,a ,grammar of                          
,freethought4                      ,,by 
,,chapman ,,cohen4    7,issued by the   
,secular ,society1 ,ltd47               
,,london3             ,,the ,,pioneer   
,,press1         #fa ,,farringdon       
,,street1 ,e4,c4 #d4                    
#aiba4   ,the ,publishers wish to       
express their obligation to ,mr4 ,h4    
,cutner for the very tasteful design    
which adorns the cover of this book4    
,,contents4     ,,chapter               
,,page        ,i4--,,outgrowing ,,the   
,,gods                #i                
,,ii4--,,life ,,and ,,mind              
#ah      ,,iii4--,,what ,,is            
,,freethought8              #cg         
,,iv4--,,rebellion ,,and ,,reform       
#ea        ,v4--,,the ,,struggle ,,for  
,,the ,,child        #fa                
,,vi4--,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,religion   
#gb      ,,vii4--,,the ,,utility ,,of   
,,religion           #hh                
,,viii4--,,freethought ,,and ,,god      
#aja       ,,ix4--,,freethought ,,and   

,,death            #aaa                 
,x4--,,this ,,world ,,and ,,the ,,next  
#abc       ,,xi4--,,evolution           
#acd      ,,xii4--,,darwinism ,,and     
,,design             #adf               
,,xiii4--,,ancient ,,and ,,modern       
#afb      ,,xiv4--,,morality ,,without  
,,god4--,i4        #agb                 
,,xv4--,,morality ,,without             
,,god4--,,ii4       #ahb                
,,xvi4--,,christianity ,,and ,,morality 
#aic     ,,xvii4--,,religion ,,and      
,,persecution         #bjd              
,,xviii4--,,what ,,is ,,to ,,follow     
,,religion8      #bbc     ,,preface4    
,it must be left for those who read the 
following pages to decide how far this  
book lives up to its title4 ,that it    
leaves many aspects of life untouched is
 quite clear1 but there must be a limit 
to everything1 even to the size and     
scope of a book2 moreover1 the work does
 not aim at being an encyclopaedia1 but 
only an outline of what may fairly be   
regarded as the ,freethought position4  

,freethought1 again1 is too fluid a term
 to permit its teachings being          
summarized in a set creed1 but it does  
stand for a certain definite attitude of
 mind in relation to those problems of  
life with which thoughtful men and women
 concern themselves4 ,it is that mental 
attitude which ,i aim at depicting4  ,to
 those who are not directly concerned   
with the attack on supernaturalism it   
may also be a matter of regret that so  
much of this work is concerned with a   
criticism of religious beliefs4 ,but    
that is an accident of the situation4   
,we have not yet reached that stage in  
affairs when we can afford to let       
religion alone1 and one may readily be  
excused the suspicion that those who1   
without believing in it1 profess to do  
so1 are more concerned with avoiding a  
difficult1 if not dangerous1 subject1   
than they are with the problem of       
developing sane and sound methods of    
thinking4 ,and while some who stand     
forward as leaders of popular thought   

fail to do their part in the work of    
attacking supernaturalistic beliefs1    
others are perforce compelled to devote 
more time than they would otherwise to  
the task4 ,that1 in brief1 is my apology
 for concerning myself so largely with  
religious topics1 and leaving almost    
untouched other fields where the        
,freethought attitude would prove       
equally fruitful of results4  ,after    
all1 it is the mental attitude with     
which one approaches a problem that     
really matters4 ,the man or woman who   
has not learned to set mere authority on
 one side in dealing with any question  
will never be more than a mere echo1 and
 what the world needs1 now as ever1 is  
not echoes but voices4 ,information1    
knowledge1 is essential to the helpful  
consideration of any subject2 but all   
the knowledge in the world will be of   
very little real help if it is not under
 the control of a right method4 ,what is
 called scientific knowledge is1 to-day1
 the commonest of acquisitions1 and what

 most people appear to understand by    
that is the accumulation of a large     
number of positive facts which do1      
indeed1 form the raw material of        
science4 ,but the getting of mere facts 
is like the getting of money4 ,the value
 of its accumulation depends upon the   
use made thereof4 ,it is the power of   
generalization1 the perception and      
application of principles that is       
all-important1 and to this the grasp of 
a right method of investigation1 the    
existence of a right mental attitude1 is
 essential4  ,the world needs knowledge1
 but still more imperatively it needs   
the right use of the knowledge that is  
at its disposal4 ,for this reason ,i    
have been mainly concerned in these     
pages with indicating what ,i consider  
to be the right mental attitude with    
which to approach certain fundamental   
questions4 ,for1 in a world so          
distracted by conflicting teachings as  
is ours1 the value of a right method is 
almost incalculable4 ,scepticism1 said  

,buckle1 is not the result1 but the     
condition of progress1 and the same may 
be said of ,freethought4 ,the condition 
of social development is the realization
 that no institution and no teaching is 
beyond criticism4 ,criticism1 rejection 
and modification are the means by which 
social progress is achieved4 ,it is by  
criticism of existing ideas and         
institutions1 by the rejection of what  
is incapable of improvement1 and by the 
modification of what permits of         
betterment1 that we show ourselves      
worthy of the better traditions of the  
past1 and profitable servants of the    
present and the future4    ,c4 ,c4      
,a ,,grammar ,,of ,,freethought4        
,,chapter ,i4  ,,outgrowing ,,the       
,,gods4   ,one of the largest facts in  
the history of man is religion4 ,if it  
were otherwise the justification for    
writing the following pages1 and for    
attempting the proof that1 so far as    
man's history is concerned with         
religion1 it is little better than a    

colossal blunder1 would not be nearly so
 complete4 ,moreover1 it is a           
generalization upon which religionists  
of all classes love to dwell1 or even to
 parade as one of the strongest         
evidences in their favour2 and it is    
always pleasant to be able to give your 
opponent all for which he asks--feeling1
 meanwhile1 that you lose nothing in the
 giving4 ,universality of belief in     
religion really proves no more than the 
universality of telling lies4 ,all men  
are liars is as true1 or as false1 as   
,all men are religious4 ,for some men   
are not liars1 and some men are not     
religious4 ,all the generalization means
 is that some of both are found in every
 age and in every country1 and that is  
true whether we are dealing with the    
liar or with the religious person4      
,what is ignored is the consideration   
that while at one stage of culture      
religious belief is the widest and most 
embracing of all beliefs it subsequently
 weakens1 not quite in direct proportion

 to the advance of culture1 but yet in  
such a way that one can say there is an 
actual relation between a preponderance 
of the one and a weakening of the other4
 ,in very primitive communities gods are
 born and flourish with all the rank    
exuberance of a tropical vegetation4 ,in
 less primitive times their number      
diminishes1 and their sphere of         
influence becomes more and more sharply 
defined4 ,the gods are still credited   
with the ability to do certain things1  
but there are other things which do     
somehow get done without them4 ,how that
 discovery and that division are made   
need not detain us for the moment1 but  
the fact is patent4 ,advancing          
civilization sees the process continued 
and quickened1 nay1 that is             
civilization2 for until nature is rid of
 her haughty lords and man realizes that
 there are at least some natural forces 
that come within the control of his     
intelligence1 civilization cannot really
 be said to have commenced4 ,continued  

advance sees the gods so diminished in  
power and so weakened in numbers that   
their very impotency is apt to breed for
 them the kind of pity that one feels   
for a millionaire who becomes a pauper1 
or for an autocratic monarch reduced to 
the level of a voteless citizen4  ,the  
truth is that all the gods1 like their  
human creators1 have in their birth the 
promise of death4 ,the nature of their  
birth gives them life1 but cannot       
promise them immortality4 ,however much 
man commences by worshipping gods1 he   
sooner or later turns his back upon     
them4 ,like the biblical deity he may   
look at his creation and declare it     
good1 but he also resembles this deity  
in presently feeling the impulse to     
destroy what he has made4 ,to the       
products of his mind man can no more    
give immortality than he can to the work
 of his hands4 ,in many cases the work  
of his hands actually outlives that of  
his mind1 for we have to-day the remains
 of structures that were built in the   

honour of gods whose very names are     
forgotten4 ,and to bury his gods is1    
after all1 the only real apology that   
man can offer for having created them4  
,this outgrowing of religion is no new  
thing in human history4 ,thoughtful     
observers have always been struck by the
 mortality among the gods1 although     
their demise has usually been chronicled
 in terms of exultation by rival        
worshippers4 ,but here and there a      
keener observer has brought to bear on  
the matter a breadth of thought which   
robbed the phenomenon of its local      
character and gave it a universal       
application4 ,thus1 in one of his       
wonderfully modern dialogues ,lucian    
depicts the ,olympian deities           
discussing1 much in the spirit of a     
modern ,church ,congress1 the prevalence
 of unbelief among men4 ,the gods are   
disturbed at finding that men are       
reaching the stage of either not        
believing1 or not troubling about them4 
,there is a great deal of talk1 and     

finally one of the minor deities treats 
them to a little plain truth--which     
appears to be as rare1 and as unwelcome 
in heaven as on earth4 ,he says--,i     
quote from ,froude's translation3--     
,what other conclusion could they arrive
 at when they saw the      confusion    
around them8 ,good men neglected1       
perishing in penury and      slavery1   
and profligate wretches wealthy1        
honoured and powerful4                  
,sacrilegious temple robbers            
undiscovered and unpunished2 devotees   
and saints beaten and crucified4 ,with  
such phenomena before them1      of     
course men have doubted our             
existence4444 ,we affect surprise       
that men who are not fools decline to   
put their faith in us4 ,we      ought   
rather to be pleased that there is a man
 left to say his      prayers4 ,we are  
among ourselves with no strangers       
present4 ,tell us1      then1 ,zeus1    
have you ever really taken pains to     
distinguish between      good men and   

bad8 ,theseus1 not you1 destroyed the   
robbers in      ,attica4 ,as far as     
,providence was concerned1 ,sciron and  
,pity-,o-,campus might have murdered and
 plundered to the end of time4      ,if 
,eurystheus had not looked into matters1
 and sent ,hercules upon      his       
labours little would you have troubled  
yourself with the ,hydras      and      
,centaurs4 ,let us be candid4 ,all that 
we have really cared for      has been a
 steady altar service4 ,everything else 
has been left to      chance4 ,and now  
men are opening their eyes4 ,they       
perceive that      whether they pray or 
don't pray1 go to church or don't go to 
church1 makes no difference to them4    
,and we are receiving our      deserts4 
,the case could hardly be put more      
effectively4 ,it is the appeal to       
experience with a vengeance1 a form of  
argument of which religionists in       
general are very fond4 ,of course1 the  
argument does not touch the question of 
the mere existence of a god1 but it does

 set forth the revolt of awakened common
 sense against the worship of a moral   
governor of the universe4 ,we can say of
 our day1 as ,lucian said of his1 that  
men are opening their eyes1 and as a    
consequence the gods are receiving their
 deserts4  ,generally speaking1 it is   
not difficult to see the various steps  
by which man outgrew the conception of  
the government of the world by          
intelligent forces4 ,from what we know  
of primitive thought we may say that at 
first the gods dominated all4 ,from the 
fall of a rain-drop to the movement of a
 planet all was the work of gods4       
,merely to question their power was the 
wildest of errors and the gravest of    
crimes4 ,bit by bit this vast territory 
was reclaimed--a task at the side of    
which the conquest of the fever-stricken
 tropics or the frozen north is mere    
child's play4 ,it is quite needless to  
enter into an elaborate speculation as  
to the exact steps by which this process
 of deanthropomorphization--to use a    

word of the late ,john ,fiske's--was    
accomplished1 but one can picture the   
main line by what we see taking place at
 later stages of development4 ,and there
 is no exception to the rule that so    
soon as any group of phenomena is       
brought within the conception of law the
 notion of deity in connection with     
those phenomena tends to die out4 ,and  
the sum of the process is seen in the   
work of the great law givers of science1
 ,copernicus1 ,galileo1 ,kepler1        
,newton1 ,laplace1 ,lyell1 ,dalton1     
,darwin1 etc41 who between them have    
presented us with a universe in which   
the conception of deity simply has no   
place4 ,apologies apart1 the idea of    
deity is foreign to the spirit and      
method of modern science4  ,in the      
region of the purely physical sciences  
this process may be regarded as         
complete4 ,in morals and sociology1     
purely on account of the greater        
complexity of the subjects1 mystical and
 semi-supernatural conceptions still    

linger1 but it is only a question of    
time for these branches of knowledge to 
follow the same course as the physical  
sciences4 ,in morals we are able to     
trace1 more or less completely1 the     
development of the moral sense from its 
first beginnings in the animal world to 
its highest developments in man4 ,what  
is called the mystery of morality simply
 has no existence to anyone who is not a
 mystery-monger by profession or        
inclination4 ,and here1 too1 the gods   
have been receiving their deserts4 ,for 
it is now clear that instead of being a 
help to morals there has been no greater
 obstacle to a healthy morality than the
 play of religious ideas4 ,in the name  
of ,god vices have been declared virtues
 and virtues branded as vices4 ,belief  
in ,god has been an unending source of  
moral perversion1 and it lies upon the  
face of historical development that an  
intelligent morality1 one that is       
capable of adapting itself to the       
changing circumstances of human nature1 

has only become possible with the       
breaking down of religious authority4   
,exactly the same phenomenon faces us in
 connection with social life4 ,we have  
to go back but a little way in human    
history to come to a time when the      
existence of a ,state without a religion
 would have seemed to people impossible4
 ,much as ,christians have quarrelled   
about other things1 they have been in   
agreement on this point4 ,the historic  
fight between the established ,church   
and the ,nonconformists has never really
 been for the disestablishment of all   
religion1 and the confining of the      
,state to the discharge of purely       
secular functions1 but mainly as to     
which religion the ,state shall uphold4 
,to-day1 the central issue is whether   
the ,state shall teach any religion1    
whether that does not lie right outside 
its legitimate functions4 ,and this     
marks an enormous advance4 ,it is a     
plain recognition of the truth that the 
gods have nothing to contribute of any  

value to the development of our social  
life4 ,it marks the beginning of the    
end1 and registers the truth that man   
must be his own saviour here as         
elsewhere4 ,as in ,lucian's day we are  
beginning to realize that whether we    
pray or don't pray1 go to church or     
don't go to church1 believe in the gods 
or don't believe in them1 makes no real 
or substantial difference to natural    
happenings4 ,now as then we see good men
 punished and bad ones rewarded1 and    
they who are not fools and have the     
courage to look facts in the face1      
decline to put their faith in a deity   
who is incapable of doing all things    
right or too careless to exert his      
power4  ,it is not that the fight is    
over1 or that there is to-day little    
need to fight the forces of             
superstition4 ,if that were so1 there   
would be no need to write what is here  
written4 ,much as has been done1 there  
is much yet to do4 ,the revolt against  
specific beliefs only serves to         

illustrate a fight that is of much      
greater importance4 ,for there is little
 real social gain if one merely         
exchanges one superstition for another4 
,and1 unfortunately1 the gentleman who  
declared that he had given up the errors
 of the ,church of ,rome in order to    
embrace those of the ,church of ,england
 represents a fairly common type4 ,it is
 the prevalence of a particular type of 
mind in society that constitutes a      
danger1 and it is against this that our 
aim is ultimately directed4 ,great as is
 the amount of organized superstition   
that exists1 the amount of unorganized  
superstition is still greater1 and      
probably more dangerous4 ,one of the    
revelations of the late war was the     
evidence it presented of the tremendous 
amount of raw credulity1 of the low type
 of intelligence that was still current1
 and the small amount of critical       
ability the mass of people bring to bear
 upon life4 ,the legends that gained    
currency--the army of ,russians crossing

 ,england1 the number of mutilated      
,belgian babies that were seen1 the     
story of the ,germans boiling down their
 dead to extract the fat1 a story that  
for obscene stupidity beats everything  
else1 the ,mons angels1 the craze for   
mascots--all bore witness to the        
prevalence of a frame of mind that bodes
 ill for progress4  ,the truth is1 as   
,sir ,james ,frazer reminds us1 that    
modern society is honeycombed with      
superstitions that are not in themselves
 a whit more intellectually respectable 
than those which dominate the minds of  
savages4 ,the smooth surface of cultured
 society is sapped and mined by         
superstition4 ,now and again these      
hidden mines explode noisily1 but the   
superstition is always there1 to be     
exploited by those who have the wit to  
use it4 ,from this point of view        
,christianity is no more than a symptom 
of a source of great social weakness1 a 
manifestation of a weakness that may    
find expression in strange and          

unexpected but always more or less      
dangerous ways4 ,it is against the      
prevalence of this type of mind that the
 ,freethinker is really fighting4       
,freethinkers realize--apparently they  
are the only ones that do realize--that 
the creation of a better type of society
 is finally dependent upon the existence
 of a sanely educated intelligence1 and 
that will never exist while there are   
large bodies of people who can persuade 
themselves that human welfare is in some
 way dependent upon1 or furthered by1   
practices and beliefs that are not a bit
 more intellectually respectable than   
those of the cave men4 ,if              
,christianity1 as a mere system of      
beliefs1 were destroyed1 we should only 
have cleared the way for the final      
fight4 ,thousands of generations of     
superstitious beliefs and practices that
 have embodied themselves in our laws1  
our customs1 our language1 and our      
institutions1 are not to be easily      
destroyed4 ,it is comparatively simple  

to destroy a particular manifestation of
 this disastrous heritage1 but the type 
of mind to which it has given birth is  
not so easily removed4  ,the fight is   
not over1 but it is being fought from a 
new vantage ground1 and with better     
weapons than have ever before been      
employed4 ,history1 anthropology1 and   
psychology have combined to place in the
 hands of the modern ,freethinker more  
deadly weapons than those of previous   
generations were able to employ4 ,before
 these weapons the defences of the faith
 crumble like wooden forts before modern
 artillery4 ,it is no longer a question 
of debating whether religious beliefs   
are true4 ,so long as we give a         
straightforward and honest meaning to   
those beliefs we know that they are not 
true4 ,it is1 to-day1 mainly a question 
of making plain the nature of the forces
 which led men and women to regard them 
as being true4 ,we know that the history
 of religion is the history of a        
delusion1 and the task of the student is

 to recover those conditions which gave 
to this delusion an appearance of truth 
and reality4 ,that is becoming more and 
more evident to all serious and informed
 students of the subject4  ,the         
challenge of ,freethought to religion   
constitutes one of the oldest struggles 
in human history4 ,it must have had its 
beginning in the first glimmer of doubt 
concerning a tribal deity which crossed 
the mind of some more than usually      
thoughtful savage4 ,under various forms 
and in many ways it has gone on ever    
since4 ,it has had many variations of   
fortune1 often apparently completely    
crushed1 only to rise again stronger and
 more daring than ever4 ,to-day1        
,freethought is the accepted mental     
attitude of a growing number of men and 
women whose intelligence admits of no   
question4 ,it has taken a recognized    
place in the intellectual world1 and its
 hold on the educated intelligence is   
rapidly increasing4 ,it may well be that
 in one form or another the antagonism  

between critical ,freethought and       
accepted teaching1 whether secular or   
religious1 will continue as one of the  
permanent aspects of social conflict4   
,but so far as supernaturalism is       
concerned the final issue can be no     
longer in doubt4 ,it is not by one voice
 or by one movement that supernaturalism
 is condemned4 ,its condemnation is     
written in the best forms of art1       
science and literature4 ,and that is    
only another way of saying that it is   
condemned by life4 ,freethought holds   
the future in fee1 and nothing but an   
entire reversal of the order of         
civilization can force it to forego its 
claims4     ,,chapter ,,ii4  ,,life     
,,and ,,mind4   ,the outstanding feature
 of what may be called the natural      
history of associated life is the way in
 which biologic processes are gradually 
dominated by psychologic ones4 ,whatever
 be the nature of mind1 a question that 
in no way concerns us here1 there is no 
denying the importance of the phenomena 

that come within that category4 ,to     
speak of the first beginnings of mind   
is1 in this connection1 idle language4  
,in science there are no real           
beginnings4 ,things do not begin to be1 
they simply emerge1 and their emergence 
is as imperceptible as the displacement 
of night by day1 or the development of  
the chicken from the egg4 ,but whatever 
the nature of the beginning of mind1 its
 appearance in the evolutionary series  
marked an event of profound and         
revolutionary importance4 ,life received
 a new impetus1 and the struggle for    
existence a new significance1 the       
importance of which is not1 even to-day1
 generally recognized4 ,the old formulae
 might still be used1 but they had given
 to them a new significance4 ,the race  
was still to the swift and the battle to
 the strong1 but swiftness and strength 
were manifested in new ways and by new  
means4 ,cunning and intelligence began  
to do what was formerly done without    
their co-operation4 ,a new force had    

appeared1 arising out of the older      
forces as chemistry develops from       
physics and biology from both4 ,and1 as 
we should expect from analogy1 we find  
the new force dominating the older ones1
 and even bending them to its needs4    
,associated life meets us very early in 
the story of animal existence1 and we   
may assume that it ranks as a genuine   
survival quality4 ,it enables some      
animals to survive the attacks of others
 that are individually stronger1 and it 
may even be1 as has been suggested1 that
 associated life is the normal form1 and
 that solitary animals represent a      
variation from the normal1 or perhaps a 
case of degeneration4 ,but one result of
 associated life is that it paves the   
way for the emergence of mind as an     
active force in social evolution4 ,in   
his suggestive and important work on    
,mutual ,aid1 ,kropotkin has well shown 
how in the animal world the purely      
biologic form of the struggle for       
existence is checked and transformed by 

the factors of mutual aid1 association  
and protection4 ,his illustrations cover
 a very wide field2 they include a great
 variety of animal forms1 and he may    
fairly claim to have established the    
proposition that an instinct has been   
slowly developed among animals and men  
in the course of an extremely long      
evolution 444 which has taught animals  
and men alike the force they can borrow 
from mutual aid and support1 and the    
joys they can find in social life4  ,but
 there is1 on the whole1 a very sharp   
limit set to the development of mind in 
the animal world4 ,one cause of this is 
the absence of a true social medium1 to 
use the admirable phrase of that        
versatile thinker1 ,george ,henry       
,lewes4 ,in the case of man1 speech and 
writing enable him to give to his       
advances and discoveries a cumulative   
force such as can never exist in their  
absence4 ,on that subject more will be  
said later4 ,at present we may note     
another very important consequence of   

the development of mind in evolution4   
,in pre-human1 or sub-human society1    
perfection in the struggle for existence
 takes the form of the creation or the  
perfecting of an organic tool4 ,teeth or
 claws become stronger or larger1 a limb
 is modified1 sight becomes keener1 or  
there is a new effect in coloration4    
,the changes here1 it will be observed1 
are all of an organic kind1 they are a  
part of the animal and are inseparable  
from it1 and they are only transmissible
 by biologic heredity4 ,and the rate of 
development is1 of necessity1 slow4     
,when we turn to man and note the way in
 which he overcomes the difficulties of 
his environment1 we find them to be     
mainly of a different order4 ,his       
instruments are not personal1 in the    
sense of being a part of his organic    
structure4 ,we may say they do not      
belong to him so much as they do to the 
race2 while they are certainly          
transmitted from generation to          
generation irrespective of individuals4 

,instead of achieving conquest of his   
environment by developing an organic    
structure1 man creates an inorganic     
tool4 ,in a sense he subdues and moulds 
the environment to his needs1 rather    
than modifies his structure in order to 
cope with the environment4 ,against     
extremes of temperature he fashions     
clothing and builds habitations4 ,he    
discovers fire1 probably the most       
important discovery ever made by        
mankind4 ,he adds to his strength in    
defence and attack by inventing weapons4
 ,he guards himself from starvation by  
planting seeds1 and so harnesses the    
productive forces of nature to his      
needs4 ,he tames animals and so secures 
living engines of labour4 ,later1 he    
compensates for his bodily weaknesses by
 inventing instruments which aid sight1 
hearing1 etc4 ,inventions are           
multiplied1 methods of locomotion and   
transportation are discovered1 and the  
difficulties of space and time are      
steadily minimized4 ,the net result of  

all this is that as a mere biologic     
phenomenon man's evolution is checked4  
,the biologic modifications that still  
go on are of comparatively small        
importance1 except1 probably1 in the    
case of evolution against disease4 ,the 
developments that take place are mainly 
mental in form and are social in their  
incidence4  ,now if the substantial     
truth of what has been said be admitted1
 and ,i do not see how it can be        
successfully challenged1 there arise one
 or two considerations of supreme       
importance4 ,the first of these is that 
social history becomes more and more a  
history of social psychology4 ,in social
 life we are watching the play of social
 mind expressed through the medium of   
the individual4 ,the story of           
civilization is the record of the piling
 of idea on idea1 and the transforming  
power of the whole on the environment4  
,for tools1 from the flint chip of      
primitive man1 down to the finished     
instrument of the modern mechanic1 are  

all so many products of human mentality4
 ,from the primitive dug-out to the     
,atlantic liner1 from the stone         
spear-head to the modern rifle1 in all  
the inventions of civilized life we are 
observing the application of mind to the
 conquest of time1 space1 and material  
conditions4 ,our art1 our inventions1   
our institutions1 are all so many       
illustrations of the power of mind in   
transforming the environment4 ,a history
 of civilization1 as distinguished from 
a mere record of biologic growth1 is    
necessarily a history of the growing    
power of mind4 ,it is the cumulative    
ideas of the past expressed in          
inventions and institutions that form   
the driving power behind the man of     
to-day4 ,these ideas form the most      
valuable part of man's heritage1 make   
him what he is1 and contain the promise 
of all that he may become4  ,so long as 
we confine ourselves to biologic        
evolution1 the way in which qualities   
are transmitted is plain4 ,there is no  

need to go beyond the organism itself4  
,but this heritage of ideas1 peculiarly 
human as it is1 requires a carrier of an
 equally unique kind4 ,it is at this    
point that the significance of what we  
have called the social medium emerges4  
,the full significance of this was first
 seen by ,g4 ,h4 ,lewes4#a ,writing so  
far back as #ahgi he said3--       ,the 
distinguishing character of human       
psychology is that to the      three    
great factors1 organism1 external       
medium1 and heredity2 it      adds a    
fourth1 namely1 the relation to a social
 medium1 with its      product1 the     
general mind4444 ,while the mental      
functions are      products of the      
individual organism1 the product1 mind1 
is more      than an individual product4
 ,like its great instrument language1 it
      is at once individual and social4 
,each man speaks in virtue of the       
functions of vocal expression1 but also 
in virtue of the social      need of    
communication4 ,the words spoken are not

 his creation1 yet      he1 too1 must   
appropriate them by what may be called a
 creative      process before he can    
understand them4 ,what his tribe speaks 
he      repeats2 but he does not simply 
echo their words1 he rethinks them4     
,in the same way he adopts their        
experiences when he assimilates         
them to his own4444 ,further1 the       
experiences come and go2 they           
correct1 enlarge1 and destroy one       
another1 leaving behind them a          
certain residual store1 which condensed 
in intuitions and      formulated in    
principles1 direct and modify all future
      experiences4444 ,men living in    
groups co-operate like the organs in    
an organism4 ,their actions have a      
common impulse to a common end4         
,their desires and opinions bear the    
common stamp of an impersonal           
direction4 ,much of their life is common
 to all4 ,the roads1      market-places 
and temples are for each and all4       
,customs arise and      are formulated  

in laws1 the restraint of all4444 ,each 
generation is      born in this social  
medium1 and has to adapt itself to the  
established forms4444 ,a nation1 a      
tribe1 a sect is the medium of      the 
individual mind1 as a sea1 a river1 or a
 pond1 is the medium of      a fish4#b  
#a ,it will ease my feelings if ,i am   
permitted to here make a protest against
 the shameless way in which this        
suggestive writer has been pillaged by  
others without the slightest            
acknowledgement4 ,they have found him1  
as ,lamb said of some other writers1    
damned good to steal from4 ,his series  
of volumes1 ,problems of ,life and      
,mind1 have been borrowed from wholesale
 without the slightest thanks or        
recognition4  #b ,study of ,psychology1 
pp4 #aci1 #afa-e4 ,so again1 a more     
recent writer says3 ,it is not man      
himself who thinks but his social       
community2 the source of his thoughts is
 in the social medium in which he lives1
 the social atmosphere which he         

breathes4444 ,the influence of          
environment upon the human mind has     
always been recognized by psychologists 
and philosophers1 but it has been       
considered a secondary factor4 ,on the  
contrary1 the social medium which the   
child enters at birth1 in which he      
lives1 moves and has his being1 is      
fundamental4 ,toward this environment   
the individual from childhood to ripest 
old age is more or less receptive2      
rarely can the maturest minds so far    
succeed in emancipating themselves from 
this medium so far as to undertake      
independent reflection1 while complete  
emancipation is impossible1 for all the 
organs and modes of thought1 all the    
organs for constructing thoughts have   
been moulded or at least thoroughly     
imbued by it 7,l4 ,gumplowicz1 ,outlines
 of ,sociology1 p4 #aeg74               
,biologically1 what man inherits is     
capacity for acquisition4 ,but what he  
shall acquire1 the direction in which   
his native capacity shall express       

itself1 is a matter over which biologic 
forces have no control4 ,this is        
determined by society and social life4  
,given quite equal capacity in two      
individuals1 the output will be very    
different if one is brought up in a     
remote ,spanish village and the other in
 ,paris or ,london4 ,whether a man      
shouts long live ,king ,george or long  
live the ,kaiser is mainly a question of
 social surroundings1 and but very      
little one of difference in native      
capacity4 ,the child of parents living  
in the highest civilized society1 if    
taken away while very young and brought 
up amid a people in a very primitive    
state of culture1 would1 on reaching    
maturity1 differ but little from the    
people around him4 ,he would think the  
thoughts that were common to the society
 in which he was living as he would     
speak their language and wear their     
dress4 ,had ,shakespeare been born among
 savages he could never have written    
,hamlet4 ,for the work of the genius1 as

 for that of the average man1 society   
must provide the materials in the shape 
of language1 ideas1 institutions1 and   
the thousand and one other things that  
go to make up the life of a group1 and  
which may be seen reflected in the life 
of the individual4 ,suppose1 says ,dr4  
,mc,dougall3--       that throughout the
 period of half a century every child   
born to      ,english parents was at    
once exchanged 7by the power of a       
magician's      wand7 for an infant of  
the ,french1 or other1 ,european nation4
 ,soon      after the close of this     
period the ,english nation would be     
composed      of individuals of ,french 
extraction1 and the ,french of          
individuals      of ,english extraction4
 ,it is1 ,i think1 clear that1 in spite 
of this      complete exchange of innate
 characters between the two nations1    
there would be but little immediate     
change of national      characteristics4
 ,the ,french people would still speak  
,french1 and      the ,english would    

speak ,english1 with all the local      
diversities to      which we are        
accustomed and without perceptible      
change of      pronunciation4 ,the      
religion of the ,french would still be  
predominantly ,roman ,catholic1 and the 
,english people would still      present
 the same diversity of ,protestant      
creeds4 ,the course of      political   
institutions would have suffered no     
profound change1 the      customs and   
habits of the two peoples would exhibit 
only such      changes as might be      
attributed to the lapse of time1 though 
an      acute observer might notice an  
appreciable approximation of the two    
peoples towards one another in all these
 respects4 ,the inhabitant      of      
,france would still be a ,frenchman and 
the inhabitant of ,england      an      
,englishman to all outward seeming1 save
 that the physical      appearance of   
the two peoples would be transposed4    
,and we may go      even further and    
assert that the same would hold good if 

a similar      exchange of infants were 
effected between the ,english and any   
other      less closely allied nation1  
say the ,turks or the ,japanese4#c  #c  
,social ,psychology1 pp4 #ccj-a4  ,the  
products of human capacity are the      
material of which civilization is built2
 these products constitute the          
inheritance which one generation        
receives from another4 ,whether this    
inheritance be large or small1 simple or
 complex1 it is the chief determinant   
which shapes the personality of each    
individual4 ,what each has by biological
 heredity is a given structure1 that is1
 capacity4 ,but the direction of that   
capacity1 the command it enables one to 
acquire over his environment1 is in turn
 determined by the society into which he
 happens to be born4  ,it has already   
been said that the materials of         
civilization1 whether they be tools1 or 
institutions1 or inventions1 or         
discoveries1 or religious or ethical    
teachings1 are facts that can be        

directly described as psychological4 ,an
 institution--the ,church1 the ,crown1  
the ,magistracy--is not transmitted as a
 building or as so many sheets of paper1
 but as an idea or as a set of ideas4 ,a
 piece of machinery is1 in the same way1
 a mental fact1 and is a physical one in
 only a subordinate sense4 ,and if this 
be admitted1 we reach the further truth 
that the environment to which man has to
 adapt himself is essentially1 so far as
 it is a social environment1            
psychological4 ,not alone are the       
outward marks of social life--the houses
 in which man lives1 the machines he    
uses to do his bidding--products of his 
mental activity1 but the more important 
features of his environment1 to which he
 must adapt himself1 and which so       
largely shape his character and         
determine his conduct1 are of a wholly  
psychological character4 ,in any society
 that is at all distinct from the       
animal1 there exist a number of beliefs1
 ideas and institutions1 traditions1    

and1 in a later stage1 a literature     
which play a very important part in     
determining the direction of man's mind4
 ,with increasing civilization1 and the 
development of better means of          
intercourse1 any single society finds   
itself brought into touch and under the 
influence of other social groups4 ,the  
whole of these influences constitute a  
force which1 surrounding an individual  
at birth1 inevitably shapes character in
 this or that direction4 ,they dominate 
the physical aspect of life1 and        
represent the determining forces of     
social growth4 ,eliminate the           
psychological forces of life and you    
eliminate all that can be properly      
called civilization4 ,it is wholly the  
transforming power of mind on the       
environment that creates civilization1  
and it is only by a steady grasp of this
 fact that civilization can be properly 
understood4  ,i have pointed out a      
distinction between biological and      
social1 or psychological1 heredity4 ,but

 there is one instance in which the two 
agree4 ,this is that we can only        
understand a thing by its history4 ,we  
may catalogue the existing peculiarities
 of an animal form with no other        
material than that of the organism      
before us1 but thoroughly to understand 
it we must know its history4 ,similarly1
 existing institutions may have their   
justification in the present1 but the   
causes of their existence lie buried in 
the past4 ,a king may to-day be honoured
 on account of his personal worth1 but  
the reason why there is a king to be    
honoured carries us back to that state  
of culture in which the primitive priest
 and magic worker inspires fear and awe4
 ,when we ring bells to call people to  
church we perpetuate the fact that our  
ancestors rang them to drive away evil  
spirits4 ,we wear black at a funeral    
because our primitive ancestors wished  
to hide themselves from the dead man's  
ghost4 ,we strew flowers on a grave     
because food and other things were once 

buried with the dead so that their      
spirits might accompany the dead to the 
next world4 ,in short1 with all human   
customs we are forced1 if we wish to    
know the reason for their present       
existence1 to seek it in the ideas that 
have dominated the minds of previous    
generations4#d  #d ,the tyranny         
exercised unconsciously on men's minds  
is the only real tyranny1 because it    
cannot be fought against4 ,tiberius1    
,ghengis ,khan1 and ,napoleon were      
assuredly redoubtable tyrants1 but from 
the depths of their graves ,moses1      
,buddha1 ,jesus1 and ,mahomet exerted on
 the human soul a far profounder        
tyranny4 ,a conspiracy may overthrow a  
tyrant1 but what can it avail against a 
firmly established belief8 ,in its      
violent struggle with ,roman            
,catholicism it is the ,french          
,revolution that has been vanquished1   
and this in spite of the fact that the  
sympathy of the crowd was apparently on 
its side1 and in spite of recourse to   

