{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36798/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36798","id":"gutenberg_36798","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36798","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIMITS OF ATHEISM\n\nOr, Why should Sceptics be Outlaws?\n\nBY G. J. HOLYOAKE.\n\n     \"It is historically true that a large proportion of Infidels\n     in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and\n     honour.\"--_John Stuart Mill 'On Liberty,_' p. 80.\n\nLONDON: J. A. BROOK & CO., 282, STRAND, W.C\n\n1874.\n\nPRICE TWOPENCE.\n\n\n\nREVEREND RICHARD WILLIAM JELF, D.D.,\n\nPRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON, WHO HAS LATELY ALARMED CONVOCATION\n\nBY CONNECTING\n\nTHE 'ESSAYS AND REVIEWS' WITH ATHEISM\n\nTHESE PAGES,\n\nWRITTEN IN ARREST OF THE PARLIAMENTARY JUDGMENT WHICH PLACES THE WORD OF\nTHE ATHEIST BELOW THAT OF THE FELON,\n\nAre Respectfully Inscribed,\n\nBY\n\nGEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe object of these pages* is not to defend the intellectual accuracy of\nAtheism (which could not be attempted in this brief space), the object\nis to explain its case, to vindicate its moral rectitude, and the right\nof those who hold these views, to legal equality. There are two Atheisms\nin literature--the ancient one of mere negation; and the affirmative\nform, whose relevant name is Cosmism, and of which Humboldt, in\nhis 'Cosmos,' is a great illustrator, and Comte, in his 'Positive\nPhilosophy,' an expounder. The term Cosmism ought to supersede the\nmisleading term Atheism; just as Secularism has superseded the libellous\nterm Infidelity. Cosmism, as well as Secularism, expresses a new form\nof Freethought, and I use the term Atheism, as the subject of a Lecture,\nfor the first time here. It is a worn-out word, used by Theists in\nhateful senses. I employ it, as a title, to-day for political reasons,\nin order to show those who make it a ground of civil exclusion, that\nit is a thing of law and limits: that the reputed Atheism of English\nworking men, so far as it prevails, is no longer the old Atheism of\nmere negation, but the Cosmism of modern science; neither dissolute,\nanarchical, nor impious--recognises that the universe is, without\ntheorising _why_ it is. Negative Atheism says there is nothing beyond\nthe universe. Cosmism says it cannot explain anything beyond, and pauses\nwhere its knowledge ends.\n\n     *A report of a Lecture delivered in Bendall's Assembly\n     Rooms, City Road, London, March 8rd, 1861.\n\nAtheism questions--Cosmism affirms. The language of Cosmism is that of\nthe poet in the 'Purgatory of Suicides':--\n\n     'I do not say--there is no God,\n     But this I say--I know not.'\n\nI prefer Secularism, which concerns itself with the moral life of\nman, and maintains a well-advised neutrality upon these speculative\nquestions. My sympathies are with 'Adam Bede,' that striking and\ngreatest creation of modern genius, in which the _National Review_\nrecognised 'The strong-headed, manly, sharp-tempered, secular carpenter,\nwith his energetic satisfaction in his work, and impatience of\ndreamers.' But as I stated in the York Debate, in 1858, at which the\nReverend Canons Hey and Robinson presided, it is an act of self-defence\nin England to question the assumed infallibility of Theism--to prove\nthat Atheists are entitled to civil recognition, as persons having\nlegitimate, actual, and conscientious views, and who, therefore, ought\nnot to be outlawed as they are now. So long as sceptics of Theism are\nrefused the right of affirmation in courts of law, and their lives and\nproperty consequently placed at the mercy of every ruffian and knave,\nso long will a Sceptical propaganda be a parliamentary necessity, to\njustify these opinions, and to spread them, that those who hold them\nmay, like the Quakers, win by pertinacity what is denied to reason. And\nwhile this state of things lasts, I confess that I listen to arguments\nof opponents with distrust, for I see in them, not so much the\nconfutation of my opinions, as the limitation of my freedom, and\nthe justification of my political exclusion. In the present state of\ntheological liberty in England, for the alleged Atheist to be silent, is\nto be a slave consenting to his own degradation.\n\nG. J. H.\n\n147, Fleet Street, London, E.C., April 13th, 1861.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIMITS OF ATHEISM\n\nTwenty years ago I stepped forward to defend the right of expressing\nAtheism on the part of those who conscientiously held it. On Mr.\nSouthwell's imprisonment in Bristol, I took his place as Editor of the\n_Oracle of Reason_, and shared his fate at Gloucester. Under the same\ncircumstances I would do it again to-morrow. In the expression of\nspeculative opinions there may be error and there may be outrage;\nbut the error is best corrected by discussion, and the outrage by\ncultivation; but to prohibit the free publication of opinion is to\nstrike at the root of all intrepidity of thought and individuality of\ncharacter; and against a uniformity of profession, whether brought about\nby the tyranny of the majority, by the policeman, or by the magistrate,\nI ever have, and ever will, protest as unwise, dishonest, and degrading.