Present-day rationalism : critically examined

Preface

THE present work is an attempt to point out and refute some of the fallacies of Present-day Rationalism and Materialism.1

Since the Rationalist Press Association was established in 1899, and has for its object the diffusion of cheap editions of Rationalistic and Atheistic works, it is worth while trying to explain to unscientific readers the erroneous assumptions made in their reasonings.

Of course, many Secularistic and Rationalistic writings are directed against Christian theological dogmas, especially, perhaps, those of the late Mr. Bradlaugh's days in the "Seventies". I do not enter upon this field of controversy, beyond stating the bases of belief in God, Free Will and Immortality.

I particularly emphasise Inductive Reasoning;

1 Haeckel in his Riddle of the Universe calls it " Monism," but he means Materialistic Monism.

vi PKEFACE

for some Rationalists insist upon "observation and experiment" as the only acceptable kind of proof of God — a method of evidence obviously out of the question — and they moreover assert that whatever cannot be brought within these two things is not to be accepted as science or knowledge.

As Materialistic Monists, such as Haeckel and Biichner, state categorically that " Darwinism " forms the basis of their Atheistic views, it is necessary to discuss the principles of Evolution and its methods. It will be seen that certain distinct assumptions were made by Darwin — upon which his special theory of The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, known as " Darwinism," is founded — but they have no foundation in fact.

On the other hand, his alternative explanation — which he for the most part regarded as too rarely occurring to be worthy of consideration at any length, viz., by what he called the " Definite action of the Environment " has been now proved to be really the true and only method in the origin of species. This I have called the " True Darwinism," but it has already received in Botany the title of "Ecology".

Then, as Dr. Weismann has asserted, contrary to Darwin's opinion, as also of Haeckel's, that characters acquired by the soma cannot be hereditary,

PREFACE vii

it is necessary to prove by examples that this view is fallacious.1

After pointing out the absurdities in Haeckel's theory of the origin of living protoplasm, Evolution carries us direct to and inclusive of Man. There does not seem to be any necessity of a "break" in the continuity as some suppose, but Man alone has acquired the power of making abstractions objects of thought. This lies at the base of all his superior "God-like" powers. It forms the sharp line of demarcation between him and the animal world.2

Man is thus enabled (i) to be self-conscious ; (2) to be conscious of other "selves," hence to be altruistic ; (3) to realise the conception of God ; (4) to be conscious of having the power to choose, i.e., a Free Will or Volition ; (5) to acquire a belief in Immortality.

As inductive evidence accumulates in favour of the belief in God, so does it for a future existence, while Faith in spiritual matters is shown to be

*I have been accused of insisting upon "Adaptation," i.e., Darwin's alternative method, as if it were my own theory. I have never done so. I would rather insist upon the reader as regarding it as Darwin's, for it will be found clearly stated in his works. What I did was, in reading Darwin's books, to collect all the facts I could read of or observe, coupling them with experimental proofs. Then, after about fifteen years, I published The Origin of Floral Structures in 1888, and The Origin of Plant Structures in 1895, as well as papers in Natural Science.

"While writing this book I found both Locke and Schopenhauer, as well as others, have held their view.

viii PREFACE

based on inductive evidence, just as Conviction is in the scientific world.

This line of argument running through the book was embodied in a lecture delivered before the University College Christian Association on ist May, 1903.

Lord Kelvin, who kindly proposed a vote of thanks, expressed himself as thoroughly in accord with it, and strongly corroborated my contention that modern Natural Theology or Theism is based on strictly scientific methods of reasoning. His observations will be found following my address (the first of six) in the volume entitled Christian Apologetics (J. Murray, 25. 6d.).

