndictated by God, or that a god caused to be written for him his\n\"revelations\"; that heaven and hell exist in the meaning that\ntheologians assure their adherents that they do; that sin and morality\nis what theologians still hold it to be; that there has been a \"fall\"\nand therefore the necessity for a \"redemption\" of man; and that creed\nand dogma are necessary factors in the worship of a deity,--what would\ntheir answers be? Eddington, Jeans, Einstein, and Whitehead would answer\nthese questions exactly as would the most militant atheists.\n\nThe mental attitude of these men can best be explained when one\nconsiders certain similarities between theological asceticism and\nscientific asceticism. And it is the duty of the freethinker clearly to\npoint out why this confusion has arisen. During the ages of faith, the\nworld beheld a swarm of men and women who retired from the grim\nrealities of a world which at that time was made abhorrent to all\nsensitive men by the most exacting insistence of theologians that\n\"faith\" was the all necessary ingredient of life, and that closed its\neyes completely to the degrading actualities of life that this\ninsistence led to. Multitudes of men retired to the desert and to the\nprotective walls of monasteries. There, by constant privations,\nfastings, continual prayer, flagellation, and introspection, they spent\ntheir lives. These ascetic individuals by these means were enabled to\nenter what may be called a \"theologic trance\" and their subsequent\nhallucinations, illusions, and delusions gave to them what they deemed\nto be a transcendental insight into the construction of the universe\nand what was expected between \"fallen\" and debased man and his\nomnipotent creator. These men keenly apprehended what some today, in a\ngentler age, have called \"cosmic consciousness.\"\n\nI do not mean to imply that these before-mentioned scientists have\napplied such a rigor to their lives. What is meant to be stated is that\nthese men by their research and comprehension of the vastness of the\nuniverse stand in awe and fear before this brain-benumbing aspect.\nModern astrophysics, to one who attempts to comprehend its vastness,\nimposes on the mind but a faint comprehension of the vastness of the\nuniverse in space, time, and size; but imposes a deep conviction of the\ninfinitesimal meaning of our planet Earth, both as to size and its\nrelation to the millions of related heavenly bodies. The evolution of\nman on our planet in this broad conception of space and time is most\ninfinitesimal. It has been just a few hours ago in this widened\nconception of time that Halley's comet was excommunicated from the skies\nby Pope Calixitus III, who looked upon this comet as one of unheard-of\nmagnitude and from the tail of which was flung down upon the earth,\ndisease, pestilence, and war.\n\nMost certainly the minds of Jeans and Eddington carry in their recesses\na vast amount of knowledge that was not common to men living in 1456,\nthe year in which the above-mentioned comet caused such consternation.\nMuch as one admires the superiority of the minds of these present-day\nphysicists, yet one cannot help but think that if our present rate of\nprogress meets no serious obstacle, then in another five hundred years,\nthe attitude of awe of Jeans and Eddington towards the vastness of our\nuniverse will be held in some similar position to which Jeans and\nEddington now hold the misguided conception of Halley's comet in the\nyear 1456. The mind of man is just beginning to emerge from its\nswaddling clothes and we cannot assume to judge what its broadest\ncapabilities may be. Certain great modern minds, therefore, when they\ncontemplate this vastness of astrophysics are apt to dwell a bit too\nliterally on the \"music of the heavenly spheres,\" and under the\ninfluence of these celestial harmonies fall into the trance of\nscientific asceticism. Men who can no longer seriously hold to a belief\nin an anthropomorphic god, the soul and immortality are apt to allow\nthemselves when in this mood to emotionalize their knowledge; and these\nsame men are the ones who would in their scientific endeavors be the\nfirst to eliminate all emotions from their reasoning efforts in their\nlaboratories. One seems justified, therefore, in stating that this\nconception of \"cosmic consciousness\" is but another instance of the mere\nillusions of a craving heart.\n\nDiscussing the question as to whether science and religion conflict, the\nphysicist Professor Bazzoni, of the University of Pennsylvania, in a\nrecent work \"Energy and Matter,\" makes the following pointed comment:\n\"Some scientists resort to metaphysics and make contact with a kind of\nmysticism which may be taken for a religious belief at precisely that\npoint where ignorance prevents further progress along sound scientific\nlines. The primitive medicine man appealed to the gods to explain the\nprecipitation of rain and the phase changes of the moon, and some modern\nscientists appeal to metaphysics and mysticism to explain the limits of\nthe infinite and the nature of electricity.\"\n\nHe further cautions theologians against placing undue emphasis on the\nopinions of scientists when they express their minds on religious\ntopics, and he remarks: \"They (the laity) should realize that in the\nspiritual field the opinion of an eminent scientist has exactly the\nsame weight as the opinion of any other cultivated and thoughtful\nindividual.\"\n\nWhen the scientist examines with the impartial mind of the laboratory\nthe science of the origin of religious beliefs and delves into the\ncomplicated intricacies of religious history, he becomes as convinced as\nany other thoughtful individual that the facts of science and history\nare deadly to religion. Moreover, as man contemplates the construction\nand forces at work in the universe he still must exclaim, \"end,\nbeginning, or purpose, it knows not of.\"\n\nThe theologians are devoting a great deal of their time to the writings\nof physicists who venture into the field of theology. It may be that in\nthis manner they can divert attention from the drastic findings\nconcerning all religious beliefs that the anthropologists and\npsychologists are patiently accumulating. \"Many physicists and\nbiologists like Pupin, Millikan, Oliver Lodge, J. Arthur Thomson, and\nHenry Fairfield Osborn, have recently blossomed forth as liberal\ntheologians. They are still emotionally attached to the older religious\nfaith. They are aware that modern physics and biology have abandoned\ndoctrines that once were hostile to religious claims. They, therefore,\nproclaim that there is no further conflict between religion and science.\nIn so doing, however, they show themselves abysmally ignorant of all\nthat anthropology and psychology have done to study religion and\nreligious man scientifically. They show their ignorance of the\nphilosophy that has built upon such data. They do not realize that the\npresent-day conflict between religious faith and science is no longer\nwith a scientific explanation of the world, but with a scientific\nexplanation of religion.