\n\nBecause Atheistical opinions were attacked by the law I defended them:\nI defended the right to hold them without sharing them. And in all the\npublications I have edited, I have accepted the responsibility of the\nviews of coadjutors and correspondents without conditions, and my name\nis associated in consequence much more with other persons' opinions than\nwith my own. When the rights of conscience in Free-thought are attacked,\nto discriminate is to condemn; and while persecution is attempted, I\nmake it a point of honour never to pass in appearance on to the side\nof the persecutors. As soon as legal opposition to the publication of\nheretical opinion ceased, I was the first to insist that the day of good\ntaste must commence. The moment fair play is permitted, all excuse for\ninvective or outrage ends. Violence, exaggeration, denunciation, are\ncrimes against Freethought the moment Freethought is permitted. Now that\nSir George Cornewall Lewis, on the part of the Government, has refused\nSir John Trelawny's request to alter the law which treats an Atheist as\nan outlaw, which denies him the common right of legal protection, which\nexposes him to plunder or assault without redress, which cedes to the\nTheist a monopoly of veracity in courts of law, and places the word of\nevery man and woman, however honest, cultivated, and reputable, unable\nto make a Profession of Faith, as below that of a convicted felon, I\nam most reluctant to enter upon any explanation of my own views on the\ngreat speculative propositions of theology, lest it should appear to\nothers as timidity, retreat, or disposition to compromise.. If a man had\n(which I have not) a change of opinion to own, this is not the hour\nto make it. But with respect to Affirmative Atheism, the necessity for\nnewness of view is chiefly felt by those who do not understand it. It\nis refused civil recognition because it is conceived to be some lawless\nthing. The consternation excited just now by the 'Essays and Reviews' is\nowing to an apprehension that public opinion is tending to the negation\nof theology, and that is concluded to be a state of intellectual\nlawlessness. To trace any outline of the Limits of Atheism, may serve\nto give more intelligent definiteness to the misgivings entertained\nconcerning it, and lead earlier to its legal recognition; and therefore\nalone I attempt it.\n\nLet us avoid verbiage if we can. Too many words are the locusts of the\nmind, which darken the air of the understanding and eat up our meaning.\nI believe that language is given us not to be used--except upon clear\ncompulsion.\n\nThere are two terms which especially excite religious reprobation, and\none of them excites mine. I refer to Infidelity and Atheism.\n\nInfidelity is a term I detest. It implies that you believe enough to\nsubject you to reproach, and disbelieve enough to entitle you to be\ndamned. It signifies disbelief too inveterate to allow you to go back to\nsuperstition, and too much timidity to carry your doubt to a definite\nor legitimate result. I am for thoroughness and decision. If it be\ncriminality to disbelieve, I will put scepticism far from me. I will\nnot even tamper with doubt. But if it be lawful to reject from the\nunderstanding whatever seems false, then I will disbelieve error as a\nduty, and unhesitatingly doubt whatever is doubtful.\n\nAtheism--objectionable as it is from wanton negative associations--is a\nfar more wholesome term. It is a defiant, militant word. There is a ring\nof decision about it. There is no cringing in it. It keeps no terms with\nsuperstition. It makes war, and means it. It carries you away from the\nnoisome word-jugglery of the conventional pulpits, and brings you face\nto face with nature. It is a relief to get out of the crowd who believe\nbecause their neighbours do, who pray by rote, and worship through fear;\nand win your liberty to wander in the refreshing solitude where the\nheart may be honest, and the intellect free. Affirmative Atheism of the\nintellect is a proud, honest, intrepid, self-respecting attitude of the\nmind. The Negative Atheism of mere ignorance, of insensibility, of\nlust, and gluttony, and drunkenness, of egotism or vanity, whose talk\nis outrage, and whose spirit is blasphemy; this is the gross negation\nof God, which superstition begets in its slavery, and nurtures by\nits terrors. These species of Atheism I recognise only to disown and\ndenounce them. Of these the priest is the author who preaches the\nnatural corruption of the human heart, who inculcates the guilt of\nFreethought, the distrust of reason, and despair of self-reliant\nprogress. Utterly different from this is the Atheism of reflection,\nwhich seeks for conclusive evidence, which listens reverentially for\nthe voice of God, which weighs carefully the teachings of a thoughtful\nTheism; but refuses to recognise the officious, incoherent babblement of\nintolerant or presumptuous men. Reflective Atheism is simply a reluctant\nuncertainty as to the consciousness of Nature, or as to the existence\nof a Power over Nature. As one who will allow me the pleasure of\ncalling him my friend, Mr. G. H. Lewes, said, all reflective Atheism is\nsuspensive.