destructive measures as pitiless as     
those of the ,inquisition4 ,the only    
real tyrants that humanity has known    
have always been the memories of its    
dead1 or the illusions it has forged for
 itself 7,gustave ,le ,bon1 ,the ,crowd1
 p4 #aec74  ,no one who has studied1 in 
even a cursory manner1 the development  
of our social institutions can avoid    
recognition of the profound influence   
exerted by the primitive conceptions of 
life1 death1 and of the character of    
natural forces4 ,every one of our social
 institutions was born in the shadow of 
superstition1 and superstition acts as a
 powerful force in determining the form 
they assume4 ,sir ,henry ,maine has     
shown to what a large extent the laws of
 inheritance are bound up with ancestor 
worship4#e ,spencer has done the same   
service for nearly all our              
institutions1#f and ,mr4 ,elton says    
that the oldest customs of inheritance  
in ,england and ,germany were1 in their 
beginnings1 connected with a domestic   

religion1 and based upon a worship of   
ancestral spirits of which the          
hearthplace was essentially the altar4#g
 ,the same truth meets us in the study  
of almost any institution4 ,in fact1 it 
is not long before one who thinks       
evolution1 instead of merely knowing its
 formulae1 begins to realize the truth  
of the saying by a ,german sociologist  
that in dealing with social institutions
 we are concerned with the mental       
creations of aggregates4 ,they are      
dependent upon the persistence of a set 
of ideas1 and so long as these ideas are
 unshaken they are substantially        
indestructible4 ,to remove them the     
ideas upon which they rest must be      
shaken and robbed of their authority4   
,that is the reason why at all times the
 fight for reform so largely resolves   
itself into a contest of ideas4 ,motives
 of self-interest may enter into the    
defence of an institution1 and in some  
case may be responsible for the attempt 
to plant an institution where it does   

not already exist1 but in the main      
institutions persist because of their   
harmony with a frame of mind that is    
favourable to their being4  #e ,see     
,early ,history of ,institutions1 and   
,early ,law and ,custom4  #f ,principles
 of ,sociology1 ,vol4 ,i4  #g ,origins  
of ,english ,history1 p4 #bfa4  ,a great
 deal of criticism has been directed    
against the conclusion of ,buckle that  
improvement in the state of mankind has 
chiefly resulted from an improvement in 
the intellectual outlook4 ,and yet when 
stated with the necessary qualifications
 the generalization is as sound as it   
can well be4 ,certainly1 the belief held
 in some quarters1 and stated with an   
air of scientific precision1 that the   
material environment is the active force
 which is ever urging to new mental     
development will not fit the facts2 for1
 as we have seen1 the environment to    
which human nature must adapt itself is 
mainly mental in character1 that is1 it 
is made up in an increasing measure of  

the products of man's own mental        
activity4 ,the theory of the sentimental
 religionist that the evil in the world 
results from the wickedness of man1 or1 
as he is fond of putting it1 from the   
hardness of man's heart1 is grotesque in
 its ineffectiveness4 ,soft heads have  
far more to do with the evil in the     
world than have hard hearts4 ,indeed1   
one of the standing difficulties of the 
orthodox moralist is1 not to explain the
 deeds of evil men1 which explain       
themselves1 but to account for the harm 
done by good men1 and often as a        
consequence of their goodness4 ,the     
moral monster is a rarity1 and evil is  
rarely the outcome of a clear perception
 of its nature and a deliberate resolve 
to pursue it4 ,paradoxical as it may    
sound1 it demands a measure of moral    
strength to do wrong1 consciously and   
deliberately1 which the average man or  
woman does not possess4 ,and the world  
has never found it a matter of great    
difficulty to deal with its bad         

characters2 it is the good ones that    
present it with a constant problem4     
,the point is worth stressing1 and we   
may do it from more than one point of   
view4 ,we may take1 first of all1 the   
familiar illustration of religious      
persecution1 as exemplified in the      
quarrels of ,catholics and ,protestants4
 ,on the ground of moral distinction no 
line could be drawn between the two     
parties4 ,each shuddered at the         
persecution inflicted by the other1 and 
each regarded the teachings of the other
 with the same degree of moral aversion4
 ,and it has often been noted that the  
men who administered so infamous an     
institution as the ,inquisition were    
not1 in even the majority of cases1 bad 
men4#h ,a few may have had interested   
motives1 but it would have been         
impossible to have maintained so brutal 
an institution in the absence of a      
general conviction of its rightness4 ,in
 private life those who could deliver   
men1 women1 and even children over to   

torture were not worse husbands or      
parents than others4 ,such differences  
as existed cannot be attributed to a    
lack of moral endeavour1 or to a        
difference of moral temperament4 ,it was
 a difference of intellectual outlook1  
and given certain religious convictions 
persecution became a religious          
necessity4 ,the moral output was poor   
because the intellectual standpoint was 
a wrong one4  #h ,speaking of the       
,inquisition1 ,mr4 ,h4 ,c4 ,lea1 in his 
classic ,history of the ,inquisition1   
says1 ,there is no doubt that the people
 were as eager as their pastors to send 
the heretic to the stake4 ,there is no  
doubt that men of the kindliest tempers1
 the profoundest aspirations1 the purest
 zeal for righteousness1 professing a   
religion founded on love and charity1   
were ruthless where heresy was          
concerned1 and were ready to trample it 
out at any cost4 ,dominic and ,francis1 
,bonaventure and ,thomas ,aquinas1      
,innocent ,,iii4 and ,st4 ,louis1 were  

types1 in their several ways1 of which  
humanity1 in any age1 might feel proud1 
and yet they were as unsparing of the   
heretic as ,ezzelin di ,romano was of   
his enemies4 ,with such men it was not  
hope of gain or lust of blood or pride  
of opinion or wanton exercise of power1 
but sense of duty1 and they but         
represented what was universal public   
opinion from the thirteenth to the      
seventeenth century4 ,vol4 ,i41 p4 #bcd4
  ,if we could once get over the        
delusion of thinking of human nature as 
being fundamentally different five      
hundred years ago from what it is       
to-day1 we should escape a great many   
fallacies that are prevalent4 ,the      
changes that have taken place in human  
nature during the historic period are so
 slight as to be practically negligible4
 ,the motives that animate men and women
 to-day are the motives that animated   
men and women a thousand or two thousand
 years ago4 ,the change is in the       
direction and form of their             

manifestation only1 and it is in the    
light of the human nature around us that
 we must study and interpret the human  
nature that has gone before us4 ,from   
that point of view we may safely        
conclude that bad institutions were kept
 in being in the past for the same      
reason that they are kept alive to-day4 
,the majority must be blind to their    
badness2 and in any case it is a general
 perception of their badness which leads
 to their destruction4  ,the subject of 
crime illustrates the same point4       
,against crime as such1 society is as   
set as ever4 ,but our attitude toward   
the causation and cure of crime1 and1   
above all1 to the treatment of the      
criminal1 has undergone a profound      
alteration4 ,and the change that has    
taken place here has been away from the 
,christian conception which brutalized  
the world for so long1 towards the point
 of view taken up by the ancient        
,greeks1 that wrong doing is the outcome
 of ignorance4 ,expressed in the modern 

manner we should say that crime is the  
result of an undeveloped nature1 or of a
 pathological one1 or of a reversion to 
an earlier predatory type1 or the result
 of any or all of these factors in      
combination with defective social       
conditions4 ,but this is only another   
way of saying that we have exchanged the
 old1 brutal1 and ineffective methods   
for more humane and effective ones      
because we look at the problem of crime 
from a different intellectual angle4 ,a 
more exact knowledge of the causation of
 crime has led us to a more sensible and
 a more humane treatment of the         
criminal4 ,and this1 not alone in his   
own behalf1 but in the interests of the 
society in which he lives4 ,we may put  
it broadly that improvement comes from  
an enlightened way of looking at things4
 ,common observation shows that people  
will go on tolerating forms of          
brutality1 year after year1 without the 
least sense of their wrongness4         
,familiarity1 and the absence of any    

impetus to examine current practice from
 a new point of view seem to account for
 this4 ,in the seventeenth century the  
same people who could watch1 without any
 apparent hostility1 the torture of an  
old woman on the fantastic charge of    
intercourse with ,satan1 had their      
feelings outraged by hearing a secular  
song on ,sunday4 ,imprisonment for      
blasphemy1 once regarded as a duty1 has 
now become ridiculous to all reasonable 
people4 ,at one and the same time1 a    
little more than a hundred years ago in 
this country1 the same people who could 
denounce cock-fighting on account of its
 brutality1 could watch unmoved the     
murdering of little children in the     
factories of ,lancashire4 ,not so long  
ago men in this country fought duels    
under a sense of moral compulsion1 and  
the practice was only abandoned when a  
changed point of view made people       
realize the absurdity of trying to      
settle the justice of a cause by        
determining which of two people were the

 most proficient with sword or pistol4  
,we have a continuation of the same     
absurdity in those larger duels fought  
by nations where the old verbal         
absurdities still retain their full     
force1 and where we actually add another
 absurdity by retaining a number of     
professional duellists who must be ready
 to embark on a duel whether they have  
any personal feeling in the matter or   
not4 ,and it seems fairly safe to say   
that when it is realized that the duel  
between nations as a means of settling  
differences is not a bit more           
intellectually respectable than was the 
ancient duello we shall not be far      
removed from seeing the end of one of   
the greatest dangers to which modern    
society is exposed4  ,examples might be 
multiplied indefinitely1 but enough has 
been said to show what small reason     
there is for assuming that changes in   
institutions are brought about by the   
operation of some occult moral sense4   
,it is the enlightenment of the moral   

sense by the growth of new ideas1 by the
 impact of new knowledge leading to a   
revaluation of things that is mainly    
responsible for the change4 ,the        
question of whether a man should or     
should not be burned for a difference in
 religious belief was never one that    
could be settled by weighing up the     
moral qualities of the two parties in   
the dispute4 ,all the moral judgment    
that has ever existed1 even if combined 
in the person of a single individual    
could never decide that issue4 ,it was  
entirely a question of acquiring a new  
point of view from which to examine the 
subject4 ,until that was done the whole 
force of the moral sense was on the side
 of the persecutor4 ,to put the matter  
paradoxically1 the better the man the   
worse persecutor he became4 ,it was     
mental enlightenment that was needed1   
not moral enthusiasm4  ,the question of 
progress thus becomes1 in all           
directions1 one of the impact of new    
ideas1 in an environment suitable to    

their reception and growth4 ,a society  
shut in on itself is always             
comparatively unprogressive1 and but for
 the movement of classes within it would
 be completely so4 ,the more closely the
 history of civilization is studied the 
more clearly does that fact emerge4     
,civilization is a synthetic movement1  
and there can be no synthesis in the    
absence of dissolution and resolution4  
,a fight of old ideas against new ones1 
a contest of clashing culture levels1 a 
struggle to get old things looked at    
from a new point of view1 these are the 
features that characterize all efforts  
after reform4 ,it was said by some of   
the eighteenth century philosophers that
 society was held together by agreement 
in a bond4 ,that is not quite correct4  
,the truth is that society is held      
together1 as is any phase of social     
life1 by a bond of agreement4 ,the      
agreement is not of the conscious1      
documentary order1 but it is there1 and 
it consists in sharing a common life    

created and maintained by having a      
common tradition1 and a common stock of 
ideas and ideals4 ,it is this that makes
 a man a member of one social group     
rather than of another--,chinese1       
,american1 ,french1 ,german1 or         
,choctaw4 ,there is no discriminating   
feature in what is called the economic  
needs of people4 ,the economic needs of 
human beings--food1 clothing1 and       
shelter1 are of the same order the world
 over4 ,and certainly the fact of a     
,chinaman sharing in the economic life  
of ,britain1 or an ,englishman sharing  
in the economic life of ,china1 would   
not entitle either to be called genuine 
members of the group in which he        
happened to be living4 ,membership only 
begins to be when those belonging to a  
group share in a common mental outfit4  
,even within a society1 and in relation 
to certain social groups1 one can see   
illustrations of the same principle4 ,a 
man is not really a member of a society 
of artists1 lawyers1 or doctors merely  

by payment of an annual subscription4   
,he is that only when he becomes a      
participant in the mental life of the   
group4#i ,it is this common stock of    
mental facts which lies at the root of  
all collective ideas--an army1 a        
,church1 or a nation4 ,and ever the     
fight is by way of attack and defence of
 the psychologic fact4#aj  #i ,this     
seems to me to give the real            
significance of ,nationality4 ,it has   
been argued by some that nationality is 
a pure myth1 as unreal as the divinity  
of a king4 ,the principal ground for    
this denial of nationality appears to be
 that so-called national characteristics
 are seen to undergo drastic            
transformation when their possessors are
 subject to a new set of influences4    
,this may be quite true1 but if         
nationality1 in the sense of being a    
product of biological heredity1 is ruled
 out1 it does not follow that           
nationality is thereby destroyed4 ,the  
fact may remain but it demands a        

different interpretation4 ,and if what  
has been said above be true1 it follows 
that nationality is not a personal fact1
 but an extra or super-personal one4 ,it
 belongs to the group rather than to the
 individual1 and is created by the      
possession of a common speech1 a common 
literature1 and a common group life4    
,and quite naturally1 when the          
individual is lifted out of this special
 social influence its power may well be 
weakened1 and in the case of his        
children may be non-existent1 or        
replaced by the special characteristics 
of the new group into which he is born4 
,the discussion of nationality ought    
not1 therefore1 to move along the lines 
of acceptance or rejection of the       
conception of nationality1 but of how   
far specific national characteristics   
admit of modification under the pressure
 of new conditions4  #aj ,it would take 
too long to elaborate1 but it may be    
here noted that in the human group the  
impelling force is not so much needs as 

desires1 and that fact raises the whole 
issue from the level of biology to that 
of psychology4 ,so long as life is at a 
certain level man shares with the animal
 the mere need for food4 ,but at another
 level there arises not merely the need 
for food1 but a desire for certain kind 
of food1 cooked in a particular manner1 
and served in a special style4 ,and     
provided that we do not by hunger reduce
 man to the level of the beast again1   
the desire will be paramount and will   
determine whether food shall be eaten or
 not4 ,so1 again1 with the fact of sex  
and marriage4 ,at the animal level we   
have the crude fact of sex1 and this is1
 indeed1 inescapable at any stage4 ,but 
the growth of civilization brings about 
the fact that the need for the          
gratification of the sexual appetite is 
regulated by the secondary qualities of 
grace of form1 or of disposition1 which 
are the immediate determinants of       
whether a particular man shall marry a  
particular woman or not4 ,again1 it is  

the desire for power and distinction1   
not the need for money that impels men  
to spend their lives in building up huge
 fortunes4 ,and1 finally1 we have the   
fact that a great many of our present   
needs are transformed desires4 ,the     
working man of to-day counts as needs1  
as do we all more or less1 a number of  
things that began as pure desires4 ,we  
say we need books1 pictures1 music1 etc4
 ,but none of these things can be really
 brought under the category of things   
necessary to life4 ,they are the        
creation of man's mental cravings4      
,without them we say life would not be  
worth living1 and it is well that we    
should all feel so4 ,professor ,marshall
 rightly dwells upon this point by      
saying3 ,although it is man's wants in  
the early stages of development that    
give rise to his activities1 yet        
afterwards each new step is to be       
regarded as the development of new      
activities giving rise to new wants1    
rather than of new wants giving rise to 

new activities4--7,principles of        
,economics1 ,vol4 ,i41 p4 #afd47  ,to do
 the ,churches and other vested         
interests justice1 they have never lost 
sight of this truth1 and it would have  
been better for the race had others been
 equally alive to its importance4 ,the  
,churches have never ceased to fight for
 the control of those public organs that
 make for the formation of opinion4     
,their struggle to control the press1   
the platform1 and the school means just 
this4 ,whatever they may have taught1   
self-interest forced upon them          
recognition of the truth that it was    
what men thought about things that      
mattered4 ,they have always opposed the 
introduction of new ideas1 and have     
fought for the retention of old ones4   
,it was a necessity of their existence4 
,it was also an admission of the truth  
that in order for reform to become a    
fact the power of traditional ideas must
 be broken4 ,man is what he thinks1 is  
far nearer the truth than the once      

famous saying1 ,man is what he eats4 ,as
 a member of a social group man is      
dominated by his ideas of things1 and   
any movement of reform must take        
cognisance of that fact if it is to     
cherish reasonable hopes of success4    
,,chapter ,,iii4  ,,what ,,is           
,,freethought8   ,freedom of thought and
 freedom of speech stand to each other  
as the two halves of a pair of scissors4
 ,without freedom of speech freedom of  
thought is robbed of the better part of 
its utility1 even if its existence is   
not threatened4 ,the one reacts on the  
other4 ,as thought provides the material
 for speech1 so1 in turn1 it            
deteriorates when it is denied          
expression4 ,speech is1 in fact1 one of 
the great factors in human progress4 ,it
 is that which enables one generation to
 hand on to another the discoveries     
made1 the inventions produced1 the      
thoughts achieved1 and so gives a degree
 of fixity to the progress attained4    
,for progress1 while expressed through  

the individual1 is achieved by the race4
 ,individually1 the man of to-day is not
 strikingly superior in form or capacity
 to the man of five or ten thousand     
years ago4 ,but he knows more1 can      
achieve more1 and is in that sense      
stronger than was his ancestors4 ,he is 
the heir of the ages1 not as a figure of
 speech1 but as the most sober of facts4
 ,he inherits what previous generations 
have acquired2 the schoolboy of to-day  
starts with a capital of inherited      
knowledge that would have been an outfit
 for a philosopher a few thousand years 
ago4  ,it is this that makes speech of  
so great importance to the fact of      
progress4 ,without speech1 written or   
verbal1 it would be impossible to       
conserve the products of human          
achievement4 ,each generation would have
 to start where its predecessor         
commenced1 and it would finish at about 
the same point4 ,it would be the fable  
of ,sisyphus illustrated in the passing 
of each generation of human beings4     

,but speech implies communication4      
,there is not very much pleasure in     
speaking to oneself4 ,even the man who  
apologised for the practice on the      
ground that he liked to address a       
sensible assembly would soon grow tired 
of so restricted an audience4 ,the      
function of speech is to transmit ideas1
 and it follows1 therefore1 that every  
embargo on the free exchange of ideas1  
every obstacle to complete freedom of   
speech1 is a direct threat to the       
well-being of civilisation4 ,as ,milton 
could say that a good book is the       
precious life-blood of a master spirit1 
embalmed and treasured up to a life     
beyond life1 and that he who destroys a 
good book kills reason itself1 so we may
 say that he who strikes at freedom of  
thought and speech is aiming a blow at  
the very heart of human betterment4  ,in
 theory1 the truth of what has been said
 would be readily admitted1 but in      
practice it has met1 and still meets1   
with a vigorous opposition4 ,governments

 have exhausted their powers to prevent 
freedom of intercourse between peoples1 
and every ,church and chapel has used   
its best endeavours to the same end4    
,even to-day1 when all are ready to pay 
lip-homage to freedom of thought1 the   
obstacles in the way of a genuine       
freedom are still very great4 ,under the
 best possible conditions there will    
probably always be some coercion of     
opinion1 if only of that unconscious    
kind which society as a whole exerts    
upon its individual members4 ,but to    
this we have to add the coercion that is
 consciously exerted to secure the      
formation of particular opinions1 and   
which has the dual effect of inducing   
dissimulation in some and impotency in  
others4 ,quite ignorantly parents       
commence the work when they force upon  
children their own views of religion and
 inculcate an exaggerated respect for   
authority4 ,they create an initial bias 
that is in only too many cases fatal to 
real independence of thought4 ,social   

pressure continues what a mistaken early
 training has commenced4 ,when opinions 
are made the test of good form1 and     
one's social standing partly determined 
by the kind of opinions that one holds1 
there is developed on the one side      
hypocrisy1 and on the other1 because    
certain opinions are banned1 thought in 
general is unhealthily freed from the   
sobering influence of enlightened       
criticism4#aa  #aa ,it is a curious     
thing1 as ,philip ,gilbert ,hamerton    
points out in one of his essays1 that in
 ,england religious freedom appears to  
exist in inverse proportion to rank4    
,the king has no freedom whatever in a  
choice of religion4 ,his religion is    
part of the position4 ,an ,english      
nobleman1 speaking generally1 has two   
religions from which to choose4 ,he may 
be either a member of the established   
,church or of the ,roman ,catholic4 ,in 
the middle classes there is the choice  
of all sorts of religious sects1 so long
 as they are ,christian4 ,religious     

dissent is permitted so long as it does 
not travel beyond the limits of the     
chapel4 ,and when we come to the better 
class working man1 he has the greatest  
freedom of all4 ,his social position    
does not depend upon his belonging to   
this or that ,church1 and he may1 to    
borrow a phrase from ,heine1 go to hell 
in his own fashion4  ,to-day the legal  
prohibition of religious dissent is     
practically ineffective1 and is         
certainly far less demoralizing than the
 pressure that is exerted socially and  
unofficially4 ,in all probability this  
has always been the case4 ,for legal    
persecution must be open4 ,part of its  
purpose is publicity1 and that in itself
 is apt to rouse hostility4 ,against    
open1 legal persecution a man will make 
a stand1 or if he gives way to the force
 arrayed against him may do so with no  
feeling of personal degradation4 ,but   
the conformity that is secured by a     
threat of social boycott1 the freedom of
 speech that is prevented by choking the

 avenues of intellectual intercourse1 is
 far more deadly in its consequences1   
and far more demoralizing in its        
influence on character4 ,to give way1 as
 thousands do1 not to the open          
application of force1 which carries no  
greater personal reflection than does   
the soldier's surrender to superior     
numbers1 but to the dread of financial  
loss1 to the fear of losing a social    
status1 that one may inwardly despise   
even while in the act of securing it1 or
 from fear of offending those whom we   
may feel are not worthy of our respect1 
these are the things that cannot be done
 without eating into one's sense of     
self-respect1 and inflicting upon one's 
character an irreparable injury4  ,on   
this matter more will be said later4    
,for the present ,i am concerned with   
the sense in which we are using the word
 ,freethought4 ,fortunately1 little time
 need be wasted in discussing the once  
popular retort to the ,freethinker that 
if the principle of determinism be      

accepted free thought is impossible4 ,it
 is surprising that such an argument    
should ever have secured a vogue1 and is
 only now interesting as an indication  
of the mentality of the defender of     
orthodox religion4 ,certainly no one who
 properly understands the meaning of the
 word would use such an argument4 ,at   
best it is taking a word from sociology1
 a sphere in which the meaning is quite 
clear and intelligible1 and applying it 
in the region of physical science where 
it has not1 and is not intended to have1
 any meaning at all4 ,in physical       
science a thing is what it does1 and the
 business of science is to note the     
doings of forces and masses1 their      
actions and reactions1 and express them 
in terms of natural law4 ,from the point
 of view of physical science a thing is 
neither free nor unfree1 and to discuss 
natural happenings in terms of freedom  
or bondage is equal to discussing smell 
in terms of sight or colour in terms of 
smell4 ,but applied in a legitimate way 

the word free is not only justifiable1  
it is indispensible4 ,the confusion     
arises when we take a word from a       
department in which its meaning is quite
 clear and apply it in a region where it
 has no application whatever4  ,applied 
to opinion ,free has the same origin and
 the same application as the expressions
 a free man1 or a free ,state1 or a free
 people4 ,taking either of these        
expressions it is plain that they could 
have originated only in a state of      
affairs where some people are free1 and 
some are living in a state of bondage or
 restraint4 ,there is no need to trace  
the history of this since so much is    
implied in the word itself4 ,a free     
,state is one in which those belonging  
to it determine their own laws without  
being coerced by an outside power4 ,a   
free man is one who is permitted to act 
as his own nature prompts4 ,the word    
free implies nothing as to the nature of
 moral or mental causation1 that is a   
question of a wholly different order4   

,the free man exists over against the   
one who is not free1 the free ,state    
over against one that is held in some   
degree of subjection to another ,state4 
,there is no other meaning to the word1 
and that meaning is quite clear and     
definite4  ,now ,freethought has a      
precisely similar significance4 ,it says
 nothing as to the nature of thought1   
the origin of thought1 or the laws of   
thought4 ,with none of these questions  
is it vitally concerned4 ,it simply     
asserts that there are conditions under 
which thought is not free1 that is1     
where it is coerced to a foregone       
conclusion1 and that these conditions   
are fatal to thought in its higher and  
more valuable aspects4 ,freethought is  
that form of thinking that proceeds     
along lines of its own determining1     
rather than along lines that are laid   
down by authority4 ,in actual practice  
it is immediately concerned with the    
expression of opinion rather than with  
its formation1 since no authority can   

prevent the formation of opinion in any 
mind that is at all independent in its  
movements and forms opinions on the     
basis of observed facts and adequate    
reasoning4 ,but its chief and primary   
significance lies in its repudiation of 
the right of authority to say what form 
the expression of opinion shall take4   
,and it is also clear that such a term  
as ,freethought could only have come    
into general use and prominence in a    
society in which the free circulation of
 opinion was more or less impeded4  ,it 
thus becomes specially significant that1
 merely as a matter of history1 the     
first active manifestation of           
,freethought should have occurred in    
connection with a revolt against        
religious teaching and authority4 ,this 
was no accident1 but was rather a case  
of necessity4 ,for1 in the first place1 
there is no other subject in which pure 
authority plays so large a part as it   
does in religion4 ,all churches and all 
priesthoods1 ancient and modern1 fall   

back upon the principle of pure         
authority as a final method of enforcing
 their hold upon the people4 ,that1 it  
may be noted in passing1 is one of the  
chief reasons why in all ages           
governments have found religion one of  
the most serviceable agencies in        
maintaining their sway4 ,secondly1 there
 seems to have been from the very       
earliest times a radically different    
frame of mind in the approach to secular
 and religious matters4 ,so far as one  
can see there appears to be1 even in    
primitive societies1 no very strong     
opposition to the free discussion of    
matters that are of a purely secular    
nature4 ,questions of ways and means    
concerning these are freely debated     
among savage tribes1 and in all         
discussion differences of opinion must  
be taken for granted4 ,it is when we    
approach religious subjects that a      
difference is seen4 ,here the main      
concern is to determine the will of the 
gods1 and all reasoning is thus out of  

place1 if not a positive danger4 ,the   
only thing is to discover ,god's will1  
and when we have his1 or his will given 
in sacred books the embargo on free     
thinking is complete4 ,this feature     
continues to the end4 ,we do not even   
to-day discuss religious matters in the 
same open spirit in which secular       
matters are debated4 ,there is a bated  
breath1 a timidity of criticism in      
discussing religious subjects that does 
not appear when we are discussing       
secular topics4 ,with the thoroughly    
religious man it is solely a question of
 what ,god wishes him to do4 ,in        
religion this affords the only latitude 
for discussion1 and even that disappears
 largely when the will of ,god is placed
 before the people in the shape of      
revealed writings4 ,fortunately for the 
world inspired writings have never been 
so clearly penned as to leave no room   
for doubt as to what they actually      
meant4 ,clarity of meaning has never    
been one of the qualities of divine     

authorship4  ,in this connection it is  
significant that the first form of      
democratic government of which we have  
any clear record should have been in    
freethinking1 sceptical ,greece4        
,equally notable is it that in both     
,rome and ,greece the measure of mental 
toleration was greater than it has ever 
been in other countries before or since4
 ,in ,rome to the very end of the ,pagan
 domination there existed no legislation
 against opinions1 as such4 ,the holders
 of certain opinions might find         
themselves in uncomfortable positions   
now and then1 but action against them   
had to rest on some ground other than   
that which was afterwards known as      
heresy4 ,there existed no law in the    
,roman ,empire against freedom of       
opinion1 and those who are familiar with
 ,mr4 ,h4 ,c4 ,lea's classic1 ,history  
of the ,inquisition1 will recall his    
account of the various tactics adopted  
by the ,christian ,church to introduce  
measures that would accustom the public 

mind to legislation which should        
establish the principle of persecution  
for opinion4#ab ,in the end the ,church 
succeeded in effecting this1 and its    
success was registered in the almost    
unbelievable degradation of the human   
intellect which was exhibited in the    
,christian world for centuries4 ,so     
complete was this demoralization that   
more than a thousand years later we find
 men announcing as a most daring        
principle a demand for freedom of       
discussion which in old ,greece and     
,rome was never officially questioned4  
,christianity not merely killed freedom 
wherever it established itself1 but it  
came very near killing even the memory  
of it4  #ab ,see specially ,vol4 ,i41   
chapters #f1 #g1 and #h4 ,one is sorely 
tempted to engage in what would be a    
rather lengthy aside on the mental      
freedom enjoyed by the people of ancient
 ,greece1 but considerations of cogency 
advise a shorter comment in this form4  
,in the first place we have to note that

 neither the ,greeks nor the ,romans    
possessed anything in the shape of      
sacred books4 ,that1 as the history of  
,mohammedanism and ,christianity shows1 
is one of the most disastrous things    
that can happen to any people4 ,but     
apart from this there were several      
circumstances connected with the        
development of the ,greek peoples that  
made for freedom of opinion4 ,there was 
no uniform theology to commence with1   
and the configuration of the country1   
while enough to maintain local          
independence1 was not enough to prevent 
a certain amount of intercourse4 ,and it
 would certainly seem that no people    
were ever so devoid of intolerance as   
were the ancient ,greeks4 ,it is true   
that the history of ,greece was not     
without its examples of intolerance1 but
 these were comparatively few1 and1 as  
,professor ,bury says1 persecution was  
never organized4 ,the gods were         
criticized in both speeches and plays4  
,theories of ,materialism and ,atheism  

were openly taught and were made the    
topic of public discussion4 ,there was1 
indeed1 a passion for the discussion of 
all sorts of subjects1 and to discussion
 nothing is sacred4 ,the best thought of
 ,rome owed its impetus to ,greece1 and 
at a later date it was the recovered    
thought of ,greece which gave the       
impetus to ,mohammedan ,spain in its    
cultivation of science and philosophy1  
and so led to the partial recovery of   
,europe from the disastrous control of  
the ,christian ,church4 ,nor need it be 
assumed that the work of ,greece was due
 to the possession of a superior brain  
power4 ,of that there is not the        
slightest vestige of proof4 ,it is      
simply that the ancient ,greek lived in 
a freer mental atmosphere4 ,the mind had
 less to hamper it in its operations2 it
 had no organized and powerful ,church  
that from the cradle to the grave       
pursued its work of preventing free     
criticism and the play of enlightened   
opinion4 ,for several centuries the     

world has been seeking to recover some  
of its lost liberties with only a very  
moderate success4 ,but if one thinks of 
what the ,greeks were1 and if one adds  
to what they had achieved a possible two
 thousand years of development1 he will 
then have some notion of what the       
triumph of the ,christian ,church meant 
to the world4  ,it was1 therefore1      
inevitable that in the western world    
,freethought should come into prominence
 in relation to the ,christian religion 
and its claims4 ,in the ,christian      
,church there existed an organization   
which not alone worked with the avowed  
intention of determining what men should
 think1 but finally proceeded to what   
was1 perhaps1 the logical conclusion1 to
 say what they should not think4 ,no    
greater tyranny than the ,christian     
,church has ever existed4 ,and this     
applies1 not to the ,roman ,church      
alone1 but to every ,church within the  
limit of its opportunities4 ,in the name
 and in the interests of religion the   