\" (_J. H. Randall and J. H. Randall, Jr.:\n\"Religion and the Modern World.\"_)\n\nThe cultured Greeks and Romans had their omnipotent gods and these have\nlong ago died a death of ridicule. At a time when beauty and sculpture\nwere at their height the religion of these ancient artists was absurd.\nSimilarly, with some of our modern scientists, their religion has not\nkept pace with their intellect. Their emotions have overbalanced their\nreason in this field. Professor H. Levy, of the University of London,\ntersely remarks: \"The assertion of contemporary scientists, who state\nthat the universe is a fickle collection of indeterminate happenings,\nand a great thought in the Mind of its Architect, a Pure Mathematician,\nserves merely to divert the activity of the scientific brain from its\nconcentration on the contradictions and confusions of the all too real\noutward world to a state of passive and unreal contemplation.\"\n(_Professor H. Levy: \"The Universe of Science.\"_)\n\nAmong the theologians, some at least have learned the futility of waxing\nindignant at each new scientific hypothesis that encroached, as they\nthought, within their domain. A great many liberal theologians have as\nyet not learned the extreme danger to their theology in grasping at some\nconcept of science that for the present moment does not appear to be\ndetrimental to their theology, or, as they think, seems to bolster up\ntheir particular creed. \"The enthusiasm aroused in certain theological\ncircles by recent developments in mathematical physics,\" states Dr. M.\nC. Otto, \"seems to me to indicate just one thing, that these theologians\nfelt themselves to be in so desperate a state that a floating straw\nassumed the appearance of a verdure-clad island. I am of the opinion\nthat all persons who would work for a more decent and happy existence\nfor themselves and for their fellows must turn their backs upon religion\njust to the extent that religious leadership seeks spiritual renewal in\nthese hallucinations of despair.\" (_Drs. Wieman, Macintosh, and Otto:\n\"Is There a God?\"_)\n\nIt is only proper to point out that what certain emancipated minds are\ntrying to reconstruct as a basis of religious belief is not what is held\nby the masses as their conception of religion. In a recent clear and\nfrank statement of the religious revolution, John Herman Randall and\nJohn Herman Randall, Jr., state: \"Such beliefs, even so fundamental a\none as belief in God, must stand their chances with the philosophic\ninterpretation men give their experience.... The really revolutionary\neffect of the scientific faith, so far as religion is concerned, has\nbeen not its new view of the world, but its new view of religion.\nReinterpretations of religious belief have been unimportant compared\nwith reinterpretations of religion itself. For those who have come to\nshare the scientific world-view, even more for those who have absorbed\nthe spirit of scientific inquiry, it has been impossible to view\nreligion as a divine revelation entrusted to man. It has even been\nimpossible to see it as a relation between man and a cosmic deity.\nReligion has rather appeared a human enterprise, an organization of\nhuman life, an experience, a social bond, and an inspiration.\" (_J. H.\nRandall and J. H. Randall, Jr.: \"Religion and the Modern World.\"_) To\nthe man who literally entreats his deity, \"Our Father, who art in\nHeaven, grant us our daily bread,\" the above reinterpretation of what is\nmeant by religion can have no meaning. To the cultivated mind that\ncomprehends what is meant, the above interpretation is what he conceives\nof as his social secular activities for the betterment of his fellowmen.\nA living philosophy of life is a much better name for this attitude than\nis the misnomer \"religion,\" and avoids a great deal of confusion.\n\nSome of our \"scientists on a holiday,\" as they have been facetiously\ncalled when they stepped into a field in which they had not become well\nacquainted with the ground, have proceeded to lend assurance that God\n_is_ by subtracting so drastically from what is generally attributed to\nthe conception of God, that there is nothing much left to what they\nconceive as what God _means_. They have stripped the conception of what\nhas been heretofore regarded as fundamental, namely, the conception that\nGod is a superhuman personality or mind.\n\nIn Mr. Whitehead's philosophy, God is spoken of as, \"God is not\nconcrete, but He is the ground for concrete actuality.\" I believe such\nconfusion of language may have been in the mind of Dr. M. C. Otto when\nhe remarked: \"Some persons endeavor more than ever to make necessary\ndistinctions to keep meanings as clear as possible; and to have an eye\non the tendency of language to become its own object. Other persons\nrepudiate these obligations. They act as if it were a virtue to love\ndarkness rather than light if your intentions are good. Under their\nmanipulations conceptions are dimmed or replaced by vague intimations.\nOne boundary line after another is obliterated until the whole substance\nof things swims in mists.\"\n\nHistory has illustrated that the greatest source of evil on this planet\nhas arisen from the fact that physical phenomena for which our limited\nmental capacities were not able to formulate a logical solution, were\nascribed to preternatural causes.\n\nFrom this original stem arose religion and the Church, the two greatest\nobstacles which have been a burden to mankind for 2000 years and a\nbarrier to all progress which has made life endurable and desirable.\n\nThe lower man is in the scale of civilization, the more does he call in\nthe supernatural to explain all the happenings and experiences of his\nlife. When he had been beset by an intellectual failure he had been\nthrown back to religion. Lacking the courage and mental capacity to\nproceed further against obstacles he succumbed to the drug of religious\nexplanations. The need was not for a narcotic, but for a stimulant.\n\nThe mental stimulant was provided for man in the form of science.\nScience is but organized knowledge, and it is this knowledge that has\nelevated man to the position where he is now, his own god. When\ndifficulties confront him in this age, he blames them upon his own\nignorance and incompetence. And, when he sets about to overcome these\ndifficulties, he does not rely on divine revelation or supernatural aid\nor on miracles; he relies on his reason. He knows that when a problem\neludes his mental capacity, it is not the supernatural which eludes him\nbut some natural force, some law which he has not been able to grasp as\nyet. There is no resignation in this attitude; only resolute, peaceful\npatience. The problem that he cannot solve at present will yield to his\nreason eventually. The ecclesiastic is well aware that science is his\nnatural and implacable enemy. He knows that every time the bounds of\nexact knowledge are widened, the domain of religion is narrowed.