\n\nHe invented the phrase Suspensive Atheism to describe the only form of\nopinion which he knew I maintained. The thoughtful Atheist wishes to\nperceive the whole truth of Nature, he hesitates unwillingly, and waits\nlongingly for more light.\n\nLet us dismiss at once that crude and evasive state which affects\nAtheism, and, at the same time, denies it; which says no Theist has\ndefined Deity, and therefore the disbelief in it is an impossibility.\n\nAffirmative Atheism may be wrong, but it is at least intelligible. It\nhas a definite foundation, or it could claim no position, and would\ndeserve none. It must go upon facts if it would maintain a place in the\nkingdom of thought, and it finds these facts in Positivism. The mind\nthat has wandered in the torrid zones of error, thirsts ardently for the\ncooling draughts of positive truth. It is this sentiment which causes\nFreethought to take the form of Secularism, and exchanges the verbal\ndistractions of conflicting creeds for the clear criterions of moral\ntruth. It is the same wise impatience of metaphysical unrealities which\nleads to Affirmative Atheism, and explains it. A series of material\nand mental facts arrest the attention of one taking an unbiased and\nindependent view of the universe, of time, and space, and matter.\n\nThere are two classes of thinkers--one who commence with ignoring\nNature, seeking in something outside it for the origin of it, and who\nlook upon the infinite processes of the worlds which people space, with\nthe dull astonishment accorded to mere agencies, rather than with\nthe native wonder and awe which the consciousness of original powers\nawakens--these are Theists.\n\nThe other class are those who regard matter as the very garment of the\nunknown God, to whom every spray, and pebble, and flower, and star is a\nmarvel, a glory, and an inspiration; who, comprehending not an external\ncause of nature, recognise its existence, its surpassing affluence, its\nmultitudinous marvels, and give them the first place in their wonder,\nstudy, reverence, and love--these are Affirmative Atheists.\n\nTo believe in Nature, in its self-existence, its self-subsistence, its\nself-action, its eternity, infinity, and materiality, and in that\nonly, is Affirmative Atheism.* Reflective Atheism is pure inability to,\nrealise the fact of the consciousness of the universe, or to conceive\nthe existence of a Being over it.\n\nTo believe in something besides nature--is Theism.\n\nTo believe in the consciousness of nature--is Pantheism.\n\nThe explanation of Affirmative Atheism* here given, involves many\nconsiderations which I am not going to discuss. It is not my province\nhere to defend, but to state the case. A definition is a map, but it is\nnot the journey. A definition is a high road through a subject, and a\nhigh road should be a straight road: it may run out of the way of some\npopulous towns and beautiful scenes, but it gives the means of quickest\ntransit through a territory, from which the country can be viewed, and\nthe traveller determine its general features.\n\n     * This might stand for a definition of Cosmism, which term I\n     employ at substantially reciprocal with Affirmative Atheism,\n     and as its substitute, if I may employ it in its modern and\n     wider sense than defined by Pythagoras.\n\nIf we have said enough for this purpose, we may attempt to trace the\nlimits of our subject. The road through every high question lies over\nprecipices. Every great question has its Mont Blancs. The higher you\nclimb the deeper the chasms on the right hand and on the left. The Roman\nCatholic makes worship an art, and abject submission a duty. To relieve\nyou of anxiety he deprives the mind of initiation and freedom. The\nProtestant concedes you private judgment, and surrounds you by a social\ndespotism lest you should use it. He substitutes a creed for the Church.\nThe Church is a cell, and the creed is a cage. The cage is lighter, more\nairy, and less repulsive than the cell, but the imprisonment is complete\nin both.\n\nMere Atheism inculcates freedom and intrepidity of the understanding,\nbut may land you in negation, in dogmatism, in denunciation, in\nirreverence. These are the chasms that lie in the path of mere Atheism.\nThe traveller who passes into these is lost. To avoid this danger we\nmust keep within the limits naturally prescribed to Affirmative Atheism,\nwhich are:--\n\n1. Positivism in Principle.\n\n2. Exactness in Profession of Opinion.\n\n3. Dispassionateness in Judgment.\n\n4. Humanism in Conception.\n\n\n\n1. The Positivist conception of Atheism exhibits the limits which modern\nthought has impressed upon it. Affirmative Atheism asserts the\nrealism of Nature; Theism denies it. Theism refuses to recognise the\nself-existence, the self-action, the self-subsistence, eternity, and\ninfinity of the universe. Theism is the negation of Nature. It is a\nspecies of impiety towards nature, and supplants, by an artificial\nsuperstition, the instinctive reverence of the human heart.\n\nModern Atheism is falsely regarded as a mere negation, as a species of\ncriminal vacuity of the understanding. To correct this idea is to win\nfor these opinions attention if not assent. The negation of any error is\nuseful, but it should be followed by its complement of positive truth.