,christian ,church took some of the     
worst passions of men and consecrated   
them4 ,the killing of heretics became   
one of the most solemn duties and it was
 urged upon secular rulers as such4 ,the
 greatest instrument of oppression ever 
formed1 the ,inquisition1 was fashioned 
for no other purpose than to root out   
opinions that were obnoxious to the     
,church4 ,it would have been bad enough 
had the attempts of the ,church to      
control opinion been limited to         
religion4 ,but that was not the case4   
,it aimed at taking under its control   
all sorts of teaching on all sorts of   
subjects4 ,nothing would have surprised 
an inhabitant of ancient ,rome more1    
could he have revisited the earth some  
dozen centuries after the establishment 
of ,christianity1 than to have found men
 being punished for criticising         
doctrines that were in his day openly   
laughed at4 ,and nothing could have     
given an ancient ,athenian greater cause
 for wonder than to have found men being

 imprisoned and burned for teaching     
cosmical theories that were being       
debated in the schools of ,athens two   
thousand years before4 ,well might they 
have wondered what had happened to the  
world1 and well might they have come to 
the conclusion that it had been         
overtaken by an attack of universal     
insanity4 ,and the explanation would not
 have been so very wide of the truth4   
,in this matter of suppression of       
freedom of thinking there was little to 
choose between the ,churches4 ,each     
aimed at controlling the thought of     
mankind1 each was equally intolerant of 
any variation from the set line1 and    
each employed the same weapon of        
coercion so far as circumstances        
permitted4 ,at most the ,protestant     
,churches substituted a dead book for a 
living ,church1 and in the end it may be
 questioned1 when all allowance is made 
for the changed circumstances in which  
,protestantism operated1 whether the    
rule of the new ,church was not more    

disastrous than the older one4 ,it had  
certainly less excuse for its           
intolerance4 ,the ,roman ,catholic      
,church might urge that it never claimed
 to stand for freedom of opinion1 and   
whatever its sins it was so far free    
from the offence of hypocrisy4 ,but the 
,protestant ,churches could set up no   
such plea2 they professed to stand on   
freedom of conscience4 ,and they thus   
added the quality of inconsistency and  
hypocrisy to an offence that was already
 grave enough in itself4  ,but whatever 
opinion one may have on that point1 it  
is certain that in practice the         
,protestant leaders were as opposed to  
freedom of thought as were the ,roman   
,catholics4 ,and ,protestant bigotry    
left a mark on ,european history that   
deserves special recognition4 ,for the  
first time it made the profession of    
,christianity a definite part of the law
 of the secular ,state4#ac ,hitherto    
there had been no law in any of the     
,european ,states which made a          

profession of ,christianity necessary4  
,there had been plenty of persecutions  
of non-,christians1 and the consequences
 of a rejection of ,christianity1 if one
 lived in a ,christian ,state1 were     
serious enough4 ,but when the secular   
,state punished the heretic it was a    
manifestation of good will towards the  
,church and not the expression of a     
legal enactment4 ,it was the direct     
influence of the ,church on the ,state4 
,church and ,state were legally distinct
 during the mediaeval period1 however   
closely they may have been allied in    
practice4 ,with the arrival of          
,protestantism and the backing of the   
reformed religion given by certain of   
the ,princes1 the machinery of          
intolerance1 so to speak1 was taken over
 by the ,state and became one of its    
functions4 ,it became as much the duty  
of the secular officials to extirpate   
heresy1 to secure uniformity of         
religious belief as it was to the       
interest of the ,church to see that it  

was destroyed4 ,up to that time it was  
the aim of the ,church to make the      
,state one of its departments4 ,it had  
never legally succeeded in doing this1  
but it was not for the ,roman ,church to
 sink to the subordinate position of    
becoming a department of the ,state4 ,it
 was left for ,protestantism to make the
 ,church a branch of the ,state and to  
give religious bigotry the full sanction
 of secular law4  #ac ,see on this point
 ,heeren's ,historical ,treatises1      
#ahcf1 pp4 #fa-gj4  ,neither with       
,catholic nor ,protestant could there   
be1 therefore1 any relaxation in the    
opposition offered to independent       
thinking4 ,that still remained the      
cardinal offence to the religious mind4 
,in the name of religion ,protestants   
opposed the physics of ,newton as       
bitterly as ,catholics opposed the      
physics of ,galileo4 ,the geology of    
,hutton and ,lyell1 the chemistry of    
,boyle and ,dalton1 the biology of ,von 
,baer1 ,lamarck and ,darwin1 with almost

 any other branch of science that one   
cares to select1 tell the same tale4    
,and when the desire for reform took a  
social turn there was the same influence
 to be fought4 ,for while the ,roman    
,catholic laid the chief insistence on  
obedience to the ,church1 the           
,protestant laid as strong insistence on
 obedience to the ,state1 and made      
disobedience to its orders a matter of  
almost religious revolt4 ,the whole     
force of religion was thus used to      
induce contentment with the existing    
order1 instead of to the creation of an 
intelligent discontent which would lead 
to continuous improvement4 ,in view of  
these circumstances it is not surprising
 that the word ,freethought should have 
lost in actual use its more general     
significance of a denial of the place of
 mere authority in matters of opinion1  
and have acquired a more definite and   
precise connotation4 ,it could not1 of  
course1 lose its general meaning1 but it
 gained a special application and became

 properly associated with a definitely  
anti-theological attitude4 ,the growth  
in this direction was gradual but       
inevitable4 ,when the term first came   
into general use1 about the end of the  
seventeenth century1 it was mainly used 
with reference to those deists who were 
then attacking ,christianity4 ,in that  
sense it continued to be used for some  
time4 ,but as ,deism lost ground1 thanks
 partly to the ,christian attack1 the   
clear and logical issue between ,theism 
and ,atheism became apparent1 with the  
result that the definite anti-religious 
character of ,freethought became firmly 
established4 ,and to-day it is mere     
affectation or timidity to pretend that 
the word has any other vital            
significance4 ,to say that a man is a   
,freethinker is to give1 to ninety-nine 
people out of a hundred1 the impression 
that he is anti-religious4 ,and in this 
direction the popular sense of the word 
discloses what has been its important   
historic function4 ,historically1 the   

chief stronghold of mere authority has  
been religion4 ,in science and in       
sociology1 as well as in connection with
 supernaturalism proper1 every movement 
in the direction of the free exercise of
 the intellect has met with the         
unceasing opposition of religion4 ,that 
has always been at once the symbol and  
the instrument of oppression4 ,to attack
 religion has been to attack the enemy  
in his capital4 ,all else has been      
matter of outpost skirmishing4  ,i have 
apparently gone a long way round to get 
at the meaning of the word ,freethought1
 but it was necessary4 ,for it is of    
very little use1 in the case of an      
important word that has stood and stands
 for the name of a movement1 to go to a 
dictionary1 or to appeal to etymology4  
,the latter has often a mere antiquarian
 interest1 and the former merely        
registers current meanings1 it does not 
make them4 ,the use of a word must      
ultimately be determined by the ideas it
 conveys to those who hear it4 ,and from

 what has been said the meaning of this 
particular word should be fairly clear4 
,while standing historically for a      
reasoned protest against the imposition 
of opinion by authority1 and1           
negatively1 against such artificial     
conditions as prevent the free          
circulation of opinion1 it to-day stands
 actually for a definitely              
anti-religious mental attitude4 ,and    
this is what one would naturally expect4
 ,protests1 after all1 are protests     
against something in the concrete1 even 
though they may embody the affirmation  
of an abstract principle4 ,and nowadays 
the principle of pure authority has so  
few defenders that it would be sheer    
waste of time1 unless the protest       
embodied a definite attitude with regard
 to specific questions4 ,we may1 then1  
put it that to us ,freethought stands   
for a reasoned and definite opposition  
to all forms of supernaturalism1 it     
claims the right to subject all         
religious beliefs to the test of reason1

 and further claims that when so tested 
they break down hopelessly4 ,it is from 
this point of view that these pages are 
written1 and the warranty for so        
defining it should be apparent from what
 has been said in this and the preceding
 chapter4     ,,chapter ,,iv4           
,,rebellion ,,and ,,reform4   ,rebellion
 and reform are not exactly twins1 but  
they are very closely related4 ,for     
while all rebellion is not reform1 yet  
in the widest sense of the word1 there  
is no reform without rebellion4 ,to     
fight for reform is to rebel against the
 existing order and is part of the      
eternal and fundamentally healthful     
struggle of the new against the old1 and
 of the living present against the dead 
past4 ,the rebel is thus at once a      
public danger and a benefactor4 ,he     
threatens the existing order1 but it is 
in the name of a larger and better      
social life4 ,and because of this it is 
his usual lot to be crucified when      
living and deified when dead4 ,so it has

 always been1 so in its main features   
will it always be4 ,if contemporaries   
were to recognize the reformer as such1 
they would destroy his essential        
function by making it useless4          
,improvement would become an automatic  
process that would perfect itself       
without opposition4 ,as it is1 the      
function of the rebel is to act as an   
explosive force1 and no society of      
average human beings likes explosions4  
,they are noisy1 and they are dangerous4
 ,for the reformer to complain at not   
being hailed as a deliverer is for him  
to mistake his part and place in social 
evolution4  ,the rebel and the reformer 
is1 again1 always in minority4 ,that    
follows from what has already been said4
 ,it follows1 too1 from what we know of 
development in general4 ,darwinism rests
 on the supreme importance of the       
minority4 ,it is an odd variation here  
and there that acts as the starting     
point for a new species--and it has     
against it the swamping influence of the

 rest of its kind that treads the old   
biological line4 ,nature's choicest     
variations are of necessity with the    
few1 and when that variation has        
established itself and become normal    
another has to appear before a new start
 can be made4  ,whether we take biology 
or psychology the same condition        
appears4 ,a new idea occurs to an       
individual and it is as strictly a      
variation from the normal as anything   
that occurs in the animal world4 ,the   
idea may form the starting point of a   
new theory1 or perhaps of a new social  
order4 ,but to establish itself1 to     
become the characteristic property of   
the group1 it must run the gamut of     
persecution and the risk of suppression4
 ,and suppressed it often is--for a     
time4 ,it is an idle maxim which teaches
 that truth always conquers1 if by that 
is implied that it does so at once4     
,that is not the truth4 ,lies have been 
victorious over and over again4 ,the    
,roman ,catholic ,church1 one of the    

greatest lies in the history of the     
human race1 stood the conqueror for many
 centuries4 ,the teaching of the        
rotundity of the earth and its          
revolution round the sun was suppressed 
for hundreds of years until it was      
revived in the #afth century4 ,in the   
long run truth does emerge1 but a lie   
may have a terribly lengthy innings4    
,for the lie is accepted by the many1   
while the truth is seen only by the few4
 ,but it is the few to whom we turn when
 we look over the names of those who    
have made the world what is it4 ,all the
 benefits to society come from the few1 
and society crucifies them to show its  
gratitude4 ,one may put it that society 
lives on the usual1 but flourishes on   
account of the exception4  ,now there is
 something extremely significant in the 
,christian religion tracing all the     
disasters of mankind to a primal act of 
disobedience4 ,it is a fact which       
discloses in a flash the chief social   
function of religion in general and of  

,christianity in particular4 ,man's duty
 is summed up in the one word obedience1
 and the function of the 7religiously7  
good man is to obey the commands of     
,god1 as that of the good citizen is to 
obey the commands of government4 ,the   
two commands meet and supplement each   
other with the mutual advantage which   
results from the adjustment of the upper
 and lower jaws of a hyena4 ,and it     
explains why the powers that be have    
always favoured the claims of religion4 
,it enabled them to rally to their aid  
the tremendous and stupefying aid of    
religion and to place rebellion to their
 orders on the same level as rebellion  
against ,god4 ,in ,christian theology   
,satan is the arch-rebel2 hell is full  
of rebellious angels and disobedient men
 and women4 ,heaven is reserved for the 
timid1 the tame1 the obedient1 the      
sheep-like4 ,when the ,christ of the    
,gospels divides the people into goats  
and sheep1 it is the former that go to  
hell1 and the latter to heaven4 ,the    

,church has not a rebel in its calendar1
 although it has not a few rogues and   
many fools4 ,to the ,church rebellion is
 always a sin1 save on those rare       
occasions when revolt is ordered in the 
interests of the ,church itself4 ,in    
,greek mythology ,prometheus steals fire
 from heaven for the benefit of man and 
suffers in consequence4 ,the myth       
symbolizes the fact4 ,always the man has
 had to win knowledge and happiness in  
the teeth of opposition from the gods4  
,always the race has owed its progress  
to the daring of the rebel or of the    
rebellious few4  ,often the ,freethinker
 is denounced because he is destructive 
or dangerous4 ,what other is he expected
 to be8 ,and would he be of much use if 
he were otherwise88 ,i would go further 
and say that he is the most destructive 
of all agencies because he is so        
intimately concerned with the handling  
of the most destructive of              
weapons--ideas4 ,we waste a good deal of
 time in denouncing certain people as   

dangerous when they are in reality      
comparatively harmless4 ,a man throws a 
bomb1 or breaks into a house1 or robs   
one of a purse1 and a judge solemnly    
denounces him as a most dangerous member
 of society4 ,it is all wrong4 ,these   
are comparatively harmless individuals4 
,one man throws a bomb1 kills a few     
people1 damages some property1 and there
 the matter ends4 ,another man comes    
along and drops instead of a bomb a few 
ideas1 and the whole country is in a    
state of eruption4 ,charles ,peace      
pursues a career of piety and crime1    
gets himself comfortably and religiously
 hanged1 and society congratulates      
itself on having got rid of a dangerous 
person1 and then forgets all about it4  
,karl ,marx visits ,england1 prowls     
round ,london studying the life of rich 
and poor1 and drops ,das ,kapital on us4
 ,a quiet and outwardly inoffensive     
individual1 one who never gave the      
police a moment's anxiety1 spends years 
studying earthworms1 and flowers1 and   

horses and cats1 and all sorts of moving
 things and presents society with ,the  
,origin of ,species4 ,organized society 
found itself able to easily guard itself
 against the attacks of men such as     
,charles ,peace1 it may with impunity   
extend its hospitality to the thrower of
 bombs1 or robber of houses1 but by what
 means can it protect itself against the
 peaceful ,marx or the harmless ,darwin8
 ,no society can afford to ignore in its
 midst a score of original or           
independent thinkers1 or if society does
 ignore them they will not for long     
ignore society4 ,the thinker is really  
destructive4 ,he destroys because he    
creates2 he creates because he destroys4
 ,the one is the obverse of the other4  
,i am not making idle play with the word
 destruction4 ,it is literally true that
 in human society the most destructive  
and the most coercive forces at work are
 ideas4 ,they strike at established     
institutions and demand either their    
modification or their removal4 ,that is 

why the emergence of a new idea is      
always an event of social significance4 
,whether it be a good idea or a bad one 
will not affect the truth of this       
statement4 ,for over four years our     
political mediocrities and muddle headed
 militarists were acting as though the  
real problem before them was to         
establish the superiority of one armed  
group of men over another group4 ,that  
was really a simple matter4 ,the        
important issue which society had to    
face was the ideas that the shock of the
 war must give rise to4 ,thinkers saw   
this2 but thinkers do not get the public
 ear either as politicians or           
militarists4 ,and now events are driving
 home the lesson4 ,the ideas of         
,bolshevism and ,sinn ,feinism proved   
far more dangerous than the ,german     
armies4 ,the ,allied forces could handle
 the one1 but they were powerless before
 the other4 ,it is not a question of    
whether these particular ideas are good 
or bad1 or whether we approve or        

disapprove of them1 but entirely one    
that1 being ideas1 they represent a far 
more destructive power than either bomb 
or gun4 ,they are at once the forces    
that act as the cement of society and   
those that may hurl it into chaotic     
fragments4  ,whether an idea will       
survive or not must1 in the end1 be     
determined by circumstances1 but in     
itself a new idea may be taken as the   
mental analogue of the variation which  
takes place in physical structures1 and 
which forms the raw material of natural 
selection4 ,and if that is so1 it is    
evident that any attempt to prevent the 
play of new ideas on old institutions is
 striking at the very fact of progress4 
,for if we are to encourage variation we
 must permit it in all directions1 up as
 well as down1 for evil as well as for  
good4 ,you cannot check variation in one
 direction without checking it in all4  
,you cannot prevent the appearance of a 
new idea that you do not want without   
threatening the appearance of a number  

of ideas that you would eagerly welcome4
 ,it is1 therefore1 always better to    
encourage the appearance of a bad idea  
than it is to risk the suppression of a 
good one4 ,besides1 it is not always    
that force applied to the suppression of
 ideas succeeds in its object4 ,what it 
often does is to cause the persecuted   
idea to assume a more violent form1 to  
ensure a more abrupt break with the past
 than would otherwise occur1 with the   
risk of a period of reaction before     
orderly progress is resumed4 ,the only  
way to silence an idea is to answer it4 
,you cannot reply to a belief with      
bullets1 or bayonet a theory into       
silence4 ,history contains many lessons1
 but none that is plainer than this one1
 and none that religious and secular    
tyrannies learn with greater reluctance4
  ,the ,churches admit by their practice
 the truth of what has been said4 ,they 
have always understood that the right   
way to keep society in a stationary     
position is to prevent the introduction 

of new ideas4 ,it is thought against    
which they have warred1 the thinker     
against whom they have directed their   
deadliest weapons4 ,the ,christian      
,church has been tolerant towards the   
criminal1 and has always been intolerant
 towards the heretic and the            
,freethinker4 ,for the latter the naming
 auto da fe1 for the former the moderate
 penance and the go1 and sin no more4   
,the worst of its tortures were neither 
created for nor applied to the thief and
 the assassin1 but were specially       
designed for the unbeliever4 ,in this   
the ,church acted with a sure instinct4 
,the thief threatens no institution1 not
 even that of private property4 ,thou   
shalt not steal is as much the law of a 
thieves' kitchen as it is of ,mayfair4  
,but ,copernicus1 ,galileo1 ,newton1    
,lyell1 ,darwin1 these are the men who  
convey a threat in all they write1 who  
destroy and create with a splendour that
 smacks of the power with which         
,christians have endowed their mythical 

deity4 ,no aggregation of criminals has 
ever threatened the security of the     
,church1 or even disturbed its serenity4
 ,on the contrary1 the worse1 morally1  
the time1 the greater the influence of  
,christianity4 ,it flourishes on human  
weakness and social vice as the bacilli 
of tuberculosis do in darkness and dirt4
 ,it is when weakness gives place to    
strength1 and darkness to light that the
 ,church finds its power weakening4 ,the
 ,church could forgive the men who      
instituted the black slave trade1 she   
could forgive those who were responsible
 for the horrors of the ,english factory
 system1 but she could never forgive the
 writer of the ,age of ,reason4 ,she has
 always known how to distinguish her    
friends from her foes4  ,right or wrong1
 then1 the heretic1 the ,freethinker1   
represents a figure of considerable     
social significance4 ,his social value  
does not lie wholly in the fact of his  
opinions being sound or his judgment    
impeccable4 ,mere revolt or heresy can  

never carry that assurance with it4 ,the
 important thing about the rebel is that
 he represents a spirit1 a temper1 in   
the absence of which society would      
stagnate4 ,it is bad when people revolt 
without cause1 but it is infinitely     
better that a people should revolt      
without cause than that they should have
 cause for rebellion without possessing 
the courage of a kick4 ,that man should 
have the courage to revolt against the  
thing which he believes to be wrong is  
of infinitely greater consequence than  
that he should be right in condemning   
the thing against which he revolts4     
,whether the rebel is right or wrong    
time and consequence alone can tell1 but
 nothing can make good the evil of a    
community reduced to sheep-like         
acquiescence in whatever may be imposed 
upon them4 ,the ,their's not to reason  
why attitude1 however admirable in an   
army1 is intolerable and dangerous in   
social life4 ,replying to those who     
shrieked about the horrors of the       

,french ,revolution1 and who preached   
the virtue of patriotic obedience to    
established authority1 ,carlyle1 with an
 eye on ,ireland1 sarcastically admitted
 that the horrors were very bad indeed1 
but he added3--       ,what if history  
somewhere on this planet were to hear of
 a nation1      the third soul of whom  
had not for thirty weeks of each year as
      many third-rate potatoes as would 
sustain him8 ,history in that      case1
 feels bound to consider that starvation
 is starvation2 that      starvation    
presupposes much2 history ventures to   
assert that the      ,french            
,sansculotte of ,nine-three1 who roused 
from a long death      sleep1 could rush
 at once to the frontiers and die       
fighting for an      immortal hope and  
faith of deliverance for him and his1   
was but the      second miserablest of  
men4  ,and that same history1 looking   
back through the ages1 is bound to      
confess that it is to the great rebels1 
from ,satan onward1 that the world      

mainly owes whatever of greatness or    
happiness it has achieved4  ,one other  
quality of the rebel remains to be      
noted4 ,in his revolt against           
established authority1 in his           
determination to wreck cherished        
institutions for the realization of an  
ideal1 the rebel is not the             
representative of an anti-social idea or
 of an anti-social force4 ,he is the    
true representative of the strongest of 
social influences4 ,the very revolt     
against the social institutions that    
exist is in the name and for the        
realization of a larger and a better    
social order that he hopes to create4 ,a
 man who is ready to sacrifice his life 
in the pursuit of an ideal cannot1      
whatever else he may be accused of1 be  
reasonably accused of selfishness or of 
a want of social consciousness4 ,he is a
 vital expression of the centuries of   
social life which have gone before and  
which have made us all what we are4     
,were his social sense weaker he would  

risk less4 ,were he selfish he would not
 trouble about the conversion of his    
fellows4 ,the spirit of revolt          
represents an important factor in the   
process of social development1 and they 
who are most strenuous in their         
denunciation of social control1 are     
often1 even though unconsciously1 the   
strongest evidence of its overpowering  
influence4  ,fed as we are with the     
mental food prepared by our ,churches   
and governments1 to whose interests it  
is that the rebel and the ,freethinker  
should be decried and denounced1 we are 
all too apt to overlook the significance
 of the rebel4 ,yet he is invariably the
 one who voices what the many are afraid
 or unable to express4 ,the masses      
suffer dumbly1 and the persistence of   
their suffering breeds a sense of its   
inevitability4 ,it is only when these   
dumb masses find a voice that they      
threaten the established order1 and for 
this the man of ideas is essential4     
,that is why all vested interests1      

religious and social1 hate him so       
heartily4 ,they recognize that of all   
the forces with which they deal an idea 
is the greatest and the most untamable4 
,once in being it is the most difficult 
to suppress4 ,it is more explosive than 
dynamite and more shattering in its     
effects4 ,physical force may destroy a  
monarch1 but it is only the force of an 
idea that can destroy a monarchy4 ,you  
may destroy a church with cannon1 but   
cannon are powerless against ,church    
doctrines4 ,an idea comes as near       
realizing the quality of                
indestructibility as anything we know4  
,you may quiet anything in the world    
with greater ease than you may reduce a 
strong thinker to silence1 or subdue    
anything with greater facility than you 
may subdue the idea that is born of     
strenuous thought4 ,fire may be         
extinguished and strife made to cease1  
ambition may be killed and the lust for 
power grow faint4 ,the one thing that   
defies all and that finally conquers is 

the truth which strong men see and for  
which brave men fight4  ,it is thus left
 for the philosophy of ,freethought1    
comprehensive here as elsewhere1 to find
 a place for the rebel and to recognize 
the part he plays in the evolution of   
the race4 ,for rebellion roots itself   
ultimately in the spirit of mental      
independence4 ,and that whether a       
particular act of revolt may be         
justifiable or not4 ,it is bred of the  
past1 but it looks forward hopefully and
 fearlessly to the future1 and it sees  
in the present the material out of which
 that better future may be carved4 ,that
 the mass of people find in the rebel   
someone whom it is moved to suppress is 
in no wise surprising4 ,new things are  
not at first always pleasant1 even      
though they may be necessary4 ,but the  
temper of mind from which rebellion     
springs is one that society can only    
suppress at its peril4     ,,chapter ,v4
  ,,the ,,struggle ,,for ,,the ,,child4 
,if the truth of what has been said     

above be admitted1 it follows that      
civilization has two fundamental        
aspects4 ,on the one side there is the  
environment1 made up--so far as         
civilized humanity is concerned--of the 
ideas1 the beliefs1 the customs1 and the
 stored up knowledge of preceding       
generations1 and on the other side we   
have an organism which in virtue of its 
education responds to the environmental 
stimuli in a given manner4 ,between the 
man of to-day and the man of an earlier 
generation the vital distinction is not 
that the present day one is1 as an      
organism1 better1 that he has keener    
sight1 or stronger muscles1 or a brain  
of greater capacity1 but that he has a  
truer perception of things1 and in      
virtue of his enlarged knowledge is able
 to mould natural forces1 including the 
impulses of his own nature1 in a more   
desirable manner4 ,and he can do this   
because1 as ,i have already said1 he    
inherits what previous generations have 
acquired1 and so reaps the benefits of  

what they have done4  ,we may illustrate
 this in a very simple manner4 ,one of  
the most striking differences between   
the man of to-day and the man of the    
past is the attitude of the two in      
relation to natural phenomena4 ,to the  
people of not so many generations ago an
 eclipse was a very serious thing1      
fraught with the promise of disaster to 
mankind4 ,the appearance of a comet was 
no less ominous4 ,john ,knox saw in     
comets an indication of the wrath of    
heaven1 and in all countries the        
,churches fought with all their might   
against the growth of the scientific    
view4 ,away back in antiquity we meet   
with the same view4 ,there is1 for      
example1 the classic case of the ,greek 
general ,nikias1 who1 when about to     
extricate his army from a dangerous     
position before ,syracuse1 was told that
 an eclipse of the sun indicated that   
the gods wished him to stay where he was
 for three times nine days4 ,nikias     
obeyed the oracles with the result that 

his army was captured4 ,now it is       
certain that no general to-day would act
 in that manner1 and if he did it is    
equally certain that he would be        
court-martialled4 ,equally clear is it  
that comets and eclipses have ceased to 
infect the modern mind with terror1 and 
are now only objects of study to the    
learned1 and of curiosity to the        
unlearned4 ,but the difference here is  
entirely one of knowledge4 ,our         
ancestors reacted to the appearance of a
 comet or an eclipse in a particular    
manner because their knowledge of these 
things was of a certain kind4 ,it was   
not at all a case of feeling1 or of     
degree of feeling1 or of having a better
 brain1 but simply a matter of reacting 
to an environmental influence in terms  
of an understanding of certain things4  
,had we the same conception of these    
things that our ancestors had we should 
react in the same manner4 ,we act       
differently because our understanding of
 things is different4 ,we may put it    

briefly that the kind of reaction which 
we make to the things around us is      
mainly determined by our knowledge      
concerning their nature4  ,there is one 
other fact that brings into prominence  
the importance of the kind of reaction  
which we make to environmental stimuli4 
,put briefly1 we may say that an        
important distinction between the animal
 and man is that the animal passes its  
existence in a comparatively simple     
environment where the experiences are   
few in kind and often repeated1 whereas 
with man the environment is very        
complex1 the experiences are varied in  
character1 and may be only repeated     
after long intervals4 ,the consequence  
is that in order to get through life an 
animal needs a few simple instincts     
which automatically respond to          
frequently repeated experiences1 while  
on the other hand there must be with man
 opportunity for the kind of response   
which goes under the name of intelligent
 action4 ,it is this which gives us the 

reason1 or the explanation1 why of all  
animals the human being is born the most
 helpless1 and why he remains helpless  
for a longer period than does any other4
 ,the prolonged infancy is the          
opportunity given to the human being to 
acquire the benefits of education and so
 to reap the full advantage of that     
social heritage which1 as we have shown1
 raises him so far above the level of   
past generations4 ,or we may express the
 matter with the late ,professor ,fiske1
 who was the first1 ,i think1 to dwell  
at length upon this phenomenon1 that the
 distinction between man and the animal 
world is that in the one case we have   
developed instincts with small capacity 
for education1 in the other few         
instincts with great capacity for       
education4  ,it is often said that the  
,churches have failed to pay attention  
to education1 or have not taken it      
seriously4 ,that is quite wrong4 ,it    
may1 indeed1 be said that they have     
never failed to attend to education1 and

 have always taken it seriously--with   
disastrous results to education and to  
social life4 ,ever since the birth of   
the modern movement for education the   
,church has fought hard to maintain its 
control of schools1 and there is every  
reason why this should be so4 ,survival 
in the animal world may be secured in   
two ways4 ,on the one side we may have a
 continuance of a special sort of       
environment to which a given structure  
is properly adapted2 on the other there 
may be a modification of the animal to  
meet the demands of a changing          
environment4  ,applying this principle  
to the question of the ,churches and    
education the moral is clear4 ,the human
 environment changes more than that of  
any other animal4 ,the mere amassing of 
experience and its expression in the    
form of new institutions or in the      
modification of already existing ones1  
is enough to effect a change in the     
environment of successive generations4  
,the ,christian ,church1 or for the     

matter of that1 any form of religion1   
has before it two possible courses4     
,either it must maintain an environment 
that is as little as possible unchanged1
 or it must modify its body of teaching 
to meet the changed surroundings4 ,as a 
mere matter of fact both processes go on
 side by side1 but consciously the      
,churches have usually followed the     
course of trying to maintain an         
unchanged environment4 ,this is the real
 significance of the attempt of the more
 orthodox to boycott new1 or heretical  
literature1 or lectures1 or to produce a
 religious atmosphere round the child4  
,it is an attempt to create an          
environment to which the child's mind   
will respond in a manner that is        
favourable to the claims and teachings  
of the ,christian ,church4 ,the ,church 
dare not openly and plainly throw       
overboard its body of doctrines to meet 
the needs of the modern mind2 and the   
only thing remaining is to keep the     
modern mind as backward as possible in  

order that it may rest content with a   
teaching that is reminiscent of a past  
stage of civilization4  ,in this        
connection it is interesting to note    
that the struggle for the child is      
essentially a modern phrase4 ,so long as
 the teaching of religion is in1 at     
least1 a working harmony with current   
knowledge and the general body of the   
social forces the question of religious 
instruction does not emerge4 ,life      
itself--social life that is--to a very  
considerable extent enforces religious  
teaching4 ,at all events it does not    
violently contradict it4 ,but as1 owing 
to the accumulation of knowledge1 views 
of the world and of man develop that are
 not in harmony with accepted religious 
teaching1 the ,churches are forced to   
attempt the maintenance of an           
environment of a special religious kind 
to which their teaching is adapted4     
,hence the growing prominence of the    
division of secular and sacred as things
 that have to do with religion and      

things that have not4 ,hence1 too1 the  
importance to the ,churches of acquiring
 power over the child's mind before it  
is brought completely under the         
influence of an environment in which    
orthodox teachings can only present     
themselves as a gross anachronism4      
,thus1 one may say with absolute        
confidence that if in a modern          
environment a child was left free with  
regard to modern influences there is    
nothing that would lead to an acceptance
 of religion4 ,our ancestors grew up    
familiar with the idea of the miraculous
 and the supernatural generally because 
there was nothing in the existing       
knowledge of the world that contradicted
 it4 ,but what part is there in the     
general education of the child in modern
 society that would lead to that end8   
,so far as it is taught anything about  
the world it learns to regard it in     
terms of causation and of positive      
knowledge4 ,it finds itself surrounded  
with machinery1 and inventions1 and with

 a thousand and one mechanical and other
 inventions which do not in the very    
remotest degree suggest the             
supernatural4 ,in other words1 the      
response of a modern child in a modern  
environment is of a strictly            
non-religious kind4 ,left alone it would
 no more become religious in the sense  
of believing in the religious teachings 
of any of the ,churches than it would   
pass through life looking for miracles  
or accepting fairy tales as sober       
statements of historic fact4 ,it would  
no more express itself in terms of      
religion than it would describe an      
eclipse in the language of our ancestors
 of five hundred years ago4  ,in self   
defence the ,churches are thus bound to 
make a fight for the possession of the  
child4 ,they cannot wait1 because that  
means allowing the child to grow to     
maturity and then dealing with it when  
it is able to examine religion with some
 regard to its historic evolution1 and  
with a due appreciation of the          

hopelessly unscientific character of the
 conception of the supernatural4 ,they  
must1 so far as they can1 protect the   
growing child from the influence of all 
those environmental forces that make for
 the disintegration of religious        
beliefs4 ,the only way in which the     
,churches can at all make sure of a     
supply of recruits is by impressing them
 before they are old enough to resist4  
,as the ,germany of the ,kaiser is said 
to have militarized the nation by       
commencing with the schools1 so the     
,churches hope to keep the nations      
religious by commencing with the        
children4 ,apart from these             
considerations there is no reason why   
religion could not wait1 as other       
subjects wait1 till the child is old    
enough to understand and appreciate it4 
,but with the ,churches it is literally 
the child or nothing4  ,from the point  
of view of citizenship the retention of 
religion in ,state schools is a manifest
 injustice4 ,if ever religious          

instruction could be justified in any   
circumstances it is when the religion   
taught represents at least the professed
 beliefs of the whole of the people4    
,but that is clearly not the case       
to-day4 ,only a section of the people   
can be called1 even formally1           
,christian4 ,large numbers are quite    
opposed to ,christianity1 and large     
numbers deliberately reject all         
religion4 ,how1 then1 can the ,state    
undertake the teaching of a religion    
without at the same time rousing        
resentment in and inflicting an         
injustice on a large number of its      
members8 ,it cannot be done1 and the    
crowning absurdity is that the ,state   
acknowledges the non-essential character
 of religion by permitting all who will 
to go without4 ,in secular subjects it  
permits no such option4 ,it says that   
all children shall receive certain      
tuition in certain subjects for a given 
period4 ,it makes instruction in these  
subjects compulsory on the definite and 

intelligible ground that the education  
given is necessary to the intelligent   
discharge of the duties of citizenship4 
,it does not do that in the case of     
religion1 and it dare not do that4 ,no  
government to-day would have the        
impudence to say that discharge of the  
duties of citizenship is dependent upon 
acceptance of the ,athanasian ,creed1 or
 upon the belief in the ,bible1 or in an
 after life4 ,and not being able to say 
this it is driven to the absurd position
 of1 on the one hand saying to the      
people1 that religion shall be taught in
 the ,state schools1 and on the other1  
if one doesn't care to have it he may   
leave it alone without suffering the    
slightest disqualification4  ,indeed1 it
 is impossible for instruction in       
religion to be genuinely called         
education at all4 ,if ,i may be allowed 
to repeat what ,i have said elsewhere on
 this subject1 one may well ask3--      
,what is it that the genuine            
educationalist aims at8 ,the imparting  

of knowledge is1 of course1 essential4  
,but1 in the main1 education            
consists in a wholesome training of mind
 and body1 in forming      habits of    
cleanliness1 truthfulness1 honesty1     
kindness1 the      development of a     
sense of duty and of justice4 ,can it be
 said in      truth that what is called 
religious instruction does these things1
      or that instruction in them is    
actually inseparable from religion8     
,does the creation of a religious       
atmosphere1 the telling of      stories 
of ,god or ,jesus or angels or          
devils--,i omit hell--have any          
influence in the direction of           
cultivating a sound mind in a sound     
body8 ,will anyone contend that the     
child has even a passing                
understanding of subjects over which all
 adults are more or less      mystified8
 ,to confuse is not to instruct1 to     
mystify is not to      enlighten1 the   
repetition of meaningless phrases can   
leave behind      no healthy residuum in

 the mind4 ,it is the development of    
capacity      along right lines that is 
important1 not the mere cramming of     
verbal formulae4 ,above all1 it is the  
function of the true teacher      to    
make his pupil independent of him4 ,the 
aim of the priest is to      keep one   
eternally dependent upon his            
ministrations4 ,the final and      fatal
 criticism upon religious instruction is
 that it is not      education at all4  
,it may be argued that a policy of      
creating sentiments in favour of        
certain things not wholly understood by 
the child is followed in      connection
 with matters other than religion4 ,we  
do not wait until a      child is old   
enough to appreciate the intellectual   
justification of      ethics to train it
 in morals4 ,and in many directions we  
seek to      develop some tendencies and
 to suppress others in accordance with  
an accepted standard4 ,all this may be  
admitted as quite true1 but      it may 
be said in reply that these are things  

for which an adequate      reason can be
 given1 and we are sure of the child's  
approbation      when it is old enough  
to appreciate what has been done4 ,but  
in the      case of religion the        
situation is altogether different4 ,we  
are here      forcing upon the child as 
true1 as of the same admitted value as  
ordinary ethical teaching1 certain      
religious doctrines about which         
adults themselves dispute with the      
greatest acrimony4 ,and there is        
clearly a wide and vital distinction    
between cultivating in a child          
sentiments the validity of which may at 
any time be demonstrated1      or       
teachings upon the truth of which       
practically all adults are      agreed1 
and impressing upon it teachings which  
all agree may be      false4 ,we are    
exploiting the child in the interests of
 a ,church4      ,parents are allowing  
themselves to be made the catspaws of   
priests2      and it is not the least   
formidable of the counts against the    

