Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

ical liberty, such as Paine
or Richard Carlile. Nevertheless, Infidel he was not, although Atheist
he was.

Now, Mr Holyoake was equally an Atheist, but he did not see that
there was anything to be gained by the use of a name which had so
undeservedly become a term of reproach; he preferred to find a new name
and make a fresh start under new colours. In a debate held seventeen
years before with the Rev. Brewin Grant, Mr Holyoake had said that
opprobrium was associated with the word "Atheist," and that this
would be got rid of by the use of the word "Secularist," which would
also bring before the mind the moral objects in view. Moved probably
by the idea of making the path easy to the faint-hearted who were
frightened by the bogey conjured up by the word "Atheist," Mr Holyoake
was anxious to disassociate his new name altogether from Atheism,
and went so far as to say that Secularism did not involve Atheism or
Scepticism. Thus the new Secularism looked askance at the old Atheism,
and seemed anxious to have it known, that the two had "no connection."
Mr Holyoake regarded the "imputation" that Secularism involved Atheism
and Scepticism as "the greatest impediment in the way of" national
Secular education. He claimed for his Secularism that it was a "new
form of Freethought," perfectly independent of Atheism or Theism.
Secularism proposed "to set up principles of nature in the place of
principles of theology, and found, if possible, a kingdom of reason
for those who found the kingdom of faith inadequate or unreliable."
Secularism, Mr Holyoake contended, should assert its own principles,
but not assail others, neither needing to assail nor condescending
to assail theological systems. These ideas will doubtless commend
themselves to many, especially to those who do not look under the
surface of the words; but we know that before we can put nature "in
the place of" theology, we must depose theology, and we also know that
when geology points out the secular truth of the numberless ages it
has taken to form the earth's crust, by the mere assertion of such a
truth it assails the theological dogma of the creation of the world
in seven days. Mr Bradlaugh in his speech put it in this way: "The
Secularist finds the kingdom of faith impossible, he finds belief in
God impossible, he finds belief in religion impossible. What is the
difference between finding belief in God impossible and an Atheist?" He
said further: "Although at present it may be perfectly true that all
men who are Secularists are not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be that
the man gets to Atheism if he has brains enough to comprehend." Mr
Holyoake spoke of various bodies all over the kingdom occupied with
a negative form of Freethought; he met with many orators who were
mere negationists. The stock-in-trade of a negationist, he said, is
the simplest possible; he has only to deny what some one else holds,
and he is set up in the art of warfare. But these societies and these
orators were entirely unknown to Mr Bradlaugh; those he had worked
with for ten years or more had done positive work, and of this he
gave many instances. This attack and reply are of importance because
the terms "negationist" and "destructive freethought" have grown into
cant phrases, used as terms of reproach by persons who do not trouble
to consider either exactly what they mean, or whether there is anyone
to whom they are really applicable. Mr Holyoake asserted that Atheism
does not embody a system of morals, while Mr Bradlaugh replied that
"You cannot have a scheme of morality without Atheism. The Utilitarian
scheme is an Atheistical scheme. The Utilitarian scheme is a defiance
of the doctrine of Providence, and a protest against God." Referring to
Mr Holyoake's objection to the words "Infidelity" and "Atheism" because
of the opprobrium which has gathered round them, Mr Bradlaugh said:--

"I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie.
I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect--I know the
leading men among them who have made themselves prominent, and I do
not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word
Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. I do not quarrel with
the word 'Secular' if it is taken to include this body of men, but I
do object to it if we are told Atheism has nothing to do with it. I
object when we are told that Atheism is not its province, because I say
that the moment you tell me that you have to deal with the affairs of
this life, to the exclusion of the rest, you must in effect deny the
rest. If you do not deny the rest, you leave your Secularism in doubt,
you partially paralyse the efforts on your own side. If you tell our
people, 'You must not impugn the sincerity of your opponents, that you
must not impute bad motives to them,' when they read the foul lies
heaped on the graves of the great dead, and hear the base calumnies
used against the hard-working living, I say you are teaching to them
that which I do not consider their duty. You should never lightly
impute, never rashly urge against any opponent motives, you should
never do it without full proof to justify your imputation."

The proposition for the second night's debate, as worded by Mr
Holyoake, was, "Secular Criticism does not involve Scepticism." Mr
Bradlaugh opened in a very careful speech. Dealing first with the word
Scepticism, he went on to say, "Criticism is, I presume, the art of
judging upon the merits of any given proposition; and I put it, that
you cannot have criticism at all without doubt. Doubt is, in fact, the
beginning of knowledge, and I put it expressly, that it is utterly
impossible to have Secular Criticism without having scepticism; as
to the dogmas of Theology in general, and scepticism as to the Bible
and Christianity in particular." He then proceeded to state in detail
and at considerable length the points of Scepticism involved by
Secular Criticism. Mr Holyoake, so far from traversing this position,
really endorsed it when he said (in his first speech on the second
night): "The secular method is to criticise the Scriptures so as to
adopt that which is useful, leaving alone that which is mischievous
or disagreeable." A criticism of the Scriptures, undertaken with
the view of accepting some points as worthy and rejecting others as
unworthy, cannot by any possibility exclude scepticism. We examine
a set of precepts, we judge them, we distinguish between the false
and the true, the beauties and the blemishes. To do this, we must
begin by doubting their truth and beauty as a whole, and before we
can leave any alone, we must be sceptical whether a belief in them
is necessary to our salvation and a disbelief in them a sure road to
eternal damnation. Mr Holyoake also spoke favourably of ignoring
Christianity, apparently failing to see that in a country, Christian by
law, with a State-supported Christian religion and Christia

Previous Next