\nAll mere negative subjects are like the lime and pebbles swallowed by\nfarm fowl to assist digestion, but it fares ill with the fowl if they\nget nothing but stones to digest; if no corn or barley follows to\nbe operated upon. Now, questions of Atheism and Scepticism are the\ndigestive stimuli of the mind; positive principles supply the corn and\nbarley which sustain the mental system and preserve its life. If we\ngive ourselves up to negative subjects merely, we come to resemble the\ntheologians who, as Talleyrand said, 'pick a great many bones for very\nlittle meat.'\n\nOld Atheism shows that the alleged proofs of the existence of a Deity\nare inconclusive, untenable, or self-refutatory. As a discipline of the\nintellect, as a questioning of that theistical speculation which has\nalways been arrogant and tyrannical towards dissentients, there is\ngood in negative Atheism. But it is more important if made to subserve\npractical objects. Mere negative Atheism has no ulterior objects it\nuntenants the mind, and this may not be in all things beneficial. The\nslave may be more healthy who is forced to take exercise, and he may\nhave more physical enjoyment of life than the indolent freeman, who is\nsedentary by choice, and diseased through inactivity and overfeeding.\n\nYou may pluck up weeds, and the rank herbage be more fruitful of miasma\nthan the weeds; or if the plucked up weeds produce no harm, the ground\nmay be left useless until crops are made to grow upon it. So of the\nweeds of worship which spring up in the priest-ridden mind. Reverence\nmay be cultivated by superstition, good conduct maybe enforced by\nterror; if superstition and terror be exploded, the reverence and good\nconduct must be cared for and be better directed. Freethought is no half\nwork, it has much to do.\n\nIt is delusive to pull down the altar of superstition and not erect\nan altar of science in its place. To pack up the household gods of\nsuperstition and leave the fireside bare, will hardly do.. Affirmative\nAtheism must teach that nature is the Bible of truth, work is worship,\nthat duty is dignity, and the unselfish service of others consolation.\n\nThere is nothing wholly bad. Superstition has in it some elements of\ngood. I no more believe in perfect error than in perfect truth. Error,\nlike truth, is hardly ever found pure; error is mixed with good, and\ntruth alloyed by evil. The mind must have something to feed upon, and\nif it cannot have truth, it will have superstition; and though\nsuperstition, like some diet, is very hard of digestion, and very\ninnutritious, it is better to feed upon that than die. True, it keeps\nthe mind thin, but it keeps it alive, and it is better to be a skeleton\nthan a corpse. Now it is true that some intellects, like some animals,\neat by instinct the right kind of food, but being healthy are not\nfastidious, and if you give them bad food they don't object to it and\ndon't care for it. If they take it, their digestion is so good that\nit does not hurt them. But there are other people who pine for the\nknowledge of nature, and cannot subsist unless a large proportion of\ntheir mental aliment consists of definite principle. When these are\nnot supplied by religious teachers, and Christianity by any intolerance\nprevents it being supplied by others, such natures expire in an\nintellectual sense, and Christianity ought to be regarded as guilty\nof wilful murder. And in the case of Atheism, those persons who are\naccustomed to take superstition, and are deprived of that, and no\nattempt is made to supply its place by more wholesome sustenance, are no\ndoubt injured. Negative Atheism guilty of this neglect may be said to\nbe guilty of manslaughter, and it would be murder were the neglect\naccompanied, as in the case of Theism, by intolerance. Beware of\nreckless iconoclasticism.\n\nMere negations give all advantage to superstition; error seems wisdom\nand wealth when truth is silent.\n\n\n2. The logic of Affirmative Atheism begins in self-confession. Not to\nsee anything where there is nothing to be seen is the sign of the true\nfaculty; and not to say that you do see when you do not is the first\nsign of veracity of intellect.\n\nMan is forgiven who believes more than his neighbours, but he is never\nforgiven if he believes less. If he believes more than his neighbours,\nthere is the presumption that he may have made some discovery which may\nbecome profitable one day to join in. It may be that he who believes\nmost, may merely possess a more industrious credulity, or possess a\ngreater capacity for hasty assumption. But this is seldom probed. He\nwho believes less may have abandoned some important item of justifiable\nbelief. But when he who believes less than the multitude, confesses to\nthe fact in the face of public disapproval, the probability is that\nhe has inquired into, and sifted evidence which others have taken for\ngranted, and discovered some error which they have accepted. His greater\naccuracy of mind and exactness of speech are an offence, because a\nreproach to the careless or unscrupulous intellects of those who conduct\nlife on secondhand opinions. Yet austerity of intellect and austerity\nof speech is as wholesome in character, as austerity of morals. I hope,\nsays Mr. Grote, in his great history of Greece, in a memorable passage\nthat ought not to die out of recollection, 'I hope, when I come to the\nlives of Socrates and Plato, to illustrate one of the most valuable of\ntheir principles, that conscious and confessed ignorance is a better\nstate of mind than the fancy without the reality of knowledge.' And in\na passage which I cannot now recall, Lord Brougham has said that 'a mind\nuninformed is better than a mind misinformed.' In a state of ignorance\nwe do nothing, in a state of error we do wrong. The popular condemnation\nof the Atheist--which we have lately heard as ignorantly echoed in the\nHouse of Commons as in some Conventicles--is not always uttered, because\nthe Atheist does not know more than others, for none know anything\ncertain concerning the existence of God,* but because the Atheist does\nnot profess more.