{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45387/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45387","id":"gutenberg_45387","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45387","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian ethics","Ethics"],"text":"MORALITY WITHOUT GOD\n\nIncluding Letter to Right Rev. Bishop Anderson\n\nA Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society.\n\nOrchestra Hall, Michigan Ave. and Adams, Chicago, Sunday at 11 A. M.\n\nBy M. M. Mangasarian\n\n1905\n\n\n\nRight Rev. Bishop Anderson, Chicago, Ill. Reverend and Dear Sir:--\n\nLast Sunday's papers announced that the Episcopal Church has arranged\nfor a series of meetings in this city \"to arouse a national revival\nof interest in church extension at home and abroad.\" The report also\nfurnished the names of the distinguished speakers who will address these\nmeetings at Orchestra Hall.\n\nI write this note to suggest that, if agreeable to you and your\ncommittee, a representative of your church be sent next Sunday morning\nto deliver an address before the Independent Religious Society, which\nholds its Sunday meetings at Orchestra Hall. We shall be very much\npleased to have you deliver this address, but it will be equally\nagreeable to us to welcome anyone whom you may delegate in your place.\n\nIf you have no objection, I request that your address be on the\nfollowing important and timely question: \"Can there be any morality\nwithout a belief in God?\" This subject will offer you, or your\nrepresentative whom you may send in your place, an opportunity to show\nthe importance of the church in the moral education of the people.\n\nIt is understood, of course, that the lecturer of the Independent\nReligious Society will be upon the platform with you at Orchestra Hall,\nto introduce you, and to present his thoughts on the same subject You\nmay speak first, or if you prefer to make the closing address, there\nwill be no objection to it.\n\nLet me assure you that this meeting will not be in the nature of\na debate, as no interruptions from the audience or comments by the\nlecturer upon your address will be permitted. Immediately upon the\nconclusion of the two addresses, the house will be dismissed.\n\nIf it will be a help to you to know in advance what position I will take\non the subject of the proposed addresses, let me say as clearly as I\ncan, that I will try to show that morality is independent of a belief\nin God or gods, and that, therefore, church attendance is not essential,\nbut that, on the contrary, often church going retards both intellectual\nand moral progress; and further, that the countries in which a larger\nproportion of the people go to church, and the Ages of Faith, in which\neverybody went to church, are and have been, the least moral.\n\nHoping that you will not refuse to come and present your views on this\nserious question to the large audience which will receive you most\ncordially at Orchestra Hall, next Sunday morning,--or if you cannot\ncome next Sunday, on any other Sunday morning that you may appoint,--I\nremain,\n\nYours with all good wishes,\n\nM. M. Mangasasian.\n\n\n\n\n\nMORALITY WITHOUT GOD\n\n\n|When I invited Bishop Anderson of the Episcopal Church of this city to\naddress you, it was from a sincere desire to give you an opportunity to\nhear in this house, and under the auspices of this movement, a strong\nand comprehensive statement from the other side, if I may use that\nexpression. I invited the bishop because he is freer on Sundays than the\naverage clergyman who has his own people to preach to, and in the second\nplace, because he has the authority to send someone in his place if he\ncould not come himself. In the third place, I addressed my letter to the\nEpiscopalians because they were to have a convention in this same hall\nfor the purpose of rousing interest in church work.\n\nThe Right Reverend Bishop Anderson of Chicago should have accepted\ncordially our invitation, yet not even of the courtesy of a reply has\nhe deemed either you or me worthy. I do not know how to explain the good\nbishop's indifference to our invitation, except by saying that, either\nthe bishop considered us hopelessly beyond the saving power of his\nreligion, or that in his own heart he considered his creed, while good\nenough for the unquestioning, a little antiquated for an inquiring\nAmerican audience. But the fact is now on record that he was invited\nto deliver his message to us, and he has not even acknowledged the\ninvitation. To reconcile such action with the spirit of \"brotherly\nlove,\" publicly professed by the bishop, or with the divine command to\npreach the gospel to every creature, will require considerable mental\ndexterity.\n\nWe have heard the bishop and his people sing the hymn=\n\n```Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war.\"=\n\nWhere are the soldiers? Why do they avoid a conflict if they _are\nsoldiers?_ We did not invite them to a fight: we did not ask them to a\ndebate; we did not care to enter into a \"duel of words,\" as some papers\nhave put it. Far from it: we assured the bishop that there would be no\nquestions asked by the audience, and no comments permitted. He would\nlisten to our message and deliver his. But suppose we had invited him\nto a clash of ideas--to an argument--suppose we had asked him to give us\n\"the reasons for the hope that is in him,\" as the Bible says--how could\nhe decline such an invitation? The Apostle Paul reasoned before\npagan rulers, and from Mars Hill, in Athens, he preached to pagan\nphilosophers--to doubters. Why should Bishop Anderson have less courage,\nor be more cautious?\n\nWhen a great cause, or a cause that has been great once, declines a\npublic opportunity to advance its interests, to justify its claims,\nto convince--to convert, it is a pretty sure sign that its fires are\nburning low, and that it has fallen into the \"sere and yellow leaf.