\n\nMan's knowledge of the universe is still incomplete, but it is certainly\nmore complete than it was fifty years ago; and when we consider what\nthat knowledge was a few thousand years ago, it is no breach of logic to\nstate that all natural processes, in the course of time, will be brought\ninto the confines of invariable laws.\n\nSir Arthur Keith clearly states: \"The ancient seeker, to explain the\nkingdom of life, with man as its Regent, had to call in the miracle of\ncreation. The modern seeker finds that although life has the appearance\nof the miraculous, yet all its manifestations can be studied and\nmeasured, and that there is a machinery at work in every living thing\nwhich shapes, evolves, and creates. His inquiries have led him to\nreplace the miracle of creation by the laws of evolution.\n\n\"Whichever department of the realm of Nature the man of science has\nchosen for investigation, the result has always been the same; the\nsupernatural has given place to the natural, superstition is succeeded\nby reason. The world has never had such armies of truth seekers as it\nnow has. Those equipped with ladders of science have so often scaled the\nwalls which surround cities of ignorance that they march forward in the\nsure faith that none of Nature's battlements are impregnable.\"\n\nIn the last analysis, if we reach a point in thinking where we cannot\nproceed further, a fathomless landmark, must we revert to the\ntheological error of \"thinking,\" and assume it must be of supernatural\ncharacter? Because the unknown in the past has been assigned to the\nsupernatural is no indication for us also, in the present age, to\nrelegate the unknown to divine cause. It is unseemly that minds that\nhave emancipated themselves should go just so far--as far as _their own\nreason_ can explain the unknown--and when their limited reason can go no\nfurther to revert back to the primitive stage where solution is\nconsidered impossible to man save it be \"revealed to him by God.\" If\nman's mind is free, if no coercion of any kind is placed on its\nexercise, it will expand and unravel what at present is still\nfathomless. Give man endless centuries and ample opportunities and he\nwill unravel the miracles of development and growth just as he has done\nother miracles which at first seemed impossible of rational solution.\n\nFor how much longer will man be a slave to his inferiority complex with\nregard to his own rational capacities? If faith is vital to man, why not\nrelate it to that which at least holds a promise of solution? Man's mind\nhas not as yet arrived at the point which might give even the slightest\nindication of its ultimate exhaustion. We cannot assume the knowledge of\nwhat man's fullest capacities are. All things must unravel themselves\nwith the progress of his mind, those things that he cannot explain now,\nhe must not assign to a superhuman force; man must use his reasoning\nfaculties to investigate and search for the truth so that these unknown\nmay become part of the known.\n\nAgain to quote Sir Arthur Keith: \"Only eighty years have come and gone\nsince the anatomist obtained his first glimpse of the structural\ncomplexity of the human brain; it will take him eight thousand years and\nmore to find out the exact part played by every departmental unit of\nthis colossal system of government which carries on the mental life of a\nhuman being. _We have no reason to think there is anything supernatural\nin its manifestation._ As our knowledge of the brain accumulates, the\nnames and terms we now use will give place to others which have a more\nprecise meaning. In our present state of ignorance we have to use\nfamiliar and loose terms to explain the workings of the brain--such\nwords as \"soul,\" \"spirit,\" \"heart,\" \"superstition,\" and \"prejudice.\"\nThese manifestations of the mind will be dissected and made\nunderstandable.\"\n\nScience has as yet not fully explained the origin of life on earth, but\nthere is reason to believe that it will do so in the future. The laws\ngoverning the production of life itself are under investigation in the\nlaboratories and it is highly probable that this law will be unraveled\nat some future date. It will be interesting for our posterity to witness\nthe confusion of the ecclesiastics and their attempted confirmation of\nthis fact in the Bible; their finding of some obscure phrase that will\nbe interpreted by them as a prediction of the fact in the Bible.\n\nThe theists have maintained, as we have seen, many false beliefs that\nhave cost the lives of innumerable men and suffering incalculable;\nbeliefs which they themselves have subsequently recognized as false but\nrelinquished only by the onslaught of rising secular knowledge. It was\nthe ecclesiastic who pointed to the God-dictated phrase, \"Thou shalt not\nsuffer a witch to live,\" and the various precepts that have been\nenumerated in the preceding chapters. Surely sufficient evidence has\nbeen noted to convince a thinking being that reason is a better guide\nthan theism. Belief is the antithesis of reason; reason is rationality;\nreligious belief is clearly mental abnormality.\n\nIf a religionist is asked what he thinks of a secular institution which\nvigorously condemns and persecutes inquiry, experiment, and truth, he\nwill reply with the logical answer. When it is pointed out to him that\nreligion has done and still is doing this, he will hem and haw until he\nmanufactures some illogical answer. It has been stated that the more we\nthink, the less we believe; and that the less we think, the more we\nbelieve. The Christian will analyze the creed of the Mohammedan and find\nit ridiculous; the Mohammedan analyzes the creed of the Christian and in\nturn finds it ridiculous. That is thinking. But does the Mohammedan or\nthe Christian analyze as critically each his own belief? Will he\nendeavor to analyze it at all? That is believing. The ecclesiastic\nconcerns himself not with truth or knowledge; it is creed which is his\nshrine. He definitely is at war with knowledge and he wants to learn\nonly such things as fit in with his preconceived notions and prejudices.\nWhen the minds of men are from infancy perverted with these ideals, how\ncan mankind build a virile race?\n\nIt is often asserted that the alleged universality of the belief in God\nis an argument for its truth. But what of the fact that men had\neverywhere come to the conclusion that the earth was flat, and yet a\nwider and truer knowledge proved that universal belief to be false! In\nthe discussion of witchcraft, it has been shown that a delusion may be\nas widespread as a truth. