- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Included are Bertrand Russell and A. J. Ayer on the existence of God, Percy Bysshe Shelley on the "argument from design," Lucretius on life after death, David Hume on superstition, Elizabeth Cady Stanton on Christianity's demeaning influence on women's social status, Gore Vidal on modern American fundamentalism, and many other notable writers on controversial issues.
Editor S. T. Joshi has carefully selected essays that are eloquent, poignant, satirical, and philosophically rigorous, and has also supplied explanatory annotations and a general introduction that succinctly and forcefully summarizes the atheistic critique of religion.
Thomas Henry Huxley
* * *
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) studied medicine at London University, then sailed aboard the H.M.S. Rattlesnake as a surgeon; his important observations of flora and fauna in the southern hemisphere established his early scientific reputation. Huxley was greatly influenced by Darwin's Origin of Species, but—although he gained the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" for his vigorous advocacy of evolution—he differed from Darwin in several important particulars, downplaying the element of natural selection in evolution and also expressing skepticism in regard to Darwin's theory of the gradual evolution of species. Although he made several notable contributions to biology and physiology, Huxley gained greatest celebrity as a popularizer of science, especially in such works as Evidences as to Man's Place in Nature (1863), Science and Culture (1881), and Evolution and Ethics (1893). In 1869 he coined the term "agnosticism," claiming that the advance of science had rendered many religious conceptions of the universe invalid or at best highly unlikely. This stance embroiled Huxley in numerous controversies with theologians, into which he entered with vigor and enthusiasm. His writings on the subject are found in Science and Hebrew Tradition (1894) and Science and Christian Tradition (1894). His Scientific Memoirs (1898-1903; 5 vols.), Life and Letters (1900; 2 vols.), and Autobiography andSelected Essays (1909) appeared posthumously. The following extracts from his celebrated essay "Agnosticism" (1889) present a defense of his views on both intellectual and moral grounds.
Within the last few months, the public has received much and varied information on the subject of agnostics, their tenets, and even their future. Agnosticism exercised the orators of the Church Congress at Manchester. It has been furnished with a set of "articles" fewer, but not less rigid, and certainly not less consistent than the thirty-nine; its nature has been analysed, and its future severely predicted by the most eloquent of that prophetical school whose Samuel is Auguste Comte. It may still be a question, however, whether the public is as much the wiser as might be expected, considering all the trouble that has been taken to enlighten it. Not only are the three accounts of the agnostic position sadly out of harmony with one another, but I propose to show cause for my belief that all three must be seriously questioned by any one who employs the term "agnostic" in the sense in which it was originally used. The learned Principal of King's College, who brought the topic of Agnosticism before the Church Congress, took a short and easy way of settling the business:—
But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this article of
belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen
world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from Christians lies
not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he
does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer
to call himself an Agnostic; but his real name is an older one—he is
an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel, perhaps, carries
an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is,
and ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly
that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.
So much of Dr. Wace's address either explicitly or implicitly concerns me, that I take upon myself to deal with it; but, in so doing, it must be understood that I speak for myself alone. I am not aware that there is any sect of Agnostics; and if there be, I am not its acknowledged prophet or pope. I desire to leave to the Comtists the entire monopoly of the manufacture of imitation ecclesiasticism.
Let us calmly and dispassionately consider Dr. Wace's appreciation of agnosticism. The agnostic, according to his view, is a person who says he has no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of the future; by which somewhat loose phraseology Dr. Wace presumably means the theological unseen world and future. I cannot think this description happy, either in form or substance, but for the present it may pass. Dr. Wace continues, that it is not "his difference from Christians." Are there then any Christians who say that they know nothing about the unseen world and the future? I was ignorant of the fact, but I am ready to accept it on the authority of a professional theologian, and I proceed to Dr. Wace's next proposition.
The real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic "does not believe the authority" on which "these things" are stated, which authority is Jesus Christ. He is simply an old-fashioned "infidel" who is afraid to own to his right name. As "Presbyter is priest writ large," so is "agnostic" the mere Greek equivalent for the Latin "infidel." There is an attractive simplicity about this solution of the problem; and it has that advantage of being somewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which is so dear to the less refined sort of controversialist. The agnostic says, "I cannot find good evidence that so and so is true." "Ah," says his adversary, seizing his opportunity, "then you declare that Jesus Christ was untruthful, for he said so and so;" a very telling method of rousing prejudice. But suppose that the value of the evidence as to what Jesus Christ may have said and done, and as to the exact nature and scope of his authority, is just that which the agnostic finds most difficult to determine. If I venture to doubt that the Duke of Wellington gave the command "Up, Guards, and at 'em!" at Waterloo, I do not think that even Dr. Wace would accuse me of disbelieving the Duke. Yet it would be just as reasonable to do this as to accuse any one of denying what Jesus said, before the preliminary question of what he did say is settled.