\"\n\nChristianity, once an aggressive and virile movement, now resorts to\napologetics, compromise and concession to prolong her life. She seeks\nshelter against the spirit of the age. She is cultivating the art of\nsilence. Yes, Christianity is seeking a lower level. It attacks wooden\nidols seven thousand miles away, but at home,--in the presence of\nintellectual inquiry, it is paralyzed.\n\nOf course it could be said that if we wished to hear the bishop's gospel\nwe could have gone to his church. Yes, we could. But so could he have\ncome to us. Furthermore, the bishop does not say to the Hindoo, or to\nthe Japanese, \"If you want my religion, come and get it.\" He sends it\nto them, and he even asks for iron-clads to compel the Japanese and\nthe Chinese to hear his gospel. Yet at home he will not step around the\ncorner to deliver his message to us.\n\nThe invitation to the bishop is a standing one; it will never be\nwithdrawn.\n\nThe same invitation is extended herewith, this morning, to any clergyman\nor layman who is willing to come and deliver his message to us and to\nhear ours--on one condition, however--that the clergyman or the layman\nwho accepts our invitation shall come as the representative of his\ndenomination or church--he must come with his credentials--he must be\ncommissioned by his church to speak for the church. And whenever any\ndenomination in this city or country shall send a delegate to address\nus, he will be received with the greatest cordiality, and his message\nshall be listened to in a spirit of fairness.\n\nThe question: Can there be any morality without a belief in God, is a\nfundamental one, and the fact that we are willing to study it proves\nthat we take more than a superficial interest in what might be\ncalled radical problems. To this question the first answer is that of\nphilosophy, and the second is that of history. This morning we will\nconfine ourselves to the theoretical or philosophical aspect of the\nquestion.\n\nWhat is there in a belief in God which should be indispensable to the\nmoral life? Why should the moral life be inseparably associated with a\nbelief in God? The theological position, in which you and I were\nbrought up, is, that morality is impossible without a belief in God. The\nscientist's position is that morality is independent of a belief in God.\nThe scientist does not deny dogmatically, the existence of a God. The\nscientist is far from denying even that there is at the heart of the\nuniverse a mystery,--an insoluble problem, at least a problem that\nhitherto has refused to reveal its secret to the human mind,--but\nhe contends that to associate the moral life with this mystery, this\ninsoluble problem, is to envelope it in darkness and uncertainty.\n\n\"No God, no morals,\" says the theologian. He even earnestly desires\nall unbelievers in his creed to be immoral. He is really grieved and\ndisappointed when he finds goodness among unbelievers in his religion.\nhe knows that the people must have morality. He knows that the world\ncannot last without morality, and if he can get the people to think that\nthey can't have morality without his creed, the future of his creed will\nbe secure.\n\nHe either denies that goodness without his creed is goodness at all, or\nhe tries to show that the credit of it really belongs to his religion.\nThese good unbelievers are really believers, without knowing it, argues\nthe theologian. If the Japanese can be patriotic and honest, it is due\nto Christian missions, declares the preacher. If Darwin and Huxley\nwere noble men, it was because they lived in a Christian atmosphere. In\nshort, directly or indirectly, according to the theologian, his religion\nis responsible for all the goodness in the world. We shall not stop to\ninquire, for the present, how so conceited and partisan a spirit can\nbe reconciled with true morality. But it is evident that in associating\nbelief with morality the preacher is trying to save \"belief,\" not\nmorality.\n\nBut how are we going to dislodge him from his position? It is as if the\nCzar of Russia, whose people are having a strenuous time just now, were\nto say to them, \"You cannot have either order or peace in Russia without\nthe autocracy.\" He knows the people desire order and security, and hopes\nto make autocracy permanent by associating it with the things the people\nwant. It is like the Republican party going before the country and\nsaying \"You cannot have prosperity in America, unless you keep the\nRepublican party in power,\" or the Democrat-claiming that they alone can\nsave the country. It is taking advantage of the people's dependence upon\norder, peace and prosperity to promote partisan politics. And so the\ntheologian who says \"You cannot have morality unless you have my creed,\"\nis trying to play the role of a politician. He too would see the country\nruined if that would advance his party or church.\n\nWe wish to see this morning how much truth there is in the theological\nposition. The believer in God argues that to question the existence of\nGod is a crime. He insinuates, nay, he declares boldly, that only the\nwicked question the existence of the deity,--just as only rebels would\nquestion the right of the Czar to be a despot.\n\nBut to call the man who questions the existence of God wicked, is no\nanswer to his question at all. When you have no way of meeting the\nargument of your opponent and you attack his character, you only prove\nyourself to be in great distress. To call a man whose questions you can\nnot answer, a \"monster,\" a \"blasphemer,\" a \"devil,\" is, if I may have\npermission to say it, the policy of cowards. If you cannot answer his\nquestion, why attack his character?