While, however, acknowledging this unseen Power, we decline to anthropomorphise it—to call it a person or being, and invest it with mental and moral functions similar to our own, differing only in degree not in kind. It is only the anthropomorphism we attack—only the superstitions, assumptions and dogmas. We only attack that which is incredible and absurd—that which "shocks reason." We believe in religion—the Religion of Humanity—to do right—a religion of works instead of faith and creeds, and Bystander himself admits that "religion is carrying a weight which it cannot bear," and that, "unless the credible can be separated from the incredible, the reasonable from that which shocks reason, there will be a total eclipse of faith."
"The Cosmogony of Moses," says Bystander, "will, of course not bear the scrutiny of modern science; few probably are now so bigoted as to maintain that it will." If it will not bear such scrutiny, is it blasphemy to attack it, or its author? for the God of the Bible is the alleged author of that Cosmogony, inspiring Moses or whoever wrote it. But Bystander further remarks that the Mosaic Cosmogony "need not fear comparison with the Cosmogony of any other race." We thank him for that favor. It is exactly what we claim, to wit, that the Cosmogony of Moses, like all the others, is simply a human production, for it would be absurd to talk of "comparing" an inspired Cosmogony of divine origin with human Cosmogonies. Hence, according to Bystander himself, the Mosaic Cosmogony is simply, like the rest, human: only he thinks it a little better than the others. It will not, however, "bear the scrutiny of modern science." Very likely not! What then, becomes of the "fall of man," the "redemption" the "Ideal Man," and the whole Christian Superstructure which rests upon the Mosaic Cosmogony? If the pillars are taken away the building must come down.
It is also admitted by Bystander that "The moral code of Moses is tribal and primeval; it is alien to us who live under the ethical conditions of high civilization and the Religion of Humanity." Precisely so! And for this magnificent favor also, we again thank Bystander. No materialist or utilitarian could have possibly put it better; albeit a Christian would experience some moral obfuscation in trying to make out why, if the "moral code of Moses" is from heaven, it should be "alien to us" and to these times? He would be hardly able to understand why he should be comparing his Divine code with Pagan codes to see whether it is "worse or better than other codes framed in the same stage of human progress?" Let the Freethinkers take courage. Bystander, to all appearances, will soon be squarely on our side; and then we can truthfully say, that though the Christians have the greatest scientist, probably, in Canada (Prof. Dawson, of Montreal,) on their side, we will have the greatest scholar, historian and literateur in Canada on our side. Three cheers in the Liberal camp for Bystander! Indeed, we have some hopes, too, even of Prof. Dawson, whose Mosaic orthodoxy seems to be relaxing a little of late; and he evidently feels his isolation, his scientific brethren all being on our side.
While writing this, the Montreal Daily Witness of June 15th, 1880, comes to hand from a Freethought octogenarian friend in Port Hope (Wm. Sisson, Esq.) with the familiar pencil mark, drawing my attention to a report of the proceedings of "The Congregational Union," at present in session in Montreal. From it I learn that Rev. Hugh Pedley, B. A., made an address before the Union on "The Freethought of the Age," from which I cull the following, as reported in the Witness:—
"One of the principal difficulties," he said (of the clergy), "was the prevalence of freethought among the people. There was a time when the New Testament was received by almost everybody * * * But things had changed * * * Some time ago the weapons of skilled historians were turned first against the Old and then against the New Testament * * * Dr. Norman McLeod, writing from Germany, said, 'I am informed on credible testimony that ninety-nine out of every hundred persons here are sceptics.' * * * Germany was to-day more Pagan than Christian * * * The press passed up and down the land, scattering into every home things which set men thinking." [Ah! there is the secret; when men begin to think and reason on theological subjects as they do on secular, good-bye creeds! goodbye confessions!] "Goldwin Smith, a man who had so studied the past as to be able to interpret the present, had told us that a religious collapse of the most complete and tremendous character was apparent on every hand." It was only very recently that a sceptical work on 'Supernatural Religion' passed through a number of editions in a few months. Col. Ingersoll had recently visited the country. He came, he saw, and in some sense he conquered. (Cries of No! No!) The second night he had a much larger attendance than on the first. No matter who, ran Ingersoll down, he was a man of great power of oratory and strong in those qualities which control audiences.
The Rev. gentleman then referred deprecatingly to the inadequate-college training of theological students in "apologetics," as they were not allowed to read the works of sceptics for themselves, but had to take their tutors' version of the sceptics' arguments. This "putting up a little argument and then knocking it down," he said was neither "the fair nor the true way." He recommended putting "the very sceptical works into the hands of the students, and he would even say to go and hear Ingersoll if he came."
That "man's idea of God rises with his progress in civilization," Bystander admits; but he attempts to explain the fact away on theistic grounds, and dilute its strength as an argument that God is simply a projection of the human mind. He asks:—
"If this conception" (a conception of God) "flows from no reality, from what does it flow? It is a phenomenon of which, as of other phenomena, there must be some explanation; and we have not yet chanced to see in the writings of any Agnostic an explanation which seemed at all satisfactory."
I would respectfully suggest to Bystander that there is a satisfactory explanation, though to him it may not be so. In answering his question I will ask another. If the conception of, or belief in, a devil or devils, flows from no reality, from what does it flow? The same of witches, fairies, sprites, hob-goblins, et hoc genus omne. Belief in these is quite as general as belief in God, though Bystander's question seems to assume that belief in the latter is universal. This, however, is not the case, as has been conclusively shown in the foregoing reply to Wend-ling. Therefore, this "conception" argument, like the famous "design" argument, proves too much, and consequently proves nothing. As to the origin of the belief in spiritual agencies, and conceptions of God, Darwin tells us it is not difficult to comprehend how they arose. He says, "Descent of Man," vol. i, p. 63-5:—
"As soon as the important faculties of imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally have craved to understand what was passing around him, and have vaguely speculated on his own existence * * * The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief of one or more Gods."