Appendix To Part I

DARWINISM I. Darwinism based on Erroneous Assumptions .... 145

II. The True Darwinism or the Natural Law of Adaptation . . 161

III. Adaptation (continued) Z74

IV. Heredity of Acquired Characters, a Fundamental Principle of

Evolution l83

V. Heredity of Acquired Characters (continued) . . . . 195

CONTENTS xi

Part II Man Chapter I

PAGE

Man's Origin by Evolution 207

CHAPTER II Rationalistic Views of Science and Knowledge \ . . .221

CHAPTER III Rationalistic Views of Psychology, Reason and Instinct . . . 232

CHAPTER IV Metaphysical Conceptions of the Senses 251

CHAPTER V Inductive Reasoning and the Faith of Theists 265

CHAPTER VI Free Will and Automatism 273

CHAPTER VII The Ethics of Rationalism and Christianity 294

CHAPTER VIII Religion and Rationalism . 3H

CHAPTER IX The Origin of Moral Evil .317

CHAPTER X Rationalistic Views of Physical Evils ; and the Law of " Inideality " 327 xii CONTENTS

CHAPTER XI

PAGE

Ether as the Vehicle of Divine Power and the Human Soul . . 341

CHAPTER XII Rationalistic Criticisms upon the Theological Aspect of God . . 350

CHAPTER XIII Inductive Evidence the Basis of Belief of the Theist in Human

PART I

NATURE

Chapter I The Old Secularism Of The "seventies"

SOME thirty years ago we heard a good deal of Secularism, when Mr. Bradlaugh was a prominent figure before the world and was promulgating his atheistic views.1

Mr. G. W. Foote defined Secularism as " Naturalism in Morals as distinguished from Supernaturalism ".2

Speaking of Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Foote said : " Filled with Republican and Atheistic Faith he stands upon the cardinal assumptions of human greatness and power, and the impossibility of supernatural knowledge ; and he trusts in them as eternal and unassailable verities".

" Mr. G. J. Holyoake, although an Atheist, puts forward a philosophic theory of human life and duties, which he terms ' Secularism '.3 From this, three propositions are deducible — Science is the only Providence, Reason the sole guide, Happiness the sole end." " The invariability of Nature's methods of operation, the inviolability of the law of universal causation — belongs peculiarly to Secularism." ..." In the realm of mind, as in the realm of matter, everything works in accordance with definite laws. The science of psychology is winning a definite place for itself." [Haeckel now merges

1 Such as A Plea for Atheism and Is there a God ?

2 Secularism Restated, 1874.

3 i.e., as concerning this world only.

it in physiology.] ..." In Secularism Reason is the sole guide." ..." Whatever in any of the supposed sacred writings of the world is good, pure, elevating and inspiring, Secularism thankfully accepts and assimilates. Whatever is evil, corrupt, ignoble and degrading it sternly rejects."

With regard to Happiness as being the sole end of action in Secularism, all sensual pleasures were regarded as degrading, and rational pleasures were to be aimed at. They are " by no means comparable to those of the great-minded philosopher who penetrates into the profoundest mysteries of Nature, or to those of the large - souled philanthropist whose whole life is a loving ministration to wants of suffering humanity ".

"To the utilitarian standard all actions must be made to conform ; all other standards are the veriest delusions, as inconsistent as they are misleading. Morality cannot be founded upon the will of God, for no power can decree morality. If God has a claim upon my gratitude, or reverence, or worship, it can only be because he is himself gracious, adorable and worshipful, and not because of his power to exact from me a reluctant prostration. So it is not power but goodness which entitles God to reverence, and therefore, at bottom, goodness and not God is the object of adoration."

" Secularism is utilitarian, regarding happiness as the aim of action ; happiness pursued through Duty, not because Duty possesses a distinctive and inherent sacredness, but because it is the necessary road to happiness. Duty is imperative upon all because it implies the performance of such actions as are absolutely necessary to the preservation of society, and without which retrogression and anarchy would inevitably ensue."

" Secularism being concerned only with the region of

THE OLD SECULARISM 5

morals it has no message respecting the great problems of theology."

With regard to immortality, " The mere naked belief in it may be entertained by a Secularist without any detraction from essential Secularism ; but the very moment it interferes with the principles of Secularism, that very moment the doctrine of a future life becomes pernicious ".

" Similarly with the belief in an intelligent controlling Power in the universe, Atheism and Theism are alike distinct things from Secularism. They have no relationship whatever to the practical duties of life."