\n\n     * In his remarkable work entitled 'First Principles,' now in\n     course of publication, Mr. Herbert Spencer has shown that\n     certain terms of Cosmism are as incapable of ultimate\n     explanation as certain terms of Theism. This shows how\n     unwise is dogmatism, how unjustifiable is intolerance, on\n     either side.\n\nCosmism, a thoughtful name, which ought to supersede Atheism in the\nfuture, neither denies nor affirms the existence of Deity. It waits for\nexplanation and proof. It admits there is evidence of something, but\nwhat that something is, does not appear. There is evidence of more than\nwe know, but what that is we do not know, and it is dishonesty to use a\nterm respecting it, which pretends that we do know. Why should it not\nbe honourable to observe a scientific reservation in the exposition of\nopinion? In science it is a sign of cultivation to understate a case and\nkeep within the limits of fact and proof. The reservation of Cosmism,\nwhich so many regard as an offence, arises from a love of exact truth,\nfrom an endeavour to attain to it in expression, and from an honourable\nunwillingness to employ words which do not represent to him who uses\nthem, definite ideas.\n\nIf we say God is Light, Love, Truth, Power, Goodness, Law, Principle,\nwe confound attributes with existence. If we say God is a Spirit, God is\nspace, we merely fill the imagination, not satisfy the understanding:\nit is feeding the thoughts with air, and leaving the intellect hungry.\nA Trinitarian Deity is one of the scholastic perplexities of the\nintellect. The first rule of arithmetic is against it. If it means three\nGods in one, it is an enigma. If it means three doctrinal aspects of\nGod, it confuses all simplicity of feeling. In the simple, moral\nheart of man, God is one, and his name is Love; not a weak, vapoury\nsentimentality, but an austere, healthy love, whose expression is\nstrength, purity, truth, justice, service, and tenderness. But this\nconception of Deity belongs to the empire of the emotions, it is a\nmatter of feeling, not of proof, and can authorise no intolerance\ntowards others, itself existing only by the sufferance of the intellect,\nwhich has chastened its expression, and is supreme over it.\n\nExactness of phraseology is well understood self-defence. Well chosen\nterms are the true weapons of opinion. Employing an old, battered,\nrheumatic and abused term like Atheism, is like riflemen using the old\nmusket instead of the far-reaching and fatal Minie. Cosmism is the\nnew term which conveys the new idea of the age, and explains the\nimprovements in thought and spirit, which the mere term Atheism\nconceals. To suffer an opponent to choose names for you is as though a\ncombatant should suffer his enemy to supply his arms for the conflict.\nHe who consents to be called by a hateful name, can be defeated at\nthe pleasure of his opponent. His ideas are never discussed, his\nconscientious spirit is never recognised, he is trampled down by a name\nwhich libels, defames, and destroys him. Let us banish the unqualified\nterm Atheism from the literature of theological controversy.\n\n\n3. Dispassionateness is a law of Affirmative Atheism. Those who commence\nby believing themselves infallible, and their view of a question open\nto no dispute, can never see reason in, nor view with patience the\ndissent which others maintain. It is the first instinct of the Cosmist\n(to use the preferable term) to keep his mind open to reason. The\ndogmatism which insists on its own case, and shuts its eyes and closes\nits ears to the facts and arguments on the side of Theism, is always to\nbe condemned. Dogmatism, the sin of superstition, is excluded from\nthe empire of speculation. The clergyman will often admit that Atheism\nendeavours to maintain an unprejudiced tone of mind. The Rev. Charles\nMarriot, of Oriel College, observed to me, when I had the honour some\nyears ago to be his guest, that 'he had always more hope of the Atheist\nthan of the Dissenter, for the Dissenter always moved in a little\ninfallibility of his own, while the Atheist was always to be reached\nby reason.' Mystery will always conquer partisans, and the Cosmist who\ncomprehends this, will reason with superstition, and never be impatient\nwith it.\n\nDispassionateness of judgment will also lead to dispassionateness of\nspeech. Opinion in a minority should never have recourse to invective.\nPrejudice is inveterate enough without being inflamed by denunciation.