Now, the question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no other methods than those practised by the historian and the literary critic. It is a problem of immense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best heads in Europe for the last century; and it is only of late years that their investigations have begun to converge towards one conclusion.
That kind of faith which Dr. Wace describes and lauds is of no use here. Indeed, he himself takes pains to destroy its evidential value.
"What made the Mahommedan world? Trust and faith in the declarations and assurances of Mahommed. And what made the Christian world? Trust and faith in the declarations and assurances of Jesus Christ and His Apostles" (l. c. p. 253). The triumphant tone of this imaginary catechism leads me to suspect that its author has hardly appreciated its full import. Presumably, Dr. Wace regards Mahommed as an unbeliever, or, to use the term which he prefers, infidel; and considers that his assurances have given rise to a vast delusion which has led, and is leading, millions of men straight to everlasting punishment. And this being so, the "Trust and faith" which have "made the Mahommedan world," in just the same sense as they have "made the Christian world," must be trust and faith in falsehoods. No man who has studied history, or even attended to the occurrences of everyday life, can doubt the enormous practical value of trust and faith; but as little will he be inclined to deny that this practical value has not the least relation to the reality of the objects of that trust and faith....
I was brought up in the strictest school of evangelical orthodoxy; and when I was old enough to think for myself, I started upon my journey of inquiry with little doubt about the general truth of what I had been taught; and with that feeling of the unpleasantness of being called an "infidel" which, we are told, is so right and proper. Near my journey's end, I find myself in a condition of something more than mere doubt about these matters.
In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with fossil remains which looked quite plain at a distance, and became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their outline by close inspection. There was something there—something which, if I could win assurance about it, might mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So had it been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of Jesus as it lies in the primary strata of Christian literature. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the Catacombs? Or is he the stern Judge who frowns upon the altar of SS. Cosmas and Damianus? Or can he be rightly represented by the bleeding ascetic, broken down by physical pain, of too many mediaeval pictures? Are we to accept the Jesus of the second, or the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, as the true Jesus? What did he really say and do; and how much that is attributed to him, in speech and action, is the embroidery of the various parties into which his followers tended to split themselves within twenty years of his death, when even the threefold tradition was only nascent?
If any one will answer these questions for me with something more to the point than feeble talk about the "cowardice of agnosticism," I shall be deeply his debtor. Unless and until they are satisfactorily answered, I say of agnosticism in this matter, "J'y suis, and j'y reste." ...
"Infidel" is a term of reproach, which Christians and Mahommedans, in their modesty, agree to apply to those who differ from them. If he had only thought of it, Dr. Wace might have used the term "miscreant," which, with the same etymological significance, has the advantage of being still more "unpleasant" to the persons to whom it is applied. But why should a man be expected to call himself a "miscreant" or an "infidel"? That St. Patrick "had two birthdays because he was a twin" is a reasonable and intelligible utterance beside that of the man who should declare himself to be an infidel on the ground of denying his own belief. It may be logically, if not ethically, defensible that a Christian should call a Mahommedan an infidel and vice versâ; but, on Dr. Wace's principles, both ought to call themselves infidels, because each applies the term to the other.
Now I am afraid that all the Mahommedan world would agree in reciprocating that appellation to Dr. Wace himself. I once visited the Hazar Mosque, the great University of Mohammedanism, in Cairo, in ignorance of the fact that I was unprovided with proper authority. A swarm of angry undergraduates, as I suppose I ought to call them, came buzzing about me and my guide; and if I had known Arabic, I suspect that "dog of an infidel" would have been by no means the most "unpleasant" of the epithets showered upon me, before I could explain and apologise for the mistake. If I had had the pleasure of Dr. Wace's company on that occasion, the undiscriminative followers of the Prophet would, I am afraid, have made no difference between us; not even if they had known that he was the head of an orthodox Christian seminary. And I have not the smallest doubt that even one of the learned mollahs, if his grave courtesy would have permitted him to say anything offensive to men of another mode of belief, would have told us that he wondered we did not find it "very unpleasant" to disbelieve in the Prophet of Islam.
From what precedes, I think it becomes sufficiently clear that Dr. Wace's account of the origin of the name of "Agnostic" is quite wrong....
The last objection (I rejoice as much as my readers must do, that it is the last) which I have to take to Dr. Wace's deliverance before the Church Congress arises, I am sorry to say, on a question of morality.
"It is, and it ought to be," authoritatively declares this official representative of Christian ethics, "an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ" (l. c. p. 254).