,church's influence that it converts    
into active enemies of children         
those who should stand as their chief   
protectors4 ,it is religion      which  
makes it true that a child's foes shall 
be those of his      own household4#ad  
#ad ,religion and the ,child1 ,pioneer  
,press4  ,where the claim to force      
religion upon the child breaks down on  
such grounds as those outlined above it 
is quite certain that it cannot be made 
good upon any other ground4             
,historically1 it is also clear that we 
do not find that conduct was better in  
those ages when the ,christian religion 
was held most unquestioningly1 but      
rather the reverse4 ,the moralization of
 the world has1 as a matter of historic 
fact1 kept pace with the secularizing of
 life4 ,this is true both as regards    
theory and fact4 ,the application of    
scientific methods to ethical problems  
has taught us more of the nature of     
morality in the short space of three or 
four generations than ,christian        

teaching did in a thousand years4 ,and  
it is not with an expansion of the power
 and influence of religion that conduct 
has undergone an improvement1 but with  
the bringing of people together in terms
 of secular relationships and reducing  
their religious beliefs to the level of 
speculative ideas which men may hold or 
reject as they think fit1 so long as    
they do not allow them to influence     
their relations to one another4  ,on all
 grounds it is urgent that the child    
should be rescued from the clutches of  
the priest4 ,it is unfair to the child  
to so take advantage of its trust1 its  
innocence1 and its ignorance1 and to    
force upon it as true teachings that    
which we must all admit may be false1   
and which1 in a growing number of cases1
 the child when it grows up either      
rejects absolutely or considerably      
modifies4 ,it is unjust to the principle
 upon which the modern ,state rests1    
because it is teaching the speculative  
beliefs of a few with money raised from 

the taxation of all4 ,the whole tendency
 of life in the modern ,state is in the 
direction of secularization--confining  
the duties and activities of the ,state 
to those actions which have their       
meaning and application to this life4   
,every argument that is valid against   
the ,state forcing religion upon the    
adult is valid also against the ,state  
forcing religion upon the child4 ,and1  
on the other hand1 it is really absurd  
to say that religion must be forced upon
 the child1 but we are outraging the    
rights of the individual and            
perpetuating an intolerable wrong if we 
force it upon the adult4 ,surely the    
dawning and developing individuality of 
the child has claims on the community   
that are not less urgent than those of  
the adult4  ,finally1 the resolve to    
rescue the child from the clutches of   
the priest is in the interest of        
civilization itself4 ,all human         
experience shows that a civilization    
that is under the control of a          

priesthood is doomed4 ,from the days of 
ancient ,egypt there is no exception to 
this rule4 ,and sooner or later a       
people1 if they are to progress1 are    
compelled to attempt to limit the       
control of the priest over life4 ,the   
whole of the struggle of the            
,reformation was fundamentally for the  
control of the secular power--whether   
life should or should not be under the  
control of the ,church4 ,in that        
contest1 over a large part of ,europe1  
the ,roman ,church lost4 ,but the       
victory was only a very partial one4 ,it
 was never complete4 ,the old priest was
 driven out1 but the new ,presbyter     
remained1 and he was but the old tyrant 
in another form4 ,ever since then the   
fight has gone on1 and ever since1 the  
,protestant minister1 equally with the  
,catholic priest1 has striven for the   
control of education and so to dominate 
the mind of the rising generation4 ,the 
fight for the liberation of the child is
 thus a fight for the control or the    

directing of civilization4 ,it is a     
question of whether we are to permit the
 priest to hold the future to ransom by 
permitting this control of the child1 or
 whether we are to leave religious      
beliefs1 as we leave other beliefs of a 
speculative character1 to such a time as
 the child is old enough to understand  
them4 ,it is a fight for the future of  
civilization4     ,,chapter ,,vi4  ,,the
 ,,nature ,,of ,,religion4   ,it is no  
mere paradox to say that religion is    
most interesting to those who have      
ceased to believe in it4 ,the reason for
 this is not far to seek4 ,religious    
beliefs play so large a part in the     
early history of society1 and are so    
influential in social history generally1
 that it is impossible to leave religion
 alone without forfeiting an adequate   
comprehension of a large part of social 
evolution4 ,human development forms a   
continuous record2 our institutions1    
whatever be their nature1 have their    
roots in the far past1 and often1 even  

when modified in form1 retain their     
essential characteristics4 ,no student  
of social history can travel far or dig 
deeply without finding himself in       
contact with religion in some form4 ,and
 the mass of mankind are not yet so far 
removed from primitive humanity as to   
give to the study of religion an        
exclusively archaeological interest4    
,where so much is discord it is well1 if
 it be possible1 to start with a basis  
of agreement4 ,and on one point1 at     
least1 there is substantial unity among 
critics4 ,there is a general agreement  
among students of folk lore1 comparative
 mythology1 and anthropology1 that      
religious ideas rest ultimately upon an 
interpretation of nature that is now    
generally discarded4 ,differing as they 
do on details1 there is consent upon    
this point4 ,it is the world of the     
savage that originates the religion of  
the savage1 and upon that rests the     
religions of civilized man as surely as 
his physical structure goes back to the 

animal world for its beginning4 ,and in 
giving birth to a religious explanation 
of his world the savage was only        
pursuing the normal path of human       
development4 ,mankind progresses through
 trial and error2 doubtful and erroneous
 theories are framed before more        
reliable ones are established1 and while
 truth may crown our endeavours it      
seldom meets us at the outset4          
,religious beliefs thus form man's      
earliest interpretation of nature4 ,on  
this there is1 as ,i have said1 general 
agreement1 and it is as well not to     
permit ourselves to lose sight of that  
in the discussion of the various        
theories that are put forward as to the 
exact nature of the stages of religious 
development4  ,in many directions the   
less accurate theories of things are    
replaced gradually and smoothly by more 
reliable explanations4 ,but in religion 
this is not so4 ,for many reasons1 with 
which we are not now immediately        
concerned1 religious beliefs are not    

outgrown without considerable growing   
pains4 ,and a long time after the point 
of view from which religious beliefs    
sprang has been given up1 the           
conclusions that were based on that     
point of view are held to most          
tenaciously4 ,and yet if one accepts the
 scientific story of the origins of     
religious ideas there seems no          
justification whatever for this4        
,religion cannot transcend its origin4  
,multiply nothing to infinity and the   
result is still nothing4 ,illusion can  
beget nothing but illusion1 even though 
in its pursuit we may stumble on        
reality4 ,and no amount of ingenuity can
 extract truth from falsehood4  ,one's  
surprise at the perpetuation of this    
particular delusion is diminished by the
 reflection that the period during which
 we have possessed anything like an     
exact knowledge of the character and    
operations of natural forces is1 after  
all1 but an infinitesimal portion of the
 time the race has been in existence4   

,three or four centuries at most cover  
the period during which such knowledge  
has been at our command1 and small as   
this is in relation to the thousands of 
generations wherein superstition has    
reigned unchallenged1 a knowledge of the
 laws of mental life belongs only to the
 latter portion4 ,and even then the     
knowledge available has been till       
recently the possession of a class1     
while to-day1 large masses of the       
population are under the domination of  
the crudest of superstitions4 ,the      
belief that thirteen is an unlucky      
number1 that a horse-shoe brings luck1  
the extent to which palmistry and       
astrology flourishes1 the cases of      
witchcraft that crop up every now and   
again1 all bear testimony to the vast   
mass of superstition that is still with 
us4 ,the primitive mind is still alive  
and active1 disguised though it may be  
by a veneer of civilization and a       
terribly superficial education4 ,and    
when one reflects upon all the facts    

there is cause for astonishment that in 
the face of so great a dead weight of   
custom and tradition against a rational 
interpretation of the universe so much  
has been done and in so short a time4   
,in discussing religion very much turns 
upon the meaning of the word1 and       
unfortunately religion is to-day used in
 so many differing and conflicting      
senses that without the most careful    
definition no one is quite sure what is 
meant by it4 ,the curious disinclination
 of so many to avow themselves as being 
without a religion must also be noted4  
,to be without a religion1 or rather to 
be known as one who is without a        
religion1 would seem to mark one off as 
apart from the rest of one's kind1 and  
to infringe all the tribal taboos at one
 sweep4 ,and very few seem to have the  
courage to stand alone4 ,mr4 ,augustine 
,birrell once said1 in introducing to   
the ,house of ,commons an ,education    
,bill1 that children would rather be    
wicked than singular4 ,that is quite    

true1 and it is almost as true of adults
 as it is of children4 ,there is no     
great objection to having a religion    
different from that of other people1    
because the religions of the world are  
already of so varied a character that   
there is always companionship in        
difference4 ,but to be without a        
religion altogether is a degree of      
isolation that few can stand4 ,the      
consequence is that although vast       
numbers have given up everything that is
 really religious they still cling to   
the name4 ,they have left the service1  
but they show a curious attachment to   
the uniform4 ,thus it happens that we   
have a religion of ,socialism1 a        
religion of ,ethics1 etc41 and ,i should
 not be surprised to find one day a     
religion of ,atheism--if that has not   
already appeared4  ,but all this is a   
mistake1 and a very serious mistake4    
,the ,freethinker1 or ,socialist1 who   
calls his theory of life a religion is  
not causing the religionist to think    

more highly of him1 he is making his    
opponent think more highly of his own   
opinions4 ,imitation becomes in such a  
case not alone flattery1 but            
confirmation4 ,the ,goddite does not    
think more highly of ,freethought       
because it is labelled religion1 he     
merely becomes the more convinced of the
 supreme value of his own faith1 and    
still hopes for the ,freethinker's      
return to the fold4 ,if ,freethinkers   
are to command the respect of the       
religious world they must show not only 
that they can get along without         
religion1 but that they can dispense    
with the name also4 ,if strength does   
not command respect weakness will       
certainly fail to secure it4 ,and those 
of us who are genuinely anxious that the
 world should be done with false ideas  
and mischievous frames of mind ought to 
at least take care that our own speech  
and thought are as free from ambiguity  
as is possible4  ,there is another and  
deeper aspect of the matter4 ,as ,i have

 already said1 language not alone       
expresses thought1 it also governs and  
directs it4 ,locke expressed this truth 
when he said1 ,it is impossible that men
 should ever truly seek1 or certainly   
discover1 the disagreement of ideas     
themselves whilst their thoughts flutter
 about1 or stick only on sounds of      
doubtful and uncertain significance4    
,quite a number of theological and      
metaphysical conundrums would lose their
 significance if it were only realized  
that the words used are not alone of    
doubtful and uncertain significance1 but
 often of no possible significance      
whatever4 ,they are like counterfeit    
coins1 which retain their value only so 
long as they are not tested by a proper 
standard4 ,and the evil of these        
counterfeits is that they deceive both  
those who tender and those who accept   
them4 ,for even though slovenliness of  
speech is not always the product of     
slovenly thought1 in the long run it    
tends to induce it1 and those who       

realize this need to be specially on    
their guard against using language which
 can only further confuse an already    
sufficiently confused public opinion1   
and strengthen superstitions that are   
already sufficiently strong without our 
clandestine or unintended assistance4#ae
  #ae ,of the evil of an incautious use 
of current words we have an example in  
the case of ,darwin4 ,neither his       
expressions of regret at having truckled
 to public opinion at having used the   
term creator1 nor his explicit          
declaration that the word was to him    
only a synonym of ignorance1 prevented  
religious apologists from citing him as 
a believer in deity on the strength of  
his having used the word4               
,unfortunately1 it remains a favourite  
policy with many writers to use and     
define the word religion1 not in        
accordance with a comprehensive survey  
of facts1 but in a way that will        
harmonize with existing pre-possessions4
 ,to this class belongs ,matthew        

,arnold's famous definition of religion 
as ,morality touched with emotion1      
,professor ,seeley's statement that we  
are entitled to call religion any       
habitual and permanent admiration1 or   
the common description of religion as   
consisting in devotion to an ideal4 ,all
 such definitions may be set on one side
 as historically worthless1 and as not  
harmonizing with the facts4 ,arnold's   
definition is in the highest degree     
superficial1 since there exists no      
morality that is not touched with       
emotion1 and on the other hand there    
exist phases of religion that have not  
any connection with morality1 however   
slight4 ,professor ,leuba properly rules
 definitions of this class out of order 
in the comment that1 as it is the       
function of words to delimitate1 one    
defeats the purpose of language by      
stretching the meaning of a word until  
it has lost all precision and unity of  
meaning4#af ,a definition that includes 
everything may as well1 for all the use 

it is1 not cover anything4  #af ,the    
,psychological ,origin and ,nature of   
,religion1 p4 #ib4  ,equally faulty are 
those definitions that are based upon an
 assumed conscious effort to explain the
 mysteries of existence4 ,no stranger   
lapse ever overtook a great thinker than
 occurred to ,herbert ,spencer when he  
described religion as consisting in a   
worship of the unknowable1 and as due to
 the desire to explain a mystery ever   
pressing for interpretation4 ,granting  
the existence of an ,unknowable1 the    
sense of its presence belongs to the    
later stages of mental evolution1 not to
 the earlier ones4 ,metaphysical and    
mystical theories of religion are       
indications of its disintegration1 not  
of its beginnings4 ,primitive man began 
to believe in ghosts and gods for the   
same reasons that he believed in other  
things2 he worshipped his gods for very 
concrete considerations4 ,even the      
distinction between spiritual and       
material existence is quite foreign to  

his mind4 ,such distinctions arise      
gradually with the progress of knowledge
 and its disintegrating influence on    
inherited beliefs4 ,if primitive man may
 be credited with a philosophy1 and if  
one may use the word in a purely        
convenient sense1 then one may say that 
he is neither a dualist1 nor a          
pluralist1 but a monist4 ,the soul or   
double he believes in is similar to the 
body he sees2 the unseen forces he      
credits with various activities are of  
the same kind as those with which he is 
acquainted4 ,to read our conceptions    
into the mind of primitive man because  
we use our words to explain his thoughts
 is a procedure that is bound to end in 
confusion4 ,man's earliest conception of
 things is vague and indefinite4 ,later1
 he distinguishes differences1          
qualitative and quantitative1 his       
conception of things becomes more       
definite1 and distinctions are set up   
that lay the foundations of science and 
philosophy1 and which mark their        

separation from religion4  ,so far as   
one can see there are only two causes   
why people should continue to use the   
word religion after giving up all for   
which it properly stands4 ,one is sheer 
conservatism4 ,when1 for instance1      
,thomas ,paine said1 ,to do good is my  
religion1 he had at least the           
justification of believing in a deity1  
but apart from this the only cause for  
his calling the desire to do good a     
religion is that there had grown up the 
fashion of calling one's rule of life a 
religion4 ,the other cause is the       
ill-repute that has been attached to    
those who avow themselves as being      
without religion4 ,orthodoxy saw to it  
that they were treated as pariahs       
without social status1 and1 in many     
cases1 legal rights4 ,once upon a time  
it was useless unless one believed in   
the right religion4 ,nowadays1 any      
religion will do1 or anything that one  
cares to call a religion4 ,but not to   
have any religion at all still puts one 

outside the pale of respectability1 and 
there seem to be few who can stand that4
 ,and supernatural religion--the only   
genuine article--being impossible with  
many1 these may still1 if they care to1 
save their face by professing to use the
 name1 even if they have not the thing4 
,orthodoxy is very accommodating        
nowadays4  ,leaving for a time the      
question of how religion actually does  
arise1 we may turn to those writers who 
define religion in terms of ethics4 ,it 
may be admitted that so far as the later
 stages of religion are concerned       
considerable emphasis is laid upon      
ethics4 ,but we can only make religion a
 part of ethics by expanding the term   
morality so as to include everything1 or
 by contracting it so as to exclude all 
the lower forms of religious belief4    
,and any definition of religion that    
does not embrace all its forms is       
obviously inaccurate4 ,it is not at all 
a question of defining the higher in    
terms of the lower1 or the lower in     

terms of the higher1 it is simply the   
need of so defining religion that our   
definition will cover all religions1    
high and low1 and thus deal with their  
essential characteristics4  ,the only   
sense in which ethics may be said to be 
included in religion lies in the fact   
that in primitive times religion        
includes everything4 ,the fear of unseen
 intelligences is one of the most       
powerful factors of which early humanity
 is conscious1 and the necessity for    
conciliating them is always present4    
,the religious ceremonies connected with
 eating and drinking1 with lying down   
and rising up1 with sowing and reaping1 
with disease1 hunting1 and almost every 
circumstance of primitive life prove    
this4 ,differentiation and              
discrimination arise very slowly1 but   
one after another the various           
departments of life do shake off the    
controlling influence of religion4      
,ethics may1 therefore1 be said to      
originate in the shadow of religion--as 

do most other things--but in no sense   
can morality be said to owe its origin  
to religion4 ,its origin is deeper and  
more fundamental than religion4 ,as a   
matter of practice morality is          
independent of religious belief and     
moral theory1 and as a matter of theory 
the formulation of definite moral rules 
is substantially independent of religion
 and is an assertion of its             
independence4 ,indeed1 the conflict     
between a growing moral sense and       
religion is almost as large a fact in   
the social sphere as the conflict       
between religion and science is in the  
intellectual one4  ,in all its earlier  
stages religion is at best non-moral4   
,it becomes otherwise later only because
 of the reaction of a socialized        
morality on religious beliefs4 ,early   
religion is never concerned with the    
morality of its teaching1 nor are the   
worshippers concerned with the morality 
of their gods4 ,the sole question is    
what the gods desire and how best to    

satisfy them4 ,we cannot even conceive  
man ascribing ethical qualities to his  
gods until he has first of all conceived
 them in regard to his fellow men4 ,the 
savage has no moral reverence for his   
gods2 they are magnified men1 but not   
perfect ones4 ,he worships not because  
he admires1 but because he fears4 ,fear 
is1 indeed1 one of the root causes of   
religious belief4 ,professor ,leuba     
quite admits the origin of religion is  
fear1 but he reserves the possibility of
 man being occasionally placed under    
such favourable conditions that fear may
 be absent4 ,we admit the possibility1  
but at present it remains a possibility 
only4 ,at present all the evidence goes 
to prove the words of ,ribot that1 ,the 
religious sentiment is composed first of
 all of the emotion of fear in its      
different degrees1 from profound terror 
to vague uneasiness1 due to faith in an 
unknown mysterious and impalpable power4
 ,and if that be admitted1 we can       
scarcely find here the origin of        

morality4  ,what is here overlooked is  
the important fact that while religion1 
as such1 commences in a reasoned        
process1 morality is firmly established 
before mankind is even aware of its     
existence4 ,a formulated religion is    
essentially of the nature of a theory   
set forth to explain or to deal with    
certain experiences4 ,morality1 on the  
other hand1 takes its rise in those     
feelings and instincts that are         
developed in animal and human societies 
under the pressure of natural selection4
 ,the affection of the animal for its   
young1 of the human mother for its      
child1 the attraction of male and       
female1 the sympathetic feelings that   
bind members of the same species        
together1 these do not depend upon      
theory1 or even upon an intellectual    
perception of their value4 ,theory tries
 to account for their existence1 and    
reason justifies their being1 but they  
are fundamentally the product of        
associated life4 ,and it is precisely   

because morality is the inevitable      
condition of associated life that it has
 upon religion the effect of modifying  
it until it is at least not too great an
 outrage upon the conditions of social  
well-being4 ,all along we can1 if we    
will1 see how the developing moral sense
 forces a change in religious teaching4 
,at one time there is nothing revolting 
in the ,christian doctrine of election  
which dooms one to heaven and another to
 hell without the slightest regard to   
personal merit4 ,at another the doctrine
 of eternal damnation is rejected as a  
matter of course4 ,heresy hunting and   
heretic burning1 practised as a matter  
of course by one generation become      
highly repulsive to another4 ,in every  
direction we see religious beliefs      
undergoing a modification under the     
influence of moral and social growth4   
,it is always man who moralizes his     
gods2 never by any chance is it the gods
 who moralize man4  ,if we are to arrive
 at a proper understanding of religion  

we can1 therefore1 no more assume morals
 to be an integral part of religion than
 we can assume medicine or any of the   
special arts1 all of which may be       
associated with religion4 ,it will not  
even do to define religion with ,mr4 ,w4
 ,h4 ,mallock#ag as a belief that the   
world has been made and is sustained by 
an intelligence external to and         
essentially independent of it4 ,that may
 pass as a definition of ,theism1 but   
,theism is only one of the phases of    
religion1 and the idea of a creator     
independent of the universe is one that 
is quite alien to the earlier stages of 
religion4 ,and to deny the name of      
religion to primitive beliefs is to put 
oneself on the level of the type of     
,christian who declines to call any     
superstition but his own religion4 ,it  
is for this reason impossible to agree  
with ,professor ,leuba when he says that
 the idea of a creator must take        
precedence of ghosts and nature beings  
in the making of a religion4 ,if by     

precedence the order of importance1 from
 the standpoint of later and            
comparatively modern forms of religion1 
is intended1 the statement may pass4    
,but if the precedence claimed is a time
 order1 the reply is that1 instead of   
the idea of a creator taking precedence 
of ghosts and nature beings1 it is from 
these that the idea of a creator is     
evolved4 ,it is quite true ,professor   
,leuba holds that belief in the         
existence of unseen anthropopathic      
beings is not religion4 ,it is only when
 man enters into relation with them that
 religion comes into existence1 but so  
soon as man believes in the existence of
 them he believes himself to be in      
relation with them1 and a large part of 
his efforts is expended in making these 
relations of an amicable and profitable 
character4  #ag ,religion as a ,credible
 ,doctrine1 p4 #aa4  ,a further         
definition of religion1 first given1 ,i 
think1 by the late ,professor ,fiske1   
but since widely used1 as a craving for 

fulness of life1 must be dismissed as   
equally faulty4 ,for if by fulness of   
life is meant the desire to make it     
morally and intellectually richer1 the  
answer is that this desire is plainly   
the product of a progressive social     
life1 of which much that now passes for 
religion is the adulterated expression4 
,apologetically1 it is an attempt so to 
state religion that it may evade        
criticism of its essential character4   
,from one point of view this may be     
gratifying enough1 but it is no help to 
an understanding of the nature of       
religion4 ,and how little religion does 
help to a fuller life will be seen by   
anyone who knows the part played by     
organized religion in mental development
 and how blindly obstructive it is to   
new ideas in all departments of life4   
,all these attempts to define religion  
in terms of ethics1 of metaphysics1 or  
as the craving after an ideal are wholly
 misleading4 ,it is reading history     
backwards1 and attributing to primitive 

human nature feelings and conceptions   
which it does not and cannot possess4   
,in another work#ah ,i have traced the  
origin of the belief in ,god to the     
mental state of primitive mankind1 and  
there is no need to go over the same    
ground here at any length4 ,commencing  
with the indisputable fact that religion
 is something that is acquired1 an      
examination of the state of mind in     
which primitive mankind faced1 and still
 faces1 the world1 led to the conclusion
 that the idea of god begins in the     
personification of natural forces by the
 savage4 ,the growth of the idea of ,god
 was there traced back to the ghost1 not
 to the exclusion of other methods of   
god making1 but certainly as one of its 
prominent causes4 ,i must refer readers 
to that work who desire a more extended 
treatment of the god-idea4  #ah ,theism 
or ,atheism1 ,chapter #b4  ,what remains
 to be traced here1 in order to         
understand the other factor that is     
common to religions1 is the belief in a 

continued state of existence after      
death1 or at least of a soul4  ,it has  
been shown to the point of demonstration
 by writers such as ,spencer1 ,tylor1   
and ,frazer1 that the idea of a double  
is suggested to man by his experience of
 dreams1 swoons1 and allied normal and  
abnormal experiences4 ,even in the      
absence of evidence coming to us from   
the beliefs of existing tribes of       
savages1 the fact that the ghost is     
always depicted as identical in         
appearance with the living person would 
be enough to suggest its dream origin4  
,but there are other considerations that
 carry the proof further4 ,the savage   
sees in his dreams the figures of dead  
men and assumes that there is a double  
that can get out of the body during     
sleep4 ,but he also dreams of dead men1 
and this is also proof that the dead man
 still exists4 ,death does not1 then1   
involve the death of the ghost1 but only
 its removal to some other sphere of    
existence4 ,further1 the likeness of    

sleep itself to death is so obvious and 
so striking that it has formed one of   
the most insistent features of human    
thought and speech4 ,with primitive man 
it is far more than a figure of speech4 
,the ,melanesians put this point of view
 when they say1 the soul goes out of the
 body in some dreams1 and if for some   
reason it does not come back the man is 
found dead in the morning4 ,death and   
dreaming have1 therefore1 this in       
common1 they are both due to the        
withdrawal of the double4 ,hence we find
 a whole series of ceremonies designed  
to avert death or to facilitate the     
return of the double4 ,the lingering of 
this practice is well illustrated by    
,sir ,frederick ,treves in his book1    
,the ,other ,side of the ,lantern4 ,he  
there tells how he saw a ,chinese       
mother1 with the tears streaming down   
her face1 waving at the door of the     
house the clothing of a recently        
deceased child in order to bring back   
the departed spirit4  ,death is thus the

 separation of the double from the body2
 but if it may return1 its return is not
 always a matter of rejoicing1 for we   
find customs that are plainly intended  
to prevent the ghost recognizing the    
living or to find its way back to its   
old haunts4 ,thus ,frazer has shown that
 the wearing of black is really a form  
of disguise4 ,it is a method taken to   
disguise the living from the attentions 
of the dead4 ,it is in order to avoid   
recognition by spirits who wish to      
injure them that the ,tongans change    
their war costume at every battle4 ,the 
,chinese call their best beloved        
children by worthless names in order to 
delude evil spirits4 ,in ,egypt1 too1   
the children who were most thought of   
were the worst clad4 ,in some places the
 corpse is never carried out through the
 door1 but by a hole in the side of the 
hut1 which is afterwards closed so that 
the ghost may not find its way back4    
,the ghost being conceived as at all    
points identical with living beings1 it 

demands attention after death4 ,it needs
 food1 weapons1 servants1 wives4 ,in    
this way there originates a whole group 
of burial customs1 performed partly from
 fear of what the ghost may do if its   
wants are neglected4 ,the custom of     
burying food and weapons with the dead  
thus receives a simple explanation4     
,these things are buried with the dead  
man in order that their spirit may      
accompany his to the next world and     
serve the same uses there that they did 
here4 ,the modern custom of scattering  
flowers over a grave is unquestionably a
 survival of this primitive belief4 ,the
 killing of a wife on the husband's     
grave has the same origin4 ,her spirit  
goes to attend the husband in the       
ghost-land4 ,in the case of a chief we  
have the killing of servants for the    
same reason4 ,when ,leonidas says1 ,bury
 me on my shield1 ,i will enter even    
,hades as a ,lacedaemonian1 he was      
exhibiting the persistence of this      
belief in classical times4 ,the ,chinese

 offer a further example by making      
little paper houses1 filling them with  
paper models of the things used by the  
dead person1 and burning them on the    
grave4 ,all over the world we have the  
same class of customs developing from   
the same beliefs1 and the same beliefs  
projected by the human mind when brought
 face to face with the same class of    
phenomena4  ,as the ghost is pictured as
 like the physical man1 so the next     
world is more or less a replica of this4
 ,the chief distinction is that there is
 a greater abundance of desirable       
things4 ,hunting tribes have elysiums   
where there is an abundance of game4    
,the old ,norse heaven was a place where
 there was unlimited fighting4 ,the gold
 and diamonds and rubies of the         
,christian heaven represent a stage of  
civilization where these things had     
acquired a special value4 ,social       
distinctions1 too1 are often maintained4
 ,the ,caribs believe that every time   
they secure an enemy's head they have   

gained a servant in the next world4 ,and
 all know the story of the ,french      
aristocrat who1 when threatened with    
hell1 replied1 ,god will think twice    
before damning a person of my quality4  
,several other consequences of this     
service paid to the dead may be noted4  
,the ghost being drawn to the place     
where the body is buried1 the desire to 
preserve the corpse probably led to the 
practice of embalming4 ,the grave       
becomes a place of sanctity1 of         
pilgrimage1 and of religious observance1
 and it has been maintained by many     
writers1 notably by ,mr4 ,w4 ,simpson in
 his ,worship of ,death1 that the       
service round the grave gives us the    
beginning of all temple worship4  ,but  
from this brief view of the beginnings  
of religion we are able to see how      
completely fallacious are all those     
efforts to derive religion from an      
attempt to achieve an ideal1 from a     
desire to solve certain philosophical   
problems1 or from any of the other      

sources that are paraded by modern      
apologists4 ,the origin and nature of   
religion is comparatively simple to     
understand1 once we have cleared our    
minds of all these fallacies and        
carefully examine the facts4 ,religion  
is no more than the explanation which   
the primitive mind gives of the         
experiences which it has of the world4  
,and1 therefore1 the only definition    
that covers all the facts1 and which    
stresses the essence of all religions1  
high and low1 savage and civilized1 is  
that given by ,tylor1 namely1 the belief
 in supernatural beings4 ,it is the one 
definition that expresses the feature   
common to all religions1 and with that  
definition before us we are able to use 
language with a precision that is       
impossible so long as we attempt to read
 into religion something that is absent 
from all its earlier forms1 and which is
 only introduced when advanced thought  
makes the belief in the supernatural    
more and more difficult to retain its   

hold over the human mind4     ,,chapter 
,,vii4  ,,the ,,utility ,,of ,,religion4
   ,the real nature of religion being as
 stated1 it having originated in an     
utterly erroneous view of things1 it    
would seem that nothing more can be     
needed to justify its rejection4 ,but   
the conclusion would not be correct1 at 
least so far as the mass of believers or
 quasi-believers are concerned4 ,here   
the conviction still obtains that       
religion1 no matter what its origin1    
still wields an enormous influence for  
good4 ,the curious thing is that when   
one enquires what religion is it that   
has exerted this beneficent influence8  
the replies effectually cancel one      
another4 ,each means by religion his own
 religion1 and each accuses the religion
 of the other man of all the faults with
 which the ,freethinker accuses the     
whole4 ,the avowed object of our        
widespread missionary activity is to    
save the heathen from the evil effects  
of their religion2 and there is not the 

least doubt that if the heathen had the 
brute force at their command1 and the   
impudence that we have1 they would      
cordially reciprocate4 ,and the efforts 
of the various ,christian sects to      
convert each other is too well known to 
need mention4 ,so that the only logical 
inference from all this is that1 while  
all religions are1 when taken singly1   
injurious1 taken in the bulk they are   
sources of profound benefit4  ,it is not
 alone the common or garden order of    
religionist who takes up this curious   
position1 nor is it even the better     
educated believer2 it is not uncommon to
 find those who have rejected all the   
formal religions of the world yet       
seeking to discover some good that      
religion has done or is doing4 ,as an   
illustration of this we may cite an     
example from ,sir ,james ,frazer1 than  
whom no one has done more to bring home 
to students a knowledge of the real     
nature of religious beliefs4 ,it is the 
more surprising to find him putting in a

 plea for the good done by religion1 not
 in the present1 but in the past4 ,and  
such an instance1 if it does nothing    
else1 may at least serve to mitigate our
 ferocity towards the common type of    
religionist4  ,in an address delivered  
in #aiji1 entitled ,psyche's ,task3 ,a  
discourse concerning the influence of   
superstition on the growth of           
,institutions1 he puts in a plea for the
 consideration of superstition          
7religion7 at various stages of culture4
 ,of its effects generally1 he says3--  
,that it has done much harm in the world
 cannot be denied4 ,it has              
sacrificed countless lives1 wasted      
untold treasures1 embroiled             
nations1 severed friends1 parted        
husbands and wives1 parents and         
children1 putting swords and worse than 
swords between them2 it has      filled 
gaols and madhouses with its deluded    
victims2 it has broken      many hearts1
 embittered the whole of many a life1   
and not content      with persecuting   

the living it has pursued the dead into 
the grave      and beyond it1 gloating  
over the horrors which its foul         
imagination      has conjured up to     
appal and torture the survivors4 ,it has
 done all      this and more4  ,now this
 is a severe indictment1 and one is a   
little surprised to find following that 
a plea on behalf of this same           
superstition to the effect that it has  
among certain races and at certain times
 strengthened the respect for           
government1 property1 marriage1 and     
human life4 ,in support of this         
proposition he cites a large number of  
instances from various races of people1 
all of which prove1 not what ,sir ,james
 sets out to prove1 but only that       
religious observances and beliefs have  
been connected with certain institutions
 that are in themselves admirable       
enough4 ,and on this point there is not1
 nor can there be1 any serious dispute4 
,one can find many similar instances    
among ourselves to-day4 ,but the real   

question at issue is a deeper one than  
that4 ,it is not enough for the         
religionist to show that religion has   
often been associated with good things  
and has given them its sanction4 ,the   
reply to this would be that if it had   
been otherwise religion would long since
 have disappeared4 ,the essential       
question here is1 ,have the institutions
 named a basis in secular and social    
life1 and would they have developed in  
the absence of superstition as they have
 developed with superstition in the     
field8  ,now ,i do not see that ,sir    
,james ,frazer proves either that these 
institutions have not a sufficient basis
 in secular life--he would1 ,i imagine1 
admit that they have2 or that they would
 not have developed as well in the      
absence of superstition as they have    
done with it4 ,in fact1 the whole plea  
that good has been done by superstition 
seems to be destroyed in the statements 
that although certain institutions have 
been based partly on superstitions1 it  

by no means follows that even among     
these races they have never been based  
on anything else1 and that whenever     
institutions have proved themselves     
stable and permanent there is a strong  
presumption that they rest on something 
more solid than superstition4 ,so that1 
after all1 it may well be that          
superstition is all the time taking     
credit for the working of forces that   
are not of its kind or nature4  ,let us 
take the example given of the respect   
for human life as a crucial test4       
,admitting that religions have taught   
that to take life was a sinful act1 one 
might well interpose with the query as  
to whether it was ever necessary to     
teach man that homicide within certain  
limits was a wrong thing4               
,pre-evolutionary sociology1 which      
sometimes taught that man originally led
 an existence in which his hand was     
against every other man1 and who1       
therefore1 fought the battle of life    
strictly off his own bat1 may have      

favoured that assumption4 ,but that we  
now know is quite wrong4 ,we know that  
man slowly emerged from a pre-human     
gregarious stage1 and that in all group 
life there is an organic restraint on   
mutual slaughter4 ,the essential        
condition of group life is that the     
nature of the individual shall be       
normally devoid of the desire for the   
indiscriminate slaughter of his fellows4
 ,and if that is true of animals1 it is 
certainly true of man4 ,primitive human 
society does not and cannot represent a 
group of beings each of whom must be    
restrained by direct coercion from      
murdering the other4  ,in this case1    
therefore1 we have to reckon with both  
biological and sociological forces1 and 
,i do not see that it needs more than   
this to explain all there is to explain4
 ,human life is always associated life1 
and this means not alone a basis of     
mutual forbearance and co-operation1 but
 a development of the sympathetic       
feelings which tends to increase as     

society develops1 they being1 as a      
matter of fact1 the conditions of its   
growth4 ,and whatever competition       
existed between tribes would still      
further emphasize the value of those    
feelings that led to effective          
co-operation4  ,the question1 then1     
whether the anti-homicidal feeling is at
 all dependent upon religion is answered
 in the negative by the fact that it    
ante-dates what we may term the era of  
conscious social organization4 ,that of 
whether religion strengthens this       
feeling still remains1 although even    
that has been answered by implication4  
,and the first thing to be noted here is
 that whatever may be the value of the  
superstitious safeguard against homicide
 it certainly has no value as against   
people outside the tribe4 ,in fact1 when
 a savage desires to kill an enemy he   
finds in superstition a fancied source  
of strength1 and often of encouragement4
 ,westermarck points out that savages   
carefully distinguish between an act of 

homicide committed in their own         
community and one where the victim is a 
stranger4 ,whilst the former is under   
ordinary circumstances disapproved of1  
the latter is in most cases allowed and 
often regarded as praiseworthy4 ,and    
,frazer himself points out that the     
belief in immortality plays no small    
part in encouraging war among primitive 
peoples1#ai while if we add the facts of
 the killing of children1 of old men and
 women1 and wives1 together with the    
practice of human sacrifice1 we shall   
see little cause to attribute the       
development of the feeling against      
homicide to religious beliefs4  #ai ,the
 state of war which normally exists     
between many1 if not most1 neighbouring 
savage tribes1 springs in large measure 
directly from their belief in           
immortality2 since one of the commonest 
motives to hostility is a desire to     
appease the angry ghosts of friends who 
are supposed to have perished by baleful
 arts of sorcerers in another tribe1 and

 who1 if vengeance is not inflicted on  
their real or imaginary murderers1 will 
wreak their fury on their undutiful     
fellow-tribesmen4--,the ,belief in      
,immortality1 ,vol4 ,i41 p4 #dfh4  ,in  
one passage in his address ,sir ,james  
does show himself quite alive to the    
evil influence of the belief in         
immortality4 ,he says3--       ,it might
 with some show of reason be maintained 
that no belief has      done so much to 
retard the economic and thereby the     
social progress      of mankind as the  
belief in the immortality of the soul2  
for this      belief has led race after 
race1 generation after generation1 to   
sacrifice the real wants of the living  
to the imaginary wants of      the dead4
 ,the waste and destruction of life and 
property which      this faith has      
entailed has been enormous and          
incalculable4 ,but ,i      am not here  
concerned with the disastrous and       
deplorable      consequences1 the       
unspeakable follies and crimes and      

