Untitled

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 6, 1 March 1884, Page 1

The latitude and liberty accorded by Freethought Associations is clearly exemplified in the Braithwaite correspondence. In a second letter Mr. Braithwaite confesses himself in these words :—“ I believe in the “religion of Jesus Christ as I interpret it in the New “ Testament. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, the value “ of prayer, healing by laying on of hands, inspiration, “ and other matters I might mention, which I disbelieved “ when I left the Church, I believe now most firmly.” And he is entitled to his belief without any question. But he is not entitled to convert his own want of moral courage into a charge of intolerance. “ I seldom gave “ a leCture,” he says, “ knowing my views were “ unpopular. I never once gave any teaching on God, “ immortality, or prayer in the Children’s Lyceum, “ neither did any Theistic teacher—supposing there are “any. I knew well it would displease the Atheistical “ party. . . . How could I teach my views to my “ class if most of the children belonged to Atheistical “ parents. Suppose I had, and one little boy said, “ ‘ My father don’t believe such,’ what would be the “ effeCl ? The question needs no answer. One was “ constrained therefore to sink what he conceived to “be his best thoughts—and in a Freethought “ Association ” ! And so it comes to this, that the intolerance was in the little boys who preferred the teaching of their fathers to that of Mr. Braithwaite. “ Conscience makes cowards of us all.” And a man’s “ best thoughts ” are kept to himself because they are unpopular ! Now where does the implied intolerance come in ? Parents surely should not be compelled to receive even “ best thoughts ” for their boys, if they don’t like them. The Association exhibited a wide spirit of liberty and toleration in electing a Theist one of its Vice-Presidents if, as Mr. Braithwaite alleges, Theism is unpopular. It is Mr. Braithwaite who makes the distinction, that it was with the little boys, not with the Association, he feared his best thoughts would be unpopular. It may be unfortunate that a boy should believe his father before his teacher, but it is one of those things which no association can provide against.

It is quite possible the Association was deceived. Mr. Stout, evidently from his letter, looked upon Mr. Braithwaite as a Theist and Spiritualist; that is, one who rejects revelation, the divinity of Jesus, &c. ; whereas he has been for some time— was going to resign, he says, two years ago—a Christian of the Plymouth Brethren type. Now it must be admitted that a Christian—a believer in the Resurrection—is somewhat out of his element in a Freethought Association. It is probable that the knowledge of Mr. Braithwaite's belief would not have made much difference in the aCtion of the Association towards him. It is one of the principles of Freethought to receive everyone whose conscience—he himself being the judge—will allow him to associate under its banner. And it is one of the remarkable features of this strange case that the individual conscience allowed itself so

wide a latitude. For the distinction must not be overlooked that while perfect freedom of conscience is extended to others, a man is required not to allow his . own to run riot. “In November last (says Mr. “ Braithwaite) I offered by letter to continue the * Echo’ “ as a monthly, providing it contained my religious views “ ‘ occasionally in its editorial columns, and was assisted “ with a monetary subsidy of £6 per month for twelve “ months. This letter remains unanswered.” This confession suggests some grave reflections. Is it a part of the Christian conscience to receive . a subsidy from Atheists—Mr. Braithwaite insinuates they are all or nearly all Atheists in the Dunedin Association— run their representative paper ? In that same November we find “J. 8.” telling his Atheistical • readers “that “ Freethought was sure to succeed in the long run,” and holding up the character of the veteran Freethinker, William Denton, for admiration. We have no hesitation in asking Was it honest of a Christian to dissemble his views in this way ? He was at that time treating for a subsidy ! We are content to let this case illustrate the difference between the Christian and the Freethinker, the Christian Theist and the Atheist. And not another word need be said.