Whether it is so depends, I imagine, a good deal on whether the man was brought up in a Christian household or not. I do not see why it should be "unpleasant" for a Mahommedan or Buddhist to say so. But that "it ought to be" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely, and after due deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of the most profoundly immoral character. I verily believe that the great good which has been effected in the world by Christianity has been largely counteracted by the pestilent doctrine on which all the Churches have insisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a moral offence, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving and involving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. If we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source along the course of the history of Christian nations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the vision.
A thousand times, no! It ought not to be unpleasant to say that which one honestly believes or disbelieves. That it so constantly is painful to do so, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be admired and cherished. The bravest of soldiers often, and very naturally, "feel it unpleasant" to go into action; but a court-martial which did its duty would make short work of the officer who promulgated the doctrine that his men ought to feel their duty unpleasant.
I am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful people are in these times, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the worst forms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them. What deductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical Christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every Church exercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the Churches like their shadow, I need not now consider; but they are assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they gain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the Christianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the ideal personality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, plus so much as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of the maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retraction, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and a plébiscite of the Christians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority.
Preachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears that the world cannot get on without faith of some sort. There is a sense in which that is as eminently as obviously true; there is another, in which, in my judgment, it is as eminently as obviously false, and it seems to me that the hortatory, or pulpit, mind is apt to oscillate between the false and the true meanings, without being aware of the fact.
It is quite true that the ground of every one of our actions, and the validity of all our reasonings, rest upon the great act of faith, which leads us to take the experience of the past as a safe guide in our dealings with the present and the future. From the nature of ratiocination, it is obvious that the axioms, on which it is based, cannot be demonstrated by ratiocination. It is also a trite observation that, in the business of life, we constantly take the most serious action upon evidence of an utterly insufficient character. But it is surely plain that faith is not necessarily entitled to dispense with ratiocination because ratiocination cannot dispense with faith as a starting-point; and that because we are often obliged, by the pressure of events, to act on very bad evidence, it does not follow that it is proper to act on such evidence when the pressure is absent.
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." In the authorised version, "substance" stands for "assurance," and "evidence" for "proving." The question of the exact meaning of the two words, hypostasis and elenchos, affords a fine field of discussion for the scholar and the metaphysician. But I fancy we shall not be far from the mark if we take the writer to have had in his mind the profound psychological truth, that men constantly feel certain about things for which they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the legal or logical sense of the word; and he calls this feeling "faith." I may have the most absolute faith that a friend has not committed the crime of which he is accused. In the early days of English history, if my friend could have obtained a few more compurgators of a like robust faith, he would have been acquitted. At the present day, if I tendered myself as a witness on that score, the judge would tell me to stand down, and the youngest barrister would smile at my simplicity. Miserable indeed is the man who has not such faith in some of his fellow-men—only less miserable than the man who allows himself to forget that such faith is not, strictly speaking, evidence; and when his faith is disappointed, as will happen now and again, turns Timon and blames the universe for his own blunders. And so, if a man can find a friend, the hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in the Jesus of any, or all, of the Gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. Who shall or can forbid him? But let him not delude himself with the notion that his faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science, as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts at present to very little.
It appears that Mr. Gladstone some time ago asked Mr. Laing if he could draw up a short summary of the negative creed; a body of negative propositions, which have so far been adopted on the negative side as to be what the Apostles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive; and Mr. Laing at once kindly obliged Mr. Gladstone with the desired articles—eight of them.