miseries which      have flowed in      
practice from the theory of a future    
life4 ,my      business at present is   
with the more cheerful side of a gloomy 
subject4  ,every author has1 of course1 
the fullest right to select whichever   
aspect of a subject he thinks deserves  
treatment1 but all the same one may     
point out that it is this dwelling on   
the cheerful side of these beliefs that 
encourages the religionist to put       
forward claims on behalf of present day 
religion that ,sir ,james himself would 
be the first to challenge4 ,there is    
surely greater need to emphasize the    
darker side of a creed that has         
thousands of paid advocates presenting  
an imaginary bright side to the public  
gaze4  ,but what has been said of the   
relation of the feeling against homicide
 applies with no more than a variation  
of terms to the other instances given by
 ,sir ,james ,frazer4 ,either these     
institutions have a basis in utility or 
they have not4 ,if they have not1 then  

religion can claim no social credit for 
their preservation4 ,if they have a     
basis in utility1 then the reason for   
their preservation is to be found in    
social selection1 although the precise  
local form in which an institution      
appears may be determined by other      
circumstances4 ,and when ,sir ,james    
says that the task of government has    
been facilitated by the superstition    
that the governors belonged to a        
superior class of beings1 one may safely
 assume that the statement holds good   
only of individual governors1 or of     
particular forms of government4 ,it may 
well be that when a people are led to   
believe that a certain individual       
possesses supernatural powers1 or that a
 particular government enjoys the favour
 of supernatural beings1 there will be  
less inclination to resentment against  
orders than there would be otherwise4   
,but government and governors1 in other 
words1 a general body of rules for the  
government of the tribe1 and the        

admitted leadership of certain favoured 
individuals1 would remain natural facts 
in the absence of superstition1 and     
their development or suppression would  
remain subject to the operation of      
social or natural selection4 ,so1 again1
 with the desire for private property4  
,the desire to retain certain things as 
belonging to oneself is not altogether  
unnoticeable among animals4 ,a dog will 
fight for its bone1 monkeys secrete     
things which they desire to retain for  
their own use1 etc41 and so far as the  
custom possesses advantages1 we may     
certainly credit savages with enough    
common-sense to be aware of the fact4   
,but the curious thing is that the      
institution of private property is not  
nearly so powerful among primitive      
peoples as it is among those more       
advanced4 ,so that we are faced with    
this curious comment upon ,sir ,james's 
thesis4 ,granting that the institution  
of private property has been            
strengthened by superstition we have the

 strange circumstance that that         
institution is weakest where            
superstition is strongest and strongest 
where superstition is weakest4  ,the    
truth is that ,sir ,james ,frazer seems 
here to have fallen into the same error 
as the late ,walter ,bagehot1 and to    
have formed the belief that primitive   
man required breaking in to the social  
yoke4 ,the truth is that the great need 
of primitive mankind is not to be broken
 in but to acquire the courage and      
determination to break out4 ,this error 
may have originated in the              
disinclination of the savage to obey our
 rules1 or it may have been a heritage  
from the eighteenth century philosophy  
of the existence of an idyllic primitive
 social state4 ,the truth is1 however1  
that there is no one so fettered by     
custom as is the savage4 ,the           
restrictions set by a savage society on 
its members would be positively         
intolerable to civilized beings4 ,and if
 it be said that these customs required 

formation1 the reply is that inheriting 
the imitability of the pre-human        
gregarious animal1 this would form the  
basis on which the tyrannizing custom of
 primitive life is built4  ,there was1  
however1 another generalization of      
,bagehot's that was unquestionably      
sound4 ,assuming that the first step    
necessary to primitive mankind was to   
frame a custom as the means of his being
 broken in1 the next step in progress   
was to break it1 and that was a far more
 difficult matter4 ,progress was        
impossible until this was done1 and how 
difficult it is to get this step taken  
observation of the people living in     
civilized countries will show4 ,but it  
is in relation to this second and all   
important step that one can clearly     
trace the influence of religion4 ,and   
its influence is completely the reverse 
of being helpful4 ,for of all the       
hindrances to a change of custom there  
is none that act with such force as does
 religion4 ,this is the case with those 

customs with which vested interest has  
no direct connection1 but it operates   
with tenfold force where this exists4   
,once a custom is established in a      
primitive community the conditions of   
social life surround it with religious  
beliefs1 and thereafter to break it     
means a breach in the wall of religious 
observances with which the savage is    
surrounded4 ,and so soon as we reach the
 stage of the establishment of a regular
 priesthood1 we have to reckon with the 
operation of a vested interest that has 
always been keenly alive to anything    
which affected its profit or prestige4  
,it would not be right to dismiss the   
discussion of a subject connected with  
so well-respected a name as that of ,sir
 ,james ,frazer and leave the reader    
with the impression that he is putting  
in a plea for current religion4 ,he is  
not4 ,he hints pretty plainly that his  
argument that religion has been of some 
use to the race applies to savage times 
only4 ,we see this in such sentences as 

the following3 ,more and more1 as time  
goes on1 morality shifts its grounds    
from the sands of superstition to the   
rock of reason1 from the imaginary to   
the real1 from the supernatural to the  
natural4444 ,the ,state has found a     
better reason than these old wives'     
fables for guarding with the flaming    
sword of justice the approach to the    
tree of life1 and also in saying that1  
,if it can be proved that in certain    
races and at certain times the          
institutions in question have been based
 partly on superstition1 it by no means 
follows that even among these races they
 have never been based on anything else4
 ,on the contrary 444 there is a strong 
presumption that they rest mainly on    
something much more solid than          
superstition4 ,in modern times no such  
argument as the one ,i have been        
discussing has the least claim to       
logical force4 ,but that1 as we all     
know1 does not prevent its being used by
 full-blown religionists1 and by those  

whose minds are only partly liberated   
from a great historic superstition4  ,it
 will be observed that the plea of      
,frazer's we have been examining argues 
that the function of religion in social 
life is of a conservative character4    
,and so far he is correct1 he is only   
wrong in assuming it to have been of a  
beneficial nature4 ,the main function of
 religion in sociology is conservative1 
not the wise conservatism which supports
 an institution or a custom because of  
its approved value1 but of the kind that
 sees in an established custom a reason 
for its continuance4 ,urged1 in the     
first instance1 by the belief that      
innumerable spirits are forever on the  
watch1 punishing the slightest          
infraction of their wishes1 opposition  
to reform or to new ideas receives      
definite shape and increased strength by
 the rise of a priesthood4 ,henceforth  
economic interest goes hand in hand with
 superstitious fears4 ,whichever way man
 turns he finds artificial obstacles    

erected4 ,every deviation from the      
prescribed path is threatened with      
penalties in this world and the next4   
,the history of every race and of every 
science tells the same story1 and the   
amount of time and energy that mankind  
has spent in fighting these ghosts of   
its own savage past is the measure of   
the degree to which religion has kept   
the race in a state of relative         
barbarism4  ,this function of           
unreasoning conservatism is not1 it must
 be remembered1 accidental4 ,it belongs 
to the very nature of religion4         
,dependent upon the maintenance of      
certain primitive conceptions of the    
world and of man1 religion dare not     
encourage new ideas lest it sap its own 
foundations4 ,spencer has reminded us   
that religion is1 under the conditions  
of its origin1 perfectly rational4 ,that
 is quite true4#bj ,religion meets      
science1 when the stage of conflict     
arises1 as an opposing interpretation of
 certain classes of facts4 ,the one     

interpretation can only grow at the     
expense of the other4 ,while religion is
 committed to the explanation of the    
world in terms of vital force1 science  
is committed to that of non-conscious   
mechanism4 ,opposition is thus present  
at the outset1 and it must continue to  
the end4 ,the old cannot be maintained  
without anathematizing the new2 the new 
cannot be established without displacing
 the old4 ,the conflict is inevitable2  
the antagonism is irreconcilable4  #bj  
,it may with equal truth be said that   
all beliefs are with a similar          
qualification quite rational4 ,the      
attempt to divide people into           
,rationalists and ,irrationalists is    
quite fallacious and is philosophically 
absurd4 ,reason is used in the formation
 of religious as in the formation of    
non-religious beliefs4 ,the distinction 
between the man who is religious and one
 who is not1 or1 if it be preferred1 one
 who is superstitious and one who is    
not1 is not that the one reasons and the

 other does not4 ,both reason4 ,indeed1 
the reasoning of the superstitionist is 
often of the most elaborate kind4 ,the  
distinction is that of one having false 
premises1 or drawing unwarrantable      
conclusions from sound premises4 ,the   
only ultimate distinctions are those of 
religionist and non-religionist1        
supernaturalist and non-supernaturalist1
 ,theist or ,atheist4 ,all else are mere
 matters of compromise1 exhibitions of  
timidity1 or illustrations of that      
confused thinking which itself gives    
rise to religion in all its forms4  ,it 
lies1 therefore1 in the very nature of  
the case that religion1 as religion1 can
 give no real help to man in the        
understanding of himself and the world4 
,whatever good religion may appear to do
 is properly to be attributed to the    
non-religious forces with which it is   
associated4 ,but religion1 being        
properly concerned with the relations   
between man and mythical supernatural   
beings1 can exert no real influence for 

good on human affairs4 ,far from that   
being the case1 it can easily be shown  
to have had quite an opposite effect4   
,there is not merely the waste of energy
 in the direction above indicated1 but  
in many other ways4 ,if we confine      
ourselves to ,christianity some         
conception of the nature of its         
influence may be formed if we think what
 the state of the world might have been 
to-day had the work of enlightenment    
continued from the point it had reached 
under the old ,greek and ,roman         
civilizations4 ,bacon and ,galileo in   
their prisons1 ,bruno and ,vanini at the
 stake are illustrations of the         
disservice that ,christianity has done  
the cause of civilization1 and the      
obstruction it has offered to human     
well-being4  ,again1 consider the       
incubus placed on human progress by the 
institution of a priesthood devoted to  
the service of supernatural beings4 ,in 
the fullest and truest sense of the word
 a priesthood represents a parasitic    

growth on the social body4 ,i am not    
referring to individual members of the  
priesthood in their capacity as private 
citizens1 but as priests1 as agents or  
representatives of the supernatural4    
,and here the truth is that of all the  
inventions and discoveries that have    
helped to build up civilization not one 
of them is owing to the priesthood1 as  
such4 ,one may confidently say that if  
all the energies of all the priests in  
the whole world were concentrated on a  
single community1 and all their prayers1
 formulae1 and doctrines devoted to the 
one end1 the well-being of that         
community would not be advanced thereby 
a single iota4  ,far and away1 the      
priesthood is the greatest parasitic    
class the world has known4 ,all over the
 world1 in both savage and civilized    
times1 we see the priesthoods of the    
world enthroned1 we see them enjoying a 
subsistence wrung from toil through     
credulity1 and from wealth through      
self-interest4 ,from the savage medicine

 hut up to the modern cathedral we see  
the earth covered with useless edifices 
devoted to the foolish service of       
imaginary deities4 ,we see the          
priesthood endowed with special         
privileges1 their buildings relieved    
from the taxes which all citizens are   
compelled to pay1 and even special taxes
 levied upon the public for their       
maintenance4 ,the gods may no longer    
demand the sacrifice of the first born1 
but they still demand the sacrifice of  
time1 energy1 and money that might well 
be applied elsewhere4 ,and the people in
 every country1 out of their stupidity1 
continue to maintain a large body of men
 who1 by their whole training and       
interest1 are compelled to act as the   
enemies of liberty and progress4  ,it is
 useless arguing that the evils that    
follow religion are not produced by it1 
that they are casual1 and will disappear
 with a truer understanding of what     
religion is4 ,it is not true1 and the   
man who argues in that way shows that he

 does not yet understand what religion  
is4 ,the evils that follow religion are 
deeply imbedded in the nature of        
religion itself4 ,all religion takes its
 rise in error1 and vested error        
threatened with destruction             
instinctively resorts to force1 fraud1  
and imposture1 in self defence4 ,the    
universality of the evils that accompany
 religion would alone prove that there  
is more than a mere accident in the     
association4 ,the whole history of      
religion is1 on the purely intellectual 
side1 the history of a delusion4        
,happily this delusion is losing its    
hold on the human mind4 ,year by year   
its intellectual and moral worthlessness
 is being more generally recognized4    
,religion explains nothing1 and it does 
nothing that is useful4 ,yet in its name
 millions of pounds are annually        
squandered and many thousands of men    
withdrawn from useful labour1 and       
saddled on the rest of the community for
 maintenance4 ,but here1 again1 economic

 and intellectual forces are combining  
for the liberation of the race from its 
historic incubus4 ,complete emancipation
 will not come in a day1 but it will    
come1 and its arrival will mark the     
close of the greatest revolution that   
has taken place in the history of the   
race4     ,,chapter ,,viii4             
,,freethought ,,and ,,god4   ,why do    
people believe in ,god8 ,if one turns to
 the pleas of professional theologians  
there is no lack of answers to the      
question4 ,these answers are both       
numerous and elaborate1 and if quantity 
and repetition were enough1 the         
,freethinker would find himself         
hopelessly snowed under4 ,but on        
examination all these replies suffer    
from one defect4 ,they should ante-date 
the belief1 whereas they post-date it4  
,they cannot be the cause of belief for 
the reason that the belief was here long
 before the arguments came into         
existence4 ,neither singly nor          
collectively do these so-called reasons 

correspond to the causes that have ever 
led a single person1 at any time or at  
any place1 to believe in a ,god4 ,if    
they already believed1 the arguments    
were enough to provide them with        
sufficient justification to go on       
believing4 ,if they did not already     
believe1 the arguments were powerless4  
,and never1 by any chance1 do they      
describe the causes that led to the     
existence of the belief in ,god1 either 
historically or individually4 ,they are1
 in truth1 no more than excuses for     
continuing to believe4 ,they are never  
the causes of belief4  ,the evidence for
 the truth of this is at hand in the    
person of all who believe4 ,let one     
consider1 on the one hand1 the various  
arguments for the existence of ,god--the
 argument from causation1 from design1  
from necessary existence1 etc41 then put
 on the other side the age at which men 
and women began to believe in deity1 and
 their grasp of arguments of the kind   
mentioned4 ,there is clearly no relation

 between the two4 ,leaving on one side  
the question of culture1 it is at once  
apparent that long before the individual
 is old enough to appreciate in the     
slightest degree the nature of the      
arguments advanced he is already a      
believer4 ,and if he is not a believer  
in his early years1 he is never one when
 he reaches maturity1 certainly not in a
 civilized society4 ,and when we turn   
from the individual ,goddite to         
,goddites in the mass1 the assumption   
that they owe their belief to the       
philosophical arguments advanced becomes
 grotesque in its absurdity4 ,to assume 
that the average ,theist1 whose         
philosophy is taken from the daily      
newspaper and the weekly sermon1 derives
 his conviction from a series of        
abstruse philosophical arguments is     
simply ridiculous4 ,those who are honest
 to themselves will admit that they were
 taught the belief long before they were
 old enough to bring any real criticism 
to bear upon it4 ,it was the product of 

their early education1 impressed upon   
them by their parents1 and all the      
reasons that are afterwards alleged in  
justification are only pleas why they   
should not be disturbed in their belief4
  ,are we in any better position if we  
turn from the individual to the race8   
,is the belief in ,god similar to1 say1 
the belief in gravitation1 which1       
discovered by a genius1 and resting upon
 considerations which the ordinary      
person finds too abstruse to thoroughly 
understand1 becomes a part of our       
education1 and is accepted upon well    
established authority8 ,again1 the facts
 are dead against such an assumption4   
,it is with the race as with the        
individual4 ,science and philosophy do  
not precede the belief in ,god and      
provide the foundation for it1 they     
succeed it and lead to its modification 
and rejection4 ,we are1 in this respect1
 upon very solid ground4 ,in some form  
or another the belief in ,god1 or gods1 
belongs to very early states of human   

society4 ,savages have it long before   
they have the slightest inkling of what 
we moderns would call a scientific      
conception of the world4 ,and to assume 
that the savage1 as we know him1 began  
to believe in his gods because of a     
number of scientific reasons1 such as   
the belief in universal causation1 or   
any of the other profound speculations  
with which the modern theologian        
beclouds the issue1 is as absurd as to  
attribute the belief of the ,salvation  
,army preacher to philosophical         
speculations4 ,added to which we may    
note that the savage is a severely      
practical person4 ,he is not at all     
interested in metaphysics1 and his      
contributions to the discussions of a   
philosophical society would be of a very
 meagre character4 ,his problem is to   
deal with the concrete difficulties of  
his everyday life1 and when he is able  
to do this he is content4  ,but1 on the 
other hand1 we know that our own belief 
in ,god is descended from his belief4   

,we know that we can trace it back      
without a break through generations of  
social culture1 until we reach the      
savage stage of social existence4 ,it is
 he who1 so to speak1 discovers ,god1 he
 establishes it as a part of the social 
institutions that govern the lives of   
every member of the group2 we find it in
 our immaturity established as one of   
those many thought-forms which determine
 so powerfully our intellectual         
development4 ,the belief in ,god meets  
each newcomer into the social arena4 ,it
 is impressed upon each in a thousand   
and one different ways1 and it is only  
when the belief is challenged by an     
opposing system of thought that         
philosophical theories are elaborated in
 its defence4  ,the possibility of      
deriving the idea of ,god from          
scientific and philosophic thought being
 ruled out1 what remains8 ,the enquiry  
from being philosophical becomes        
historical4 ,that is1 instead of        
discussing whether there are sufficient 

reasons for justifying the belief in    
,god1 we are left with the question of  
determining the causes that led people  
to ever regard the belief as being      
solidly based upon fact4 ,it is a       
question of history1 or rather1 one may 
say1 of anthropology of the mental      
history of man4 ,when we read of some   
poor old woman who has been persecuted  
for bewitching someone's cattle or      
children we no longer settle down to    
discuss whether witchcraft rests upon   
fact or not2 we know it does not1 and   
our sole concern is to discover the     
conditions1 mental and social1 which    
enabled so strange a belief to flourish4
 ,the examination of evidence--the legal
 aspect--thus gives place to the        
historical1 and the historical finally  
resolves itself into the psychological4 
,for what we are really concerned with  
in an examination of the idea of ,god is
 the discovery and reconstruction of    
those states of mind which gave the     
belief birth4 ,and that search is far   

easier and the results far more         
conclusive than many imagine4  ,in      
outlining this evidence it will only be 
necessary to present its general        
features4 ,this for two reasons4 ,first1
 because a multiplicity of detail is apt
 to hide from the general reader many of
 the essential features of the truth2   
secondly1 the fact of a difference of   
opinion concerning the time order of    
certain stages in the history of the    
god-idea is likely to obscure the fact  
of the unanimity which exists among all 
those qualified to express an           
authoritative opinion as to the nature  
of the conditions that have given the   
idea birth4 ,the various theories of the
 sequence of the different phases of the
 religious idea should no more blind us 
to the fact that there exists a         
substantial agreement that the belief in
 gods has its roots in the fear and     
ignorance of uncivilized mankind1 than  
the circumstance that there is going on 
among biologists a discussion as to the 

machinery of evolution should overshadow
 the fact that evolution itself is a    
demonstrated truth which no competent   
observer questions4  ,in an earlier     
chapter we have already indicated the   
essential conditions which lead to the  
origin of religious beliefs1 and there  
is no need again to go over that ground4
 ,what is necessary at present is to    
sketch as briefly as is consistent with 
lucidity those frames of mind to which  
the belief in ,god owes its existence4  
,to realize this no very recondite      
instrument of research is required4 ,we 
need nothing more elaborate than the    
method by which we are hourly in the    
habit of estimating each other's        
thoughts1 and of gauging one another's  
motives4 ,when ,i see a man laugh ,i    
assume that he is pleased2 when he      
frowns ,i assume that he is angry4      
,there is here only an application of   
the generally accepted maxim that when  
we see identical results we are         
warranted in assuming identical causes4 

,in this way we can either argue from   
causes to effects or from effects to    
causes4 ,a further statement of the same
 principle is that when we are dealing  
with biological facts we may assume that
 identical structures imply identical   
functions4 ,the structure of a dead     
animal will tell us what its functions  
were when living as certainly as though 
we had the living animal in front of us4
 ,we may relate function to structure or
 structure to function4 ,and in this we 
are using nothing more uncommon than the
 accepted principle of universal        
causation4  ,now1 in all thinking there 
are two factors4 ,there is the animal or
 human brain1 the organ of thought1 and 
there is the material for thought as    
represented by the existing knowledge of
 the world4 ,if we had an exact         
knowledge of the kind of brain that     
functioned1 and the exact quantity and  
quality of the knowledge existing1 the  
question as to the ideas which would    
result would be little more than a      

problem in mathematics4 ,we could make  
the calculation with the same assurance 
that an astronomer can estimate the     
position of a planet a century hence4   
,in the case of primitive mankind we do 
not possess anything like the exact     
knowledge one would wish1 but we do know
 enough to say in rather more than a    
general way the kind of thinking of     
which our earliest ancestors were       
capable1 and what were its products4 ,we
 can get at the machinery of the        
primitive brain1 and can estimate its   
actions1 and that without going further 
than we do when we assume that primitive
 man was hungry and thirsty1 was pleased
 and angry1 loved and feared4 ,and1     
indeed1 it was because he experienced   
fear and pleasure and love and hate that
 the gods came into existence4  ,of the 
factors which determine the kind of     
thinking one does1 we know enough to say
 that there were two things certain of  
early mankind4 ,we know the kind of     
thinking of which he was capable1 and we

 have a general notion of the material  
existing for thinking4 ,speaking of one 
of these early ancestors of ours1       
,professor ,arthur ,keith says1         
,piltdown man saw1 heard1 felt1 thought 
and dreamt much as we do1 that is1 there
 was the same kind of brain at work that
 is at work now4 ,and that much we could
 be sure of by going no farther back    
than the savages of to-day4 ,but as size
 of brain is not everything1 we are     
warranted in saying that the brain was  
of a relatively simple type1 while the  
knowledge of the world which existed1   
and which gives us the material for     
thinking1 was of a very imperfect and   
elementary character4 ,there was great  
ignorance1 and there was great fear4    
,from these two conditions1 ignorance   
and fear1 sprang the gods4 ,of that     
there is no doubt whatever4 ,there is   
scarcely a work which deals with the    
life of primitive peoples to-day that   
does not emphasize that fact4           
,consciously or unconsciously it cannot 

avoid doing so4 ,long ago a ,latin      
writer hit on this truth in the         
well-known saying1 ,fear made the gods1 
and ,aristotle expressed the same thing 
in a more comprehensive form by saying  
that fear first set man philosophizing4 
,the undeveloped mind troubles little   
about things so long as they are going  
smoothly and comfortably4 ,it is when   
something painful happens that concern  
is awakened4 ,and all the gods of       
primitive life bear this primal stamp of
 fear4 ,that is why religion1 with its  
persistent harking back to the          
primitive1 with its response to the     
,call of the ,wild still dwells upon the
 fear of the ,lord as a means of        
arousing a due sense of piety4 ,the gods
 fatten on fear as a usurer does upon   
the folly of his clients1 and in both   
cases the interest demanded far         
outweighs the value of the services     
rendered4 ,at a later stage man faces   
his gods in a different spirit2 he loses
 his fear and examines them2 and gods   

that are not feared are but poor things4
 ,they exist mainly as indisputable     
records of their own deterioration4     
,now to primitive man1 struggling along 
in a world of which he was so completely
 ignorant1 the one certain thing was    
that the world was alive4 ,the wind that
 roared1 the thunder that growled1 the  
disease that left him so mysteriously   
stricken1 were all so many living       
things4 ,the division of these living   
forces into good and bad followed       
naturally from this first conception of 
their nature4 ,and whatever be the      
stages of that process the main lines   
admit of no question1 nor is there any  
question as to the nature of the        
conditions that brought the gods into   
existence4 ,on any scientific theory of 
religion the gods represent no more than
 the personified ignorance and fear of  
primitive humanity4 ,however much       
anthropologists may differ as to whether
 the god always originates from the     
ghost or not1 whether animism is first  

and the worship of the ghost secondary  
or not1 there is agreement on that      
point4 ,whichever theory we care to     
embrace1 the broad fact is generally    
admitted that the gods are the products 
of ignorance and fear4 ,man fears the   
gods as children and even animals fear  
the unknown and the dangerous4  ,and as 
the gods are born of conditions such as 
those outlined1 as man reads his own    
feelings and passions and desires into  
nature1 so we find that the early gods  
are frankly1 obtrusively1 man-like4 ,the
 gods are copies of their worshippers1  
faithful reflections of those who fear  
them4 ,this1 indeed1 remains true to the
 end4 ,when the stage is reached that   
the idea of ,god as a physical          
counterpart of man becomes repulsive1 it
 is still unable to shake off this      
anthropomorphic element4 ,to the modern 
worshipper ,god must not possess a body1
 but he must have love1 and             
intelligence--as though the mental      
qualities of man are less human than the

 bodily ones6 ,they are as human as arms
 or legs4 ,and every reason that will   
justify the rejection of the conception 
of the universe being ruled over by a   
being who is like man in his physical   
aspects is equally conclusive against   
believing the universe to be ruled over 
by a being who resembles man in his     
mental characteristics4 ,the one belief 
is a survival of the other2 and the one 
would not now be accepted had not the   
other been believed in beforehand4  ,i  
have deliberately refrained from        
discussing the various arguments put    
forward to justify the belief in ,god in
 order that attention should not be     
diverted from the main point1 which is  
that the belief in deity owes its       
existence to the ignorant interpretation
 of natural happenings by early or      
uncivilized mankind4 ,everything here   
turns logically on the question of      
origin4 ,if the belief in ,god began in 
the way ,i have outlined1 the question  
of veracity may be dismissed4 ,the      

question is one of origin only4 ,it is  
not a question of man first seeing a    
thing but dimly and then getting a      
clearer vision as his knowledge becomes 
more thorough4 ,it is a question of a   
radical misunderstanding of certain     
experiences1 the vogue of an altogether 
wrong interpretation1 and its           
displacement by an interpretation of a  
quite different nature4 ,the god of the 
savage was in the nature of an inference
 drawn from the world of the savage4    
,there was the admitted premiss and     
there was the obvious conclusion4 ,but  
with us the premiss no longer exists4   
,we deliberately reject it as being     
altogether unwarrantable4 ,and we cannot
 reject the premiss while retaining the 
conclusion4 ,logically1 the god of the  
savage goes with the world of the       
savage2 it should have no place in the  
mind of the really civilized human      
being4  ,it is for this reason that ,i  
am leaving on one side all those        
semi-metaphysical and                   

pseudo-philosophical arguments that are 
put forward to justify the belief in    
,god4 ,as ,i have already said1 they are
 merely excuses for continuing a belief 
that has no real warranty in fact4 ,no  
living man or woman believes in ,god    
because of any such argument4 ,we have  
the belief in ,god with us to-day for   
the same reason that we have in our     
bodies a number of rudimentary          
structures4 ,as the one is reminiscent  
of an earlier stage of existence so is  
the other4 ,to use the expressive phrase
 of ,winwood ,reade's1 we have tailed   
minds as well as tailed bodies4 ,the    
belief in ,god meets each newcomer to   
the social sphere4 ,it is forced upon   
them before they are old enough to offer
 effective resistance in the shape of   
acquired knowledge that would render its
 lodgement in the mind impossible4      
,afterwards1 the dice of social power   
and prestige are loaded in its favour1  
while the mental inertia of some1 and   
the self-interest of others1 give force 

to the arguments which ,i have called   
mere mental subterfuges for perpetuating
 the belief in ,god4  ,only one other   
remark need be made4 ,in the beginning  
the gods exist as the apotheosis of     
ignorance4 ,the reason the savage had   
for believing in ,god was that he did   
not know the real causes of the         
phenomena around him4 ,and that remains 
the reason why people believe in deity  
to-day4 ,under whatever guise the belief
 is presented1 analysis brings it       
ultimately to that4 ,the whole history  
of the human mind1 in relation to the   
idea of ,god1 shows that so soon as man 
discovers the natural causes of any     
phenomenon or group of phenomena the    
idea of ,god dies out in connection     
therewith4 ,god is only conceived as a  
cause or as an explanation so long as no
 other cause or explanation is          
forthcoming4 ,in common speech and in   
ordinary thought we only bring in the   
name of ,god where uncertainty exists1  
never where knowledge is obtainable4 ,we

 pray to ,god to cure a fever1 but never
 to put on again a severed limb4 ,we    
associate ,god with the production of a 
good harvest1 but not with a better coal
 output4 ,we use ,god only knows as the 
equivalent of our own ignorance1 and    
call on ,god for help only where our own
 helplessness is manifest4 ,the idea    
remains true to itself throughout4 ,born
 in ignorance and cradled in fear1 it   
makes its appeal to the same elements to
 the end4 ,and if it apes the language  
of philosophy1 it does so only as do    
those who purchase a ready-made pedigree
 in order to hide the obscurity of their
 origin4     ,,chapter ,,ix4            
,,freethought ,,and ,,death4   ,in the  
early months of the ,european war a     
mortally wounded ,british soldier was   
picked up between the lines1 after lying
 there unattended for two days4 ,he died
 soon after he was brought in1 and one  
of his last requests was that a copy of 
,ruskin's ,crown of ,wild ,olive should 
be buried with him4 ,he said the book   

had been with him all the time he had   
been in ,france1 it had given him great 
comfort1 and he wished it to be buried  
with him4 ,needless to say1 his wish was
 carried out1 and somewhere in ,france  
there lies a soldier with a copy of the 
,crown of ,wild ,olive clasped to his   
breast4  ,there is another story1 of a  
commoner character1 which1 although     
different in form1 is wholly similar in 
substance4 ,this tells of the soldier   
who in his last moments asks to see a   
priest1 accepts his ministrations with  
thankfulness1 and dies comforted with   
the repetition of familiar formulae and 
customary prayers4 ,in the one case a   
,bible and a priest2 in the other a     
volume of lectures by one of the masters
 of ,english prose4 ,the difference is1 
at first1 striking1 but there is an     
underlying agreement1 and they may be   
used together to illustrate a single    
psychological principle4  ,freethinker  
and ,christian read the record of both  
cases1 but it is the ,freethinker alone 

whose philosophy of life is wide enough 
to explain both4 ,the ,freethinker knows
 that the feeling of comfort and the    
fact of truth are two distinct things4  
,they may coalesce1 but they may be as  
far asunder as the poles4 ,a delusion   
may be as consoling as a reality        
provided it be accepted as genuine4 ,the
 soldier with his copy of ,ruskin does  
not prove the truth of the teachings of 
the ,crown of ,wild ,olive1 does not    
prove that ,ruskin said the last word or
 even the truest word on the subjects   
dealt with therein4 ,neither does the   
consolation which religion gives some   
people prove the truth of its teachings4
 ,the comfort which religion brings is a
 product of the belief in religion4 ,the
 consolation that comes from reading a  
volume of essays is a product of the    
conviction of the truth of the message  
delivered1 or a sense of the beauty of  
the language in which the book is       
written4 ,both cases illustrate the     
power of belief1 and that no            

,freethinker was ever stupid enough to  
question4 ,the finest literature in the 
world would bring small comfort to a man
 who was convinced that he stood in     
deadly need of a priest1 and the        
presence of a priest would be quite     
useless to a man who believed that all  
the religions of the world were so many 
geographical absurdities4 ,comfort does 
not produce conviction1 it follows it4  
,the truth and the social value of      
convictions are quite distinct          
questions4  ,there is here a confusion  
of values1 and for this we have to thank
 the influence of the ,churches4        
,because the service of the priest is   
sought by some we are asked to believe  
that it is necessary to all4 ,but the   
essential value of a thing is shown1 not
 by the number of people who get on with
 it1 but by the number that can get on  
without it4 ,the canon of agreement and 
difference is applicable whether we are 
dealing with human nature or conducting 
an ordinary scientific experiment4      

,thus1 the indispensability of          
meat-eating is not shown by the number  
of people who swear that they cannot    
work without it1 but by noting how      
people fare in its absence4 ,the drinker
 does not confound the abstainer2 it is 
the other way about4 ,in the same way   
there is nothing of evidential value in 
the protests of those who say that human
 nature cannot get along without        
religion4 ,we have to test the statement
 by the cases where religion is absent4 
,and here1 it is not the ,christian that
 confounds the ,freethinker1 it is the  
,freethinker who confounds the          
,christian4 ,if the religious view of   
life is correct the ,freethinker should 
be a very rare bird indeed2 he should be
 clearly recognizable as a departure    
from the normal type1 and1 in fact1 he  
was always so represented in religious  
literature until he disproved the legend
 by multiplying himself with confusing  
rapidity4 ,now it is the ,freethinker   
who will not fit into the ,christian    

scheme of things4 ,it is puzzling to see
 what can be done with a man who        
repudiates the religious idea in theory 
and fact1 root and branch1 and yet      
appears to be getting on quite well in  
its absence4 ,that is the awkward fact  
that will not fit in with the religious 
theory4 ,and1 other things equal1 one   
man without religion is greater         
evidential value than five hundred with 
it4 ,all the five hundred prove at the  
most is that human nature can get on    
with religion1 but the one case proves  
that human nature can get on without it1
 and that challenges the whole religious
 position4 ,and unless we take up the   
rather absurd position that the         
non-religious man is a sheer            
abnormality1 this consideration at once 
reduces religion from a necessity to a  
luxury or a dissipation4  ,the bearing  
of this on our attitude towards such a  
fact as death should be obvious4 ,during
 the ,european war death from being an  
ever-present fact became an obtrusive   

one4 ,day after day we received news of 
the death of friend or relative1 and    
those who escaped that degree of        
intimacy with the unpleasant visitor1   
met him in the columns of the daily     
press4 ,and the ,christian clergy would 
have been untrue to their traditions and
 to their interests--and there is no    
corporate body more alert in these      
directions--if they had not tried to    
exploit the situation to the utmost4    
,there was nothing new in the tactics   
employed1 it was the special            
circumstances that gave them a little   
more force than was usual4 ,the         
following1 for example1 may be accepted 
as typical3--       ,the weight of our  
sorrow is immensely lightened if we can 
feel sure      that one whom we have    
loved and lost has but ascended to      
spheres of      further development1    
education1 service1 achievement1 where1 
by and      by1 we shall rejoin him4    
,quite a common statement1 and one which
 by long usage has become almost immune 

from criticism4 ,and yet it has about as
 much relation to fact as have the      
stories of death-bed conversions1 or of 
people dying and shrieking for ,jesus to
 save them4 ,one may1 indeed1 apply a   
rough and ready test by an appeal to    
facts4 ,how many cases has the reader of
 these lines come across in which       
religion has made people calmer and more
 resigned in the presence of death than 
others have been who were quite         
destitute of belief in religion8 ,of    
course1 religious folk will repeat      
religious phrases1 they will attend     
church1 they will listen to the         
ministrations of their favourite        
clergyman1 and they will say that their 
religion brings them comfort4 ,but if   
one gets below the stereotyped          
phraseology and puts on one side also   
the sophisticated attitude in relation  
to religion1 one quite fails to detect  
any respect in which the ,freethinking  
parent differs from the ,christian one4 
,does the religious parent grieve less8 