What would you give us in place of Christianity ? In one of his addresses recently in Dunedin, Mr. Charles Bright answered this question in a single word Nothing. One of the pulpits—which did not take the trouble of giving Mr. Bright’s explanation of his meaning, or of ascertaining the attitude of the iconoclast thought the admission condemnatory of Freethought. The justification of the bold negation depends on the result of the analysis of Christianity. When this has been performed, there will doubtless remain elements which must enter into any system of morals. No ethical synthesis can be perfect without many of the moral attributes which are to be found in all religions, however depraved and barbarous ; and the question is quite as forcible—What would you give us in place of Mahommedanism ? There is not a single ethical maxim or injunction in Christianity but which may be found in the secular teachings of philosophyan observation made by Hypatia in Alexandria 1,400 years ago. But Christianity as a system is either true or false. The contention of the Freethinker is that, being false, its destruction would be a solid gain for truth, and consequently make for the elevation of humanity. There are hundreds of Associations at work to-day which, rejecting Christianity, are moving towards an ideal sufficient to satisfy the cravings of finer natures, and by education are mouldings others. The good in connection with the Christian system would not therefore cease with the extinction of the system itself, but would rather flow with' greater volume and force when released from the cramping effect of dogma, miracle, and priestly contrivance. “ Nothing in place of the system, would allow the good extracted from all systems to combine with greater freedom for social ends.

The Prince of Wales, in addressing the Grand Lodge of Masons lately, said : “ As long, brethren, as Masonry “ remains as it is now— an order and an institution of “ charity and of usefulness— will flourish as long as “ the world exists. Let us hope that the time may never “ come when we may in any way be biassed by politics. “ Above all, brethren, let us remember that we must as “ a charitable body be religious. As long as religion “ remains engrafted in the hearts of the Craft of our “ country it is certain to flourish —-and be assured of it, “ brethren, that when religion in it ceases the Craft will “ also lose its power and its stability.” This is a strange medley of “ certainty ” and “ assurance.” Would it have been in accordance with the eternal fitness of things that his Royal Highness had referred to the central principle of Masonry——instead of dwelling on the allegorical part —religion ? This is a weak point, and we shall not dwell on it. The Grand Orient requires no religion to assist it to be charitable and useful ; but then perhaps it will not flourish “as “ long as the world exists.” It does seem strange also that English Masonry should not be content with religion and charity, but should prefer princes and noblemen to ordinary men for the posts of honor, in spite of longer service, experience, and ability in the ordinary men. We fear that however much the Order in England may adl on the square, it is determined not to apply the level to its morals.

Mr. Herbert Spencer, in dealing a mortal blow at the religions of the past and present, has afforded the religious world some consolation in preserving for them an Eternal Energy shrouded in eternal mystery ; for the votary of Jehovah loves to have his favorite deity well concealed in his native cloud. The gulph between the two deities will be easily bridged over in the imagination of the faithful, who, while regretting the great philosopher’s iconoclastic thrusts at the superstitions of the past, will cordially welcome the conclusion that whatever of mystery is taken from the old conception of the Universe will be added to the new with interest. Jehovah, Jupiter, Pan, Eternal Energy, may only be different names of the same cause or being ; and so theology and the theologians go on their way rejoicing— mumbling the same forms while the evolution proceeds. The prospedl Mr. Spencer holds out is that the human faculty of wonder will have more employment in the future. With every fresh discovery the mystery will become more mysterious. The Unknowable will grow less knowable—if the paradox may be permitted—and some wise man a million of years hence will still be finding, like the Agnostic of to-day, solace in the contemplation of the lines :

Knowledge is proud that he has learnt so much , Wisdom is humble that he knows no more.”

What law of reasoning denies the possibility of a solution of the problem ? If man were confined to a thousand or ten thousand years on the earth, the probabilities might be against his discovering the operation of this Eternal Energy; but give him time, and he may arrive at the point of culmination of the mystery. Mr. Spencer seems to have fallen into the error of regulating the inductions of the future.by the fadls of the present. Or if he thinks he has discovered some a priori principle which is final, he might be reminded that errors are very likely to have crept in to

vitiate the conclusion. We now read with amusement Lord Brougham, in his Dissertations on Paley, ascribing the perfection of the cell of the bee to the direct assistance of the deity. But thirty years ago, or before Charles Darwin spoke, we might have thought his reasons cogent. Sir John Herschell believed the tangential force was derived from an original motion given by the creator to bodies in space. The theory has no supporter ‘among living astronomers. Mr. Spencer’s Eternal Energy is the creation of his own mind, and limited by its conceptions.