\n\nBut the theologian knows what he is about. If he can get people to\nbelieve that whoever questions his creed is a scoundrel and a wretch, he\nwill succeed in associating, in the popular mind, inquiry or doubt with\nimmorality, and thereby he will be strengthening his position that only\nbelievers in his creed could be good. Another result would be that, if\nhe succeeds in defaming the character of the inquirer, people will avoid\nhim--it will not be respectable to be seen in his company or to think\nas he does, all of which will protect him a little longer against the\ndisturbing inquirer.\n\nBut, listen to this: Let us suppose that every one who questions the\nexistence of God is a villain, would that relieve clergymen from the\nsolemn obligation of producing their evidence--of proving their dogmas?\n\nThe other day a mass meeting was held in one of our public schools to\ndenounce reckless automobile driving. One of the speakers, a clergyman,\nsaid that Darwinism and infidelity were responsible for criminal\ndriving. This was the clergyman's way of confuting Darwinism. He thinks\nthat if he can prove that the evolutionists kill people, he will have\ndisproved Darwinism. But Darwinism is a scientific theory, and if it is\ntrue, why, even if it killed people wholesale, that would not prove it\nfalse. If Darwinism is false, on the other hand, all the painstaking\nand respect for human life on the part of Darwinian automobiles would not\nmake it true. Darwinism does not stand or fall with the characters\nof automobilists. But this clergyman had no other way of answering\nDarwinism, so he said that. It is the argument of sheer desperation. He\nis trifling with a subject he feels is beyond him. Instead of discussing\nit, he calls it names. Small talk for small people!\n\nThe Christian religion in which we were brought up, teaches that to\nbelieve is a virtue, and--not to believe is a crime. Is it true? If I\nwere to say to you, \"You must believe that George Washington was the\nfirst president of America,\" would you deserve any credit for believing\nit? The evidence is so overwhelming that you cannot help but believe\nit. There is no virtue in believing in a statement which cannot be\nreasonably doubted.\n\nBut suppose I were to say \"'You must also believe that George Washington\ninvented the theory of evolution.\" Could you be blamed for refusing to\ncredit a statement which there is no evidence to establish? You believe\nin the first statement because it agrees with the facts, you object to\nthe second because it does not agree with the facts. In other words, you\nbelieve or question according to the nature or force of the evidence.\n\nIt is precisely the same with religion. The priest says \"God made the\nworld in six days.\" If he can prove it we have to believe it. If he\ncan not prove it, we are not to be blamed for saying \"not proven.\" The\npriest says Jesus was born of a Virgin. We don't deny it--we ask for\nevidence. If a doctrine or proposition should be accepted as true in the\nabsence of convincing evidence, why then is not Mohammedanism as true\nas Christianity? Why is not a bit of blue glass as good as a God? To\nbelieve intelligently, one must have evidence; to believe blindly, one\nreligion is as good as another.\n\nThe existence of God has always been disputed and is still in dispute\ntoday. A hundred books are written to prove his existence; a hundred\nothers question his existence. A great thinker in the eighteenth\ncentury said \"That which is the subject of eternal dispute cannot be\na foundation for anything.\" The scientist, therefore, in striving\nto separate morality from theology (for it is theology and not true\nreligion that we object to) is rendering a great service to the cause\nof righteousness. He is removing morality from the sphere of uncertainty\nand controversy into the air and light of day.\n\nBut it is not about the existence of God alone that there is\nuncertainty; there is misunderstanding and disagreement also about his\ncharacter. It is not enough to say there is a God,--we must agree\nabout his character. Yet that question is even more in dispute than\nhis existence. If the mere belief in a God is enough, why is not the\nMohammedan God enough? The Christian god has a son, and you cannot\napproach him except through his son. The Mohammedan god has no son. How\ncan they be the same being? The god of the Christian believes in the\natoning blood of Christ. The Mohammedan god repudiates such an idea. How\ncan they be the same being? What are we going to do,--if we associate\nmorality with a being whose character is in dispute? Are they the\nfriends of the moral life, who perplex our conscience with conundrums?\nEven when we have decided that the Mohammedan god is no god at all, and\nagreed upon our own deity, are we sure that his character as represented\nto us is calculated to encourage the moral life? That is an important\npoint. What do we know about the character of God except what the\npriests tell us, and what we read in their books about him.\n\nNow, I wish to make an explanation. It is not the first time I have\nbeen compelled to make it either. It is very unpleasant to say unpopular\nthings. To stand up here and say the things which make me appear\nsacrilegious and blasphemous in the eyes of the respectable majority is\nnot, I assure you, a pleasure; it is a sacrifice. But I have undertaken\nthe work and I must do it.\n\nThe character of God as painted for us in the Bible is not calculated,\nin my humble opinion, to encourage the moral life. The god of the Jewish\nand Christian scriptures is not a moral being. He does not live up to\nhis profession. He violates his own commandments. I do not say this\nhastily or carelessly,--I have studied the question. Take the\ncommandment, \"Thou shalt not kill.