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, the\nSpanish Moors had recognized the sphericity of the earth and were\nteaching geography from globes in their common schools. Rome, during the\nsame ages, was asserting in all its absurdity the flatness of the earth.\nIt was not until almost five hundred years later that Rome was forced to\nsee its absurdity and then only when the enlightened world mocked at its\nerror.\n\nIn this twentieth century, certain enlightened men are teaching the\nabsurdity and harmfulness of a belief in a deity. Must it take five\nhundred years for all mankind to come to a similar conclusion? May it\nnot well be that in a few centuries our posterity will view belief in a\ndeity in the same light that we in this age view the Church's insistence\nthat the earth was flat?\n\nThe God idea has been one of the most divisive and anti-social notions\ncherished by mankind. In fact it has been asserted that the idea of God\nhas been the enemy of man. It has driven multitudes of men and women\ninto the unnatural asceticisms and wasted lives of the convent and\nabbey. It has taxed the economic resources of every nation. Every\nchurch, no matter of what creed, is a pathetic monument of God-ridden\nhumanity which has been built by the pennies sweated by the poor, and\nwrested from them by fraudulent promises of reward, appeals to fear, and\nthe pathetic human tendency to sacrifice.\n\nThe theologians have in their arguments resorted to philosophy. The\nconsequence of this transference of the idea of God to the sphere of\nphilosophy is the curious position that the god in which people believe\nis not the god whose existence is made the product of an experimental\nargument, and the god of the argument is not the god of belief.\n\n\"It is a nice question,\" remarks Walter Lippmann, \"whether the use of\nGod's name is not misleading when it is applied by modernists to ideas\nso remote from the God men have worshipped. Plainly the modernist\nchurchman does not believe in the God of Genesis who walked in the\ngarden in the cool of the evening and called for Adam and his wife who\nhad hidden themselves behind a tree; nor in the God of Exodus who\nappeared to Moses and Aaron and seventy of the Elders of Israel,\nstanding with his feet upon a paved walk as if it were a sapphire stone;\nnor even in the God of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah who in his\ncompassion for the sheep who had gone astray, having turned everyone to\nhis own way, laid on the Man of Sorrows the iniquity of us all.\"\n(_Walter Lippmann: \"A Preface to Morals.\"_)\n\nIt is one kind of god that is being set up in argument, and it is really\nanother god that is being depended upon and believed. The philosophical\nconception of a deity that may be in control of phenomena is an\nimpersonal physical law, and has nothing to do with the conception of a\npersonal deity to whom people pray for active intervention in their\ntroubles. Religious belief is a monstrous apparition; the philosophy of\natheism is a solid structure laboriously founded on solid rock.\n\nThe philosophy of atheism had temporarily failed in previous ages, since\nthe knowledge of those ages did not furnish facts enough upon which to\nbuild. At the present, although our knowledge is far from complete and\nthe surface has only been scratched, yet sufficient facts have been\nunearthed to reveal that there is no supernatural and the greatest hope\nof advancement lies in the philosophy of atheism. A philosophy that\nbuilds upon a foundation of purely secular thought, that leaves the\nidea of God completely discarded as a useless and false relic of bygone\ndays, is the essence of atheism. \"Atheism is more than the speculative\nphilosophy of a few, that it is in sober truth the logical outcome of\nmental growth. So far as any phase of human life can be called\ninevitable, atheism may lay claim to being inescapable. All mental\ngrowth can be seen leading to it, just as we can see one stage of social\ndevelopment giving a logical starting point for another stage, and which\ncould have been foretold had our knowledge of all the forces in\noperation been precise enough. Atheism is, so to speak, implicit in the\ngrowth of knowledge, its complete expression is the consummation of a\nprocess that began with the first questionings of religion. And the\ncompletion of the process means the death of supernaturalisms in all\nforms. Circumstances may obstruct its universal acceptance as a reasoned\nmental attitude, but that merely delays, it does not destroy the\ncertainty of its final triumph.\" (_C. Cohen._)\n\nThe philosophy of atheism leads man to a critical, analytical, and\nlogical examination of his environment, and it is this that has lead to\nall of our advances. Religion creates a stunted standard of reasoning.\nThe pathetic cry of St. Augustine, \"But if I was shapen in iniquity, and\nin sin did my mother conceive me, where I pray thee, O my God, where,\nLord, or when was I, thy servant innocent?\" typifies the major concern\nof the narrow, egotistical mystic. From the time that the ideas of the\nlater Greek philosophers had been forgotten until the present time, man\nhas floundered in a sea of supernaturalism. It is high time that man\nfaced his realities with fortitude in his own mentality, and when he\ndoes this, there will be produced a race of men who will seek for truth,\nfor truth's sake, a race of supermen who will lead the world\nintellectually.\n\nIt is to Russia that all eyes will turn in the next few generations. At\nthe present, she is going through the throes of childbirth. She is\nimmature, and as a child she staggers. The abuse and ridicule heaped\nupon her now is but the repetition of that given by all frightened\nsocieties of past ages, when they contemplated new ideas which their\nimmature minds could not fathom. But Russia will emerge in the not too\ndistant future, and the infant will shortly reach maturity; and that\nmaturity may set a standard for those timid and frightened societies\nthat at present look with dilated eyes upon her daring.\n\nThe age is approaching when the god idea in its entirety will be classed\nwith the gods of the Egyptians and Babylonians, when surplices and\nsacramental plate will be exhibited in museums; when nurses will relate\nto children the legends of the Christian mythology, as they now tell\nthem fairy tales. The gods of monotheism will join the gods of\npolytheism and Yahveh and his associates will occupy in the minds of men\nthe position now held by the gods of Olympus. To our ancestors Jupiter\nand Yahveh will have the same significance. \"In a little time the\ncathedrals and churches will have taken upon themselves the proud,\npoetical glamour of abandoned temples. Men and women will enter them\nwith reverent indulgence as they now in meditative mood visit the few\nremaining pantheons of the pagan worship.