" In Secularism there is a mutual platform for Atheists, Theists and Pantheists, for all, in fact, who have fully recognised the Universality of Causation, the Supremacy of Reason and the Independence of Ethics on theological dogmas?

Such is an outline of the main contentions of the older Secularists ; and the first question which naturally arises in one's mind is : What is the motive power for obedience to Duty spoken of? — for such seems to be no more than the laws of the land or the Decalogue enforced by punishment if they be violated, such being social laws. The answer Mr. Foote gives is : " To the charge that Secularism is cold and dreary, devoid of feeling and imagination, we reply, The history of humanity lies open to us as a rich treasure-house of noble example and generous inspiration. . . . From the history of every heroic martyr to the cause of truth and human deliverance we receive sustenance, inspiration and hope. Our cheeks tingle and flush as we peruse the page which records how noble sufferers have laid down their bodies in the breach in order that others might use them as stepping-stones to final victory over error and wrong.

If men cannot be moved to passionate enthusiasm and ardent hope and heroic daring by these things, they are impervious to all pure and holy influences. . . . The Heavenly Paradise has been dreamed of by imaginative theologians and longed for by the votaries of superstition ; for Secularism it remains to realise the Earthly Paradise for men, where the flower and fruit of happiness shall bloom for the delight and sustenance of all."

Two things are herein very apparent. First, whatever moral conduct is upheld by Secularists, it does not differ from what is commonly accepted by Christians. Secondly, the stories of noble heroes of the past have never yet created an enthusiasm for practical goodness in posterity ; with the exception of Jesus Christ, who for nearly 2000 years has been a Power for Holiness in all who will accept Him.

Mr. Holyoake averred that Secularism and Christianity could not exist compatibly with one another ; but true Christianity is solely the Christ-like Character, which Secularism would seem inclined to imitate but cannot improve.

The above quotations will show what Secularism was in the seventies. All that is good in it is borrowed from Christianity and not solely obtainable from Nature or Reason.

We shall presently see its position after thirty years, as described by writers of to-day ; but a few more observations by Secularists, in order to point out their illogical character, may be advisable.

There was an expression used by Rationalists : " I cannot believe in that which I cannot comprehend ". Such were the words of Mr. Austin Holyoake on his deathbed in 1874, on which the editor of the Christian Evidence

THE OLD SECULARISM j

Journal^ remarks : " A vast amount of scepticism is based upon this same idea, yet it is one of the most delusive that can be entertained, and one upon which we do not act in ordinary life nor in science and philosophy. We all believe daily in what we cannot comprehend, and to look for an exception in the domain of religion is a fatal error."

What does the latest writer on Freethought say ? Exactly the reverse of Mr. Austin Holyoake's assertion.

Mr. G. Forester in his book, The Faith of an Agnostic, or First Essays in Rationalism, 1902, observes : " We are compelled to believe in the reality of that which to us is inconceivable".2

" The Unknowable is not synonymous with the Non-existent." 3

" In the regions of transcendental thought, far beyond human ken, and for which human language is utterly inadequate, there may be that explanation for which religion and philosophy have ever sought, and ever sought in vain." 4

It were easy to show that Mr. Austin Holyoake, and I suppose he only represented many other Secularists in his day, was utterly inconsistent. Did he, and do others now, not believe in Electricity? Yet those who know most about it cannot comprehend it. They can no more answer the question, "What is Electricity?" than they can tell you what the Ether is ; yet every physicist believes in both. Electricity like Gravity is a power ; that is all. So there is a Power behind all Nature, as incomprehensible as Electricity ; yet all believe in it whether they regard it as conscious or not.

1 Number for May, 1874, p. 80.

2 The Faith of an Agnostic, p. 177.

This self-limitation on the part of the Secularist is a perfectly gratuitous one. To summarise the old Secularism we shall see that the sole reliance upon Science and Reason is in agreement with the Rationalists and Haeckelian Monists of to-day, and we shall also see how far this, their prop and stay, is trustworthy.

The proposed means of securing happiness was apparently much the same as now. It is also noticeable that the want of enthusiasm in Secularism is also still existing.