\nUnpopular and unfriended truth must consent to placate opposition by\nrespectfulness of tone and fairness of speech. It must never compromise\nprinciple--that is submission, and gives the errorist insolent\nconfidence. It must never outrage--that makes the errorist indignant,\nand deaf to all reason. The force of truth lies in invincible patience\nand in invincible perseverance of exposition. Progressive opinion ought\never to be kept on the high places of dispassionate advocacy. It is\nwonderful how truth has been perilled by passion. The battle of opinion\nhas always been fought on impulse, rather than on calculation of forces;\nand the small band of the combatants for new truths has often been\ntrampled down by the multitudinous army of error.\n\n\n4. Conceptions of Humanity, or, in other words, Reliance of Humanity,\nis a law and limit of Affirmative Atheism. Every man who thinks, must\nchoose one of two things, a standard without the universe, or a standard\nwithin. I choose one within, I choose humanity. 'Men,' says Lord Bacon,\nspeaking of Atheism, 'who look no farther, become wary of themselves.'\nLet us become wary of ourselves; nothing is more wholesome or\nprogressive!\n\nHardness, assumption, egotism, insubordination to worth--in one word,\nirreverence, ought never to be the characteristic of Cosmism. He who\nvindicates nature and reason, should show that being left to nature,\nphilosophy, reputation, and the laws, there exists self-regulation and\nreliable rationality.* Cosmism is the highest form of self-reliance;\nthe responsibility, which to others is a necessity, is to him a duty and\na pride.\n\n     * As the late Gen. Jacob, the illustrious commander of the\n     Scinde Horse, testifies. 'In the jangle and desert, amid a\n     barbarous people on the extreme confines of civilisation,'\n     he applied these principles when Bishops despaired and\n     Christianity failed; and he records that 'He was permitted\n     to witness with delight the fact of a whole nation being\n     raised from a state of barbarous violence, misery,\n     detestable cruelty, and horror, to one of peace, comfort,\n     racial order, and happiness;' that 'He had seen their\n     faithful and steady application in practice change thousands\n     of the wildest robbers and murderers into kindly and\n     industrious citizens.\n\nThe wildness, excesses, extravagances, and incoherences of superstition,\narise through men looking without themselves into those regions of the\nunknown where men make God after their own image, where they imagine\ntheir facts, and reason upon them without check. How impertinent is\nhalf our modern worship, and how poor the other half! Educated ministers\nspeak of God, and address to him praise they would be ashamed to\noffer to any gentleman. That delicacy of reverence, that reticence of\nlaudation, that avoidance of presumption and familiarity, which the law\nof humanity imposes on all men of religious habits in human relations,\nhas no existence in theology, where it is more to be expected and\ninfinitely more needful. When St. Augustine speaks of God, there is\na magnificent thoughtfulness in the terms he employs which his Pagan\nrefinement had taught him, which we seldom find in modern saints. How\nimposingly he exclaims in his Confessions:--\n\nWhat art Thou then, my God? Most highest, most good, most potent, most\nomnipotent; most merciful, yet most just; most hidden, yet most\npresent; most beautiful, yet most strong; stable, yet incomprehensible;\nunchangeable, yet all-changing; never new, never old; all-renewing, and\n_bringing age upon the proud, and they know it not_; ever working, ever\nat rest; still gathering, yet nothing lacking; supporting, filling, and\noverspreading; creating, nourishing, and maturing; seeking, yet having\nall things. Thou lovest, without passion; art jealous, without anxiety;\nrepentest, yet grievest not; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy works,\nThy purpose unchanged; receivest again what Thou findest, yet didst\nnever lose; never in need, yet rejoicing in gains; never covetous, yet\nexacting usury. Thou receivest over and above, that Thou mayest owe;\nand who hath aught that is not Thine? Thou payest debts, owing nothing;\nremittest debts, losing nothing.'\n\nWe forgive the sublime contradictions in the stately march of this Pagan\npraise. Augustine was a noble old saint, but he had a Pagan intellect to\nthe end.\n\nThe 'Limits of Atheism' which obviously present themselves to those\nwho reflect upon them, rescue it from the imputation of lawlessness.\nPositivism engrafts upon it practical aims. Exactness of speech\nnecessitates exactness of thought, and dictates modesty of pretension.\nDispassionateness of judgment checks invective, dogmatism, prejudice,\nor unfairness; and Reliance upon Humanity tends to self-trust,\nself-direction, and chastity of worship. Why should persons who hold\nthe views of Affirmative Atheism under these 'Limits' be treated in the\nwitness-box as public liars--men whose reiterated profession is--that\nthey 'sum up personal duty in Honour, which is respecting the Truth; in\nMorality, which is acting the Truth; and in Love, which is serving the\nTruth.'*\n\n     * 'Last Trial for Atheism,' p. 100.