\" (_Llewelyn Powys_: \"_An Hour\nOn Christianity._\")\n\nThe age is approaching when the current idea of the hereafter will be\naccounted a strange and selfish idea, just as we smile at the savage\nchief who believes that his station will be continued in the world\nbeneath the ground, and that he will there be attended by his concubines\nand slaves. The age is fast approaching when love, not fear, will unite\nthe human race. In that age, the _ideal_, not the _idol_, will be truth,\nand the one faith, not religion, but a sincere and lofty conception of\nthe dignity and resourcefulness of the human mind; and an overwhelming\ndesire to aid in the progress of all mankind, the extinction of disease,\nthe perfection of genius, the perfection of love, and, therefore, the\nabolition of war, the exploration of the infinite, and the conquest of\ncreation.\n\nSuch an age can never come to be during the maljurisdiction of a\ntheistic philosophy. It can only come into being when the vast majority\nof men are by the force of advancing knowledge made aware of the truth\nof the atheistic philosophy.\n\nAn English observer, C. E. M. Joad, remarks: \"The churches, no doubt,\nwill continue to function for a time, but they will be attended\nincreasingly, and in the end exclusively, by ignorant men, women, and\nchildren. Already, a stranger attending an average church of England\nservice would almost be justified in assuming that the churches, like\ntheatre matinees, were kept up for the benefit of women and children. So\nfar as present indications go, it seems not unlikely that science will\ndeliver the coup de grace to organized Christianity within the next\nhundred years.\"\n\nWe have caught a glimpse of what theism has done, and what the\nphilosophy of atheism might have done, and will yet achieve. Has man\nprofited by having remained in his mental infancy so long? Atheism is an\nemancipating system of thought that frees the mind from myths, fables,\nand childish fancies. There can be no inquisition, no witchcraft\ndelusion, no religious wars, no persecutions of one sect by another, no\nimpediment to science and progress, no stultification of the mind, as a\nresult of its teachings.\n\nThe philosophy of atheism teaches man to stand on his own feet, instills\nconfidence in his reasoning powers, and forces him to conquer his\nenvironment. It teaches him not to subject himself and debase himself\nbefore mythical superhuman powers, for his reason is his power. The\nmarch from faith to reason is the march on which dwells the future hope\nof a really civilized mankind.\n\nAtheism teaches man to endeavor constantly to better his own condition\nand that of all of his fellowmen, to make his children wiser and\nhappier; it supplies the powerful urge to add something new to the\nknowledge of mankind. And all this, not in the vain hope of being\nrewarded in another world, but from a pure sense of duty as a citizen of\nnature, as a patriot of the planet on which he dwells. This is no cold\nand cheerless philosophy; it is an elevating and ennobling ideal which\nmay console him in his afflictions and teach him how to live and how to\ndie. It is a self-reliant philosophy that makes a man intellectually\nfree, and this mental emancipation allows him to face the world without\nfear of ghosts and gods. It relates solely to facts, while theism\nresorts to opinions that are grounded only upon emotionalism. Joseph\nLewis has well noted that, \"Atheism does not believe that man's mission\non earth is to love and glorify God, but it does believe in living this\nlife so that when you pass on, the world will be better for your having\nlived.\"\n\nThe history of the past ages informs us what the world was like with\nGod. The progress of secular knowledge and science have given us\nmeasures by which we could produce a better society than has ever\nexisted under the obstructionism of the Gods.\n\n\"The knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured, the\nchief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of\nreligion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational\neducation; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of\nwar; religion prevents us from teaching the ethics of scientific\ncooperation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment.\nIt is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age, but if\nso, it will be necessary to slay the dragon that guards the door, and\nthis dragon is religion.\" (_Bertrand Russell._)\n\nIt is interesting to contemplate the changes that may occur in our\ncivilization in the next few centuries. On the one hand we have that\nlong period of sterile time, 15,000 years, for the stage of neolithic\nman, and on the other the vast material progress of the past three\nhundred years. We may not be able to discern with clarity in what\ndirection changes will occur, but in one aspect we can discern a\nwell-marked tendency. That is the inevitable conquest of the philosophy\nof atheism. And with this conquest can be clearly seen that it would\ngive to this earth a much sounder foundation upon which to build our\nprogress, and that long-delayed freedom, the emancipation of the mind\nfrom all myths and fables. The inevitableness of atheism has been well\nsummed up by Chapman Cohen:\n\n\"Looking at the whole course of Human History, and noting how the vilest\nand most ruinous practices have been ever associated with religion, and\nhave ever relied upon religion for support, the cause for speculation\nis, not what will happen to the world when religion dies out, but how\nhuman society has managed to flourish while the belief in the Gods\nruled....\n\n\"Substantially, we have by searching found out God. We know the origin\nand history of one of the greatest delusions that ever possessed the\nhuman mind. God has been found out; analytically and synthetically we\nunderstand the God-idea as previous generations could not understand it.\nIt has been explained, and the logical consequence of the explanation is\nAtheism.\"\n\nMan is fast attaining a mastery of his environment, and his religious\ncreeds are becoming as irrational to him as the witchcraft delusion.\nReligion with its burden of fear ties him to the dead ages. But\nknowledge not only supplies him with power, but also furnishes him with\ncourage, and that courage will aid him in freeing himself from that\nfear--religion. Religion is doomed to occupy the same place in history\nas the institution of slavery. Lies and imposture, no matter how\npowerfully sustained, can be dispelled by knowledge. The Church will\ndestroy itself with its own poison. Knowledge and courage spell the doom\nof religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nCONTEMPORARY OPINION\n\n     _The Vanguard_\n\n     _Let us make no mistake--great minds are skeptical.... The strength\n     and the freedom which arise from exceptional power of thought\n     express themselves in skepticism.... A mind which aspires to great\n     things and is determined to achieve them is of necessity\n     skeptical_.