If any one had preferred this request to me, I should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, cannot have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good;" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
|PART 1: SOME OVERVIEWS|
|1. Agnosticism (1889) Thomas Henry Huxley||25|
|2. An Agnostic's Apology (1876) Leslie Stephen||34|
|3. The Philosophy of Atheism (1916) Emma Goldman||53|
|4. Why I Am an Unbeliever (1926) Cart Van Doren||60|
|PART 2: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD|
|5. A Refutation of Deism (1814) Percy Bysshe Shelley||69|
|6. What Is Religion? (1899) Robert G. Ingersoll||78|
|7. Is There a God? (1952) Bertrand Russell||87|
|8. The Claims of Theology (1973) A. J. Ayer||95|
|PART 3: THE IMMORTALITY MYTH|
|9. On the Nature of Things (ca. 60 B.C.E.) Lucretius||109|
|10. Immortality (1868-70) John Smart Mill||118|
|11. Can We Survive Our Own Deaths? (1993) Antony Flew||124|
|PART 4: THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF|
|12. The Natural History of Religion (1757) David Hume||139|
|13. Evangelical Teaching (1855) George Eliot||147|
|14||Humanity's Gain from Unbelief (1889) Charles|
|15. Miracle (1895) Anatole France||185|
|PART 5: RELIGION AND SCIENCE|
|16. Autobiography (1876) Charles Darwin||193|
|17. The Antichrist (1888) Friedrich Nietzsche||199|
|18. On the Scopes Trial (1925) H. L. Mencken||209|
|19. The Demon-Haunted World (1995) CarlSagan||216|
|PART 6: RELIGION AND ETHICS|
|20||The System of Nature (1770) Paul-Henri Thiry, baron|
|21. The Age of Reason (1796) Thomas Paine||240|
|22. A Letter on Religion (1918) H. P. Lovecraft||245|
|23. The Faith of a Heretic (1961) Walter Kaufmann||250|
|PART 7: RELIGION AND THE STATE|
|24||Theologico-Political Treatise (1670) Benedict de|
|25. The Spirit of Rationalism in Europe (1865) W. E. H|
|26. God in the Constitution (1890) Robert G. Ingersoll||276|
|27. The Lord's Day Alliance (1928) Clarence Darrow||287|
|28. Monotheism and Its Discontents (1992) Gore Vidal||303|
|PART 8: RELIGION AND SOCIETY|
|29||The Christian Church and Woman (1885) Elizabeth Cady|
|30. The Priest and the Child (1895?) J. M. Robertson||325|
|31. Religion and Sex (1919) Chapman Cohen||335|
Posted October 1, 2012
Posted April 11, 2006
This collection of essays from various luminaries in the freethinking fields include those by Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Lucretius, H.P.Lovecraft, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson et.al. Although it is called Atheism: A Reader, not all of the essayists are [were] atheists. Ingersoll was agnostic, and Paine and Jefferson were deists. These essays are grouped into various categories like those who believe 'God''s existence is impossible, those who disbelieve in an afterlife, and those who criticize the deplorable ethics of religionists. Probably the best essay in the book is that of H.P.Lovecraft, my favorite writer of horror and the strange. Too bad they didn't get an essay from the noted atheist George Carlin the comedian. I think the title is somewhat misleading and should have been otherwise. For those interested, I'll reduce the entire book to a set of premises: 1. God's existence is rather unlikely if not impossible. 2. Even if 'God' does exist, it is doubtful we know anything about him or her or it or whether this 'God' resembles us in any way. 3. The odds of surviving death are rather remote. Don't bet on it. 4. The world religions have increased the amount of evil in the world, not decreased it. More horrors have been committed in the name of the monotheistic God, than by the criminal elements of society. 5. The religious attitude towards women, sex and the human body is idiotic and very harmful to humanity. 6. It is amazing that the clergymen who tell us 'God is mysterious and inscrutable, his ways are not our ways, it is beyond our finite minds to comprehend the infinite...' then tell us 'God''s opinion on such minutiae as what foods eaten are offensive to God, what sex acts, what clothes to wear, and the certainty of life everlasting in such 'well documented' places as Heaven and Hell? Frankly, if it came to that, I'd rather end up in Valhalla fighting for Odin's pleasure or become a lover of Aphrodite . As Bertrand Russell pointed out [in another set of essays] 'For all we know the gods of Olympus exist.' In saying this, he was affirming that we have the exact amount of data to support the existence of Athena, Zeus, and Aphrodite, as we have Jehovah, Allah and Jesus X. This evidence of course amounts to nothing more than that of prophets and visionaries who claim to have had a personal relationship or encounter with the bizarre, the supernatural, the divine. And these accounts come to us 2nd, 3rd, 4th,....100th hand, heavily doctored and edited to conform with prevailing notions. In other words, the evidence for 'God''s existence is nothing but hearsay, nothing allowable in a court of law. It boils down to this: How much credence are you going to give men dead over 20 or 30 centuries, who you've never met, whose existence themselves is rather doubtful, who utterances are at such variance with reality? For me, I give them Zilch. Betrand Russell said, 'If this world is the outcome of deliberate purpose...it must be the purpose of a fiend.' The witnesses to these 'divine' deeds are not around for questioning, neither are the gods themselves. Desmond Morris, the zoologist in his masterwork The Human Zoo made a witty remark, 'The fact that the gods are never around to be questioned only cements their position.' [Note: quote paraphrased from memory but accurate in content.] Frankly, if I were God, the one and only Creator or the world and humanity and I cared something about my creation, I'd show up personally right on C-Span, or at the Olympic games and tell the world EXACTLY what I want, my purpose, my likes and dislikes when it comes to ethics, and not leave these things to idiotic madmen and prophets. The Bible itself says in the Tanakh 'If the things that a prophet warns you about do not come to pass, I the Lord have deceived him, you have nothing to fear from him.' The entire foundation of the early Xian church was the belief that the resurrected Jesus would come back within the lifetimes of hiWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 28, 2010
No text was provided for this review.