\n\nPlato in his 'Laws,' remarks that 'Atheism is a disease of the soul\nbefore it becomes an error of the understanding.' This just opinion, if\napplied to mere sensualists, who disbelieve in God because his holiness\nis a restraint upon their infamous passions, has since been applied to\nthe pure thinkers like Spinoza, to whom it is an insult and an\noutrage. Let us see how little such a remark is applicable to those who\nthoughtfully pause before adopting a creed which, however dictated by a\nfeeling of piety, is far less reverential than thoughtful silence.\n\nIf we suppose an interposing Providence to direct the affairs of this\nworld, what scenes of sorrow must meet his eye? Condemned to poverty and\npain, how many human beings are there whose every word is a prayer, and\nevery thought a throb, and every pulsation a pang? Is it not far more\nreverential to struggle for the right with what powers we have, and\nwith what Secular light is vouchsafed, and own Theism inscrutable, than\nconnect all this misery with the name of God? The theory of a God of\nPrayer who hears and aids, of a Providence who orders and controls, all\nissues to one great Will, and who receives at last the sorrow-stricken,\nthe worn, struggling and weary spirit, after those conflicts which all\nwho think, and feel, and aspire, encounter, are primitive and enduring\nconceptions, which all humanity, in every age and in every slime,\ncherishes in its perplexity and clings to in its weakness. It is not\nCosmism which seeks or wishes to disprove this theory. Alas! the God of\nPrayer does not exist. I say it not in wantonness, or recklessness, nor\nin any proud spirit of defiance, nor in any hard spirit of denial, nor\nin outrage, nor wilful scepticism, nor simulated disbelief. It appears\nto me an austere fact, which all who observe must see, which all who are\nfrank must own. Yet I know not that I ought to say 'Alas it is so.' Why\nshould any man mourn at truth? What right have I to arraign the facts\nof Nature. To mourn what _is_--is to condemn what is. Sorrow is censure\nwhen it relates to what is possibly the order of God. What authority\nhave I to look on Nature awful in its glories and mysteries, and by the\nimplication included in my grief, to judge it and say it is not what it\nshould be? My scrutiny ought rather to be directed to my weakness. True\nreverence lies rather in accepting unmurmuringly the order of things we\nfind; in believing in the completeness and self sufficiency of\nnature and humanity, and that these contain within them elements of\nself-sustainment. Our duty is to search there for Truth, to work there\npatiently for Progress, to regard the humblest conquest there with\nglad surprise. All virtue is summed up in service and endurance. A wise\nhumility in expectation is surely the first element of reverence. As to\nthe Future Life of man, the whole question lies in a narrow compass. The\nimmortality of the soul is one of those problems which you approach with\nbreathless perplexity. Is it possible that every human being brought\ninto existence, in the caprices of lust and vice, is a candidate for\nheaven, and a burden upon the celestial taxes, and an inmate of the\ngreat Poor House or Reformatory of eternity? Is it in the power of\nignorance, profligacy, and passion, to crowd the porticoes of Paradise\nwith illicit offspring? Can it be true that every being born is liable\nto eternal perdition for acts done before it had existence--or for\noffences it was predestined to commit, or in the course of events may\ncommit? It is better never to be born than to incur this frightful risk.\nIs it worth while to live at all the prey of these awful anxieties, to\nsport for a few years on the borders of Hell? Who would enter the dance\nof life with the devil for a partner? The toad that croaks his hideous\nexistence away in the marsh; the very dog whom men caress, and kick,\nand despise; the slimy worm that crawls the grave yard, leads a life of\ndignity and undimmed bliss, compared with the dread responsibilities and\nnever-ending horrors thus imposed on human consciousness. No man will\npersuade me that God would bring into existence any creature liable to\nso frightful a fate. The belief in annihilation is a creed of holiness,\nin comparison with the creed of the popular religion. If, on the\nother hand, the future life include no hopeless horror, but a state of\npurification, of restoration, of atonement, of instruction and progress,\nhowever arduous, protracted, and slow, I am willing to believe in it, to\nhope in it, and rejoice in it. I ask no golden crown--I covet no angel\nwings--I crave no presumptuous seat of honour at the right hand of God.\nI supplicate for no effeminate security--no eternity of indolence and\nsinging--I am prepared for toil as well as enjoyment. The instinct of\nadventure is strong within me. Study and danger are welcome to me--even\nsuffering, if it bring deeper knowledge, purity and improvement. I do\nnot wish to be a 'Saint made perfect,' lingering through an eternity\nof monotony, in which there is nothing further to realise, but desire\nrather to enter upon the eternal discipline of indefinite progress.\nThere never were disbelievers in a tolerable immortality. The question\nis not--is such a state desirable? but--is it true? The vital inquiry\nis--are we to conduct life on the basis of what we hope or what we know?