\n\n     NIETZSCHE.\n\n\nBERTRAND RUSSELL\n\nMy own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease\nborn of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I\ncannot, however, deny that it has made _some_ contributions to\ncivilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused\nEgyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they\nbecame able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to\nacknowledge, but I do not know of any others.\n\n\nMAX CARL OTTO\n\nIt is my conviction that the happiest and noblest life attainable by men\nand women is jeopardized by reliance upon a superhuman, cosmic being for\nguidance and help. I know, of course, that God has been defined in\nvarious terms. I do not choose among them. For it seems to me\nindisputable that those who turn to God, however God be defined, do so\nbecause, consciously or unconsciously, they seek there the satisfaction\nof wants, the worth of living, and security for what they passionately\nprize, which they have not found and despair of finding in the human\nventure as they know it. Reliance upon God for what life does not\nafford, has, in my opinion, harmful consequences. It diverts attention\nfrom the specific conditions upon which a better or a worse life\ndepends; it leads men to regard themselves as spectators of a course of\nevents which they in reality help to determine; it makes the highest\nhuman excellence consist in acquiescence in the supposed will of a being\nthat is defined as not human, a being that is above the driving force of\nimpulse, that does not experience vacillating moods or conflicting\ndesires, that is never harassed by doubts or misled by ignorance....\nTheism is in essence repressive, prohibitory, ascetic. The outcome of\nits influence is that expertness in practical living and expertness in\nevaluating life, instead of uniting to take advantage of a common\nopportunity, are set against each other. This is the profound dualism\nwhich remains to be mastered. It can be mastered by the concentration\nupon human needs and powers.\n\n\nJOHN DEWEY\n\nThe method we term \"scientific\" forms for the modern man (and a man is\nnot modern merely because he lives in 1931) the sole, dependable means\nof disclosing the realities of existence. It is the sole authentic mode\nof revelation. This possession of a new method, to the use of which no\nlimits can be put, signifies a new idea of the nature and possibilities\nof experience. It imports a new morale of confidence, control, and\nsecurity.\n\nC. E. M. JOAD\n\nAll through the century (nineteenth), whenever and wherever there is a\nmovement for change and betterment, the clergy are found opposing it. In\nthis they are merely carrying on the tradition of their order. When one\nlooks back over history, one realizes that there is scarcely any\ndiscovery which science has made for human advancement and happiness\nwhich churchmen and theologians have not violently opposed. Not content\nwith burning each other, they burnt the men who discovered the earth's\nmotion, burnt the men who made the first tentative beginnings of physics\nand chemistry, burnt the men who laid the foundations of our medical\nknowledge.... Bad as has been the church's record in the past, it is not\ngreatly improved in the present.... For two thousand years teachers and\npreachers have striven, by inculcating the principles and precepts of\nChristianity, to mould men's character and to improve their conduct; yet\nwe still have our prisons, our judges, and our wars, and it remains\ntoday, as it has done for two thousand years past, an arguable question\nwhether men are better or worse than they were before Christianity was\nintroduced.\n\n\nWILLIAM PEPPERELL MONTAGUE\n\nIf we will for a moment imagine the Bible to have come suddenly to our\nattention today, unencumbered by a tradition of divine authority, and\nwith no more sacredness than a newly discovered writing of ancient China\nor Egypt, we can see quite readily that it would occur to nobody who\ntook the work merely on its merits either to accept it as scientifically\nand historically true, or to twist its statements into a far-fetched\nallegory of the truth.\n\nReligion will be _outmoded_; and its tidings of escape to another and\nbetter world will ring cold in the ears of those who love this. The new\nworldliness that religion must face is based on the faith that there is\nnot only no _place_ for heaven, but no _need_ for it. Humanity,\nadolescent at last, has tasted the first fruits of the victory of\nsecular intelligence over nature, and dreams grandly of far greater\nvictories to come.\n\n\nIRWIN EDMAN\n\nThe hope of the world certainly lies in intelligence. Certainly, there\nis no hope anywhere else. I cannot look to anything so remotely\ndefinable as God for aid, nor do I ever regret not being able to do so.\n\n\nWALTER LIPPMANN\n\nMany reasons have been adduced to explain why people do not go to church\nas much as they once did. Surely the most important reason is that they\nare not so certain that they are going to meet God when they go to\nchurch. If they had that certainty they would go. If they really\nbelieved that they were being watched by a Supreme Being who is more\npowerful than all the kings of the earth put together, if they really\nbelieved that not only their actions but their secret thoughts were\nknown and would be remembered by the creator, and ultimate judge of the\nuniverse, there would be no complaint whatever about church attendance.\nThe most worldly would be in the front pews, and preachers would not\nhave to resort so often to their rather desperate expedients to attract\nan audience. If the conviction were there that the creed professed was\ninvincibly true, the modern congregation would not come to church, as\nthey usually do today, to hear the preacher and to listen to the music.\nThey would come to worship God.\n\n\nH. L. MENCKEN\n\nAlone among the great nations of history we have got rid of religion as\na serious scourge, and by the simple process of reducing it to a petty\nnuisance. For men become civilized, not in proportion to their\nwillingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.\nThe more stupid the man, the larger his stock of adamantine assurances,\nthe heavier his load of faith. When Copernicus proved that the earth\nrevolved around the sun, he did not simply prove that the earth revolved\naround the sun, he also proved that the so-called revelation of God, as\ncontained in the Old Testament, was rubbish. The first fact was\nrelatively trivial: it made no difference to the average man then, as it\nmakes no difference to him today. But, the second fact was of stupendous\nimportance, for it disposed at one stroke of a mass of bogus facts that\nhad been choking the intelligence and retarding the progress of humanity\nfor a millennium and a half....