SECESSION OF A VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DUNEDIN FREETHOUGHT ASSOCIATION.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 5, 1 February 1884, Page 6

SECESSION OF A VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DUNEDIN FREETHOUGHT ASSOCIATION.

The following is the letter written by Mr. Joseph Braithwaite on the occasion of his retiring from the Dunedin Freethought Association. We also publish Mr. Stout’s reply :

To the Committee of the Dunedin Freethought Association—

Gentlemen, —Pleace accept my resignation as Vice-President of the Dunedin Freethought Association, which the members kindly elected me to for two years past. It being fair that those I have worked with for a number of years should know my reasons, I give them. I think the Association in a constructive religious sense a failure, the logical result where members’ views are so diverse. The compromise on fundamental questions is so complete that practically nothing positive, however true, can be successfully taught. For instance, many members believe in a higher power than themselves-—in an infinite, intelligent Spirit which may be fittingly termed the old name, God—and in a future state; but through the disbelief again of others, whose convictions deserve equal consideration, and for harmony’s sake, they have to be almost completely ignored, or I should say avoided, especially in the Children’s Lyceum. However right this may be as a matter of .expediency, it can be carried too far. Truth can be rendered ineffective and inoperative by this process. I think it wrong to deprive children of any teaching whatever on questions that have been a factor for good in the main. Members are not to blame ; the fault lies in the basis of the Association. I see clearly that no association can accomplish anything beneficial unless its members are animated by one common aim and aspiration. The world is only moved thus. What would the reformers of the past have accomplished had they been restrained by the views of others ? Nothing. To those who believe they possess the truth and feel the necessity of imparting it to others, life is too short for compromise. But to accomplish this one must belong to an organisation in thorough sympathy with one’s views. True, cruelty, persecution, and self-inflicted penances of the direst kind have been committed by those who believed in God and immortality, and in (the case of many Christians) opposition to the teachings of Jesus, but what of the good done ? Surely this should count. Besides, this persecution was the result of their ignorantly thinking they were pleasing God thus. The intention underlying their actions was good, though'the effects were such-that every man in these days must condemn. To my mind this yearning to please a Higher Power, this desire—whether in a religious or scientific senseto set ourselves in right relations with that power is a necessary and beneficent part of man's nature, or it would never have existed, and can when directed by intelligence, be productive of incalculable good. And it does not necessarily follow’, as some think, that those who believe thus will therefore neglect the duties of this life. History teaches that the noblest specimens of humanity have held these beliefs ; that they have been the motive power underlying their test actions. My opinion is the more one does his duty here the more he fits himself for the great hereafter. No other incentive can possibly equal this for uplifting the race. We want something to rouse the masses ; this will do it negation never. It might did the world consist of philosophers only. No doubt error has twined itself around the beliefs I have mentioned, but that is due to the imperfections of humanity. Besides, what we call truth and error and good and evil are only relatively so to our senses. It seems to me that in sifting the one from the other and making for that which is best, thus evolves himself higherexperience is the step-ladder of progression. I see no necessary antagonism between science and religion, but believe they will, in the rapidity with which everything moves on now-a-days, be reconciled ere long. Such confusion of thought is caused by many, both inside and outside the Church, interpreting the Bible in too liberal a sense, and guaging the idealisms of thousands of years ago by our more exact meaning of modern words. Another common error consists in picking out certain passages to suit one’s idiosyncracies, making them do duty for the whole. Canon Farrar shows the folly of all this in his “ Eternal Hope,” and criticises adversely the ultra-orthodox conceptions of eternal punishment” and “hell,” but present instead much higher and more natural conceptions. I learn also that every religious system has after all played a salutary part relatively to the age and race it operated upon, and that from our advanced standpoint of to-day it is unwise to condemn them wholesale. Hence I look upon Christianity as superior to those that went before, and that even now it reaches the moral sense of the great majority in a way no other existing organisation does. Even the Salvation Army, with all its faults, is doing a good work. To my view the value of the Church consists in the steadfastness with which she has ever proclaimed a belief in God and immortality. Without these existence is a mockery and morals a farce. I do' not doubt that when the Church finds that what I conceive to be the uncssentials ' of religion—as related to the present age—have lost their influence, like the belief in a “ material hell fire ” almost has, that she will