The Ethiop gods have Ethiop lips, Bronze cheeks, and woolly hair ; The Grecian gods are like the Greeks, As keen-eyed, cold, and fair,"

We have as great a mind in the late Professor Clifford declaring that mathematics do not suggest infinity in the Universe, and hoping to find the secret of its energy in the property of atoms. Are we then to, have a different shade given to the meaning of.terms? Is Agnostic to mean one who believes in an existence unknowable called Eternal Energy ? And is the Atheist the follower of Clifford who believes Nature all in all, revealing herself gradually to man pursuing the lines of scientific enquiry ? We may accept Spencer in his inductions from accumulated facts, and bury the ghosts of the past. But we incline to hope with Clifford that, given time, and the inmost workings of the great mother of us all— Naturewill be explored.

The attitude of the State school teachers towards the Bible was a topic of discussion recently in the Presbyterian Synod of Otago, the question being raised by the Rev. Mr. Stevens, who asserted that a majority of the teachers in Otago referred to the Bible disparagingly in the presence of their pupils. This was strenuously denied by Mr. Fitzgerald, Redtor of the Normal School, and a professing Christian. We are glad of the denial, for the imputation, we are assured, was unwarranted. Few Freethinkers are likely to forget the unsectarian and secular character of the education system, or their duty to avoid all reference to religion in the school. But the Redtor of the Normal School went beyond his cue when he professed to be able to state approximately the number of teachers who are Freethinkers. The Normal School is not an inquisition to discover heresy for a Synod to punish, and as the private or speculative opinions of a teacher are clear of synodical jurisdiction, they should not have been made a subject of discussion. The priestsPotestant and Catholic— are growing daily more hostile to the State system of education, and it is not improbable they may have sufficient cause. In the one case the Protestant fetish, the Bible, has been banished; and the idolaters must feel keenly the contempt cast on their idol.' In the other the Church is no longer free to mix up the dodlrinc of mental subjection to spiritual authority with the inculcation of the “three Rs”— and hence these tears. The sects have numbers on their side ; the Freethinkers are few. But it is wonderful how great is the resisting force of a compact, though numerically small, body of men inspired with a great cause. Though the priests may combine to assail the fortress of national secular

education, unity of purpose, intelligence, and the entrenchments of the law are on the side of the Freethinker, whose true policy it is to defend the I ramparts at all points.

Public opinion in. the colony on the subject of an Australasian confederation of which New Zealand shall be a member, has taken a more decided turn since we first noticed the question in these columns. Sir George Grey’s speech at Auckland has reached to all parts, stirring up the people to reflect on the possible and probable consequences of an alliance with the Australian colonies on the basis proposed at the Sydney Conference. We are not sure, however, that his argument touching the introduction of coloured labour can be maintained. It is well to avoid ground which in debate may be proved to be untenable. The real danger, as we suggested, is the inevitable tendency of the federal body to increase its powers at the expense of the provinces, and the weakening of the national instincft. In the November number Contemporary Review’ the Marquis of Lome points to the continual increase of the central or federal authority in Canada as one of the inevitable conditions of federation. It must be seen that if the proposed Federal Council is to have no larger powers than those drafted in the Bill by the Conference, federation will be purposeless. The most thoughtful perhaps of the English papers, the ‘ Economist,’ takes this view. It says: —“The question “ is not such an easy one as it may at first sight appear, “ for two reasons. In the first place, it is clear that as “ the expense, or some part of it, incurred in carrying “ out the foreign policy of Australia is to be borne by “ the colonies, the Central Council must' be invested “ with power to call for and apportion the necessary “ contributions. Thus indirectly, at least, it will be a “ taxing authority'. And, secondly, inasmuch as the “ Council will not be able to take final decisions, at “ least in important affairs, without first submitting its “ proposals to the approval of the Imperial Government, “ some confidential channel for communication and “ discussion between the Home and colonial authorities “ must be secured.” The “ power to call for and apportion the necessary contributions” implies that preponderance of the central authority which would reduce the provinces to insignificance !