\nHe who believes in what he wishes, and is willing to teach as true what\nhe desires, has already passed through the gates of superstition.\n\nTo honour the brave, to reverence the good, to give thanks to the\nmartyr, to be re-united to those you have loved and lost; if these be\nthe incidents of immortality, there never was a disbeliever in it.\nThe Cosmist only deplores the scantiness of the proof. There is no\nscepticism here which is wilful. Every doubt is reluctant, every\nmisgiving is a self-denial.\n\nThe popular theology, it must be owned, has many repulsive aspects.\nThe vulgarest and most illiterate believer is encouraged to profess\na familiar and confident knowledge, hidden from the profoundest\nphilosophers. It is an unanswerable position, that had God spoken, the\nuniverse would have been convinced. Had Deity desired that his personal\nexistence should be daily recognised and eternally bruited abroad among\nmen, he would have placarded the fact on the walls of nature in letters\nof light--so luminous, that time should never pale them; so indelibly,\nthat the war of elements should never efface them; so plainly and\nconclusively, that no priest should ever be able to misconstrue them;\nand no wayfarer, in this hurrying world, ever be in doubt about them. As\nthis is not so, the great secret is left evidently to silent thought and\nreverent conjecture, of which even mere negative Atheism is a reserved\nexpression, and Cosmism a scheme of philosophical adoration.\n\nHere is a particle of matter. It may be amber, or a ruby, or a stone.\nWhence came the electrical properties of the one, the lurid brilliancy\nof the other, or the density of the stone? These qualities are wonders\nand miracles through all time. Science finds them marvels and leaves\nthem mysteries. The philosopher is no more provided with a solution\nthan the peasant. Indeed, the wonder of the philosopher has a deeper\nintensity. He sweeps with his eye, and bends his ear over a wider field\nof nature, and no sign rewards his scrutiny, no response repays his\nattention. Look at this humble, secure, and commonplace stone! We\nneglect it with the eye, we spurn it with the foot--it is not worth\nraising from the shore. Yet no book was ever written, no message was\never delivered, no romance ever depicted, no epic ever sung, containing\nsuch wondrous interest as the story of this stone, could any man tell\nit. What thronging conjectures! what unbidden and tumultuous memories\nrise as we contemplate its possible mutations of existence! History was\nunwritten when it first slept in the earth. What generations of men have\nlived and struggled, and died since it was first broken from the\nrock! Great battles, changing the fate of dynasties, and involving\nthe servitude of races, have been fought over its calm resting place.\nPossibly thousands of years ago the mastodon trod upon it, and the\nichthyosaurus paddled it into the sea. Ancient waves may have washed it\ninto the ocean, before the first ship was launched by the first mariner.\nIn the silent and wondrous caverns of the great deep, which no plummet\nhas fathomed and no eye has ever seen, it has lain in regal rest. What\nmonsters have glared at it! what tempests have raged, what tornadoes\nhave broken over it! what earthquakes may have tossed it up from its\nhiding place. On what shore did it reappear? Did some Assyrian lover\nwatch the wave which washed it up? Did some young Pharaoh play with it?\nHas it been imbedded in the walls of Troy? Did Achilles plant his\nspear by it? Did it lie on the plains of Marathon on the morning of the\nmemorable battle? Has it been dyed by the blood of Caesar in the streets\nof Rome? Have Chaldean shepherds picked it up as the orient morning sun\nbroke over their silent plains?\n\nWhen all these and a thousand other questions have been answered, its\nhistory is not begun. Its elements are indestructible. The parts of\nwhich it is composed were never created--in some form, in some world,\nthey always existed. Where were they when the earth was without form or\nvoid? To what astral system did the matter of this pebble once belong?\nOf what star did it form a part? Where was it before time on this planet\nbegan to be? If matter has existed for ever, this stone in its countless\ntransmutations is a geological Wandering Jew of eternity. If we cannot\ntell the history of a single stone, who shall tell the history of God?\nIf a poor pebble be a surpassing mystery, who shall understand the\nDeity? What must be the pretension, the presumption to infinite capacity\nof that man who, pausing not in reverent humility in the presence of\nthese myriad miracles which crowd before him, yet tells us in confident\nand dogmatic tones, that he\n\n     'Looks _through_ Nature up to Nature's God?'\n\nFor myself, I cleave rather to that more modest form of opinion which\nstands in mute wonder and listens with greedy ears to the secret tale of\nNature, and waits with undying interest the revelations which science,\nor thought, or time, or death, shall make of these mysteries which\nsurround us evermore.","title":"The Limits of Atheism; Or, Why Should Sceptics Be Outlaws?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":6973}