either lei them go or modify them in accordance with the spirit of the age, and be all the stronger for it. She has done so in the past, and shows signs of doing so again. She always espouses a new fact

or a new version of the old truth where they can be made most effective for good—that is, when their truth or utility have been thoroughly demonstrated, and the bulk of mankind are ready to receive them, -which is an important point. Had she the will she could not do this before without uprooting her whole system, and doing society more harm than good. Another thing, it is not the Church alone, as some think, that opposes the truth. Scientists have done so, and with less reason. They at least are expected to lay aside all preconceptions, and follow the truth wherever it leads them. That such has not been done I need only refer to Galileo, Harvey, # and Jenner, whose discoveries were opposed by all their scientific contemporaries, to whom they appeared absurd and incredible. And we have striking examples even to our day. Says Alfred Russell Wallace, himself a scientific man, when Franklyn brought the subject of lightning conductors before the Royal Society he was laughed at as a dreamer, and his paper was not admitted to the ‘‘Philosophical Transactions.” When Young put'forth his proofs of the undulating theory of light, he was hooted at by the popular scientific writers of the day. ■ The ■ Edinburgh Review ’ asked the public to put Thomas Gray into a straight-jacket for maintaining the practicability of railroads. Sir Humphrey Davy laughed at the idea of London ever being lighted with gas. When Stevenson proposed to use locomotives on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, learned men gave evidence that it was impossible they could go even twelve miles an hour. Another great scientific authority declared it to be equally impossible for ocean steamers ever to cross the Atlantic. The French Academy of Science ridiculed the great astronomer Arago, when he wanted even to discuss the subject of the electric telegraph. Medical men ridiculed the stethoscope when it was first discovered. Painless operations during the mesmeric coma were pronounced impossible, and therefore impostures. I could supply other illustrations, but these serve to show that it is not always the Church that opposes the truth. At the same time I do not disparage the claims of science, a cause for which I have the highest respect. The fact is the Church could not exist a day in any age unless her teaching was positive; it must be based upon what are generally admitted as facts for the time being. She must therefore be cautious before accepting what are termed new truths, many of which are not so. This renders her less liable to error than if she were less, conservative ; besides, her attitude makes the truth shine all the clearer in the end. Hence, if I may say so, the Church relative to the capacity—broadly speaking -of those existing in each century advocates what may be termed the truth, and has done a work which I doubt any other organisation could have done as well. I am fortified in this by Mr. O. Frothingharn, one of America's most cultured Freethinkers, who has retired from the materialistic propaganda after years of active, conscientious work. Besides, Evolution, as I understand it, the sacred literature of all races and nations, recent research —especially in psychological science-seems to me to confirm the view I have imperfectly sketched. Moreover, the aspirations, thoughts, tastes, and desires of those who believe in an intelligent governing power in the Universe (which I will not attempt to define), who believe also in the exalting influences of sincere prayer uttered or unexpressed,” and in man’s responsibility in free will, too, in the sense that the more one intelligently acquaints himself with the laws of Nature, which are also the laws of God, and conforms thereto, the freer, the wiser, the better he becomes, are so entirely dissimilar to the aspirations, etc., of those who believe none of those doctrines, that I think the two parties would work more effectively apart. I perceive also the wisdom of Huxley’s contention that he would sooner familiarise his children • with the tenets of the Bible, even though they imbibed some error; than bring them up in negation or deprive them of all knowledge of a book that certainly reflects, whatever its faults may be, the religious development of an important section of the human race, and that has played a most important part since among civilised nations covering a considerable portion of the world’s history. lam not disposed to ignore the claims of tradition altogether— have their value. Nor do I see 'the utility of rushing into extreme scepticism because one leaves the Church. Religion—that is, abelief ih God, immortality, and the influences therewith — natural toman whatever his intellect may say. That is so because it is based upon his higher necessities, which, like everythihg else in Nature, must have some corresponding reality. My opinion is you might as well try to drive back the waves from the sea-shore as to eradicate religion altogether. Creeds and religious systems may change - religion never. Tear down the churches to-day, to-morrow they would be up again. lam satisfied the Association will never make headway among the people until it can present them a motive power for good higher than the one they have got already, and to do this it must have a religious basis, or it will never reach their higher aspirations. I have adopted these views after years of (I hope) serious study and reflection and a degree of anxiety known only to my most intimate friends. Hence it will be seen that I cannot co-operate any longer with the .Association, nor with the Children’s Lyceum, which I specially regret. Nevertheless, I shall ever be found standing up for civil and religious liberty and the completes! toleration one to another.