A little publication, called the ‘ Agnostic Annual,’ just received by the English mail, contains a letter from Professor Huxley in reply to the following questions: — 1. Is Agnosticism in accord with modern science ? 2. What is its relation to popular theology? 3. Is Agnosticism destined to supplant religions supernaturalism? After stating that he invented the word “Agnostic” some twenty years ago, “ to denote “people who, like myself, confess themselves to be “ hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters “ about which metaphysicians and theologians, both “ orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost “ confidence,” he says:—1 “ Agnosticism is of the “ essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or “ believes that which he has no scientific grounds for “professing to know or believe.” 2. “Consequently “ Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of “ popular theology, but also the greater part of popular “anti-theology. On the whole, the bosh of “ heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of “ orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided “ by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.” 3. “ I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove “destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which “enter into the constitution of existing religions. On “ trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is

Not proven.’ But true Agnosticism will not forget “ that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in “nature arc more stupendous miracles than any “recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be “ things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond “ the intelligible universe, which ‘ are not dreamt of in “‘our philosophy.’ The theological ‘gnosis’ would have us believe that the world is a conjuror’s house ; “the anti-theological ‘gnosis’ talks as if it were a dirt-pie,’ made by the two blind children — Law and “Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know “ nothing of what may be beyond phenomena,”

It seems that Professor Huxley resented the publication of the above letter, and an angry correspondence took place between Professor Huxley and the editor of the ‘ Agnostic Annual,’ Mr. C. A. Watts. The President of the Royal Society seems to have displayed more heat over a mere misunderstanding than might have been expeefted from a philosopher, who in this case certainly did not act in accordance with his own Agnostic principles, but, on evidence which was certainly not scientific, jumped to the conclusion that he had been “ treated dishonorably ” by Mr. Watts, who had published a letter which he knew was a private communication. It looks as if Mr, Watts was justified in saying —“ With all deference, we repeat that it is “ manifest from the tone of each of his letters that the “ secret of his vexation is the wide publicity which has “ has been given to his direct attack upon Christianity, “ and to his equally clear avowal of Freethought and “Agnosticism.” It would be well it all men, and especially men of science, realised the fa6l that—as Mr. Herbert-Spencer says in an eloquent passage in his “First Principles ” —“ Opinion is the agency through “ which character adapts external arrangements to itself “ that his opinion rightly forms part of that agency—■ “ is a unit of force, constituting, with other such units, “ the general power which works out social changes ; “and he will perceive that he may properly give full “ utterance to his innermost convictions: leaving it to “ produce what effedt it may. It is not, for nothing that “ he has in him these sympathies with some principles “ and repugnance to others. He with all his capacities, “and aspirations, and beliefs, is not an accident, but a “ product of the time. He must remember that while “ he is a descendant of the past he is a parent of the “ future ; and that his thoughts are as children born to “him, which he may not carelessly let die. He, like “ any other man, may properly consider himself as one of the myriad agencies through whom works the “Unknown Cause; and when the Unknown Cause “produces in him a certain belief, he is thereby “ authorised to profess and acd out that belief.’’’

Perhaps Professor Huxley’s contemptuous reference to the bosh” of “heterodoxy” is perhaps partly due to his dislike of a crude materialism which was popular a few years ago and found expression in such phrases as “ the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile,” “ but though he declared on one occasion, “ personally “ I am not a materialist; on the contrary I believe “ that materialism contains grave philosophic error” (Fortnightly Review for 1869) ; yet on another he wrote: “If there is anything which is clear in the present “progress of science, it is the tendency to reduce all' scientific questions, with the exception of purely

“ mathematical ones, to what is called molecular physics,

“ that is, to the attraction, repulsion, motion and “ combination of the smallest particles of matter, and further, “ the phenomena of biology are as immediately “ related to molecular physics as are those of chemistry ; “ and this is a fact acknowledged by all chemists and “ biologists who see beyond their own immediate “ occupation.” If this is not materialism in the only sense in which the question can be of any interest to mankind it is hard to say what is. Matter may be only a “ permanent possibility of sensation” and “ mind “ a permanent possibility of feeling,” or both may be modes of the unknown, as, on a monistic theory of the universe, is much more likely. In either case man is not an isolated being in his nature different from the rest of the universe, but part of it, the result of a play of forces which he can only know as coexistences and sequences related to the great whole. His personal identity is like that of a flame or a river, one of form only, and to flatter himself that he is something more because the unknown is infinite, is to re-introduce theological conceptions under the guise of science aping a humility which is misplaced. In relation to ourselves the “scientific imagination” may surely aspire to penetrate the unknown future by the same methods it has applied to the unknown past, though in the one case we can never arrive at a beginning or in the other at an end.