Reader. I have read all your prefaces. In the very first you make this declaration: “We will not be in want of opponents; but we shall only notice those who speak from experience and combat us with facts” (p. xx.) This amounts to saying: “When we shall be attacked with any sort of arms, arrows, pistols, knives, swords, guns, and sticks, we shall not defend ourselves except against sticks.” Against sticks, of course, you may defend yourself by the use of other sticks; but, if you are attacked with artillery, will your sticks be to you a sufficient protection? You knew very well, when publishing your book, that you were to be attacked with reasons. To declare that you would notice only those adversaries who would attack you with facts was to declare that you were not ready to meet your real opponents.
Büchner. Against fact there is no reasoning.
Reader. This is not the question. It is true that against fact there is no reasoning; but when we argue against your false conclusions, we do not attack your facts, but your sophisms only, most erudite doctor.
Then you add that “speculative philosophers may fight among themselves from their own point of view, but should not delude themselves into the belief that they alone are in possession of philosophical truth” (p. xx.) These words reveal your tactics, which are: “Let them fight among themselves, and not against me; but if one of their number attacks me, and I cannot hold my ground, let him know that, if he is right, I also am right; for he is not alone in possession of philosophical truth.” This is, doctor, the silly plan of defence you have adopted and carried out against the attacks of Catholic philosophers. How can you, then, pretend that you have answered your opponents? I mean your real opponents.
When the Frankfurter Katholische Kirchenblatt took you to task for your impious and absurd publication, what did you answer? Here are your words: “We shall [pg 439] pass over the fierce denunciations of the Frankfürter Katholische Kirchenblatt, conducted by the parish priest, Beda Weber. The melancholy notoriety which that individual has acquired, as one of the most eccentric of the ultramontane party, permits us simply to dismiss him. We shall only tell the reader that the Frankfürter Kirchenblatt carries its hatred against the modern direction of science so far as to recommend the application of the criminal law against its representatives. The public may thus learn what these gentlemen are capable of, should they ever become possessed of power. The same bloody hatred with which science was once persecuted by religious fanaticism would revive anew, and with it the Inquisition, and auto-da-fés, and all the horrors, with which a refined zealotism has tortured humanity would be resorted to, to satisfy the wishes of these theological cut-throats. We must turn from these enemies, quite unworthy of a serious refutation, to another opponent” (p. xxiii.) Here, then, you confess that you have cowardly turned your back to the enemy.
Büchner. Cowardly?
Reader. Yes. If you do not like the word, I will say prudently. In fact, the reason you allege—that such an enemy was unworthy of serious refutation—is a miserable pretext. Whoever is not blind can see that your furious declamation against Beda Weber was an impudent attempt at crushing, if possible, by insults, the man whom you could not defeat with reasons. It is mean and disgusting. What can your readers say when you dare not even let them know Beda Weber's objections, on the plea that the reverend priest “has acquired a melancholy notoriety as one of the most eccentric of the ultramontane party”? If such is the verdict of the masonic lodges, we cannot but congratulate Beda Weber for the compliment paid to him. His very “hatred against the modern (masonic and infidel) direction of science” shows that he is a man of sound and clear judgment; and his opinion that “the criminal law” should be applied against the atheists and the corruptors of youth recommends him to us as a man of order and a true friend of civil society; for nothing is more necessary for the preservation of order and the peace of society than the enforcement of law. When such men make denunciations, they should not be “simply dismissed,” dear doctor. Religious fanaticism, refined zealotism, tortures of humanity, persecution of science, and the rest, even if they were not thread-bare lies, would not authorize you to “simply dismiss” a learned opponent as unworthy of serious refutation. I will say nothing about that malicious insinuation concerning “what these gentlemen are capable of, should they ever become possessed of power.” Were they capable of any monstrosity, this would not help your defence of Force and Matter. But those gentlemen have been possessed of power for ages, and the nations redeemed from barbarism, and enriched with monuments of art, and with scientific, literary, and charitable institutions, show “what they were capable of.” Of course freemasonry is capable of something else; a glance at the present deplorable condition of Germany suffices to show what you are capable of when you are possessed of power. But, I repeat, were we as wicked, in [pg 440] your opinion, as you are in fact, this would be no reason for not answering our arguments. Your book is an attack against religion. The professors of religion are therefore your natural opponents. It is to them, therefore, that you owe your explanations. And yet this is what you publicly profess yourself unable to do.
Büchner. I never made such a profession.
Reader. You made it very openly. “With regard to parsons and ecclesiastics,” you say, “who never cease to enlighten and to assail us with their eloquence, we beg to repeat that we cannot discuss with them” (p. lxiv.) Of course you endeavor to cover your retreat, as usual, by pretending that “these good people have, from the beginning of the world, had the privilege of using their zeal and ignorance in crying down everything that does not suit their business” (ibid.); but this vile language only betrays your inability to cope with them. You are so generous as “not to disturb them in their vocation,” because “no rational man doubts the total incapacity of these gentlemen to enter upon such questions” (p. lxv.)
Büchner. Why should I answer them? They are mere theologians; and I maintain that “there is no theological or ecclesiastical natural science, and there will be none so long as the telescope does not reach the regions where angels dwell” (p. lxv.)