,does he bear the blow with greater     
fortitude8 ,is his grief of shorter     
duration8 ,to anyone who will open his  
eyes the talk of the comfort of religion
 will appear to be largely cant4 ,there 
are differences due to character1 to    
temperament1 to training2 there is a use
 of traditional phrases in the one case 
that is absent in the other1 but the    
incidence of a deep sorrow only serves  
to show how superficial are the         
vapourings of religion to a civilized   
mind1 and how each one of us is thrown  
back upon those deeper feelings that are
 inseparable from a common humanity4    
,the thought of an only son who is      
living with the angels brings no real   
solace to a parent's mind4 ,whatever    
genuine comfort is available must come  
from the thought of a life that has been
 well lived1 from the sympathetic       
presence of friends1 from the silent    
handclasp1 which on such occasions is so
 often more eloquent than speech--in a  
word1 from those healing currents that  

are part and parcel of the life of the  
race4 ,a ,freethinker can easily        
appreciate the readiness of a clergyman 
to help a mind that is suffering from a 
great sorrow1 but it is the deliberate  
exploitation of human grief in the name 
and in the interests of religion1 the   
manufacturing of cases of death-bed     
consolation and repentance1 the citation
 of evidence to which the experience of 
all gives the lie1 that fill one with a 
feeling akin to disgust4  ,the writer   
from whom ,i have quoted says3--        
,it is1 indeed1 possible for people who 
are ,agnostic or unbelieving      with  
regard to immortality to give themselves
 wholly to the pursuit      of truth and
 to the service of their fellowmen1 in  
moral      earnestness and heroic       
endeavour2 they may endure pain and     
sorrow      with calm resignation1 and  
toil on in patience and perseverance4   
,the best of the ancient ,stoics did so1
 and many a modern ,agnostic      is    
doing so to-day4  ,the significance of  

such a statement is in no wise          
diminished by the accompanying          
qualification that ,freethinkers are    
missing a joy which would have been to  
them a well-spring of courage and       
strength4 ,that is a pure assumption4   
,they who are without religious belief  
are conscious of no lack of courage1 and
 they are oppressed by no feeling of    
despair4 ,on this their own statement   
must be taken as final4 ,moreover1 they 
are speaking as1 in the main1 those who 
are fully acquainted with the ,christian
 position1 having once occupied it4     
,they are able to measure the relative  
value of the two positions4 ,the        
,christian has no such experience to    
guide him4 ,in the crises of life the   
behaviour of the ,freethinker is at     
least as calm and as courageous as that 
of the ,christian4 ,and it may certainly
 be argued that a serene resignation in 
the presence of death is quite as       
valuable as the hectic emotionalism of  
cultivated religious belief4  ,what1    

after all1 is there in the fact of      
natural death that should breed         
irresolution1 rob us of courage1 or fill
 us with fear8 ,experience proves there 
are many things that people dread more  
than death1 and will even seek death    
rather than face1 or1 again1 there are a
 hundred and one things to obtain which 
men and women will face death without   
fear4 ,and this readiness to face or    
seek death does not seem to be at all   
determined by religious belief4 ,the    
millions of men who faced death during  
the war were not determined in their    
attitude by their faith in religious    
dogmas4 ,if questioned they might1 in   
the majority of cases1 say that they    
believed in a future life1 and also that
 they found it a source of strength1 but
 it would need little reflection to     
assess the reply at its true value4 ,and
 as a racial fact1 the fear of death is 
a negative quality4 ,the positive aspect
 is the will to live1 and that may be   
seen in operation in the animal world as

 well as in the world of man4 ,but this 
has no reference1 not even the remotest1
 to a belief in a future life4 ,there   
are no ,intimations of ,immortality     
here4 ,there is simply one of the       
conditions of animal survival1 developed
 in man to the point at which its       
further strengthening would become a    
threat to the welfare of the species4   
,the desire to live is one of the       
conditions that secures the struggle to 
live1 and a species of animals in which 
this did not exist would soon go under  
before a more virile type4 ,and it is   
one of the peculiarities of religious   
reasoning that a will to live here      
should be taken as clear proof of a     
desire to live somewhere else4  ,the    
fear of death could never be a powerful 
factor in life2 existence would be next 
to impossible if it were4 ,it would rob 
the organism of its daring1 its         
tenacity1 and ultimately divest life    
itself of value4 ,against that danger we
 have an efficient guard in the         

operation of natural selection4 ,in the 
animal world there is no fear of death1 
there is1 in fact1 no reason to assume  
that there exists even a consciousness  
of death4 ,and with man1 when reflection
 and knowledge give birth to that       
consciousness1 there arises a strong    
other regarding instinct which          
effectively prevents it assuming a too  
positive or a too dangerous form4 ,fear 
of death is1 in brief1 part of the      
jargon of priestcraft4 ,the priest has  
taught it the people because it was to  
his interest to do so4 ,and the jargon  
retains a certain currency because it is
 only the minority that rise above the  
parrot-like capacity to repeat current  
phrases1 or who ever make an attempt to 
analyse their meaning and challenge     
their veracity4  ,the positive fear of  
death is largely an acquired mental     
attitude4 ,in its origin it is largely  
motived by religion4 ,generally speaking
 there is no very great fear of death   
among savages1 and among the pagans of  

old ,greece and ,rome there was none of 
that abject fear of death that became so
 common with the establishment of       
,christianity4 ,to the pagan1 death was 
a natural fact1 sad enough1 but not of  
necessity terrible4 ,of the ,greek      
sculptures representing death ,professor
 ,mahaffy says3 ,they are simple        
pictures of the grief of parting1 of the
 recollection of pleasant days of love  
and friendship1 of the gloom of an      
unknown future4 ,but there is no        
exaggeration in the picture4 ,throughout
 ,roman literature also there runs the  
conception of death as the necessary    
complement of life4 ,pliny puts this    
clearly in the following3 ,unto all1 the
 state of being after the last day is   
the same as it was before the first day 
of life2 neither is there any more      
variation of it in either body or soul  
after death than there was before death4
 ,among the uneducated there does appear
 to have been some fear of death1 and   
one may assume that with some of even of

 the educated this was not altogether   
absent4 ,it may also be assumed that it 
was to this type of mind that           
,christianity made its first appeal1 and
 upon which it rested its nightmare-like
 conception of death and the after-life4
 ,on this matter the modern mind can    
well appreciate the attitude of         
,lucretius1 who saw the great danger in 
front of the race and sought to guard   
men against it by pointing out the      
artificiality of the fear of death and  
the cleansing effect of genuine         
knowledge4      ,so shalt thou feed on  
,death who feeds on men1     ,and ,death
 once dead there's no more dying then4  
,the policy of ,christianity was the    
belittling of this life and an          
exaggeration of the life after death1   
with a boundless exaggeration of the    
terrors that awaited the unwary and the 
unfaithful4 ,the state of knowledge     
under ,christian auspices made this task
 easy enough4 ,of the mediaeval period  
,mr4 ,lionel ,cust1 in his ,history of  

,engraving during the ,fifteenth        
,century1 says3--       ,the keys of    
knowledge1 as of salvation1 were        
entirely in the hands      of the       
,church1 and the lay public1 both high  
and low1 were1      generally speaking1 
ignorant and illiterate4 ,one of the    
secrets of      the great power         
exercised by the ,church lay in its     
ability to      represent the life of   
man as environed from the outset by     
legions      of horrible and insidious  
demons1 who beset his path throughout   
life at every stage up to his very last 
breath1 and are eminently      active   
and often triumphant when man's         
fortitude is undermined by              
sickness1 suffering1 and the prospect of
 dissolution4  ,f4 ,parkes ,weber also  
points out that1 ,it was in mediaeval   
,europe1 under the auspices of the      
,catholic ,church1 that descriptions of 
hell began to take on their most        
horrible aspects4#ba ,so1 again1 we have
 ,sir ,james ,frazer pointing out that  

the fear of death is not common to the  
lower races1 and ,among the causes which
 thus tend to make us cowards may be    
numbered the spread of luxury and the   
doctrines of a gloomy theology1 which by
 proclaiming the eternal damnation and  
excruciating torments of the vast       
majority of mankind has added           
incalculably to the dread and horror of 
death4#bb  #ba ,aspects of ,death in    
,art and ,epigram1 p4 #bh4  #bb ,golden 
,bough1 ,vol4 ,,iv41 p4 #acf4  ,no      
religion has emphasized the terror of   
death as ,christianity has done1 and in 
the truest sense1 no religion has so    
served to make men such cowards in its  
presence4 ,upon that fear a large part  
of the power of the ,christian ,church  
has been built1 and men having become so
 obsessed with the fear of death and    
what lay beyond1 it is not surprising   
that they should turn to the ,church for
 some measure of relief4 ,the poisoner  
thus did a lucrative trade by selling a 
doubtful remedy for his own toxic       

preparation4 ,more than anything else   
the fear of death and hell laid the     
foundation of the wealth and power of   
the ,christian ,church4 ,if it drew its 
authority from ,god1 it derived its     
profit from the devil4 ,the two truths  
that emerge from a sober and impartial  
study of ,christian history are that the
 power of the ,church was rooted in     
death and that it flourished in         
dishonour4  ,it was ,christianity1 and  
,christianity alone that made death so  
abiding a terror to the ,european mind4 
,and society once ,christianized1 the   
uneducated could find no adequate       
corrective from the more educated4 ,the 
baser elements which existed in the     
,pagan world were eagerly seized upon by
 the ,christian writers and developed to
 their fullest extent4 ,some of the     
,pagan writers had speculated1 in a more
 or less fanciful spirit1 on a hell of a
 thousand years4 ,christianity stretched
 it to eternity4 ,pre-,christianity had 
reserved the miseries of the after-life 

for adults4 ,christian writers paved the
 floor of hell with infants1 scarce a   
span long4 ,plutarch and other ,pagan   
moralists had poured discredit upon the 
popular notions of a future life4       
,christianity reaffirmed them with all  
the exaggerations of a diseased         
imagination4 ,the ,pagans held that     
death was as normal and as natural as   
life4 ,christianity returned to the     
conception current among savages and    
depicted death as a penal infliction4   
,the ,pagan art of living was superseded
 by the ,christian art of dying4 ,human 
ingenuity exhausted itself in depicting 
the terrors of the future life1 and when
 one remembers the powers of the        
,church1 and the murderous manner in    
which it exercised them1 there is small 
wonder that under the auspices of the   
,church the fear of death gained a      
strength it had never before attained4  
,small wonder1 then1 that we still have 
with us the talk of the comfort that    
,christianity brings in the face of     

death4 ,where the belief in the         
,christian after-life really exists1 the
 retention of a conviction of the saving
 power of ,christianity is a condition  
of sanity4 ,where the belief does not   
really exist1 we are fronted with       
nothing but a parrot-like repetition of 
familiar phrases4 ,the ,christian talk  
of comfort is thus1 on either count1 no 
more than a product of ,christian       
education4 ,christianity does not make  
men brave in the presence of death1 that
 is no more than a popular superstition4
 ,what it does is to cover a natural    
fact with supernatural terrors1 and then
 exploit a frame of mind that it has    
created4 ,the comfort is only necessary 
so long as the special belief is        
present4 ,remove that belief and death  
takes its place as one of the inevitable
 facts of existence1 surrounded with all
 the sadness of a last farewell1 but rid
 of all the terror that has been created
 by religion4  ,our dying soldier1      
asking for a copy of the ,crown of ,wild

 ,olive to be buried with him1 and the  
other who calls for priestly            
ministrations1 represent1 ultimately1   
two different educational results4 ,the 
one is a product of an educational      
process applied during the darkest      
periods of ,european history1 and       
perpetuated by a training that has been 
mainly directed by the self-interest of 
a class4 ,the other represents an       
educational product which stands as the 
triumph of the pressure of life over    
artificial dogmas4 ,the ,freethinker1   
because he is a ,freethinker1 needs none
 of those artificial stimulants for     
which the ,christian craves4 ,and he    
pays him the compliment--in spite of his
 protests--of believing that without his
 religion the ,christian would display  
as much manliness in the face of death  
as he does himself4 ,he believes there  
is plenty of healthy human nature in the
 average ,christian1 and the            
,freethinker merely begs him to give it 
a chance of finding expression4 ,in this

 matter1 it must be observed1 the       
,freethinker makes no claim to          
superiority over the ,christian2 it is  
the ,christian who forces that claim    
upon him4 ,the ,freethinker does not    
assume that the difference between      
himself and the ,christian is nearly so 
great as the latter would have him      
believe4 ,he believes that what is      
dispensable by the one1 without loss1 is
 dispensable by the other4 ,if          
,freethinkers can devote themselves to  
the pursuit of truth and the service of 
their fellow men1 if they can endure    
pain and sorrow with calm resignation1  
if they live with honour and face death 
without fear1 ,i see no reason why the  
,christian should not be able to reach  
the same level of development4 ,it is   
paying the ,freethinker a violent       
compliment1 to use an expression of     
,john ,wesley's1 to place him upon a    
level of excellence that is apparently  
so far above that of the average        
,christian4 ,as a ,freethinker1 ,i      

decline to accept it4 ,i believe that   
what the ,freethinker is1 the ,christian
 may well become4 ,he1 too1 may learn to
 do his duty without the fear of hell or
 the hope of heaven4 ,all that is       
required is that he shall give his      
healthier instincts an opportunity for  
expression4     ,,chapter ,x4  ,,this   
,,world ,,and ,,the ,,next4   ,in the   
preceding chapter ,i have only discussed
 the fact of death in relation to a     
certain attitude of mind4 ,the question 
of the survival of the human personality
 after death is a distinct question and 
calls for separate treatment4 ,nor is   
the present work one in which that topic
 can be treated at adequate length4 ,the
 most that can now be attempted is a    
bird's eye view of a large field of     
controversy1 although it may be possible
 in the course of that survey to say    
something on the more important aspects 
of the subject4  ,and first we may      
notice the curious assumption that the  
man who argues for immortality is taking

 a lofty view of human nature1 while he 
who argues against it is taking a low   
one4 ,in sober truth it is the other way
 about4 ,consider the position4 ,it is  
tacitly admitted that if human motive1  
considered with reference to this world 
alone1 is adequate as an incentive to   
action1 and the consequences of actions1
 again considered with reference to this
 world1 are an adequate reward for      
endeavour1 then it is agreed that the   
main argument for the belief in         
immortality breaks down4 ,to support or 
to establish the argument it is         
necessary to show that life divorced    
from the conception of a future life can
 never reach the highest possible level4
 ,natural human society is powerless in 
itself to realize its highest           
possibilities4 ,it remains barren of    
what it might be1 a thing that may frame
 ideals1 but can never realize them4    
,now that is quite an intelligible1 and1
 therefore1 an arguable proposition4    
,but whether true or not1 there should  

be no question that it involves a lower 
view of human nature than the one taken 
by the ,freethinker4 ,he does at least  
pay human nature the compliment of      
believing it capable1 not alone of      
framing high ideals1 but also of        
realizing them4 ,he says that by itself 
it is capable of realizing all that may 
be legitimately demanded from it4 ,he   
does not believe that supernatural hopes
 or fears are necessary to induce man to
 live cleanly1 or die serenely1 or to   
carry out properly his duties to his    
fellows4 ,the religionist denies this1  
and asserts that some form of           
supernaturalism is essential to the     
moral health of men and women4 ,if the  
,freethinker is wrong1 it is plain that 
his fault consists in taking a too      
optimistic view of human nature4 ,his   
mistake consists in taking not a low    
view of human nature1 but a lofty one4  
,substantially1 the difference between  
the two positions is the difference     
between the man who is honest from a    

conviction of the value of honesty1 and 
the one who refrains from stealing      
because he feels certain of detection1  
or because he is afraid of losing       
something that he might otherwise gain4 
,thus1 we are told by one writer that3--
       ,if human life is but a          
by-product of the unconscious play of   
physical force1 like a candle flame soon
 to be blown out or burnt      out1 what
 a paltry thing it is6  ,but the        
questions of where human life came from1
 or where it will end1 are quite apart  
from the question of the value and      
capabilities of human life now4 ,that   
there are immense possibilities in this 
life none but a fool will deny4 ,the    
world is full of strange and curious    
things1 and its pleasures undoubtedly   
outweigh its pains in the experience of 
normal man or woman4 ,but the relations 
between ourselves and others remain     
completely unaffected by the termination
 of existence at the grave1 or its      
continuation beyond4 ,it is quite a     

defensible proposition that life is not 
worth living4 ,so is the reverse of the 
proposition4 ,but it is nonsense to say 
that life is a paltry thing merely      
because it ends at the grave4 ,it is    
unrestricted egotism manifesting itself 
in the form of religious conviction4    
,one might as well argue that a sunset  
ceases to be beautiful because it does  
not continue all night4  ,if ,i cannot  
live for ever1 then is the universe a   
failure6 ,that is really all that the   
religious argument amounts to4 ,and so  
to state it1 to reduce it to plain      
terms1 and divest it of its disguising  
verbiage1 almost removes the need for   
further refutation4 ,but it is seldom   
stated in so plain and so unequivocal a 
manner4 ,it is accompanied with much    
talk of growth1 of an evolutionary      
purpose1 of ruined lives made good1     
thus3       ,seeing that man is the goal
 towards which everything has tended    
from the beginning1 seeing that the same
 eternal and infinite      ,energy has  

laboured through the ages at the        
production of man1 and      man is the  
heir of the ages1 nothing conceivable   
seems too great or      glorious to     
believe concerning his destiny4444 ,if  
there is no limit      to human growth  
in knowledge and wisdom1 in love and    
constructive      power1 in beauty and  
joy1 we are invested with a magnificent 
worth      and dignity4  ,so fallacy and
 folly run on4 ,what1 for example1 does 
anyone mean by man as the goal towards  
which everything has tended since the   
beginning8 ,whatever truth there is in  
the statement applies to all things     
without exception4 ,it is as true of the
 microbe as it is of man4 ,if the       
infinite and eternal ,energy laboured to
 produce man1 it laboured also to       
produce the microbe which destroys him4 
,the one is here as well as the other2  
and one can conceive a religious microbe
 thanking an almighty one for having    
created it1 and declaring that unless it
 is to live for ever in some microbic   

heaven1 with a proper supply of human   
beings for its nourishment1 the whole   
scheme of creation is a failure4 ,it is 
quite a question of the point of view4  
,as a matter of fact there are no ends  
in nature4 ,there are only results1 and 
each result becomes a factor in some    
further result4 ,it is human folly and  
ignorance which makes an end of a       
consequence4  ,after all1 what reason is
 there for anyone assuming that the     
survival of man beyond the grave is even
 probably true8 ,we do not know man as a
 soul first and a body afterwards4      
,neither do we know him as a detached   
mind which afterwards takes possession  
of a body4 ,our knowledge of man        
commences with him1 as does our         
knowledge of any animal1 as a body      
possessing certain definite functions of
 which we call one group mental4 ,and   
the two things are so indissolubly      
linked that we cannot even think of them
 as separate4 ,if anyone doubts this let
 him try and picture to himself what a  

man is like in the absence of a body4   
,he will find the thing simply          
inconceivable4 ,in the absence of the   
material organism1 to which the mind    
unquestionably stands in the relation of
 function to organ1 what remains is a   
mere blank4 ,to the informed mind1 that 
is4 ,to the intelligence of the savage1 
who is led1 owing to his erroneous      
conception of things1 to think of       
something inside the body which leaves  
it during sleep1 wanders about1 and then
 returns on awakening1 and who because  
of this affiliates sleep to death1 the  
case may be different4 ,but to a modern 
mind1 one which is acquainted with      
something of what science has to say on 
the subject1 the conception of a mind   
existing apart from organization is     
simply unthinkable4 ,all our knowledge  
is against it4 ,the development of mind 
side by side with the development of the
 brain and the nervous system is one of 
the commonplaces of scientific          
knowledge4 ,the treatment of states of  

mind as functions of the brain and the  
nervous system is a common-place of     
medical practice4 ,and the fact that    
diet1 temperature1 health and disease1  
accidents and old age1 all have their   
effects on mental manifestations is     
matter of everyday observation4 ,the    
whole range of positive science may     
safely be challenged to produce a single
 indisputable fact in favour of the     
assumption that there exists anything   
about man independent of the material   
organism4  ,all that can be urged in    
favour of such a belief is that there   
are still many obscure facts which we   
are not altogether able to explain on a 
purely mechanistic theory4 ,but that is 
a confession of ignorance1 not an       
affirmation of knowledge4 ,at any rate1 
there does not exist a single fact      
against the functional theory of mind4  
,all we know is decidedly in its favour1
 and a theory must be tested by what we 
know and by what it explains1 not by    
what we do not know or by what it cannot

 explain4 ,and there is here the        
additional truth that the only ground   
upon which the theory can be opposed is 
upon certain metaphysical assumptions   
which are made in order to bolster up an
 already existing belief4 ,if the belief
 in survival had not been already in    
existence these assumptions would never 
have been made4 ,they are not suggested 
by the facts1 they are invented to      
support an already established theory1  
which can no longer appeal to the       
circumstances which gave it birth4  ,and
 about those circumstance there is no   
longer the slightest reason for         
justifiable doubt4 ,we can trace the    
belief in survival after death until we 
see it commencing in the savage belief  
in a double that takes its origin in the
 phenomena of dreaming and unusual      
mental states4 ,it is from that starting
 point that the belief in survival takes
 its place as an invariable element in  
the religions of the world4 ,and as we  
trace the evolution of knowledge we see 

every fact upon which was built the     
belief in a double that survived death  
gradually losing its hold on the human  
intelligence1 owing to the fact that the
 experiences that gave it birth are     
interpreted in a manner which allows no 
room for the religious theory4 ,the     
fatal fact about the belief in survival 
is its history4 ,that history shows us  
how it began1 as surely as the course of
 its evolution indicates the way in     
which it will end4  ,so1 as with the    
idea of ,god1 what we have left in      
modern times are not the reasons why    
such a belief is held1 but only excuses 
why those who hold it should not be     
disturbed4 ,that and a number of        
arguments which only present an air of  
plausibility because they succeed in    
jumbling together things that have no   
connection with each other4 ,as an      
example of this we may take the         
favourite modern plea that a future life
 is required to permit the growth and   
development of the individual4 ,we find 

this expressed in the quotation above   
given in the sentence if there is no    
limit to human growth1 etc41 the        
inference being that unless there is a  
future life there is a very sharp limit 
set to human growth1 and one that makes 
this life a mockery4 ,this plea is      
presented in so many forms that it is   
worth while analysing it a little1 if   
only to bring out more clearly the      
distinction between the religious and   
the ,freethought view of life4  ,what   
now is meant by there being no limit to 
human growth8 ,if by it is meant        
individual growth1 the reply is that    
there is actually a very sharp limit set
 to growth1 much sharper than the       
average person seems to be aware of4 ,it
 is quite clear that the individual is  
not capable of unlimited growth in this 
world4 ,there are degrees of capacity in
 different individuals which will       
determine what amount of development    
each is capable of4 ,capacity is not an 
acquired thing1 it is an endowment1 and 

the child born with the brain capacity  
of a fool will remain a fool to the end1
 however much his folly may be disguised
 or lost amid the folly of others4 ,and 
with each one1 whether he be fool or    
genius1 acquisitions are made more      
easily and more rapidly in youth1 the   
power of mental adaptation is much      
greater in early than in later life1    
while in old age the capacities of      
adaptation and acquisition become       
negligible quantities4 ,and provided one
 lives long enough1 the last stage sees1
 not a promise of further progress if   
life were continued1 but a process of   
degradation4 ,the old saying that one   
can't put a quart into a pint pot is    
strictly applicable here4 ,growth       
assumes acquisition2 acquisition is     
determined by capacity1 and this while  
an indefinite quantity 7indefinite here 
is strictly referable to our ignorance1 
not to the actual fact7 is certainly not
 an unlimited one4 ,life1 then1 so far  
as the individual is concerned1 does not

 point to unlimited growth4 ,it         
indicates1 so far as it indicates       
anything at all1 that there is a limit  
to growth as to all other things4       
,well1 but suppose we say that man is   
capable of indefinite growth1 what do we
 mean8 ,let us also bear in mind at this
 point that we are strictly concerned   
with the individual4 ,for if man        
survives death he must do it as an      
individual4 ,to merely survive as a part
 of the chemical and other elements of  
the world1 or1 to follow some mystical  
theologians1 as an indistinguishable    
part of a world-soul1 is not what people
 mean when they talk of living beyond   
the grave4 ,here1 again1 it will be     
found that we have confused two quite   
distinct things1 even though the one    
thing borrows its meaning from the      
other4  ,when we compare the individual1
 as such1 with the individual of three  
or four thousand years ago1 can we say  
with truth that the man of to-day is    
actually superior to the man of the     

earlier date8 ,to test the question let 
us put it in this way4 ,does the man of 
to-day do anything or think anything    
that is beyond the capacity of an       
ancient ,egyptian or an ancient ,greek1 
if it were possible to suddenly revive  
one and to enable him to pass through   
the same education that each one of us  
passes through8 ,i do not think that    
anyone will answer that question in the 
affirmative4 ,reverse the process4      
,suppose that a modern man1 with exactly
 the same capacity that he now has had  
lived in the days of the ancient        
,egyptians or the ancient ,greeks1 can  
we say that his capacity is so much     
greater than theirs1 that he would have 
done better than they did8 ,i do not    
think that anyone will answer that      
question in the affirmative either4 ,is 
the soldier of to-day a better soldier1 
or the sailor a better sailor than those
 who lived three thousand years ago8    
,once more the answer will not be in the
 affirmative4 ,and yet there are certain

 things that are obvious4 ,it is plain  
that we all know more than did the      
people of long ago1 we can do more1 we  
understand the past better1 and we can  
see farther into the future4 ,a         
schoolboy to-day carries in his head    
what would have been a philosopher's    
outfit once upon a time4 ,our soldiers  
and sailors utilize1 single-handed1     
forces greater than a whole army or navy
 wielded in the far-off days of the     
,ptolemies4 ,we call ourselves greater1 
we think ourselves greater1 and in a    
sense we are greater than the people of 
old4 ,what1 then1 is the explanation of 
the apparent paradox8  ,the explanation 
lies in the simple fact that progress is
 not a phenomenon of individual life at 
all4 ,it is a phenomenon of social      
existence4 ,if each generation had to   
commence at the exact point at which its
 predecessors started it would get no   
farther than they got4 ,it would be an  
eternal round1 with each generation     
starting from and reaching the same     

point1 and progress would be an         
inconceivable thing4 ,but that we know  
is not the case4 ,instead of each       
generation starting from precisely the  
same point1 one inherits at least       
something of the labours and discoveries
 of its predecessors4 ,a thing          
discovered by the individual is         
discovered for the race4 ,a thought     
struck out by the individual is a       
thought for the race4 ,by language1 by  
tradition1 and by institutions the      
advances of each generation are         
conserved1 handed on1 and made part of  
our racial possessions4 ,the strength1  
the knowledge1 of the modern is thus due
 not to any innate superiority over the 
ancient1 but because one is modern and  
the other ancient4 ,if we could have    
surrounded the ancient ,assyrians with  
all the inventions1 and given them all  
the knowledge that we possess1 they     
would have used that knowledge and those
 inventions as wisely1 or as unwisely as
 we use them4 ,progress is thus not a   

fact of individual but of racial life4  
,the individual inherits more than he   
creates1 and it is in virtue of this    
racial inheritance that he is what he   
is4  ,it is a mere trick of the         
imagination that converts this fact of  
social growth into an essential         
characteristic of individual life4 ,we  
speak of man without clearly            
distinguishing between man as a         
biological unit and man as a member of a
 social group developing in             
correspondence with a true social       
medium4 ,but if that is so1 it follows  
that this capacity for growth is1 so to 
speak1 a function of the social medium4 
,it is conditioned by it1 it has        
relevance only in relation to it4 ,our  
feelings1 our sentiments1 even our      
desires1 have reference to this life1   
and in a far deeper sense than is       
usually imagined4 ,and removed from its 
relation to this life human nature would
 be without meaning or value4  ,there is
 nothing in any of the functions of man1

 in any of his capacities1 or in any of 
his properly understood desires that has
 the slightest reference to any life but
 this4 ,it is unthinkable that there    
should be4 ,an organ or an organism     
develops in relation to a special       
medium1 not in relation to one          
that--even though it exists--is not also
 in relation with it4 ,this is quite an 
obvious truth in regard to structures1  
but it is not always so clearly         
recognized1 or so carefully borne in    
mind1 that it is equally true of every  
feeling and desire4 ,for these are      
developed in relation to their special  
medium1 in this case1 the existence of  
fellow beings with their actions and    
reactions on each other4 ,and man is not
 only a member of a social group1 that  
much is an obvious fact2 but he is a    
product of the group in the sense that  
all his characteristic human qualities  
have resulted from the interactions of  
group life4 ,take man out of relation to
 that fact1 and he is an enigma1        

presenting fit opportunities for the    
wild theorizing of religious            
philosophers4 ,take him in connection   
with it1 and his whole nature becomes   
susceptible of understanding in relation
 to the only existence he knows and     
desires4  ,the twin facts of growth and 
progress1 upon which so much of the     
argument for a future life turns        
nowadays1 have not the slightest        
possible reference to a life beyond the 
grave4 ,they are fundamentally not even 
personal1 but social4 ,it is the race   
that grows1 not the individual1 he      
becomes more powerful precisely because 
the products of racial acquisition are  
inherited by him4 ,remove1 if only in   
thought1 the individual from all        
association with his fellows1 strip him 
of all that he inherits from association
 with them1 and he loses all the        
qualities we indicate when we speak of  
him as a civilized being4 ,remove him1  
in fact1 from that association1 as when 
a man is marooned on a desert island1   

and the more civilized qualities of his 
character begin to weaken and in time   
disappear4 ,man1 as an individual1      
becomes more powerful with the passing  
of each generation1 precisely because he
 is thus dependent upon the life of the 
race4 ,the secret of his weakness is at 
the same time the source of his         
strength4 ,we are what we are because of
 the generations of men and women who   
lived and toiled and died before we were
 born4 ,we inherit the fruits of their  
labours1 as those who come after us will
 inherit the fruits of our struggles and
 conquests4 ,it is thus in the life of  
the race that man achieves immortality4 
,none other is possible1 or conceivable4
 ,and to those whose minds are not      
distorted by religious teaching1 and who
 have taken the trouble to analyse and  
understand their own mental states1 it  
may be said that none other is even     
desirable4     ,,chapter ,,xi4          
,,evolution4   ,language1 we have said  
above1 is one of the prime conditions of

 human greatness and progress4 ,it is   
the principal means by which man        
conserves his victories over the forces 
of his environment1 and transmits them  
to his descendants4 ,but it is1         
nevertheless1 not without its dangers1  
and may exert an influence fatal to     
exact thought4 ,there is a sense in     
which language necessarily lags behind  
thought4 ,for words are coined to       
express the ideas of those who fashion  
them2 and as the knowledge of the next  
generation alters1 and some modification
 of existing conceptions is found       
necessary1 there is nothing but the     
existing array of words in which to     
express them4 ,the consequence is that  
there are nearly always subtle shades of
 meaning in the words used differing    
from the exact meaning which the new    
thought is trying to express4 ,thought  
drives us to seek new or improved verbal
 tools1 but until we get them we must go
 on using the old ones1 with all their  
old implications4 ,and by the time the  

new words arrive thought has made a     
still further advance1 and the general  
position remains4 ,it is an eternal     
chase in which the pursued is always    
being captured1 but is never caught4    
,another way in which language holds a  
danger is that with many words1         
especially when they assume the         
character of a formula1 they tend to    
usurp the place of thinking4 ,the old   
lady who found so much consolation in   
the blessed word ,mesopotamia1 is not   
alone in using that method of           
consolation4 ,it does not meet us only  
in connection with religion1 it is      
encountered over the whole field of     
sociology1 and even of science4 ,a      
conception in science or sociology is   
established after a hard fight4 ,it is  
accepted generally1 and thereafter takes
 its place as one of the many           
established truths4 ,and then the danger
 shows itself4 ,it is repeated as though
 it had some magical virtue in itself2  
it means nothing to very many of those  

who use it1 they simply hand over their 
mental difficulties to its care1 much as
 the penitent in the confessional hands 
over his moral troubles to the priest1  
and there the matter ends4 ,but in such 
cases the words used do not express     
thought1 they simply blind people to its
 absence4 ,and not only that1 but in the
 name of these sacred words1 any number 
of foolish inferences are drawn and     
receive general assent4  ,a striking    
illustration of this is to be found in  
such a word as ,evolution4 ,one may say 
of it that while it began as a formula1 
it continues as a fiat4 ,some invoke it 
with all the expectancy of a mediaeval  
magician commanding the attendance of   
his favourite spirits4 ,others approach 
it with a hushed reverence that is      
reminiscent of a ,catholic devotee      
before his favourite shrine4 ,in a      
little more than half a century it has  
acquired the characteristics of the     
,kismet of the ,mohammedan1 the         
,beelzebub of the pious ,christian1 and 

the power of a phrase that gives        
inspiration to a born soldier4 ,it is   
used as often to dispel doubt as it is  
to awaken curiosity4 ,it may express    
comprehension or merely indicate        
vacuity4 ,decisions are pronounced in   
its name with all the solemnity of a    
,thus saith the ,lord4 ,we are not sure 
that even to talk about evolution in    
this way may not be considered wrong4   
,for there are crowds of folk who cannot
 distinguish profundity from solemnity1 
and who mistake a long face for the sure
 indication of a well-stored brain4 ,the
 truth here is that what a man          
understands thoroughly he can deal with 
easily2 and that he laughs at a         
difficulty is not necessarily a sign    
that he fails to appreciate it1 he may  
laugh because he has taken its measure4 
,and why people do not laugh at such a  
thing as religion is partly because they
 have not taken its measure1 partly from
 a perception that religion cannot stand
 it4 ,everywhere the priest maintains   

his hold as a consequence of the        
narcotizing influence of ill-understood 
phrases1 and in this he is matched by   
the pseudo-philosopher whose pompous use
 of imperfectly appreciated formulae    
disguises from the crowd the mistiness  
of his understanding4  ,a glance over   
the various uses to which the word      
,evolution is put will well illustrate  
the truth of what has been said4 ,these 
make one wonder what1 in the opinion of 
some people1 evolution stands for4 ,one 
of these uses of evolution is to give it
 a certain moral implication to which it
 has not the slightest claim4 ,a certain
 school of ,non-,theists are1 in this   
matter1 if not the greatest offenders1  
certainly those with the least excuse   
for committing the blunder4 ,by these   
evolution is identified with progress1  
or advancement1 or a gradual levelling  
up of society1 and is even acclaimed as 
presenting a more moral view of the     
,universe than is the ,theistic         
conception4 ,now1 primarily1 this       

ascription of what one may call a moral 
element to evolution is no more than a  
carrying over into science of a frame of
 mind that properly belongs to ,theism4 
,quite naturally the ,theist was driven 
to try and find some moral purpose in   
the ,universe1 and to prove that its    
working did not grate on our moral      
sense4 ,that was quite understandable1  
and even legitimate4 ,the world1 from   
the point of view of the ,goddite1 was  
,god's world1 he made it2 and we are    
ultimately compelled to judge the       
character of ,god from his workmanship4 
,an attack on the moral character of the
 world is1 therefore1 an attack on the  
character of its maker4 ,and the ,theist
 proceeded to find a moral justification
 for all that ,god had done4  ,so far   
all is clear4 ,but now comes a certain  
kind of ,non-,theist4 ,and he1 always   
rejecting a formal ,theism and          
substituting evolution1 proceeds to     
claim for his formula all that the      
,theist claimed for his4 ,he also       