\" Jehovah breaks that commandment a\nhundred times, if the Bible is reliable. No sooner had Moses descended\nfrom Mt. Sinai, with the Ten Commandments, than God urged him to get the\nJews to kill one another, and fifty thousand were slain in one passion.\nThe repeated commandment of God to the Jews to exterminate their\nneighbors,--to put men, women and children to the edge of the sword,\nwould indicate that he did not mean to live up to his profession.\n\nIn the same way he commands \"Thou shalt not steal,\" and then tells his\npeople how they may spoil their neighbors, destroy their altars and\ntemples and seize their lands.\n\nHe says \"Thou shalt not commit adultery,\" and then commands his\nsoldiers to capture the daughters of the Gentiles and keep them\nforcibly.\n\nHe says \"Thou shalt not bear false witness,\" and on every page in\nthe Old Testament, everything base is said of the Egyptians, the\nBabylonians, the Assyrians, whose character modern research has\nvindicated, and it has been proved that their civilization was far in\nadvance of that of their accusers.\n\nHe says \"Thou shalt not covet\"--and then shows them the pleasant lands\nand homes of other peoples, to arouse their covetousness, to satisfy\nwhich they wade through a sea of blood from Egypt to the land of Canaan.\n\nHow can a being, who does not live up to his profession,--who breaks\nhis own commandments, be our moral ideal or model? In our attempt to\nreconcile God's conduct with morality, we resort to sophistry. We say\nGod is not bound by the same moral law that we are: He can take away\nlife, land, or property from one man and give it to another. He is above\nall law. He is good even when he does that which if we did it would\nmake us criminals, and so on. Thus, sophistry becomes a profession. We\ndevelop Jesuitical powers; we become intellectual gymnasts, dancing\non ropes and splitting hairs to prove that God can break all the moral\ncommandments and still be our model and pattern for morality.\n\nIt is a fact, moreover, that close indentification with such a being\nhas contributed to corrupt both the church and the state. Tyrants have\nclaimed the right to violate the moral law when ever it interfered with\ntheir personal pleasures. As the anointed of God, kings have tried to\nanswer all protests against their misdeeds by quoting the example of\nGod. Priests have persecuted and exterminated whole races, and\nhave given the example of God who destroys the heretics as their\njustification. The atmosphere created about us by the consciousness that\nour moral teacher has himself done the very things he has forbidden is\nan evil one.\n\nBut it may be answered that the Old Testament is no longer the authority\nit once was, and that the New Testament, or rather, the character of God\nas revealed in Christ, is our ideal. I have the highest reverence for\nthe beautiful things Jesus is reported to have said. I rejoice that some\nof his words have made twenty centuries of the world's life fragrant\nI would sooner die this instant than feel that I am guilty of\nmisrepresenting the facts, of taking a fact and twisting it into an\nargument for my party. If I have any happiness in life, if I have any\nself-respect, it is from this source,--that I am honest with the facts.\n\nYet the teachings of Jesus condensed in his direct command not to resist\nevil is the very negation of morality. We had recently the yellow fever\nin New Orleans. What did we do? We organized against it, threw ourselves\nagainst it, resisted it. It is the only way physical evil can be\ndestroyed. There was a time when if the cholera came to a city it was\nsaid that God had sent it, and it was useless to fight it. Today we\ndon't care who sent it, we don't want it, and shall not have it. We\nshall resist it. Consider the disclosures of dishonest banking houses\nand insurance companies. What do we do? We drag the guilty into the\nlight; we examine, we investigate, we expose, we punish, we do not say\nto these people, you have taken so much of our money, take also what is\nleft. We resist evil. In politics, in commerce, in every department of\nlife we find that in resistance alone is our salvation, and yet Jesus,\nthe Oriental monk, believing the end of the world to be close at hand,\nwould tie our hands, paralyze our will and give evil, physical or moral,\na free field. If we do not resist evil we will soon be so incapacitated\nfor effort, so emptied of energy and ambition that we will become the\nvictim not only of every physical pest but also of every moral iniquity.\n\"Resist not\" is just what a priest would say to his people, and a king\nto his subjects. But \"resist\" is what the liberator would say to his\nfellowmen.\n\nBut are there not examples of the highest morality in the Christian\nworld? Yes, surely, and I am glad to admit it, but it is in spite of the\nChristian creed. It shows that,--listen to this,--theology is listened\nto only one day in the week, the other six days we listen to common\nsense. We are better than our beliefs, better than our creeds. The\nAsiatic theology which we call inspired has not succeeded in perverting\nAnglo-Saxon human nature. That is what it proves.\n\nWhat importance did Jesus attach to the moral life? Let us see. You know\nthat when he was on the cross there were two thieves crucified with him.\nOne of them reviled him, the other said to him \"Lord, when thou comest\ninto thy kingdom remember me,\" and Jesus said, \"This day shall thou be\nwith me in Paradise.\" Ah, indeed!\n\nWhat had this man done to deserve such sudden glorification?