Why Secularism should claim the invariability of Nature's laws as peculiarly its own is not very clear ; since that invariability has existed ever since the world began.

Secularism might be called simple morality based on Utilitarian principles of social duties, for the sake of the happiness which Duty brings. Our jails and police courts have something to show in opposition to this.

Secularism differed from Materialism of to-day in that it permitted belief in a God and immortality as harmless ideas, unless " interfering with the principles of Secularism".

On the other hand Monists like Haeckel ridicule both as superstitions.

When the Secularist says, "Theism has no relation whatever to the practical duties of life," the greatest motive power for a good life is gone ; and the weakness of Secularism lies in the want of any efficient motive. This becomes at once apparent in the inefficiency of Secularism to gather in the multitude ; as it was in the seventies, so, as we shall see, is it now.

To hold up the ideals of goodness and virtue as stimulating abstractions will never appeal to the masses of mankind. Nor will reading the stories in Fox's Book

THE OLD SECULARISM g

of Martyrs have any really moral effect, nor even has it been able to kindle much, if any, enthusiasm ; even allowing for what the actual witness of a martyr's death might have had and undoubtedly did have upon others during times of persecution.

It is interesting to read the expedients to which writers are put for motives. Mr. Mallock thus writes : "In all the annals of intellectual self-deception it would be hard to find anything to outdo or even to approach the fantastic absurdities of Mr. Spencer in search of a religion. He invites each man to consider and to reverence himself as one of the ' myriad causes through which the Unknown Cause works '....' It is not for nothing that the Unknowable has implanted in man certain impulses.' Surely (says Mr. Mallock) here is anthropomorphism with a vengeance ! . . . What idea could be more inconsistent with the whole teaching of Monism ? " l Huxley said that " Obedience to the moral law is producible only by the prevalence of the idea of Duty. . . . And the motive is to be found," says Prof. Huxley, " in the beauty of conduct which is ' to devote oneself to the service of humanity,' ' to pity and help all men to the best of one's ability, to be strong and patient, to be ethically pure and noble,' and 'to push our devotion to others to the extremity of self-sacrifice '. Religion, in fact, is nothing more than ' that reverence and love for the ethical ideal, and the desire to realise that ideal in life, which every man ought to feel'. 'That he ought to feel it is surely indisputable ; and Agnosti6ism has no more to do with the matter than it has with music or painting '." 2

But the " man in the street " will not be satisfied with this. He wants a permanent, efficient motive power and

1 Religion as a Credible Doctrine, pp. 265, 266. " Mallock, op. cit., p. 256.

to PRESENT-DAY RATIONALISM

this can only be found in a Living Person? which no one of the atheistic -isms can supply.

No wonder is it that Secularists complain that they cannot " annex the masses," as we shall see in present-day Secularism of 1903.

1 1 larnack in his What is Christianity ? in reply to Rationalists who repeatedly ask " What is new in Christ's teaching ? " strongly emphasises His " Personality," as the source of goodness in the Christian followers of Jesus.

Chapter II The New Secularism Of To-day

THIRTY years have nearly elapsed, and we now find Mr. F. J. Gould writing on " The New Secularism " in the Agnostic Annual (an ethical review, 1903). He distinguishes present-day Secularism from the old by " the almost complete disappearance of the appetite for theological debate " ; and he asks the question : " By what other methods shall Rationalism be propagated ? "

He wonders what it has been doing for the last thirty years.

" We need an aim, an organic association, a moral and intellectual solidarity which will supply the appeal, the motive, and the force."

Secularism must be in a poor way if it have none of these three things, all of which are to be found to the full in Christianity.

"The age of analysis is passing and the age of synthesis is demanded."

Mr. Gould proceeds to complain that "those who have been bred in the old school are too content to live as disparate units".

" The supreme test of Secularism is revealed in the question : What will it do with religion ? — that is, with all the emotions, habits and ideals which are grouped together under that name in the Churches. . . . Orthodoxy has been defeated in controversy, but it remains in possession of the soul of the million."