\n\nI believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to\nmankind; that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the\nethical side have been more than overborne by the damage it has done to\nclear and honest thinking.\n\n\nHORACE M. KALLEN\n\nIt is a significant trait of history that the times and nations most\ndistinguished for piety are also most distinguished for backwardness.\nCzarist Russia, and contemporary Spain are near examples, but\nillustrations may be drawn from any part of the world; the Southern\nStates of the United States of America, for instance. Everywhere the\nscope and intensity of belief in the supernatural seem to be directly\nproportional to the misery and weakness of the believer (one compensates\nfor the other). Freedom of speech and of press and discussion which\nmeans generally restraint of all interference in the amicable threshing\nout of conflicting opinions, means, with respect to religious beliefs,\nrefraining from talking, writing or discussing candidly at all. In every\nsociety belief in the supernatural is privileged belief, and there\naccrue to it all the advantages and disadvantages of privilege.... But\nmystics and religionists are not silent. On the contrary, they become,\nhaving passed through a religious experience, voluble.\n\n\nALBERT EINSTEIN\n\nI do not believe we can have any freedom at all in the philosophical\nsense, for we act not only under external compulsion, but also by inner\nnecessity.... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the\nobjects of his creation, whose purposes are modelled after our own, a\nGod, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I\nbelieve that the individual survives the death of his body, although\nfeeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It\nis enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life\nperpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous\nstructure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly\nto comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested\nin nature.\n\n\nLUTHER BURBANK\n\nOur lives as we live them are passed on to others, whether in physical\nor mental forms tinging all future lives forever. This should be enough\nfor one who lives for truth and service to his fellow passengers on the\nway. No avenging Jewish God, no satanic devil, no fiery hell is of any\ninterest to him. The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of\ntruth itself, wherever it may lead. Every normal human being has ideals,\none or many, to look up to, to reach up to, to grow up to. Religion\nrefers to the sentiments and feelings; science refers to the\ndemonstrated everyday laws of nature. Feelings are all right, if one\ndoes not get drunk on them. Prayer may be elevating if combined with\nworks, and they who labor with head, hands, or feet have faith and are\ngenerally quite sure of an immediate and favorable reply.\n\nThose who take refuge behind theological barbed wire fences, quite often\nwish they could have more freedom of thought, but fear the change to the\ngreat ocean of scientific truth as they would a cold bath plunge.\n\n\nSIR ARTHUR KEITH\n\nCertainly the creative power which is at work bears no resemblance to\nthe personal God postulated by the Hebrews, and the modern man of\nscience cannot fit Him into the scheme of the world as he knows it. He\nhas to try to reconceive God, and when he has done so, nothing but an\nunsatisfying abstraction is left. It is unsatisfying because even the\ngreatest men of science, although they possess the intellects of giants,\nhave still the hearts of children. And children cling to that which is\nendowed with a human shape and has been given the warmth of living\nflesh.\n\n\nH. LEVY\n\nA structure of absolute moral and religious beliefs erected initially as\nbeyond criticism, imposed upon a changing society from above rather\nthan emerging from below, has no affinity with science, whatever\npersonal solace and comfort it may provide, for it assumes that the\nfacts of life, including the material facts of the world, can be\ncompassed within a rigidly prescribed framework. It has taken several\ncenturies of history for the scientific movement to be emancipated from\njust these cramping human assumptions. The writings of many scientists\nshow, alas, that the emancipation has not yet been completed.\n\n\nJ. B. S. HALDANE\n\nWe know very little about what may be called the geography of the\ninvisible world. The religions, if I may continue the metaphor, have\ncovered the vacant spaces of its map with imaginary monsters; the\nphilosophies have ruled them with equally imaginary parallels of\nlatitude. But both have affirmed, in opposition to the so-called\npractical man, that the meaning of the visible world is to be found in\nthe invisible. That has been the secret of their success. They have\nfailed when they tried either to describe the details of the visible\nworld or to dictate the details of conduct in it. The churches are half\nempty today because their creeds are full of obsolete science, and their\nethical codes are suited to a social organization far simpler than that\nof today.\n\n\nHOWARD W. HAGGARD, M. D.\n\nWhen in the fifth century the Roman Empire fell at the hands of the\nbarbarians, rational medicine ceased altogether in Europe. Although the\nChristian religion survived, the Christian theology of that time denied\nliberty of conscience and taught superstitions and dogma. It was\nbitterly hostile to the scientific spirit. All knowledge necessary to\nman's salvation, physical as well as spiritual, was to be found in the\nBible as the Church interpreted the Bible. Since the teachings of the\nChurch were supposed to be sufficient for all needs, there was no excuse\nfor observations and experimental investigations. The inquisitive spirit\nwas wholly suppressed, the rigorous methods of Greek logic were for many\ncenturies lost from European civilization, and intelligent thought was\nreplaced by revelation, speculation, tradition, and subservience to the\nwritten word of the Bible, to the writings of saints, and later, in\nmedical matters, to the work of Galen. The theological beliefs of the\ntime became the controlling influence in Western civilization.\n\n\nHARRY ELMER BARNES\n\nThere has never been any religious crisis of this kind before, and any\nattempt at exact comparisons with the past are here bound to be\nmisleading and distorting. Even the extreme assailant of pagan\nreligions, like Lucretius, had no basis for the critical attitude as the\ncontemporary sceptic. The bitter attack of Lucretius upon supernatural\nreligion was based mainly upon assumptions and intuitions, as incapable\nof proof at the time as were the most extreme pietistic views of his\nage. Today the situation has been profoundly altered. Contemporary\nscience, especially astrophysics, renders the whole set of assumptions\nunderlying the anthropomorphic and geocentric supernaturalism of the\npast absolutely archaic and preposterous. Our scientific knowledge has\nundermined the most precious tales in the holy books of all peoples. The\ndevelopment of biblical criticism has discredited the dogma of direct\nrevelation and unique nature of the Hebrew Bible. Textual scholarship\nhas been equally devastating to the sacred scriptures which form the\nliterary basis of the other world religions. It avails one nothing to\ndeny these things, for they are actually undeniable. We must face the\nimplied intellectual revolution honestly and see what is to be done\nabout it.