\n\nIt gives me pain to say, but say I must, that a greater slight upon\nmorality could not have been placed. Think of saying to a malefactor\nwhom the laws of society were justly punishing,--that his life of\nguilt and crime, that the thefts and perhaps murders which he had\ncommitted,--were all forgiven him. Is the moral life as easy as that? Is\nit possible that by simply calling Jesus \"Lord,\" and by accepting him as\nthe Son of God, a malefactor can enter heaven, while the man whose whole\nlife has been above reproach must go to perdition if he has not the\nfaith of the malefactor? Why then be moral at all? What is required\nof men is that they use deferential language to Jesus, call him\n\"Lord\"--believe in him, and all their wickedness shall not prevent them\nfrom glory. If in one moment, and by a mere profession, a thief and\na murderer can step ahead of the righteous and the honest, then the\nChristian religion is right, righteousness is but \"filthy rags.\" No\ndeeper accusation could be brought against Christianity than that\nit calls righteousness \"filthy rags.\" But is such a religion--is the\nexample of the malefactor taken to heaven, and his victims permitted\nto go to everlasting destruction--calculated to command the respect of\nnoble minds? Charles Spurgeon must have had the example of Jesus in\nmind when he said to his hearers, in the London Tabernacle, that \"thirty\nyears of sin will take less than thirty minutes to wipe out in.\" To him\nrepentance at the last moment was better than a whole life of \"godless\"\nmorality.\n\nBut let us get a little closer to our subject: When the preachers state\nthat morality is impossible without God, they really mean--without the\nChristian religion. As we intimated above, the Mohammedan God and the\nChristian God, not being the same, can not both be true. And it is not\nenough to believe in the Christian God, one must also believe in Christ,\nthe Holy Ghost, the atonement, and so on. Hence, the Christian religion\nis the only power that can save the world, according to the preachers.\nLet us follow this thought and see where it will lead us to. If you have\nimagination try to bring the whole world before your mind's eye.\nThink of the millions upon millions of human beings dwelling upon its\nsurface--of the five hundred millions of Buddhists, the two hundred\nmillions of Moslems, the one hundred and fifty millions of Brahmans, and\nto these add the millions who follow Confucius, who profess Shintoism,\nJudaism, Jainism, and the millions who once followed Zoroaster, Zeus,\nApollo, Mithra and Isis. Compare with this tremendous host the number\nof people who during the last two thousand years have called themselves\nChristians, and tell me if it would be inspiring to think that the\nChristians who are but a handful compared with this innumerable majority\nare the only people who can be moral? If the heathen, so called by\nChristians, can be as moral as ourselves, then Christianity can not\nclaim to be the only divine faith, but if it is, as the preachers claim,\nthe only power that can save, then think of the gloom and the despair\nwhich must be the portion of every sensitive soul who realizes the\nhopelessness of the situation! For thousands of years our humanity was\ndenied the Christian religion, and even now, twenty centuries after the\nbirth of Jesus, only a handful, compared with the earth's population,\nhave accepted the only true religion. Is this inspiring?\n\nIf we were to paint the globe in two colors--black and white--allowing\nthe black to represent the \"heathen,\" and the white the Christian, we\nwould see spread before our eyes a limitless sea of inky blackness, with\na few white dots floating in it. Oh, how long will it take before this\nblack earth of ours shall change its color? If we feel uncomfortable\nwhen we see an animal maltreated, how can we have the heart to subscribe\nto a doctrine that denies to the great majority of our human fellows,\nnot only future bliss, but even the right to be moral? If instead of\nbeing a religion of love, Christianity were a religion of hate, could\nit be less generous? If instead of being the religion of the \"meek and\nlowly\" it were the religion of the proud and the haughty, could it have\nbeen more conceited? That people can enjoy a religion which blackens the\nface of all mankind outside its pale is a pitiful commentary on human\nnature.\n\nBut let us follow the lead of the preacher a little further. He says\nthere can be no morality without God, which means, no morality without\nthe Christian religion. But which Christian religion does he mean? The\nCatholics denounce protestantism as a perversion; the Protestants call\nCatholicism an imposture. Which, then, is the Christian religion without\nwhich there can be no morality? If the one is as Christian as the other,\nwhy then do they try to convert each other--why do the Catholics send\nmissionaries to the Protestants? Evidently, it must be the protestant\nreligion which is alone Christian, at least we in this country seem\nto think so. If true, then there is no morality possible without the\nprotestant faith. Now see to what a small faith and to what a pale\nand sickly hope the preacher has brought us. Ah! he has led us into an\nalley--moldy, stuffy, and choking. The world is no longer in sight, the\nsun and stars have disappeared, the winds that sweep the face of the\nearth and the sky are heard no more. Yes, we are in an alley!\n\nNow this protestant religion which is alone the hope of the world, what\nis it? A moment ago we asked, which is the Christian religion? We now\nask, which is the protestant religion? Is it the church of England?