strives to show that the idea of cosmic 
evolution involves conceptions of       
nobility1 justice1 morality1 etc4 ,there
 is no wonder that some ,christians     
round on him1 and tell him that he still
 believes in a god4 ,substantially he   
does4 ,that is1 he carries over into his
 new camp the same anthropomorphic      
conception of the workings of nature1   
and uses the same pseudo-scientific     
reasoning that is characteristic of the 
,theist4 ,he has formally given up ,god1
 but he goes about uncomfortably        
burdened with his ghost4  ,now1         
evolution is not a fiat1 but a formula4 
,it has nothing whatever to do with     
progress1 as such1 nor with morality1 as
 such1 nor with a levelling up1 nor a   
levelling down4 ,it is really no more   
than a special application of the       
principle of causation1 and whether the 
working out of that principle has a good
 effect or a bad one1 a moralizing1 or a
 demoralizing1 a progressive1 or a      
retrogressive consequence is not given  

in the principle itself4 ,fundamentally1
 all cosmic phenomena present us with   
two aspects--difference and change--and 
that is so because it is the fundamental
 condition of our knowing anything at   
all4 ,but the law of evolution is no    
more1 is nothing more serious or more   
profound than an attempt to express     
those movements of change and difference
 in a more or less precise formula4 ,it 
aims at doing for phenomena in general  
exactly what a particular scientific law
 aims at doing for some special         
department4 ,but it has no more a moral 
implication1 or a progressive           
implication than has the law of         
gravitation or of chemical affinity4    
,the sum of those changes that are      
expressed in the law of evolution may   
result in one or the other2 it has      
resulted in one or the other4 ,at one   
time we call its consequences moral or  
progressive1 at another time we call    
them immoral or retrogressive1 but these
 are some of the distinctions which the 

human mind creates for its own          
convenience1 they have no validity in   
any other sense4 ,and when we mistake   
these quite legitimate distinctions1    
made for our own convenience1 and argue 
as though they had an actual independent
 existence1 we are reproducing exactly  
the same mental confusion that keeps    
,theism alive4  ,the two aspects that   
difference and change resolve themselves
 into when expressed in an evolutionary 
formula are1 in the inorganic world1    
equilibrium1 and1 in the organic world1 
adaptation4 ,of course1 equilibrium also
 applies to the organic world1 ,i merely
 put it this way for the purpose of     
clarity4 ,now1 if we confine our        
attention to the world of animal forms1 
what we have expressed1 primarily1 is   
the fact of adaptation4 ,if an animal is
 to live it must be adapted to its      
surroundings to at least the extent of  
being able to overcome or to neutralize 
the forces that threaten its existence4 
,that is quite a common-place1 since all

 it says is that to live an animal must 
be fit to live1 but all great truths are
 common-places--when one sees them4     
,still1 if there were only adaptations  
to consider1 and if the environment to  
which adaptation is to be secured1      
remained constant1 all we should have   
would be the deaths of those not able to
 live1 with the survival of those more  
fortunately endowed4 ,there would be    
nothing that we could call1 even to     
please ourselves1 either progress or its
 reverse4 ,movement up or down 7both    
human landmarks7 occurs because the     
environment itself undergoes a change4  
,either the material conditions change1 
or the pressure of numbers initiates a  
contest for survival1 although more     
commonly one may imagine both causes in 
operation at the same time4 ,but the    
consequence is the introduction of a new
 quality into the struggle for          
existence4 ,it becomes a question of a  
greater endowment of the qualities that 
spell survival4 ,and that paves the way 

to progress--or the reverse4 ,but one   
must bear in mind that1 whether the     
movement be in one direction or the     
other1 it is still the same process that
 is at work4 ,evolution levels neither  
up nor down4 ,up and down is as relative
 in biology as it is in astronomy4 ,in  
nature there is neither better nor      
worse1 neither high nor low1 neither    
good nor bad1 there are only            
differences1 and if that had been       
properly appreciated by all1 very few of
 the apologies for ,theism would ever   
have seen the light4  ,there is not the 
slightest warranty for speaking of      
evolution as being a progressive force1 
it is1 indeed1 not a force at all1 but  
only a descriptive term on all fours    
with any other descriptive term as      
expressed in a natural law4 ,it neither1
 of necessity1 levels up nor levels     
down4 ,in the animal world it           
illustrates adaptation only1 but whether
 that adaptation involves what we choose
 to call progression or retrogression is

 a matter of indifference4 ,on the one  
hand we have aquatic life giving rise to
 mammalian life1 and on the other hand1 
we have mammalian life reverting to an  
aquatic form of existence4 ,in one place
 we have a lower form of life giving    
place to a higher form4 ,in another     
place we can see the reverse process    
taking place4 ,and the lower forms are  
often more persistent than the higher   
ones1 while1 as the course of epidemical
 and other diseases shows certain lowly 
forms of life may make the existence of 
the higher forms impossible4 ,the       
,theistic attempt to disprove the       
mechanistic conception of nature by     
insisting that evolution is a law of    
progress1 that it implies an end1 and   
indicates a goal1 is wholly fallacious4 
,from a scientific point of view it is  
meaningless chatter4 ,science knows     
nothing of a plan1 or an end in nature1 
or even progress4 ,all these are        
conceptions which we humans create for  
our own convenience4 ,they are so many  

standards of measurement1 of exactly the
 same nature as our agreement that a    
certain length of space shall be called 
a yard1 or a certain quantity of liquid 
shall be called a pint4 ,to think       
otherwise is pure anthropomorphism4 ,it 
is the ghost of ,god imported into      
science4  ,so far1 then1 it is clear    
that the universal fact in nature is    
change4 ,the most general aspect of     
nature which meets us is that expressed 
in the law of evolution4 ,and proceeding
 from the more general to the less      
general1 in the world of living beings  
this change meets us in the form of     
adaptation to environment4 ,but what    
constitutes adaptation must be          
determined by the nature of the         
environment4 ,that will determine what  
qualities are of value in the struggle  
for existence1 which is not necessarily 
a struggle against other animals1 but   
may be no more than the animal's own    
endeavours to persist in being4 ,it is1 
however1 in relation to the environment 

that we must measure the value of       
qualities4 ,whatever be the nature of   
the environment that principle remains  
true4 ,ideally1 one quality may be more 
desirable than another1 but if it does  
not secure a greater degree of          
adaptation to the environment it brings 
no advantage to its possessor4 ,it may  
even bring a positive disadvantage4 ,in 
a thieves' kitchen the honest man is    
handicapped4 ,in a circle of upright men
 the dishonest man is at a discount4 ,in
 the existing political world a         
perfectly truthful man would be a       
parliamentary failure4 ,in the pulpit a 
preacher who knew the truth about       
,christianity and preached it would soon
 be out of the ,church4 ,adaptation is  
not1 as such1 a question of moral       
goodness or badness1 it is simply       
adaptation4  ,a precautionary word needs
 be said on the matter of environment4  
,if we conceive the environment as made 
up only of the material surroundings we 
shall not be long before we find        

ourselves falling into gross error4 ,for
 that conception of environment will    
only hold of the very lowest organisms4 
,a little higher1 and the nature of the 
organism begins to have a modifying     
effect on the material environment1 and 
when we come to animals living in groups
 the environment of the individual      
animal becomes partly the habits and    
instincts of the other animals with     
which it lives4 ,finally1 when we reach 
man this transformation of the nature of
 the environment becomes greatest4 ,here
 it is not merely the existence of other
 members of the same species1 with all  
their developed feelings and ideas to   
which each must become adapted to live1 
but in virtue of what we have described 
above as the social medium1 certain     
thought forms such as institutions1     
conceptions of right and wrong1 ideals  
of duty1 loyalty1 the relation of one   
human group to other human groups1 not  
merely those that are now living1 but   
also those that are dead1 are all part  

of the environment to which adjustment  
must be made4 ,and in the higher stages 
of social life these aspects of the     
environment become of even greater      
consequence than the facts of a         
climatic1 geographic1 or geologic       
nature4 ,in other words1 the environment
 which exerts a predominating influence 
on civilized mankind is an environment  
that has been very largely created by   
social life and growth4  ,if we keep    
these two considerations firmly in mind 
we shall be well guarded against a whole
 host of fallacies and false analogies  
that are placed before us as though they
 were unquestioned and unquestionable   
truths4 ,there is1 for instance1 the    
misreading of evolution which asserts   
that inasmuch as what is called moral   
progress takes place1 therefore         
evolution involves a moral purpose4 ,we 
find this view put forward not only by  
avowed ,theists1 but by those who1 while
 formally disavowing ,theism1 appear to 
have imported into ethics all the false 

sentiment and fallacious reasoning that 
formerly did duty in bolstering up the  
idea of ,god4 ,evolution1 as such1 is no
 more concerned with an ideal morality  
than it is concerned with the           
development of an ideal apple dumpling4 
,in the universal process morality is no
 more than a special illustration of the
 principle of adaptation4 ,the morality 
of man is a summary of the relations    
between human beings that must be       
maintained if the two-fold end of racial
 preservation and individual development
 are to be secured4 ,fundamentally      
morality is the formulation in either   
theory or practice of rules or actions  
that make group-life possible4 ,and the 
man who sees in the existence or growth 
of morality proof of a plan or an end is
 on all fours with the mentality of the 
curate who saw the hand of ,providence  
in the fact that death came at the end  
of life instead of in the middle of it4 
,what we are dealing with here is the   
fact of adaptation1 although in the case

 of the human group the traditions and  
customs and ideals of the group form a  
very important part of the environment  
to which adaptation must be made and    
have1 therefore1 a distinct survival    
value4 ,the moral mystery-monger is only
 a shade less objectionable than the    
religious mystery-monger1 of whom he is 
the ethical equivalent4  ,a right       
conception of the nature of environment 
and the meaning of evolution will also  
protect us against a fallacy that is met
 with in connection with social growth4 
,human nature1 we are often told1 is    
always the same4 ,to secure a desired   
reform1 we are assured1 you must first  
of all change human nature1 and the     
assumption is that as human nature      
cannot be changed the proposed reform is
 quite impossible4  ,now there is a     
sense in which human nature is the same1
 generation after generation4 ,but there
 is another sense in which human nature 
is undergoing constant alteration1 and1 
indeed1 it is one of the outstanding    

features of social life that it should  
be so4 ,so far as can be seen there     
exists no difference between the        
fundamental capacities possessed by man 
during at least the historic period4    
,there are differences in people between
 the relative strengths of the various  
capacities1 but that is all4 ,an ancient
 ,assyrian possessed all the capacities 
of a modern ,englishman1 and in the main
 one would feel inclined to say the same
 of them in their quantitative aspect as
 well as in their qualitative one4 ,for 
when one looks at the matter closely it 
is seen that the main difference between
 the ancient and the modern man is in   
expression4 ,civilization does not so   
much change the man so much as it gives 
a new direction to the existing         
qualities4 ,whether particular qualities
 are expressed in an ideally good       
direction or the reverse depends upon   
the environment to which they react4    
,to take an example4 ,the fundamental   
evil of war in a modern state is that it

 expends energy in a harmful direction4 
,but war itself1 the expression of the  
war-like character1 is the outcome of   
pugnacity and the love of adventure     
without which human nature would be     
decidedly the poorer1 and would be      
comparatively ineffective4 ,it is       
fundamentally an expression of these    
qualities that lead to the quite healthy
 taste for exploration1 discovery1 and  
in intellectual pursuits to that contest
 of ideas which lies at the root of most
 of our progress4 ,and what war means in
 the modern ,state is that the love of  
competition and adventure1 the pugnacity
 which leads a man to fight in defence  
of a right or to redress a wrong1 and   
without which human nature would be a   
poor thing1 are expended in the way of  
sheer destruction instead of through    
channels of adventure and healthy       
intellectual contest4 ,sympathies are   
narrowed instead of widened1 and hatred 
of the stranger and the outsider1 of    
which a growing number of people in a   

civilized country are becoming ashamed1 
assumes the rank of a virtue4 ,in other 
words1 a state of war creates an        
environment--fortunately for only a     
brief period--which gives a survival    
value to such expressions of human      
capacity as indicate a reversion to a   
lower state of culture4  ,we may put the
 matter thus4 ,while conduct is a       
function of the organism1 and while the 
kind of reaction is determined by       
structure1 the form taken by the        
reaction is a matter of response to     
environmental influences4 ,it is this   
fact which explains why the capacities  
of man remain fairly constant1 while    
there is a continuous redirecting of    
these capacities into new channels      
suitable to a developing social life4   
,we are only outlining here a view of   
evolution that would require a volume to
 discuss and illustrate adequately1 but 
enough has been said to indicate the    
enormous importance of the educative    
power of the environment4 ,we cannot    

alter the capacities of the individual  
for they are a natural endowment4 ,but  
we can1 in virtue of an increased       
emphasis1 determine whether they shall  
be expressed in this or that direction4 
,the love of adventure may1 for example1
 be exhausted in the pursuit of some    
piratical enterprise1 or it may be      
guided into channels of some useful form
 of social effort4 ,it lies with society
 itself to see that the environment is  
such as to exercise a determining       
influence with regard to expressions of 
activity that are beneficial to the     
whole of the group4  ,to sum up4        
,evolution is no more than a formula    
that expresses the way in which a moving
 balance of forces is brought about by  
purely mechanical means4 ,so far as     
animal life is concerned this balance is
 expressed by the phrase adaptation to  
environment4 ,but in human society the  
environment is in a growing measure made
 up of ideas1 customs1 traditions1      
ideals1 and beliefs2 in a word1 of      

factors which are themselves products of
 human activities4 ,and it is for this  
reason that the game of civilization is 
very largely in our own hands4 ,if we   
maintain an environment in which it is  
either costly or dangerous to be honest 
and fearless in the expression of       
opinion1 we shall be doing our best to  
develop mental cowardice and hypocrisy4 
,if we bring up the young with the      
successful soldier or money-maker before
 them as examples1 while we continue to 
treat the scientist as a crank1 and the 
reformer as a dangerous criminal1 we    
shall be continuing the policy of       
forcing the expression of human capacity
 on a lower level than would otherwise  
be the case4 ,if we encourage the       
dominance of a religion which while     
making a profession of disinterested    
loftiness continues to irradiate a      
narrow egotism and a pessimistic view of
 life1 we are doing our best to         
perpetuate an environment which         
emphasizes only the poorer aspects of   

human motive4 ,two centuries of         
ceaseless scientific activity have      
taught us something of the rules of the 
game which we are all playing with      
nature whether we will or no4 ,to-day we
 have a good many of the winning cards  
in our hands1 if we will only learn to  
play them wisely4 ,it is not correct to 
say that evolution necessarily involves 
progress1 but it does indicate that     
wisdom and foresight may so control the 
social forces as to turn that ceaseless 
change which is indicated by the law of 
evolution into channels that make for   
happiness and prosperity4     ,,chapter 
,,xii4  ,,darwinism ,,and ,,design4     
,the influence of the hypothesis of     
evolution on religion was not long in   
making itself felt4 ,professor ,huxley  
explained the rapid success of          
,darwinism by saying that the scientific
 world was ready for it4 ,and much the  
same thing may be said of the better    
representatives of the intellectual     
world with regard to the bearing of     

evolution on religion4 ,in many         
directions the cultivated mind had for  
more than half a century been getting   
familiar with the general conception of 
growth in human life and thought4 ,where
 earlier generations had seen no more   
than a pattern to unravel there had     
developed a conviction that there was a 
history to trace and to understand4     
,distant parts of the world had been    
brought together during the seventeenth 
and the eighteenth centuries1 readers   
and students were getting familiarized  
with the mass of customs and religious  
ideas that were possessed by these      
peoples1 and it was perceived that      
beneath the bewildering variety of man's
 mental output there were certain       
features which they had in common1 and  
which might hold in solution some common
 principle or principles4  ,this common 
principle was found in the conception of
 evolution4 ,it was the one thing which1
 if true1 and apart from the impossible 
idea of a revelation1 nicely graduated  

to the capacities of different races1   
offered an explanation of the religions 
of the world in terms more satisfactory 
than those of deliberate invention or   
imposture4 ,once it was accepted1 if    
only as an instrument of investigation1 
its use was soon justified4 ,and the    
thorough-going nature of the conquest   
achieved is in no wise more clearly     
manifested than in the fact that the    
conception of growth is1 to-day1 not    
merely an accepted principle with       
scientific investigators1 it has sunk   
deeply into all our literature and forms
 an unconscious part of popular thought4
  ,one aspect of the influence of       
evolution on religious ideas has already
 been noted4 ,it made the religious idea
 but one of the many forms that were    
assumed by man's attempt to reduce his  
experience of the world to something    
like an orderly theory4 ,but that       
carried with it1 for religion1 the      
danger of reducing it to no more than   
one of the many theories of things which

 man forms1 with the prospect of its    
rejection as a better knowledge of the  
world develops4 ,evolution certainly    
divested religion of any authority save 
such as it might contain in itself1 and 
that is a position a religious mind can 
never contemplate with equanimity4  ,but
 so far as the theory of ,darwinism is  
concerned it exerted a marked and rapid 
influence on the popular religious      
theory of design in nature4 ,this is one
 of the oldest arguments in favour of a 
reasoned belief in ,god1 and it is the  
one which was1 and is still in one form 
or another1 held in the greatest popular
 esteem4 ,to the popular mind--and      
religion in a civilized country is not  
seriously concerned about its failing   
grip on the cultured intelligence so    
long as it keeps control of the ordinary
 man and woman--to the popular mind the 
argument from design appealed with      
peculiar force4 ,anyone is capable of   
admiring the wonders of nature1 and in  
the earlier developments of popular     

science the marvels of plant and animal 
structures served only to deepen the    
,theist's admiration of the divine      
wisdom4 ,the examples of complexity of  
structure1 of the interdependence of    
parts1 and of the thousand and one      
cunning devices by which animal life    
maintains itself in the face of a       
hostile environment were there for all  
to see and admire4 ,and when man        
compared these with his own conscious   
attempts to adapt means to ends1 there  
seemed as strong proof here as anywhere 
of some scheming intelligence behind the
 natural process4  ,but the strength of 
the case was more apparent than real4   
,it was weakest at the very point where 
it should have been strongest4 ,in the  
case of a human product we know the     
purpose and can measure the extent of   
its realization in the nature of the    
result4 ,in the case of a natural       
product we have no means of knowing what
 the purpose was1 or even if any purpose
 at all lies behind the product4 ,the   

important element in the argument from  
design--that of purpose--is thus pure   
assumption4 ,in the case of human       
productions we argue from purpose to    
production4 ,in the case of a natural   
object we are arguing from production to
 an assumed purpose4 ,the analogy breaks
 down just where it should be strongest 
and clearest4  ,now it is undeniable    
that to a very large number of the more 
thoughtful the old form of the argument 
from design received its death blow from
 the ,darwinian doctrine of natural     
selection4 ,in the light of this theory 
there was no greater need to argue that 
intelligence was necessary to produce   
animal adaptations than there was to    
assume intelligence for the sifting of  
sand by the wind4 ,as the lighter grains
 are carried farthest because they are  
lightest1 so natural selection1         
operating upon organic variations1      
favoured the better adapted specimens by
 killing off the less favoured ones4    
,the fittest is not created1 it         

survives4 ,the world is not what it is  
because the animal is what it is1 the   
animal is what it is because the world  
is as it is4 ,it cannot be any different
 and live--a truth demonstrated by the  
destruction of myriads of animal forms1 
and by the disappearance of whole       
species4 ,the case was so plain1 the    
evidence so conclusive1 that the clearer
 headed religionists dropped the old    
form of the argument from design as no  
longer tenable4  ,but the gentleman who 
exchanged the errors of the ,church of  
,rome for those of the ,church of       
,england is always with us4 ,and the    
believer in deity having dropped the    
argument from design in one form        
immediately proceeded to revive it in   
another4 ,this was1 perhaps1 inevitable4
 ,after all1 man lives in this world1   
and if proof of the existence of deity  
is to be gathered from his works1 it    
must be derived from the world we know4 
,so design must be found somewhere1 and 
it must be found here4 ,only one chance 

was left4 ,the general hypothesis of    
evolution--either ,darwinism alone1 or  
,darwinism plus other factors--explained
 the development of animal life4 ,but   
that was within the natural process4    
,what1 then1 of the process as a whole8 
,if the hand of ,god could not be seen  
in the particular adaptations of animal 
life1 might it not be that the whole of 
the process1 in virtue of which these   
particular adaptations occurred1 might  
be the expression of the divine         
intelligence8 ,god did not create the   
particular parts directly1 but may he   
not have created the whole1 leaving it  
for the forces he had set in motion to  
work out his plan4 ,the suggestion was  
attractive4 ,it relieved religion from  
resting its case in a region where proof
 and disproof are possible1 and removed 
it to a region where they are difficult1
 if not impossible4 ,so1 as it was not  
possible to uphold the old teleology1   
one began to hear a great deal of the   
wider teleology1 which meant that the   

,theist was thinking vaguely when he    
imagined he was thinking                
comprehensively1 and that1 because he   
had reached a region where the laws of  
logic could not be applied1 he concluded
 that he had achieved demonstration4    
,and1 indeed1 when one gets outside the 
region of verification there is nothing 
to stop one theorizing--save a dose of  
common-sense and a gracious gift of     
humour4  ,in another work 7,theism or   
,atheism7 ,i have dealt at length with  
the argument from design4 ,at present my
 aim is to take the presentation of this
 wider teleology as given by a          
well-known writer on philosophical      
subjects1 ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,s4 ,schiller1 in
 a volume published a few years ago     
entitled ,humanism3 ,philosophical      
,essays4 ,and in doing so1 it is certain
 that the theologian will lose nothing  
by leaving himself in the hands of so   
able a representative4  ,mr4 ,schiller  
naturally accepts ,darwinism as at least
 an important factor in organic         

evolution1 but he does not believe that 
it excludes design1 and he does believe 
that our attitude towards life will be  
very different1 according as we believe 
it to be inspired and guided by         
intelligence or hold it to be the       
fortuitous product of blind mechanisms1 
whose working our helpless human        
intelligence can observe1 but cannot    
control4  ,now within its scope         
,darwinism certainly does exclude       
design1 and even though the forces      
represented by natural selection may be 
directed towards the end produced1 yet  
so far as the play of these forces is   
concerned they are really               
self-directing1 or self-contained4 ,the 
argument really seems to be just mere   
theology masquerading as philosophy4    
,theories do play some part in the      
determination of the individual attitude
 towards life1 but they do not play the 
important part that ,mr4 ,schiller      
assumes they play4 ,it is easily        
observable that the same theory of life 

held by a ,christian in ,england and by 
another ,christian in ,asia ,minor has1 
so far as it affects conduct1 different 
results4 ,and if it be said that even   
though the results be different they are
 still there1 the reply is that they    
differ because the facts of life compel 
an adjustment in terms of the general   
environment4 ,mr4 ,schiller admits that 
the prevalent conduct and that adapted  
to the conditions of life must coincide1
 and the admission is fatal to his      
position4 ,the truth of the matter is   
that the conditions of life being what  
they are1 and the consequences of       
conduct being also what they are1       
speculative theories of life cannot1 in 
the nature of the case1 affect life     
beyond a certain point2 that is1 if life
 is to continue4 ,that is why in the    
history of belief religious teachings   
have sooner or later to accommodate     
themselves to persistent facts4  ,mr4   
,schiller brings forward two arguments  
in favour of reconciling ,darwinism and 

,design1 both of them ingenious1 but    
neither of them conclusive4 ,with both  
of these ,i will deal later2 but it is  
first necessary to notice one or two of 
his arguments against a non-,theistic   
,darwinism4 ,the denial of the argument 
from design1 he says1 leads farther than
 most people imagine3--       ,a        
complete denial of design in nature must
 deny the efficacy of all               
intelligence as such4 ,a consistently   
mechanical view has to regard      all  
intelligence as otiose1 as an           
epi-phenomenal by-product or      fifth 
wheel to the cart1 in the absence of    
which the given results      would no   
less have occurred4 ,and so1 if this    
view were the truth1      we should have
 to renounce all effort to direct our   
fated and      ill-fated course down the
 stream of time4 ,our consciousness     
would      be an unmeaning accident4  ,a
 complete reply to this would involve an
 examination of the meaning that is and 
ought to be attached to intelligence1   

and that is too lengthy an enquiry to be
 attempted here4 ,it is1 perhaps1 enough
 to point out that ,mr4 ,schiller's     
argument clearly moves on the assumption
 that intelligence is a thing or a      
quality which exists1 so to speak1 in   
its own right and which interferes with 
the course of events as something from  
without4 ,it is quite probable that he  
would repudiate this construction being 
placed on his words1 but if he does not 
mean that1 then ,i fail to see what he  
does mean1 or what force there is in his
 argument4 ,and it is enough for my     
purpose to point out that intelligence  
or mind is not a thing1 but a relation4 
,it asserts of a certain class of       
actions exactly what gravitation asserts
 of a certain class of motion1 and      
thingness is no more asserted in the one
 case than it is in the other4          
,intelligence1 as a name given to a     
special class of facts or actions1      
remains1 whatever view we take of its   
nature1 and it is puzzling to see why   

the denial of extra natural             
intelligence--that is1 intelligence     
separated from all the conditions under 
which we know the phenomenon of         
intelligence--should be taken as        
involving the denial of the existence of
 intelligence as we know it4            
,intelligence as connoting purposive    
action remains as much a fact as gravity
 or chemical attraction1 and continues  
valid concerning the phenomena it is    
intended to cover4 ,all that the        
evolutionist is committed to is the     
statement that it is as much a product  
of evolution as is the shape or         
colouring of animals4 ,it is not at all 
a question of self-dependence4 ,every   
force in nature must be taken for what  
it is worth1 intelligence among them4   
,why1 then1 does the view that          
intelligence is both a product of       
evolution and a cause of another phase  
of evolution land us in                 
self-contradiction1 or make the         
existence of itself meaningless8 ,the   

truth is that intelligence determines   
results exactly as every other force in 
nature determines results1 by acting as 
a link in an unending sequential chain4 
,and the question as to what            
intelligence is per se is as meaningless
 as what gravitation is per se4 ,these  
are names which we give to groups of    
phenomena displaying particular and     
differential characteristics1 and their 
purpose is served when they enable us to
 cognize and recognize these phenomena  
and to give them their place and        
describe their function in the series of
 changes that make up our world4  ,mr4  
,schiller's reply to this line of       
criticism is the familiar one that it   
reduces human beings to automata4 ,he   
says3--       ,the ease with which the  
,darwinian argument dispenses with      
intelligence as a factor in survival    
excites suspicion4 ,it is      proving  
too much to show that adaptation might  
equally well have      arisen in        
automata4 ,for we ourselves are strongly

 persuaded that we      are not automata
 and strive hard to adapt ourselves4 ,in
 us at      least1 therefore1           
intelligence is a source of             
adaptation4444      ,intelligence       
therefore is a vera causa as a source of
 adaptations      at least co-ordinate  
with ,natural ,selection1 and this can  
be denied      only if it is declared   
inefficacious everywhere2 if all living 
beings1 including ourselves1 are        
declared to be automata4  ,one is       
compelled again to point out that       
,darwinism does not dispense with       
intelligence as a factor in survival1   
except so far as the intelligence which 
determines survival is declared to be   
operating apart from the organisms which
 survive4 ,the conduct of one of the    
lower animals which reacts only to the  
immediate promptings of its environment 
is of one order1 but the response of    
another animal not merely to the        
immediate promptings of the environment1
 but to remote conditions1 as in the    

selection of food or the building of a  
home of some sort1 or to the fashioning 
of a tool1 does obviously give to the   
intelligence displayed a distinct       
survival value4 ,and that effectively   
replies to the triumphant conclusion1   
,if intelligence has no efficacy in     
promoting adaptations1 i4e41 if it has  
no survival value1 how comes it to be   
developed at all8  ,darwinism would     
never have been able to dispense with   
intelligence in the way it did but for  
the fact that the opposite theory never 
stood for more than a mere collection of
 words4 ,that species are or were       
produced by the operations of ,divine   
,intelligence is merely a grandiloquent 
way of saying nothing at all4 ,it is    
absurd to pretend that such a formula   
ever had any scientific value4 ,it      
explains nothing4 ,and it is quite      
obvious that some adaptations do1 so far
 as we know1 arise without intelligence1
 and are1 therefore1 to use ,mr4        
,schiller's expression1 automata4 7,i do

 not like the word1 since it conveys too
 much the notion of someone behind the  
scenes pulling strings47 ,and it is on  
his theory that animals actually are    
automata4 ,for if there be a ,divine    
mind which stands as the active cause of
 the adaptations that meet us in the    
animal world1 and who arranges forces so
 that they shall work to their          
pre-destined end1 what is that but      
converting the whole of the animal world
 into so many automata4 ,one does not   
escape determinism in this way2 it is   
only getting rid of it in one direction 
in order to reintroduce it in another4  
,and one would like to know what our    
conviction that we are not automata has 
to do with it4 ,whether the most rigid  
determinism is true or not is a matter  
to be settled by an examination of the  
facts and a careful reflection as to    
their real significance4 ,no one        
questions that there is a persuasion to 
the contrary2 if there were not there   
would be nothing around which           

controversy could gather4 ,but it is the
 conviction that is challenged1 and it  
is idle to reply to the challenge by    
asserting a conviction to the contrary4 
,the whole history of human thought is  
the record of a challenge and a reversal
 of such convictions4 ,there never was a
 conviction which was held more         
strenuously than that the earth was     
flat4 ,the experience of all men in     
every hour of their lives seemed to     
prove it4 ,and yet to-day no one        
believes it4 ,the affirmation that we   
are free rests1 as ,spinoza said1       
ultimately on the fact that all men know
 their actions and but few know the     
causes thereof4 ,a feather endowed with 
consciousness1 falling to the ground in 
a zigzag manner1 might be equally       
convinced that it determined the exact  
spot on which it would rest1 yet its    
persuasion would be of no more value    
than the vulgar conviction that we      
independently adapt ourselves to our    
environment4  ,mr4 ,schiller's positive 

arguments in favour of reconciling      
,darwinism with design--one of them is  
really negative2--are concerned with    
7#a7 the question of variation1 and 7#b7
 with the existence of progress4 ,on the
 first question it is pointed out that  
while ,natural ,selection operates by   
way of favouring certain variations1 the
 origin or cause of these variations    
remains unknown4 ,and although ,mr4     
,schiller does not say so in as many    
words1 there is the implication1 if ,i  
rightly discern his drift1 that there is
 room here for a directing intelligence1
 inasmuch as science is at present quite
 unable to fully explain the causes of  
variations4 ,we are told that ,darwin   
assumed for the purpose of his theory   
that variations were indefinite both as 
to character and extent1 and it is upon 
these variations that ,natural          
,selection depends4 ,this indefinite    
variation ,mr4 ,schiller asserts to be a
 methodological device1 that is1 it is  
something assumed as the groundwork of a

 theory1 but without any subsequent     
verification1 and it is in virtue of    
this assumption that intelligence is    
ruled out of evolution4 ,and inasmuch as
 ,mr4 ,schiller sees no reason for      
believing that variations are of this   
indefinite character1 he asserts that   
there is in evolution room for a        
teleological factor1 in other words1 a  
purposive direction of variations4  ,now
 it hardly needs pointing out to        
students of ,darwinism that indefinite  
variation is the equivalent of a        
variation to which no exact limits can  
be placed1 and in this sense the        
assumption is a perfectly sound one4    
,from one point of view the variations  
must be definite1 that is1 they can only
 occur within certain limits4 ,an       
elephant will not vary in the direction 
of wings1 nor will a bird in the        
direction of a rose bush4 ,but so long  
as we cannot fix the exact limits of    
variation we are quite warranted in     
speaking of them as indefinite4 ,that   

this is a methodological device no one  
denies1 but so are most of the other    
distinctions that we frame4 ,scientific 
generalizations consist of abstractions1
 and ,mr4 ,schiller himself of necessity
 employs the same device4  ,mr4         
,schiller argues1 quite properly1 that  
while ,natural ,selection states the    
conditions under which animal life      
evolves1 it does not state any reason   
why it should evolve4 ,selection may    
keep a species stationary or it may even
 cause it to degenerate4 ,both are      
fairly common phenomena in the animal   
and plant world4 ,moreover1 if there are
 an indefinite number of variations1 and
 if they tend in an indefinite number of
 directions1 then the variation in any  
one direction can never be more than an 
infinitesimal portion of the whole1 and 
that this one should persist supplies a 
still further reason for belief in a    
purposive direction of variations4 ,mr4 
,schiller overlooks an important point  
here1 but a very simple one4 ,it is true

 that any one variation is small in     
relation to the whole of the possible or
 actual number of variations4 ,but it is
 not in relation to quantity but quality
 that survival takes place1 and in      
proportion to the keenness of the       
struggle the variation that gives its   
possessor an advantage need only be of  
the smaller kind4 ,in a struggle of     
endurance between two athletes it is the
 one capable of holding out for an extra
 minute who carries off the prize4      
,further1 as ,mr4 ,schiller afterwards  
admits1 the very smallness of the number
 of successful variations makes against 
intelligence rather than for it1 and he 
practically surrenders his position in  
the statement1 the teleological and     
anti-teleological interpretation of     
events will ever decide their conflict  
by appealing to the facts2 for in the   
facts each finds what it wills and comes
 prepared to see4 ,after this lame      
conclusion it is difficult to see what  
value there is in ,mr4 ,schiller's own  

examination of the facts4 ,not that it  
is strictly correct to say that the     
facts bear each view out equally4 ,they 
do not1 and ,mr4 ,schiller only         
justifies his statement by converting   
the ,darwinian position1 which is       
teleologically negative1 into an        
affirmative4 ,the ,darwinian1 he says1  
denies intelligence as a cause of       
evolution4 ,what the ,darwinian does is 
to deny the validity of the evidence    
which the teleologist brings to prove   
his case4 ,the ,theist asserts mind as a
 cause of evolution4 ,the ,darwinian    
simply points out that the facts may be 
explained in quite another way and      
without the appeal to a quite unknown   
factor4  ,and here one might reasonably 
ask1 why1 if there is a directive mind  
at work1 are there variations at all8   
,why should the directive intelligence  
not get earlier to work1 and instead of 
waiting until a large number of         
specimens have been produced and then   
looking them over with a view to        

directing the preservation of the better
 specimens1 why should it not set to    
work at the beginning and see that only 
the desirable ones make their           
appearance8 ,certainly that is what a   
mere human intelligence would do if it  
could4 ,but it is characteristic of the 
,divine ,intelligence of the ,theist    
that it never seems to operate with a   
tenth part of the intelligence of an    
ordinary human being4  ,moreover1 ,mr4  
,schiller writes quite ignoring the fact
 that the directive intelligence does   
not direct the preservation of the      
better specimens4 ,what it does1 if it  
does anything at all1 is to kill off the
 less favoured ones4 ,natural           
,selection--the point is generally      
overlooked by the ,theistic             
sentimentality of most of our           
writers--does not preserve anything4    
,its positive action is not to keep     
alive but to kill4 ,it does not take the
 better ones in hand and help them4 ,it 
seizes on all it can and kills them4 ,it