(ii)

Now follows an astonishing remedial proposition : " We ought to give the people a modified and rationalised Church, with all the apparatus of symbol, ceremony, music and parochial institution ; and among the parochial activities of the Church I should recognise a systematic effort to encourage the ethical aspect of every political and industrial movement. . . . Religion and the Bible having been rejected on account of their irrational claims to divine origin, must be re-inserted, so to speak, in the secular development of mankind as moral and intellectual factors of high importance."

Surely we have here the Christian spirit reasserting itself in spite of Rationalism ! Apparently, then, the masses are to be allowed to have the Bible, perhaps after being carefully annotated — whence all the myths, all the miracles, all of Jesus Christ as a myth too, according to Mr. J. M. Robertson, will be carefully excised !

But the average man, working or not, is now often quite as well able, and perhaps sometimes much better, than the Secularists, to judge for himself.

Secularism, with its " coldness " and " want of reverence," based on pure Reas6n and Science, will no more raise the masses, much less the submerged tenth, in the twentieth, than it did in any century B.C.

" A common complaint against the meetings of Freethought societies," continues Mr. Gould, " is that they are cold and that they lack reverence."

Reverence for what or whom, one is inclined to ask ? His reply is, Because they are losing sight of " the vital principle of association " ; the very basis of Christianity or the Brotherhood of Man.

He is beginning to fear for the masses just as Aristotle did. He suggests " art, literature and education " wherewith to raise "the Human ideal to the same level of honour

THE NEW SECULARISM 13

as the Divine once occupied, so that human passion, labour, sorrow and beauty shall now be elevated by art and literature to the supremacy formerly held by gods, spirits and the fictions of a remote Beyond ".

It is all a vain delusion ! The call for " reverence " comes from a deep-rooted instinct for Some One, greater than himself, whom man can look up to and revere. Art, science, politics, literature, etc., will never fill the void of an aching heart which cannot find a Person to love, pray to and obey.

Mr. Gould suggests as a stimulus, " We do need a larger recognition of the call to municipal and national service ". Why is it that we have not all felt this need before ? Such is his substitute for religion ! But it will never supersede the call of Jesus Christ to faith and holiness, nor lead men to be religious, for faith is loyalty to the Person. Jesus Christ, and He alone, has done this for nearly 2000 years.

One seems to be able to read pretty plainly between the lines of Mr. Gould's remarkable paper. He is evidently beginning to realise the weakness of, and a decided want in, Freethought. After thirty or more years what has it done ? He complains of a want of coherence, a want of motive, aim. His remedy is a desperate one : External, sensuous paraphernalia, symbols, ceremonies, music, etc. Does he think that these things help to make men really and truly honest, pure and good ?

" Music and Morals " is a well-sounding alliteration, but — there they begin and there they end !

It is a fatal error to try and make men moral, much less religious, without an adequate motive. Let us hear Aristotle's pathetic lament : " Is the end in practical matters, not the contemplating and knowing all things, but rather the practising them ? If so, it is not sufficient to know the theory of virtue, but we must endeavour to possess and employ it ; or pursue whatever other means there may be of becoming good. Now, if mere treatises were sufficient of themselves to make men good, justly 'would they have received many and great rewards,' as Theognis says, and it would be our duty to provide ourselves with them. But the truth is, that they seem to have power to urge on and to excite young men of liberal minds, and to make a character that is generous and truly fond of the honourable, easily influenced by virtue ; but that they have no power to persuade the multitude to what is virtuous and honourable."1 The commentator observes : " The very fact of loving virtue for virtue's sake presupposes a proficiency in morals far beyond the general state of mankind. Some other motive was then clearly necessary for men sunk in vice as the heathen world, a powerful motive, which no heathen, no human philosophy could supply."

Sir John Seeley called attention to the same fact after our Lord came. He says : " Stoicism and Christianity existed side by side at the end of the first century. Was their view of the obligations resting upon them similar ? It was totally different. The Stoic rules were without sanctions. If they were violated what could be said to the offender ? All that could be said was, ' Chrysippus non dicet idem '. To which how easy to reply, ' I esteem Chrysippus, but on this point I differ from him ! ' To Christian lapsi it was said, 'You have renounced your baptism ; you have denied your Master ; you are cut off from the Church ; the Judge will condemn you '. Is this distinction a verbal or a practical one ? " 2

1 The Nicomachean Ethics, bk. x., chap. 9. Translated and annotated by R. W. Browne, 1853.

*Ecce Homo, Preface, p. xi.