I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully, Joseph Braitijwaite.

MR. STOUT'S REPLY. My dear Braithwaite, —Last evening your letter to the committee of the Dunedin Freethought Association was read at our usual weekly meeting, and the committee unanimously adopted your resignation of the office of one of the Vice-Presidents with regret. Before I sat down to pen an answer I saw that you had published your letter in the morning papers. Ido not quarrel with you for doing this. Indeed, there were two reasons why I was glad you had adopted this rather unusual course, and these are : First, its publication shows that our much-abused Freethought Association has obtained a substantial position- in the community. Would the

daily papers have published the reasons of a member for resigning the office of a deacon of a Presbyterian Church or a lieutenant of the Salvation Army ? I doubt it. If, however, the daily papers are to publish all the letters that resigning office-bearers of churches, associations, or lodges send, I am afraid " leaders " and " locals " may not be much in request. My second reason is that lam in hopes (to use theological language) that your letter and this reply may " over-ruled ” for the spread of truth. Who knows but that they may help some of our fellow-colonists, who do not know what a Freethought Association is, to appreciate the position of Freethinkers ? And a knowledge of one another's views is one step towards complete toleration. I am glad that you have placed in the forefront of your letter the diversity of the views of the members of our Association. We have, as you know, Theists, Agnostics, Unitarians, Atheists, Pantheists, Spiritualists in our ranks, and that you, a Theist and Spiritualist, have been twice elected one of our Vice-Presidents, shows that those who were not Spiritualists could unite with those who were. In fact, we have shown to the churches a modus vivendi that may have a beneficial effect when creed subscription is again discussed. And I also appreciate your statement that in a " constructive religious sense ” the Association is a failure. If it had been a .success our very raison d’etre would have been destroyed. We never united to form a new theology, or a new religion. Our aim was, and is, something different. We believe that truth is the most important thing in this world, and that none of the race can be benefited by falsehood. We have also recognised that the deeper questions of this life will never be solved by all men alike ; and we haae united to discuss them freed from creeds, and to teach our children their duties to themselves and their fellows. This, we think, we can do without appealing to a Deity, or invoking the terrors of future punishment or the pleasures of future -glory, On this, as you will remember, we took our stand when we issued the “ Lyceum Guide." The preface quotes a pregnant passage from Spencer’s data of Ethics, showing that morality requires no sanction from Divine injunctions. If good acts conduce to human well-being, and bad acts to human ill-being, there is a sanction for morality higher than Mosaic commandments or the terrors of Hell. You say that morals are “a farce ” unless based on Theism and a future life. Is this meant to be what logicians call a universal ? I take it that you mean that no men can be moral who arc not Theists and believers in a future state of existence. If you do, then one exception is sufficient to disprove your proposition, and I need not say that there arc hundreds, perhaps millions, of Agnostics who are moral men. You complain of the children at the Lyceum not being taught the dogmas of a Personal Deity and a future state of existence. Here again let me say that I believe the majority of the teachers are Theists, and as conductor I never dictated or supervised the class teaching you and the other leaders gave. But, believing as Ido that morality is independent of all dogmas -standing on an assured human foundation —I do not teach the children any dogmas. They, however, had as text-books “Clodd’s Childhood of Religion” and “ Clodd’s Childhood of the World.” From these they could learn all about the different religions of the world. When they get to years of discretion they can then choose the religion or non-religion they like best. And now as to two or three other positions in your letter : First The good the churches have done. Second—The attitude of reformers towards the race. Third—The conflict between science and religion. Fourth—The naturalness of religious belief. I select these four points, omitting many more which might be noticed, because of the length to which my reply would have to extend. First: I am not aware that any member of the Freethought Association disputes that churches have done good—nay, are doing some good. Nor docs any sane person wish to ignore tradition. Whether he so desired or not, it would not avail him. The past exists. It is one thing to admit the good of the past and to be guided by it now. Our attitude is this— We had not walked But for tradition; we walk evermore To higher path, by brightning Reason’s lamp. For example, the admitting that the Mahommcdans did good would not make one become a follower of the Prophet, nor would the recognition of the great services rendered to humanity by the Roman Church make one join her communion. The question we have to ask is, Where is the true ? and follow whithersoever we think it is. The truth needs no condiment, and I reprobate to the utmost the canting phrase so often used by church people, “ Oh, we need religion for the masses.” If religion is true, it is required for all, and if it is not, it is needed for none. Recognising the good the churches have done is no argument for becoming a churchman now. The second point is the attitude of reformers. lam not aware if the Dunedin Freethought Association have ever assumed the role of reformers. You know how careful we were not to attempt proselytising. We charged for admission to our lectures, and we even recognised that to be a Freethinker something other than an appeal to one’s emotion had to be made. I understand your position to be that churches change as rapidly as is necessary, and that until the masses are educated it is unwise to alter the creeds. Of course this means that the churches are always ruled by the ignorant. But you go further, and say that reformers only succeed who preach some positive and not a negative creed. This is partly true and partly erroneous, Every religious reformer that I know has thrown overboard some of the positive beliefs of the church he attempted to reform. Jesus Christ did not preach all the Jewish creed. He thought morality was safe without a belief in all the varied beliefs of the Jews of his day. Martin Luther also was negative as well as positive. And so with the English and Scotch reformers. And if I mention Barclay, Theodore Parker, and others, it will be seen that these reformers thought the world could get along with less faith