\nIs it Lutheranism? Is it Methodism? Is it Presbyterianism? Is it\nUnitarianism? Is it the Baptist Church? Is it Christian Science? We\nbelieve we have mentioned enough to select from. It will not do to\nsay that all these sects are equally Christian. Why, then, are they\nseparated? Why do not the Baptists commune at the Lord's table with the\nPresbyterians, and why do the Episcopalians claim that they alone have\nthe apostolic ordination? A Methodist preacher is not allowed to speak\nfrom an Episcopal altar--his ordination is not considered valid, and his\nchurch is only a sect in, the eyes of the church of England. Which of\nthese, then, is the true protectant religion without which no morality\nis possible in this world or salvation in the next? The proposition that\nthere can be no morality without God when analyzed, comes to this: There\ncan be no morality without the protestant religion, and it is as yet\nuncertain which is the Protestant religion.\n\nHow educated people can find cheer and comfort in an alley and mistake\nits darkness for a horizon--how they can be happy in the belief that\nno one can be good or brave without believing as they do,--is beyond my\ncomprehension. And when we remember that this Protestant religion did\nnot exist before the sixteenth century--that it is only about three\nhundred years old, and that, if it is the only true religion, it waited\na long time--until mankind had reached middle life--until the world had\nbegun to turn gray--before it commenced to minister to its needs--we\nbegin to realize that there is no thoroughfare to the alley to which\nthe preacher has conducted us--for it is a _blind_ alley, and we feel\ncreeping upon us the chill of death and despair!\n\nOh, let us turn back! Let us hasten out of this darkness! Let us return\nto the kisses of the sun and the wind, to the air and the light! To\nthink that the whole world, past and present, has been, is, and will\nbe irrevocably lost, unless it accepts our three hundred years old\nand much-divided religion! What gentle and refined mind can stand\nthe strain? Who can walk straight under the weight of such crushing\npessimism? Is it not fortunate that only one day in seven is devoted to\nchurch-going?\n\nWhen I was a Presbyterian minister, one of the hymns we used to sing in\nchurch began with the words \"From Greenland's Icy Mountains,\" and went\non to speak of \"India's Coral Strands\" and \"Africa's Sunny Fountains,\"\nending with this sentiment.=\n\n````\"Where every prospect pleases\n\n````And man alone is vile.\"=\n\nThink of the essentially unmoral mind of the man who could write such\na hymn, and of the callousness of the people who can sing it! Think of\nputting so false, so uncharitable, so conceited, so mean and small\na thought into music, and singing it! If they wept over it, if they\nmourned over it, it would be less incongruous, but to sit in their pews\nand with the help of organ and piano to sing about the vileness of the\nearth's greater population seems to me in my haste, to lend considerable\nsupport to the doctrine of total depravity. The Christian will trade\nwith the \"heathen,\" he will travel into their country, he will trust\nthem in business, but, on Sunday, when he is in church, when he is\nkneeling at the altar, in the house of his God, he calls them \"vile.\"\nIf the only way we can appreciate our own morality is by defaming the\nmajority of humanity, how contemptible must our morality he? When we\nsing that all the Hindoos, the Chinese, the Japanese and the rest of the\nnon-Christian world are \"vile,\"--that there is no love, no devotion, no\npatriotism, no honesty, no friendship, no temperance, no philanthropy,\nno chastity, no truthfulness, no mercy and no honor, in these heathen\nlands--when we deny that in these parts of the world any virtue can\nexist, are we not bearing false witness against our neighbors?\n\nTo preach the brotherhood of man in one breath, and in the next, to call\nyour brothers who do not believe in your creed \"vile,\" has about it\nthe unmistakable air of cant and hypocrisy. Is it any wonder that the\n\"heathen\" distrust the Christian nations of Europe and America?\n\nA clergyman of Chicago, one of our leading, popular, successful,\ntalented, and respected preachers--one who has had phenomenal success\nas a minister of the Gospel, and who addresses the largest Christian\naudiences in the country, speaking to the Young Men's Christian\nAssociation, declared that \"this earth would have been a hell if Christ\nhad not died on Golgotha.\" There must be something of the nature of\na blight in a creed that can force from the lips of an educated\nand benevolent man such unlovely words. And there is. It is so\nself-centered, so intolerant, so exclusive, that in its eyes the\nwhole world, except its own little corner, is nothing but \"a hell.\" To\nintimate that the world which gave us our republic, the world which gave\nus our constitution--our jurisprudence, our law courts--the world which\nhas crowded our galleries with works of imperishable beauty, and our\nlibraries with immortal poetry, literature and philosophy--which has\ngiven to our universities their classical curriculum--which created\nSocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Seneca, Cicero and the\nAntonines--a world whose ruins are more wonderful than anything we\npossess, whose dead are more immortal than our living--to suggest that\nthis pre-Christian world as well as the non-Christian countries to-day,\nwas \"a hell,\" takes my breath away. I never imagined that this fearful\nAsiatic creed could smite or sting an otherwise wholesome soul into\nsuch a contortion. What is there in this Palestinian Jew whom our famous\npreacher worships as his god that can tempt a man to bear even false\nwitness for his sake? Heavens! How can a man with the example of heroic\nJapan fresh and fragrant before him, think of this earth as a hell\nwithout his \"shibboleth?\" Victor Hugo says \"It is a terrible thing\nto have been a priest once;\" it is not less terrible to be an orthodox\nprotestant preacher to-day. And why?\n\nBecause for the preacher there is something higher than the truth--his\ncreed.