\n\n\nGEORGE JEAN NATHAN\n\nTo be thoroughly religious, one must, I believe, be sorely disappointed.\nOne's faith in God increases as one's faith in the world decreases. The\nhappier the man, the farther he is from God.\n\n\nRUPERT HUGHES\n\nIt is important that the truth be known. Is religion, is church\nmembership a help to virtue? The careless will answer without\nhesitation, \"Yes!\" Of course. The statistics, when they are not\nsmothered, cry, \"No!\"\n\n\nHU SHIH\n\nOn the basis of biological, sociological, and historical knowledge, we\nshould recognize that the individual self is subject to death and decay,\nbut the sum total of individual achievement, for better or for worse,\nlives on in the immortality of the Larger Self; that to live for the\nsake of the species and posterity is religion of the highest kind; and\nthat those religions which seek a future life either in Heaven or in the\nPure Land, are selfish religions.\n\n\nDR. FRANKWOOD E. WILLIAMS\n\nIn these difficult times we are told that we should go to the temple,\nthat we should get in touch with God. We do not need the temple. We do\nnot need to get in touch with \"God.\" We need to get in touch with each\nother.\n\n\nWILLIAM FLOYD\n\nThis Bible bears every evidence of being a book like every other book,\nconceived by man, written by man, altered by man, translated by man,\nprinted by man, but--and this is where it differs from every other\nbook--the Bible is swallowed by man. And it has disagreed with him; man\nhas not digested it properly through lack of sufficient dissection of\nits parts. It has been taken with a spiritual sauce that has disguised\nits real flavor. Anything in the Bible, no matter how raw, is taken as\nGod's food. It is used to demonstrate problems of diet which do not\nprovide a balanced ration; it is accepted by the gullible though\ncontradicted by the revelations of Geology, Astronomy, Anthropology,\nZoology, and Biology. Taken as prescribed by the doctors of divinity,\nthe Bible is a poisonous book.\n\n\nLLEWELYN POWYS\n\nThe idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human race\nthink itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put in\nthis unique relation to its maker? Christians are like a council of\nfrogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung hill croaking and\nsqueaking, \"For our sakes was the world created.\"\n\n\nTHEODORE DREISER\n\nAnd why again, composed though we may be of this, that, and the other\nproton, electron, etc., etc., why should we not in some way be able to\nsense why we are as we are--assembled as we are of the same ultimate\natoms and doing as we do? Why? Good God--surely in the face of all this\nsense of aliveness and motion, and this and that, there should be some\nintimation of WHY? But no--none.\n\n\nUPTON SINCLAIR\n\nIt is a fact, the significance of which cannot be exaggerated, that the\nmeasure of the civilization which any nation has attained is the extent\nto which it has curtailed the power of institutionalized religion. There\nare a score of great religions in the world, each with scores or\nhundreds of sects, each with its priestly orders, its complicated creed\nand ritual, its heavens and hells. Each has its thousands or millions or\nhundreds of millions of \"true believers\"; each damns all the others,\nwith more or less heartiness, and each is a mighty fortress of Graft.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n     _The Middle Guard_\n\n     _It is terrible to die of thirst at sea. Is it necessary that you\n     should salt your truth that it will no longer quench thirst_?\n\n     NIETZSCHE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD\n\nIndeed, history, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the\nhorrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and, in particular,\nthe slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject\nsuperstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading\ncustoms, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at it's charge. Religion is\nthe last refuge of human savagery.\n\n\nROBERT ANDREWS MILLIKAN\n\nThe anthropomorphic God of the ancient world--the God of human passions,\nfrailties, caprices, and whims is gone, and with him the old duty to\npropitiate him, so that he might be induced to treat you better than\nyour neighbor. Can anyone question the advance that has been made in\ndiminishing the prevalence of these medieval, essentially childish, and\nessentially selfish ideas? The new God is the God of law and order; the\nnew duty, to know that order and to get into harmony with it, to learn\nhow to make the world a better place for mankind to live in, not merely\nhow to save your individual soul. However, once destroy our confidence\nin the principle of uniformity, our belief in the rule of law, and our\neffectiveness immediately disappears, our method ceases to be\ndependable, and our laboratories become deserted.\n\n\nALBERT C. DIEFFENBACH\n\nThe plain truth is, thousands upon thousands of men and women have gone\nout of the Church. They take no stock in its obsolete teachings to which\nthey once subscribed in order to become members. After great\ntribulation, they have made their declaration of religious independence.\nThey have taken the right turn for their own salvation. The churches as\na whole do not know that today there is a violent intellectual\nrevolution among all people who think. The so-called theism that is\nembalmed in the old theology and is still preached is utterly defunct\nfor many persons of this generation. Like it or not, that is a fact.\n\n\nDR. CHARLES W. ELIOT\n\nThe creeds of the churches contain conceptions of God's nature and of\nhis action toward the human race which are intolerable to the ethical\nmind of the twentieth century. The conception of one being, human or\ndivine, suffering, though innocent, for the sins of others, is revolting\nto the universal sense of justice and fair dealing. No school, no\nfamily, no court, would punish the innocent when the guilty were known.\nThis conception of God is hideous, cruel, insane, and no Christian\nchurch which tolerates it can be efficient in the promotion of human\nwelfare and happiness.","title":"The Necessity of Atheism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":92005}