than the churches they left required. The whole history of the evolution of religion shows a throwing off of beliefs. The creeds have been pared down, and, as I understand you, you wish them stdl further lessened. Hell fire is to go. Then, the conflict between science and religion. You say some scientists have opposed new discoveries and new inventions. I admit it. But 1 am not aware of any scientific society having burned anyone for a discovery, nor putting a fellow-scientist in prison for an invention. Because some scientists have denounced new discoveries it does not prove that the attitude of scientists and theologians is the same to now truths. We need not go to the past. Let us take the attitude of Christians of the present day, and in our own town. The most vital Christian organisation, the Y. M. C. A refused to admit the Rev. A. R. Fitchctt as a member because he was an evolutionist, and they selected the Rev. A. C. Gillies as the champion of the popular creed, lam not aware that the Otago Institute ever declined a member because his views on biology did did not accord with Darwin’s or Huxley’s, And the reason of the different attitude is not difficult to understand. To the Christian,* Divine revelation has closed. The question then is whenever any new scientific theory is promulgated, what saith the Church ? or what saith the Scripture ? The scientific men have no closed record and no authoritative guide by which to test a discovery or an invention. Then you say certain beliefs are natural to men. As I understand, you include belief in Deity and in a future life, and rewards and punishments in that life. I do not understand “ natural,” unless you mean the majority have such beliefs. I need not point out to you that if Evolution be true, that a majority believe anything is no proof of its truth. In fact, it is just as likely to be false. And at one time there were many beliefs “natural to man that are now not natural.” Need I instance witchcraft ? But my letter is already too long. Were it not so, I might point out that you have entirely misapprehended what relativity of knowledge means. As I gather from your letter, you have not changed the views that to my knowledge you have held for years. You are still a 1 heist and a Spiritualist, and still reject the dogmas of the irinity and some the other popular doctrines of the Christian Church. Perhaps with your views and beliefs it may be wise for you to join with other advanced Unitarians in founding a Unitarian Church here. There are I know many in the churches here who hold your views, and possibly, in founding a church, it is necessary that all should have one creed and be animated with one desire, Cm Association does not require such unanimity, and I am glad to say that we were never so vital. We are opening a weekly debating class, and our reading room and library thrice a week. Our children’s Lyceum library can now number many hundreds of volumes, and the attendance on Sundays was never so great. Knowing your interest in everything that tends to freedom of thought, I mention these details. 4.1 And now, my dear Braithwaite, let me personally thank you for the help you have given us in the past. Though you have ceased to be one of our Vice-Presidents, I have no doubt but that with more study you will yet see that every reform of religion, from Jesus’s day to the present, has come from those without and not from those within the Church, and that should you join a church and hope to make its members Theists and Spiritualists you will have a more up-hill task than you have had in- your efforts to get our Association to accept such a creed. I am, &c., _ ~ Robert Stout. Dunedin, January 16th, 1881.