\n\nBut the proposition that there can be no morality without God--that the\nearth would be a hell without Christ, in its final analysis means this:\nPeople will not be moral without the belief in a future life. It is the\nhope of future rewards which gives to the God idea its value. St. Paul\nhimself admitted that if the Christians believed in Christ for this life\nonly \"they were of all men the most miserable.\" Were the clergy to tell\ntheir flocks this morning that although they felt sure of the existence\nof God, they had their doubts about another life, how many of them would\nreturn to worship on the following Sunday? Yes, it is the mingled hope\nand fear of the future which gives the belief in a God its importance.\nIf there were no death--if men could live here forever, they would not\nmuch concern themselves about spirits and invisible beings. It is the\nidea that when we die we fall into the hands of God, the idea that it\nis a terrible thing, as the Bible says, to fall into the hands of the\nliving God--it is this idea which lights the altars, bends the knee,\nand builds churches. To placate the deity that he may reward us in the\nfuture is, frankly, the object of all religious ceremonies. If this be\ntrue, then the proposition that without God there can be no morality\namounts to this: Without future rewards and punishments no man will live\na moral life.\n\nThis doctrine leads to the following conclusions: First, man is\nnaturally immoral, and the only way he can be arrested in his career\nof vice and crime is to promise him future rewards if he will behave\nhimself, and to menace him with hell fire if he will not. Secondly, the\nproposition implies that morality _per se_ is not desirable, that no\none could be virtuous enough to desire virtue for its own sake, and that\nwithout great and eternal rewards morality would go a-begging. And this\nis religion! What then is atheism?\n\nWhy do people desire health? Certainly not for any postmortem rewards.\nThe health of the body is cultivated for its own beautiful sake. Health\nis joy, it is power, it is beauty, it is strength. Are not these enough\nto make it sacred to all men? But if the health of the body does not\nneed the prop of future rewards to commend itself to us, what good\nreason have we to think that morality, which is the health of the\nmind, is a wretched investment if there be no other life? Morality is\ntemperance. How can our ideas about the unseen world change the nature\nof temperance so that instead of being a virtue it would become a stupid\nand irksome restraint? If it is good to be temperate in the pursuit of\npleasure or wealth, or in the gratification of desire, why should our\nspeculations about the hereafter alter our attitude toward the value of\ntemperance and self-control in everything? God or no God, a future life\nor no future life, is not temperance better than intemperance? To ask\nwhy a man should practice temperance even if it be granted that it is\nbetter than intemperance is to go back to the terrible charge that man\nis by nature a monster, and that he will not behave well unless he is\npromised enormous returns in the shape of eternal rewards--palaces,\nmansions, crowns, thrones, in the next world.\n\nWell, if the preachers are right it is a serious question whether so\ndepraved a creature as man deserves to be saved at all. To have created\nso contemptible a creature was a great enough blunder, but think of\nperpetuating his race forever and ever!\n\nLet us see how much truth there is in the preacher's estimate of human\nnature. Take the example of a father who is devoted to his little\nmotherless girl. He lives for her, cares for her, protects her, and\nprovides for her future that she may feel his blessing long after he\nhas passed away. Will this father be less a father without the belief\nin future rewards? But to love and care for one's child is only natural\nmorality, replies the clergyman. Of course it is. And that is why it\nis genuine, sweet, spontaneous, and untainted with expectations of a\nreward. It never enters his mind that he is going to be paid big wages\nfor being good to his motherless child. He loved her, and that was\nheaven enough for him. It is artificial morality that pines for rewards\nand sickens and dies when the expected reward is questioned. If there is\nno future glory, who will abstain from meat on Friday, or sprinkle\nhis children, or read the Bible or listen to sermons? But the natural\nvirtues will spring up like flowers in the human soil. Men and women\nwill love, will sacrifice, will perform heroic deeds of devotion,\nwhatever may be their theories concerning the hereafter.\n\nLet us take another case. Why is an employer of labor good to his men?\nIs it because he expects to be rewarded for it in the next life? Analyze\nhis motives and you will find that if he treats his hands well it is\nbecause he believes it to be the best way to get along with them, to\nearn their good will, to keep his own self-respect, and to merit the\napproval of the community in which he lives. He is not going to\nchange his conduct toward his employees, nor will the motives which now\ninfluence his conduct lose their force immediately after he finds out\nthat there is nothing coming to him in the next world for being good and\njust to his workmen.\n\nThe theologians appear to labor under the impression that morality being\nirksome and undesirable, it would be an injustice not to reward the\npeople who put up with it with a paradise of some kind. They think that\nthe man who did not rob his neighbor, beat his wife and children, or get\ndrunk, ought to be rewarded. Certainly he ought--if it is for a future\nreward that he does not do these things. If we have an influence at all\nwe shall see that these people who have denied themselves the pleasure\nof cutting their neighbors' throats, or of leading an intemperate,\ndishonest and brutal life, shall receive their reward.