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

Book

Open Original Text

theism--the Atheism of doubt, the Atheism of ignorance, and a compound
of doubt and ignorance, which last, said the reverend disputant
politely, was "Mr Bradlaugh's own Atheism."

This version of his views my father repudiated as "monstrously unfair
as well as utterly untrue," and then went on to deal with such other
allegations as:

 "That the Atheist could commit murder, or steal, without fear of the
 consequences. To try the actual value of the argument," he said, "it
 is not unfair to ask, Did a Theist ever steal? If so, then a belief
 in God and his power to punish have been insufficient to prevent him
 from committing the crime. The fact is, that those who overlook such
 arguments overlook the great truth that all men seek happiness, though
 in diverse fashions. The Atheists hold that by teaching men the real
 road to human happiness, it is possible to keep them from the by-ways
 of criminality and error. The Atheist would teach men to be moral
 now, not because God offered as an inducement some reward by-and-by,
 but because in the virtuous act itself immediate good was ensured to
 the doer, and to the world surrounding him. The Atheist would prevent
 men from lying, stealing, murdering, not from fear of the eternal
 consequences after death, but because crime made this life itself a
 course of misery. On the other hand, Theism, by asserting that God was
 the creator and governor of the universe, hindered and checked man's
 efforts by declaring God's will to be the sole and controlling power.
 Atheists, by declaring all events to be in accordance with natural
 laws--that is, happening in certain ascertained sequences--stimulated
 men to discover the best conditions of life, and offered the most
 powerful inducements to morality."

In spite of this statement, directly bearing on the affirmative truths
taught by Atheism, Mr Harrison continued to urge that Mr Bradlaugh had
not proved that there was anything positive in Atheism. "All that Mr
Bradlaugh said was positive with regard to Atheism belonged to Science
and not to Atheism" he said, apparently failing to see that Science
itself is really Atheistic in the true and literal acceptation of the
word, although its teachers and professors may be Theists. Science
teaches the origin and nature of phenomena without reference to God,
and sometimes even in direct contradiction to theological dogmas.

On the following evening Mr Harrison sought to prove that Secularism
was not a trustworthy moral guide, and to this end he contended that
Atheism was without the moral help that came from (1) a belief in God,
(2) a belief in immortality, and (3) a study of human nature. This last
contention showed utter ignorance or misapprehension of the Atheistic
position. Mr Bradlaugh, in reply, dealt very trenchantly with the kind
of moral help to be obtained from the God of the Old and New Testament,
but he was stopped in his argument, as it was ruled that he must not
deal with any particular phase of Theism, only with Theism generally.
Before he was stopped, however, he stated that--

 "The position of the Atheist was that he did not affirm a universe,
 and outside it a God; but he said, 'By your knowledge of the
 conditions of existence, so you may shape, and so will be shaped, your
 thought and your conduct, and that thought and that conduct which tend
 to the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and to the least
 injury of any--that thought and that conduct are moral, whatever your
 religious profession may be.' But that guide to morality was not got
 out of any system of Theism; it was purely Atheistic--that was, it was
 found outside God, without God."

During this debate my father was suffering very much from a relaxed
throat, and on both nights he had to speak, amidst considerable uproar,
the audience being exceedingly noisy. In his final speech, on the
second evening, he became so exhausted by the continual interruption
and outcries that he begged his audience "in mercy" and "humanity" to
allow him to finish his argument in quiet, but this was an appeal which
fell upon deaf ears.[155]

[Footnote 155: "The last speech of Mr Bradlaugh's was a piece of almost
unparalleled eloquence, which might have been very effective had he
received fair play, but this, we are sorry to say, was undoubtedly
denied him, and he proceeded amidst a storm of interruptions, hissings,
and howlings, renewed again and again."--_Blyth Weekly News._

"Mr Bradlaugh was stormed down, and really refused a hearing. This kind
of conduct was bad on the face of it. If his arguments were ridiculous,
they would be the easier answered. If they were beyond or beside the
point at issue, they were unworthy a reply."--_Sunderland Evening
Chronicle._

The Newcastle papers gave lengthy reports of the proceedings, and the
_Weekly Chronicle_ remarked that, in consequence of his suffering from
an affection of the throat, the effect of a severe cold, Mr Bradlaugh
"sustained the debate with considerable pain and difficulty."]

The restrictions placed upon Mr Bradlaugh by the conditions of the
Newcastle debate were such as to cause great irritation and discontent
amongst Freethinkers;[156] and in consequence, a second debate was
fixed to take place at Bristol on the 13th and 14th December. The
subject chosen for argument was "Theism _v._ Atheism." Professor
Newman was in the chair, and on each evening there was a very large
attendance. In the course of his introductory remarks Professor
Newman mentioned an interesting discussion society then in existence
in London--"a society," he said, "called a Metaphysical Club. It was
commenced by the poet, Mr Alfred Tennyson, and, I believe, by Mr
Browning also. They associated with them certain eminent gentlemen in
London, and they induced Archbishop Manning to enter it. Professor
Huxley and others are also members of it, and it was made a condition
that in their discussions every member should be free to deny the
existence of God, and Archbishop Manning entirely concurs in this. Mr
James Martineau, my friend, a very eminent and intellectual gentleman,
belonged to it, and he regarded it to be essential that persons must
speak out from the bottom of their hearts, otherwise they did not get
the fulness of the argument."

[Footnote 156: "I had said, in the course of my remarks against
Secularism, that Secularism was Atheism, and Atheism was a negation. Mr
Bradlaugh claimed the right to say what Atheism negated. According to
the conditions of the debate, I objected to that subject being entered
into" (the Rev. A. J. Harrison, December 1870). These words show how
peculiarly one-sided the conditions were.]

Mr Harrison opened with a speech much more subtle than any of those
delivered at Newcastle, and was throughout more courteous, though even
now there were phrases which would have been better left unsaid, and,
while extremely careful to keep his opponent within the limits imposed
by the conditions of the debate, he was not always so scr

Previous Next