THE NEW SECULARISM 15

No wonder is there that the meetings of Secularists are cold and lack reverence ! It is because they have discarded the only Person who has been able to stimulate mankind to revere Him. That is the secret of true Christianity ; which the Secularists have thrown aside as a myth, and now find they have thrown away the one and only motive capable of kindling the hearts of men into warmth and reverence ; which, too, could bind them into one Brotherhood instead of their remaining, after thirty years, disconnected units only.

Mr. Gould's paper is most significant, and if he could only see that our evidences for the historical personality of Jesus Christ are as sound and logical as he thinks they are illogical, he may yet find it necessary not only to come to us for ritual and music, but for the " Motive " for goodness as well.

In Mr. Bussell's admirable account of Socrates, he shows some curious parallels, with differences, to Modern Secularism.

Like the Sophists (he says) Socrates was " as hostile to indolent acquiescence in convention". So are the Secularists to complacent believers in dogmatic theology. " Yet, unlike the Sophists, a constructive, a positive process of instruction succeeded to this preliminary purgative. . . . He seems to postulate a power for the conscientious student, the earnest thinker, of reaching, of having contact with what was True and Good. This power he thought was inherent in Soul as such." *

" He strives, as the chief task of education, to make his pupil interested in himself. He appeals to the underlying sense, in each man, of duty, of a love for beauty and goodness, which once fully realised (too sanguine optimist !) cannot but take effect in action." 2

1 The School of Plato, p. 84. 2 Op. cit., p. 88.

" He felt sure that if any one could once be brought to consider his own nature l ... he would never recur to those perilous errors of convention, but would live steadfastly, a law to himself, happy (because self-respecting and trustful) in this world and the next. These principles never came from pure Reason ; but rather from an instinct of sonship, a religious instinct, suggesting to the soul as probable far more than it can prove by argument." 2

" Pure reason cannot tell him of this : its mission is purgative not dietetic, negative, not constructive. A scientific definition of a practical thing only removes error ; it does not teach Truth." 3

Thus, as I have shown above, has it been and is it still with Secularism. The instructive essay by Mr. F. J. Gould on "The New Secularism" proves it ; in which he speaks of the old Secularism of Mr. Bradlaugh's days in the "seventies," as characterised by "destructive arguments," not only against theology, but even among themselves. It was all " purgative," as Mr. Bussell says ; but during the last thirty years it appears not to have offered anything substantial in the constructive line. Hence Mr. Gould suggests, as a beginning, to build Rationalistic churches with organs and ceremonies and ritualism complete !

1 Apparently as Bradlaugh and Herbert Spencer did also. 3 Op. cit., p. 89. 3 Op. cit., pp. 91, 92.

CHAPTER, III

RATIONALISM AND MATERIALISTIC MONISM PROFESSEDLY BASED ON DARWINISM

THE Rationalist Press Association is largely responsible for the present diffusion of Rationalism in England. One of its objects is the issue of " Cheap Rationalistic Reprints".

The "Memorandum of Association" of the R.P.A. (Limited) states the objects for which the Association was formed. They are nine in number. The three most important are as follows : —

(a) To stimulate freedom of thought and inquiry in reference to ethics, theology, philosophy and kindred subjects.

(£) To promote a secular system of education, the main object of which shall be to cultivate in the young moral and intellectual fitness for social life.

(d) To publish and distribute books, pamphlets and periodicals designed to promote the above objects.

" Rationalism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of Reason, and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience, and independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority."

The reader will not easily gather from the above objects that atheism, denial of freedom in man, as well as the complete annihilation of man's soul at death, form 2 (17)

the creed of Rationalists ; while Christian Theism, the divinity, miracles and resurrection of our Lord are regarded as utterly vain superstitions.

That is the main position of the present-day Rationalism and the question is, Which is most probably right — Rationalism or Christianity ?