\n\nThere is no doubt that some people are kept from doing wrong by the fear\nof a distant hell, and others are provoked to good works by the hope of\na heavenly crown. But the mistake of the theologian consists in thinking\nthat anybody actuated by such motives can be moral. A vicious dog is not\nmade gentle by chaining him--he is only prevented from doing harm. It is\ntrue that to prevent a savage beast from hurting people is a service\nto humanity. It is also true that if by preaching the fear of hell the\nchurches succeed in preventing vicious men from doing harm, they are\nbenefactors. Fear, while not the highest motive, is nevertheless quite\neffective with some people. Of course, as far as my own preference goes,\nI would not preach the doctrine of everlasting hell even if I could be\nassured it was the only thing that could save mankind. I would not care\nto save mankind under those conditions.\n\nThere is nothing more immoral than the idea of unending torture. The\nworst criminals are not half so immoral as the creators and perpetrators\nof the unquestionable hell of Christian theology. I can not think of\na greater insult to the human conscience than to say that this fearful\nestablishment with its everlasting stench in our nostrils is the parent\nof all virtue, and that if its fires were to be extinguished there would\nbe an end to human morality.\n\n\"It is quite easy,\" I imagine the preacher saying, \"to talk in this\nstrain now, but wait until you are on your death-bed.\" But the frightful\ndeath-bed scenes we read of in religious literature are generally\nfictitious. When they are not impostures, a careful investigation\nwill show that they are the effect of pulpit sensationalism. The dying\nthoughts of a sane and brave man or woman are as free from torture as\nthe sleep which closes the tired eye-lids. What does a mother think of\nin her last moments? She thinks of her dear ones--her chil dren! whom\nshe has to leave motherless in the world. How noble is human nature!\nAnd it is this nobility which makes theology jealous. The dying mother\nshould be thinking of her God,--her soul, her creed--she should be\ntrembling with fear, and be filled with consternation, instead of\nthinking lovingly and tearfully of her little ones! And when theology\ncan not get horrible death bed scenes, she invents them. In _Theron\nWare_, the deacons of the Methodist church say to their minister, \"Give\nus more of the death-bed scenes of Voltaire and Thomas Paine.\" For a\nlong time it was a part of the vocation of the theologians to postpone\nthe attack upon an intellectual giant until he was dead or dying.\n\nIt is not true that when people come to die they confess that the\npreacher's hell and his heaven are real after all. The other day a negro\nshot his wife and babe fatally and ran away. When the neighbors arrived\nupon the scene of the tragedy, they found the dying mother with her arms\naround her infant trying to soothe its pains. She had torn a fragment\nof her bodice to stop with it the bleeding wound in the child's arm.\nMotherhood! Was she worrying about her own soul, about eternity, about\nGod, about the devil, about heaven, about hell! Oh, no! She had one\nthought which puts all preaching to shame--to ease the pain of her dying\nchild. She forgot she was dying herself. She forgot all about her future\nreward--but she did not forget her child. That is the way mothers die.\nNo Christian can die a better death.\n\nWhen preachers can speak to us of a God who can love like this negro\nmother,--or who in the words of the English poet, Wordsworth, will=\n\n```\"Never blend his pleasure or his pride\n\n```With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels,\"=\n\nthen, we shall worship him,--not for his heaven, nor from fear of his\nhell, but for his own blessed self.\n\nOthers may be able to tell whether or not there is another life. I can\nnot. But whether or not there is a life beyond the grave, I know that\nspring will come every year, that the gentle rains will fall, the\nsunlight will woo and kiss all it meets, the harvests will wave, and the\nworld will sleep and wake each day. In the same way I know that whatever\nthe preachers may say about a godless morality, the charities, the\ndevotions, the humanities, the friendships, and the loves, will spring\nup eternal in our daily lives, and beauty and glory shall never perish\nfrom human nature.\n\n\"Conscience is born of love,\" wrote Shakespeare. In the alembic of this\nglorious truth all the terrors of the Jewish-Christian religion dissolve\ninto nothingness. A word from Shakespeare, and the nightmares of the\npast are no more. Love!--attachment, devotion, friendship, behold the\ncradle in which conscience was born! Fear is a tomb--it lives upon hell.\nLove is a cradle, nursing into being and maturity all that is good, all\nthat is true, all that is beautiful. Says Tennyson:=\n\n``\"Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds\n\n```At last he beat his music out.\n\n``There lives more faith in honest doubt,\n\n`Believe me, than in half the creeds.\"=\n\nThis _is_ music, and it descends over the babel of wrangling creeds, as\nthe sunlight, after a long storm, over the spent and weary waves.\n\n\nTHE INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY\n\nBelieves\n\n``That the greatest good in life is Truth.\n\n``Without Truth--love, hope, charity ``and all other human virtues dark\n``en. Truth is to life what the sun ``is to the world. We believe that\n``the only Truth which can be trusted ``is that which can be tested.","title":"Morality Without God: A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8085}