 is the difference between a local      
council that tried to raise the standard
 of health by a general improvement of  
the conditions of life1 and one that    
aimed at the same end by killing off all
 children that failed to come up to a   
certain standard4 ,the actual           
preservation of a better type is1 so far
 as ,natural ,selection is concerned1   
quite accidental4 ,so far as ,natural   
,selection operates it does so by       
elimination1 not by preservation4  ,mr4 
,schiller's other plea in favour of     
,design is concerned with the conception
 of progress4 ,he points out that while 
degeneration and stagnation both occur  
in nature1 yet--       life has been on 
the whole progressive2 but progress and 
retrogression have both been effected   
under the same law of ,natural          
,selection4 ,how1 then1 can the credit  
of that result be ascribed to           
,natural ,selection8 ,natural ,selection
 is equally ready to bring      about   
degeneration or to leave things         

unchanged4 ,how1 then1 can it      be   
that which determines which of the three
 possible 7and actual7      cases shall 
be realized8444 ,it cannot be ,natural  
,selection that      causes one species 
to remain stationary1 another to        
degenerate1 a      third to develop into
 a higher form4444 ,some variable factor
 must      be added to ,natural         
,selection4  ,but why8 ,evolution1 as we
 have pointed out in a previous chapter1
 makes for adaptation in terms of animal
 preservation4 ,if the adaptation of an 
animal to its environment is secured by 
degenerating or developing or by        
remaining stationary1 it will do one of 
the three4 ,that is the normal          
consequence of ,natural ,selection1 and 
it is surprising that ,mr4 ,schiller    
does not see this4 ,he is actually      
accusing ,natural ,selection of not     
being able to do what it does on his own
 showing4 ,the proof he himself gives of
 this operation of ,natural ,selection  
in the examples he cites of its         

ineffectiveness4 ,if ,natural ,selection
 could not make for degeneration or     
development1 in what way would it be    
able to establish an equilibrium between
 an animal and its surroundings8        
,really1 there is nothing that so       
strengthens one's conviction of the     
truth of the ,freethought position so   
much as a study of the arguments that   
are brought against it4  ,mr4 ,schiller 
is really misled1 and so misleads his   
readers by an unjustifiable use of the  
word progress4 ,he says that evolution  
has been1 on the whole1 progressive1 and
 appeals to progress as though it were  
some objective fact4 ,but that is not   
the case4 ,there is no progress in the  
animal world1 there is only change4 ,we 
have dealt with this in a previous      
chapter1 and there is no need to again  
labour the point4 ,progress is a        
conception which we ourselves frame1 and
 we measure a movement towards or away  
from this arbitrary standard of ours in 
terms of better or worse1 higher or     

lower4 ,but nature knows nothing of a   
higher or a lower1 it knows only of     
changing forms more or less fitted to   
live in the existing environment4       
,scientifically1 life has not           
progressed1 it has persisted1 and a sine
 qua non of its persistence has been    
adaptation to environment4  ,progress1  
then1 is not a natural fact1 but a      
methodological one4 ,it is a useful word
 and a valuable ideal4 ,i am not        
protesting against its use1 only against
 its misuse4 ,it is one of the many     
abstractions created by thinkers1 and   
then worshipped as a reality by those   
who forget the origin and purpose of its
 existence4 ,and in this we can see one 
of the fatal legacies we have inherited 
from ,theistic methods of thinking4 ,the
 belief that things are designed to be  
as they are comes to us from those      
primitive methods of thinking which     
personify and vitalize all natural      
phenomena4 ,we have outgrown the crude  
frame of mind which saw direct          

volitional action in a storm or in the  
movements of natural forces4 ,the       
development of civilized and scientific 
thinking has removed these conceptions  
from the minds of educated men and      
women1 but it has left behind it as a   
residuum the habit of looking for       
purpose where none exists1 and of       
reading into nature as objective facts  
our own generalizations and             
abstractions4 ,and so long as we have   
not outgrown that habit we are retaining
 a fatal bar to exact scientific        
thinking4  ,finally1 and this           
consideration is fatal to any theory of 
design such as ,mr4 ,schiller champions1
 adaptation is not a special quality of 
one form of existence1 but a universal  
quality of all4 ,there is not a greater 
degree of adaptation here and a less    
degree there1 but the same degree in    
every case4 ,there is no other meaning  
to adaptation except that of adjustment 
to surroundings4 ,but whether an animal 
lives or dies1 whether it is higher or  

lower1 deformed or perfect1 the         
adjustment is the same4 ,that is1 every 
form of existence represents the product
 of forces that have made it what it is1
 and the same forces could not have     
produced anything different4 ,every body
 in existence1 organic or inorganic1    
constitutes in ultimate analysis a      
balance of the forces represented by it4
 ,it is not possible1 therefore1 for the
 ,theist to say that design is evidenced
 by adaptation in one case and its      
absence in another4 ,there is adaptation
 in every case1 even though it may not  
be the adaptation we should like to see4
 ,it is not possible for the ,theist to 
say that the degree of adaptation is    
greater in the one case than in the     
other1 for that is the same in every    
case4 ,what needs to be done if design  
is to be established is to prove that   
the forces we see at work could not have
 produced the results that emerge       
without the introduction of a factor not
 already given in our experience4       

,anything else is mere waste of time4   
,,chapter ,,xiii4  ,,ancient ,,and      
,,modern4   ,in the preceding chapters  
we have1 without saying it in so many   
words1 been emphasizing the modern as   
against the ancient point of view4 ,the 
distinction may not at first glance     
appear to be of great moment1 and yet   
reflection will prove it to be of vital 
significance4 ,it expresses1 in a       
sentence1 the essence of the distinction
 between the ,freethinker and the       
religionist4 ,objectively1 the world in 
which we are living is the same as that 
in which our ancestors lived4 ,the same 
stars that looked down upon them look   
down upon us4 ,natural forces affected  
them as they affect us4 ,even the play  
of human passion and desire was the same
 with them as with us4 ,hunger and      
thirst1 love and hatred1 cowardice and  
courage1 generosity and greed operate   
now as always4 ,the world remains the   
same in all its essential features2 what
 alters is our conception of it--in     

other words1 the point of view4  ,the   
question thus resolves itself into one  
of interpretation4 ,freethinker and     
religionist are each living in the same 
world1 they are each fed with the same  
foods and killed with the same poisons4 
,the same feelings move both and the    
same problems face both4 ,their         
differences are constituted by the canon
 of interpretation applied4 ,it is on   
this issue that the conflict between    
religion and science arises4 ,for       
religion is not1 as some have argued1   
something that is supplementary or      
complementary to science1 nor does it   
deal with matters on which science is   
incompetent to express an opinion4      
,religion and science face each other as
 rival interpretations of the same set  
of facts1 precisely as the ,copernican  
and the ,ptolemaic systems once faced   
each other as rival interpretations of  
astronomical phenomena4 ,if the one is  
true the other is false4 ,you may reject
 the religious or the scientific        

explanation of phenomena1 but you cannot
 logically accept both4 ,as ,dr4        
,johnson said1 ,two contradictory ideas 
may inhere in the same mind1 but they   
cannot both be correct4  ,now while it  
is true that in order to understand the 
present we must know the past1 and that 
because the present is a product of the 
past1 it is also true that a condition  
of understanding is to interpret the    
past by the present4 ,in ordinary       
affairs this is not questioned4 ,when   
geologists set out to explain the causes
 of changes in the earth's surface1 they
 utilize the present-day knowledge of   
existing forces1 and by prolonging their
 action backward explain the features of
 the period they are studying4 ,when    
historians seek to explain the conduct  
of1 say ,henry the ,eighth1 they take   
their knowledge of the motives animating
 existing human nature1 and by placing  
that in a sixteenth century setting     
manage to present us with a picture of  
the period4 ,so1 again1 when the        

thirteenth century monkish historian    
gravely informs us that a particular    
epidemic was due to the anger of ,god   
against the wickedness of the people1 we
 put that interpretation on one side and
 use our own knowledge to find in       
defective social and sanitary conditions
 the cause of what occurred4            
,illustrations to the same end may be   
found in every direction4 ,it is1       
indeed1 not something that one may      
accept or reject as one may take or     
leave a political theory1 it is an      
indispensible condition of rational     
thinking on any subject whatsoever4     
,accepted everywhere else1 it is in     
connection with religion that one finds 
this principle1 not openly challenged1  
for there are degrees of absurdity to   
which even the most ardent religionist  
dare not go1 but it is quietly set on   
one side and a method adopted which is  
its practical negation4 ,either the     
procedure is inverted and the present is
 interpreted by the past1 as when it is 

assumed that because ,god did certain   
things in the past therefore he will    
continue to do the same things in the   
present1 or it is assumed that the past 
was unlike the present1 and1 therefore1 
the same method of interpretation cannot
 be applied to both cases4 ,both plans  
have the effect of landing us1 if not in
 lunacy1 at least well on the way to it4
  ,it is indispensible to the           
religionist to ignore the principle     
above laid down4 ,for if it is admitted 
that human nature is always and         
everywhere the same1 and that natural   
forces always and everywhere act in the 
same manner1 religious beliefs are      
brought to the test of their conformity 
with present day knowledge of things and
 all claim to objective validity must be
 abandoned4 ,yet the principle is quite 
clear4 ,the claim of the prophets of old
 to be inspired must be tested by what  
we know of the conditions of inspiration
 to-day1 and not by what unenlightened  
people thought of its nature centuries  

ago4 ,whether the story of the ,virgin  
,birth is credible or not must be       
settled by an appeal to what we know of 
the nature of animal procreation1 and   
not by whether our faith urges us to    
accept the statement as true4 ,to act   
otherwise is to raise an altogether     
false issue1 the question of evidence is
 argued when what is really at issue is 
that of credibility4 ,it is not at all a
 matter of whether there is evidence    
enough to establish the reality of a    
particular recorded event1 but whether  
our actual knowledge of natural         
happenings is not enough for us to rule 
it out as objectively untrue1 and to    
describe the conditions which led to its
 being accepted as true4  ,let us take  
as an illustration of this the general  
question of miracles4 ,the ,oxford      
,dictionary defines a miracle as ,a     
marvellous event occurring within human 
experience which cannot have been       
brought about by human power or by the  
operation of any natural agency1 and    

must1 therefore1 be ascribed to the     
special intervention of the deity or    
some supernatural being4 ,that is a good
 enough definition1 and is certainly    
what people have had in mind when they  
have professed a belief in miracles4 ,a 
miracle must be something marvellous1   
that is1 it must be unusual1 and it must
 not be even conceivably explainable in 
terms of the operation of natural       
forces4 ,if it is admitted that what is 
claimed as a miracle might be explained 
as the result of natural forces provided
 our knowledge was extensive enough and 
exact enough1 it is confessed that      
miracle and ignorance are convertible   
terms4 ,and while that may be true      
enough as a matter of fact1 it would    
never suit the religious case to admit  
it in so many words4  ,nor would it make
 the case any better to argue that the  
alleged miracle has been brought about  
by some superior being with a much      
greater knowledge of nature than man    
possesses1 but which the latter may one 

day acquire4 ,that is placing a miracle 
on the same level as a performance given
 by a clever conjuror1 which puzzles the
 onlooker because he lacks the technical
 knowledge requisite to understand the  
methods employed4 ,a miracle to be a    
miracle must not be in accordance with  
natural laws1 known or unknown1 it must 
contravene them or suspend their        
operation4  ,on the other hand1 the     
demand made by some critics of the      
miraculous1 namely1 that the alleged    
miracle shall be performed under test   
conditions1 is absurd1 and shows that   
they have not grasped the essential     
point at issue4 ,the believer's reply to
 such a demand is plain and obvious4 ,he
 says1 a miracle is by its nature a rare
 event1 it is performed under special   
circumstances to serve a special        
purpose4 ,where1 then1 is the reason in 
asking that this miracle shall be       
re-performed in order to convince       
certain people that it has already      
occurred8 ,to arrange for the           

performance of a miracle is an          
absurdity4 ,for it to become common is  
to destroy both its character as a      
miracle and the justification for its   
existence4 ,a miracle must carry its own
 evidence or it fails of its purpose and
 ceases to be a miracle at all4         
,discussion on these lines ends1 at     
best1 in a stalemate4  ,it is just as   
wide of the mark to discuss miracles as 
though it were a question of evidence4  
,what possible evidence could there be1 
for example1 that ,jesus fed five       
thousand people with a few loaves and   
fishes1 and had basketfuls left at the  
end of the repast8 ,suppose it were     
possible to produce the sworn testimony 
of the five thousand themselves that    
they had been so fed4 ,would that       
produce conviction8 ,would it do any    
more than prove that they believed the  
food had been so expanded or multiplied 
that it was enough for them all8 ,it    
would be convincing1 perhaps1 as proof  
of an act of belief4 ,but would it prove

 any more than that8 ,would it prove    
that these five thousand were not the   
victims of some act of deception or of  
some delusion8 ,a belief in a miracle1  
whether the belief dates from two       
thousand years since or from last week1 
proves only--belief4 ,and the testimony 
of a ,salvation ,army convert as to the 
truth of the resurrection of ,jesus     
,christ is as good1 as evidence1 as     
though we had the sworn testimony of the
 twelve apostles1 with that of the      
grave-diggers thrown in4  ,the truth is 
that the question of belief in the      
miraculous has nothing whatever to do   
with evidence4 ,miracles are never      
established by evidence1 nor are they   
disproved by evidence1 that is1 so long 
as we use the term evidence with any    
regard to its judicial significance4    
,what amount or what kind of evidence   
did the early ,christians require to    
prove the miracles of ,christianity8 ,or
 what evidence did our ancestors require
 to prove to them that old women flew   

through the air on broomsticks1 or      
bewitched cows1 or raised storms8       
,testimony in volumes was forthcoming1  
and there is not the slightest reason   
for doubting its genuineness4 ,but what 
amount or kind of evidence was required 
to establish the belief8 ,was it        
evidence to which anyone to-day would   
pay the slightest regard8 ,the slightest
 study of the available records is      
enough to show that the question of     
evidence had nothing whatever to do with
 the production of the belief4  ,and1 on
 the other hand1 how many people have   
given up the belief in miracles as a    
result of a careful study of the        
evidence against them8 ,i have never    
heard of any such case1 although once a 
man disbelieves in miracles he may be   
ready enough to produce reasons to      
justify his disbelief in them4 ,the man 
who begins to weigh evidence for and    
against miracles has already begun to   
disbelieve them4  ,the attitude of      
children in relation to the belief in   

fairies may well be taken to illustrate 
the attitude of the adult mind in face  
of the miraculous4 ,no evidence is      
produced to induce the belief in        
fairies1 and none is ever brought       
forward to induce them to give it up4   
,at one stage of life it is there1 at   
another it is gone4 ,it is not reasoned 
out or evidenced out1 it is simply      
outgrown4 ,in infancy the child's       
conception of life is so inchoate that  
there is room for all kinds of fantastic
 beliefs4 ,in more mature years certain 
beliefs are automatically ruled out by  
the growth of a conception of things    
which leaves no room for beliefs that   
during childhood seemed perfectly       
reasonable4  ,now this is quite on      
all-fours with the question of miracles4
 ,the issue is essentially one of       
psychology4 ,belief or disbelief is here
 mainly determined by the psychological 
medium in which one lives and moves4    
,given a psychological medium which is1 
scientifically1 at its lowest1 and the  

belief in the miraculous flourishes4 ,at
 the other extreme miracles languish and
 decay4 ,tell a savage that the air is  
alive with good and bad spirits and he  
will readily believe you4 ,tell it to a 
man with a genuine scientific mind and  
he will laugh at you4 ,tell a peasant in
 some parts of the country that someone 
is a witch and he will at once believe  
it4 ,tell it to a city dweller and it   
will provide only occasion for ridicule4
 ,people who accept miracles believe    
them before they happen4 ,the expressed 
belief merely registers the fact4       
,miracles never happen to those who do  
not believe in them2 as has been said1  
they never occur to a critic4 ,those who
 reject miracles do so because their    
acceptance would conflict with their    
whole conception of nature4 ,that is the
 sum and substance of the matter4  ,a   
further illustration may be offered in  
the case of the once much debated       
question of the authenticity of the     
books of the ,new ,testament and the    

historicity of the figure of ,jesus4 ,it
 appears to have been assumed that if it
 could be shown that the books of the   
,new ,testament were not contemporary   
records the case against the divinity of
 ,jesus was strengthened4 ,on the other 
hand it was assumed that if these       
writings represented the narratives of  
contemporaries the case for the truth of
 the narratives was practically proven4 
,in reality this was not the vital issue
 at all4 ,it would be1 of course1       
interesting if it could be shown that   
there once existed an actual personage  
around whom these stories gathered1 but 
it would make as little difference to   
the real question at issue as the       
demonstration of the ,baconian          
authorship of ,hamlet would make in the 
psychological value of the play4        
,suppose then it were proven that a     
person named ,jesus actually existed at 
a certain date in ,judea1 and that this 
person is the ,jesus of the ,new        
,testament4 ,suppose it be further      

proven1 or admitted1 that the followers 
whom this person gathered around him    
believed that he was born of a virgin1  
performed a number of miracles1 was     
crucified1 and then rose from the dead1 
and that the ,new ,testament represents 
their written memoirs4 ,suppose all this
 to be proven or granted1 what has been 
established8 ,simply this4 ,that a      
number of people believed these things  
of someone whom they had known4 ,but no 
,freethinker need seriously concern     
himself to disprove this4 ,he may1      
indeed1 take it as the data of the      
problem which he sets out to solve4 ,the
 scientific enquirer is not really      
concerned with the ,new ,testament as a 
narrative of fact any more than he is   
concerned with ,cotton ,mather's        
,invisible ,world ,displayed as a       
narrative of actual fact4 ,what he is   
concerned with is the frame of mind to  
which these stories seemed true1 and the
 social medium which gave such a frame  
of mind a vogue4 ,it is not at all a    

question of historical evidence1 but of 
historical psychology4 ,it is not a     
question of the honesty of the          
witnesses1 but of their ability1 not    
whether they wished to tell the truth1  
or intended to tell the truth1 but      
whether they were in a position to know 
what the truth was4 ,we have not to     
discuss whether these events occurred1  
such a proposition is an insult to a    
civilized intelligence1 the matter for  
discussion is the conditions that bring 
such beliefs into existence and the     
conditions that perpetuate them4  ,the  
development of social life and of       
education thus shifts the point of view 
from the past to the present4 ,to       
understand the past we do not ask what  
was it that people believed concerning  
the events around them1 but what do we  
know of the causes which produce beliefs
 of a certain kind4 ,thus1 we do not    
really reject the story of ,jesus       
turning water into wine because we are  
without legal evidence that he ever did 

anything of the kind1 but because1      
knowing the chemical constituents of    
both water and wine we know that such a 
thing is impossible4 ,it is only        
possible to an uninstructed mind to     
which water and wine differ only in     
taste or appearance4 ,we do not reject  
the story of the demoniacs in the ,new  
,testament because we have no evidence  
that these men were possessed of devils1
 or that ,jesus cast them out1 but      
because we have exactly the same        
phenomena with us to-day and know that  
it comes within the province of the     
physician and not of the miracle worker4
 ,it is not a matter of evidence whether
 a man rose from the dead or not1 or    
whether he was born of a virgin or not1 
but solely a question of examining these
 and similar stories in the light of    
present day knowledge4 ,the evidence    
offered is proof only of belief1 and no 
one ever questioned the existence of    
that4 ,and if the proof of belief is    
required there is no need to go back a  

couple of thousand years or to consult  
ancient records4 ,the testimony of a    
present day believer1 and the account of
 a revival meeting such as one may find 
in any religious newspaper will serve   
equally well4 ,as is so often the case1 
the evidence offered is not merely      
inadequate1 it is absolutely irrelevant4
  ,past events must be judged in the    
light of present knowledge4 ,that is the
 golden rule of guidance in judging the 
world's religious legends4 ,and that    
canon is fatal to their pretensions4 ,on
 the one hand we see in the life of     
contemporary savages and in that of     
semi-civilized peoples all the          
conditions and the beliefs that meet us 
in the ,bible and among the early       
,christians4 ,and with our wider and    
more exact knowledge we are able to take
 exactly the same phenomena that        
impressed those of an earlier generation
 and explain them without the slightest 
reference to supernatural powers or     
beings4 ,the modern mind is really not  

looking round for evidence to disprove  
the truth of ,christian legends4 ,it    
knows they are not true4 ,there is no   
greater need to prove that the miracles 
of ,christianity never occurred1 than   
there is to prove that an old woman     
never raised a storm to wreck one of the
 kings of ,england4 ,the issue has been 
changed from one of history to one of   
psychology4 ,it is the present that of  
necessity sits in judgment on the past1 
and it is in the light of the knowledge 
of the present that the religions of the
 past stand condemned4     ,,chapter    
,,xiv4  ,,morality ,,without ,,god4     
,the mystery-monger flourishes almost as
 well in ethics as he does in theology4 
,indeed1 in some respects he seems to   
have forsaken one field of exercise only
 to find renewed scope in the other4 ,he
 approaches the consideration of moral  
questions with the same hushed voice and
 reverential air that is so usual in    
theology1 and talks of the mystery of   
morality with the same facility that he 

once talked about the mystery of        
godliness--and with about an equal      
amount of enlightenment to his hearers  
or readers4  ,but the mystery of        
morality is nearly all of our own       
making4 ,essentially there is no more   
mystery in morality than there is in any
 other question that may engage the     
attention of mankind4 ,there are1 of    
course1 problems in the moral world as  
there are in the physical one1 and he   
would be a fool who pretended to the    
ability to satisfactorily solve them    
all4 ,the nature of morality1 the causes
 that led to the development of moral   
laws1 and still more to the development 
of a sense of morality1 all these are   
questions upon which there is ample room
 for research and speculation4 ,but the 
talk of a mystery is misleading and     
mystifying4 ,it is the chatter of the   
charlatan1 or of the theologian1 or of  
the partly liberated mind that is still 
under the thraldom of theology4 ,in     
ethics we have exactly the same kind of 

problem that meets us in any of the     
sciences4 ,we have a fact1 or a series  
of facts1 and we seek some explanation  
of them4 ,we may fail in our search1 but
 that is not evidence of a mystery1 it  
is proof only of inadequate knowledge1  
of limitations that we may hope the     
future will enable us to overcome4  ,for
 the sake of clarity it will be better  
to let the meaning of morality emerge   
from the discussion rather than to      
commence with it4 ,and one of the first 
things to help to clear the mind of     
confusion is to get rid of the notion   
that there is any such thing as moral   
laws which correspond in their nature to
 law as the term is used in science4 ,in
 one sense morality is not part of      
physical nature at all4 ,it is          
characteristic of that part of nature   
which is covered by the human--at most  
by the higher animal--world4 ,nature can
 only1 therefore1 be said to be moral in
 the sense that the term ,nature        
includes all that is4 ,in any other     

sense nature is non-moral4 ,the sense of
 values1 which is1 as we shall see1 of  
the essence of the conception of        
morality1 nature knows nothing of4 ,to  
speak of nature punishing us for bad    
actions or rewarding us for good ones is
 absurd4 ,nature neither punishes nor   
rewards4 ,she meets actions with        
consequences1 and is quite indifferent  
to any moral consideration4 ,if ,i am   
weakly1 and go out on a cold1 wet night 
to help someone in distress1 nature does
 not act differently than it would if ,i
 had gone out to commit a murder4 ,i    
stand exactly the same chances in either
 case of contracting a deadly chill4 ,it
 is not the moral value of an action    
with which natural forces are concerned1
 but merely with the action1 and in that
 respect nature never discriminates     
between the good man and the bad1       
between the sinner and the saint4       
,there is another sense in which moral  
laws differ from natural laws4 ,we can  
break the former but not the latter4    

,the expression so often used1 ,he broke
 a law of nature1 is absurd4 ,you cannot
 break a law of nature4 ,you do not     
break the law of gravitation when you   
prevent a stone falling to the ground2  
the force required to hold it in the air
 is an illustration of the law4 ,it is1 
indeed1 one of the proofs that our      
generalization does represent a law of  
nature that it cannot be broken4 ,for   
broken is here only another word for    
inoperative1 and a law of nature that is
 inoperative is non-existent4 ,but in   
the moral sphere we are in a different  
world4 ,we not only can break moral     
laws1 we do break them2 that is one of  
the problems with which our teachers and
 moralisers have constantly to deal4    
,every time we steal we break the law   
,thou shalt not steal4 ,every time we   
murder we break the law ,thou shalt not 
kill4 ,we may keep moral laws1 we ought 
to keep them1 but we can1 quite clearly1
 break them4 ,between a moral law and a 
law of nature there is plainly a very   

radical distinction4 ,the discovery of  
that distinction will1 ,i think1 bring  
us to the heart of the subject4         
,considering man as merely a natural    
object1 or as a mere animal1 there is   
only one quality that nature demands of 
him4 ,this is efficiency4 ,nature's sole
 law is here ,be ,strong4 ,how that     
strength and efficiency is secured and  
maintained is of no consequence         
whatever4 ,the heat he requires1 the    
food he needs may be stolen from others1
 but it will serve4 ,the food will not  
nourish the less1 the fire will not warm
 the less4 ,so long as efficiency is    
acquired it is a matter of absolute     
indifference how it is secured4         
,considered as a mere animal object it  
is difficult to see that morality has   
any meaning at all for man4 ,it is when 
we come to regard him in his relation to
 others that we begin to see the meaning
 and significance of morality emerge4   
,now one of the first things that strike
 us in connection with moral laws or    

rules is that they are all statements of
 relation4 ,such moral commands as ,thou
 shalt not steal1 ,thou shalt not kill1 
the commands to be truthful1 kind1      
dutiful1 etc41 all imply a relation to  
others4 ,apart from this relation moral 
rules have simply no meaning whatever4  
,by himself a man could neither steal1  
nor lie1 nor do any of the things that  
we habitually characterize as immoral4  
,a man living by himself on some island 
would be absolved from all moral law2 it
 would have no meaning whatever for him4
 ,he would be neither moral nor immoral1
 he would simply be without the         
conditions that make morality possible4 
,but once bring him into relations with 
his kind and his behaviour begins to    
have a new and peculiar significance1   
not alone to these others1 but also to  
himself4 ,what he does affects them1 and
 also affects himself so far as they    
determine the character of his relations
 to these others4 ,he must1 for example1
 either work with them or apart from    

them4 ,he must either be on his guard   
against their securing their own        
efficiency at his expense1 or rest      
content that a mutual forbearance and   
trust will govern their association4 ,to
 ignore them is an impossibility4 ,he   
must reckon with these others in a      
thousand and one different ways1 and    
this reckoning will have its effect on  
the moulding of his nature and upon     
theirs4  ,morality1 then1 whatever else 
it may be1 is primarily the expression  
of a relation4 ,and the laws of morality
 are1 consequently1 a summary or        
description of those relations4 ,from   
this point of view they stand upon      
exactly the same level as any of the    
arts or sciences4 ,moral actions are the
 subject matter of observation1 and the 
determination of their essential quality
 or character is by the same methods as 
we determine the essential quality of   
the facts in chemistry or biology4 ,the 
task before the scientific enquirer is1 
therefore1 to determine the conditions  

which give to moral rules or laws their 
meaning and validity4  ,one of the      
conditions of a moral action has already
 been pointed out4 ,this is that all    
moral rules imply a relation to beings  
of a similar nature4 ,a second feature  
is that conduct represents a form of    
efficiency1 it is a special feature of  
the universal biological fact of        
adaptation4 ,and the question of why man
 has a moral sense is really on all     
fours with1 and presents no greater     
mystery than is involved in1 the        
question of why man has digestive       
organs1 and prefers some kinds of food  
to others4 ,substantially1 the question 
of why man should prefer a diet of meat 
and potatoes to one of prussic acid is  
exactly the question of why society     
should discourage certain actions and   
encourage others1 or why man's moral    
taste should prefer some forms of       
conduct to other forms4 ,the answer to  
both questions1 while differing in form1
 is the same in substance4  ,man as we  

know him is always found as a member of 
a group1 and his capacities1 his        
feelings1 and tastes must always be     
considered in relation to that fact4    
,but considering man merely as an       
animal1 and his conduct as merely a form
 of adaptation to environment1 the plain
 consideration which emerges is that    
even as an individual organism he is    
compelled1 in order to live1 to avoid   
certain actions and to perform others1  
to develop certain tastes and to form   
certain distastes4 ,to take our previous
 illustration it would be impossible for
 man to develop a liking for            
life-destroying foods4 ,it is one of the
 conditions of living that he shall eat 
only that food which sustains life1 or  
that he shall abstain from eating       
substances which destroy it4 ,but       
conduct at that stage is not of the kind
 which considers the reasons for acting2
 indeed1 life cannot be based upon      
considered action1 however much reason  
may justify the actions taken4 ,further1

 as all conscious action is prompted by 
the impulse to do what is pleasant and  
to avoid what is unpleasant1 it follows1
 as ,spencer pointed out1 that the      
course of evolution sets up a close     
relation between actions that are       
pleasurable in the performance and      
actions that are life preserving4 ,it is
 one of the conditions of the           
maintenance of life that the pleasurable
 and the beneficial shall in the long   
run coincide4  ,when we take man as a   
member of a group we have the same      
principle in operation1 even though the 
form of its expression undergoes        
alteration4 ,to begin with1 the mere    
fact of living in a group implies the   
growth of a certain restraint in one's  
relations to1 and of reciprocity in     
dealing with1 others4 ,men can no more  
live together without some amount of    
trust and confidence in each other1 or  
without a crude sense of justice in     
their dealings with each other1 than an 
individual man can maintain his life by 

eating deadly poisons4 ,there must be a 
respect for the rights of others1 of    
justice in dealing with others1 and of  
confidence in associating with others1  
at least to the extent of not           
threatening the possibility of group    
life4 ,there are rules in the game of   
social life that must be observed1 and  
in its own defence society is bound to  
suppress those of its members who       
exhibit strong anti-social tendencies4  
,no society can1 for example1 tolerate  
homicide as an admitted practice4 ,there
 is1 thus1 from the earliest times1 a   
certain form of elimination of the      
anti-social character which results in  
the gradual formation of an emotional   
and mental disposition that habitually  
and instinctively falls into line with  
the requirements of the social whole4   
,to use an expression of ,sir ,leslie   
,stephen's1 man as a member of the group
 becomes a cell in the social tissue1   
and his fitness to survive is dependent 
upon1 positively1 his readiness to      

perform such actions as the welfare of  
the group require1 and1 negatively1 upon
 his refraining from doing those things 
that are inimical to social welfare4#bc 
,moreover1 there is the additional fact 
that the group itself is1 as a whole1   
brought into contact with other groups1 
and the survival of one group as against
 another is determined by the quality   
and the degree of cohesion of its units4
 ,from this point of view1 participation
 in the life of the group means more    
than refraining from acts that are      
injurious to the group1 it involves some
 degree of positive contribution to     
social welfare4  #bc ,the question of   
what are the things that are essential  
to the welfare of the group1 and the    
fact that individuals are often         
suppressed for doing what they believe  
is beneficial to the group1 with the    
kindred fact that there may exist grave 
differences of opinion on the matter1   
does not alter the essential point1     
which is that there must exist          

sufficient conformity between conduct   
and group welfare to secure survival4   
,but the main thing to note is that from
 the very dawn of animal life the       
organism is more or less under the      
pressure of a certain discipline that   
tends to establish an identity between  
actions which there is a tendency to    
perform and those that are beneficial to
 the organism4 ,in the social state we  
simply have this principle expressed in 
another way1 and it gives a degree of   
conscious adaptation that is absent from
 the pre-social or even the lower forms 
of the social state4 ,it is in the truly
 social state also that we get the full 
influence of what may be called the     
characteristically human environment1   
that is1 the operation of ideas and     
ideals4 ,the importance of this         
psychological factor in the life of man 
has been stressed in an earlier chapter4
 ,it is enough now to point out that    
from the earliest moment the young human
 being is1 by a process of training1    

imbued with certain ideals of           
truthfulness1 loyalty1 duty1 etc41 all  
of which play their part in the moulding
 of his character4 ,however much these  
ideals may vary in different societies1 
the fact of the part played by them in  
moulding character is plain4 ,they are  
the dominant forces in moulding the     
individual to the social state1 even    
while the expressions of the social life
 may be in turn checked by the fact that
 social conduct cannot persist if it    
threatens those conditions upon which   
the persistence of life ultimately      
depends4  ,there is one other           
consideration that must be noted4 ,one  
very pregnant fact in life is that      
nature seldom creates a new organ4 ,what
 it usually does is to refashion an old 
one1 or to devote an old one to new     
uses4 ,this principle may be seen       
clearly in operation in connection with 
moral evolution4 ,on the one hand the   
various forces that play upon human     
nature drive the moral feelings deeper  

into it4 ,on the other hand it develops 
them by their steady expansion over a   
wider area4 ,whether it is an actual    
fact or not--,i do not stress it because
 the point is the subject of            
discussion--it is at least possible that
 the earliest human group is the family4
 ,and so long as that was the case such 
feelings of right and wrong as then     
existed will have been confined to the  
family4 ,but when a group of families   
combine and form the tribe1 all those   
feelings of confidence1 justice1 etc41  
which were formerly characteristic of   
the smaller group are expanded to cover 
the larger one4 ,with the expansion of  
the tribe to the nation we have a       
further development of the same         
phenomenon4 ,there is no new creation1  
there is nothing more than expansion and
 development4  ,the process does not and
 cannot1 obviously1 stop here4 ,from the
 tribe to the nation1 from the nation to
 the collection of nations which we call
 an empire1 and from the empire to the  

whole of humanity4 ,that seems the      
inevitable direction of the process1 and
 there does not require profound insight
 to see it already on the way4          
,development of national life involves a
 growing interdependence of the world of
 humankind4 ,of hardly any nation can it
 be said to-day that it is              
self-supporting or self-contained or    
independent4 ,there is nothing national 
or sectarian in science1 and it is to   
science that we have to look for our    
principal help4 ,all over the world we  
utilize each other's discoveries and    
profit by each other's knowledge4 ,even 
economic interdependence carries with it
 the same lesson4 ,the human environment
 gets gradually broader and wider1 and  
the feelings that have hitherto been    
expanded over the narrower area have now
 to be expanded over the wider one4 ,it 
is the gradual development of a human   
nature that is becoming adapted to a    
conception of mankind as an organic     
unit4 ,naturally1 in the process of     

adaptation there is conflict between the
 narrower ideals1 conserved in our      
educational influences1 and the wider   
ones4 ,there are still large numbers of 
those who1 unable to picture the true   
nature of the evolutionary process owing
 to their own defective education1 yet  
think of the world in terms of a few    
centuries ago1 and still wave the flag  
of a political nationalism as though    
that were the end of social growth1     
instead of its being an early and       
transient expression of it4 ,but this   
conflict is inevitable1 and the         
persistence of that type can no more    
ensure its permanent domination than the
 persistence of the medicine man in the 
person of the existing clergyman can    
give permanence to the religious idea4  
,there is1 then1 no mystery about the   
fact of morality4 ,it is no more of a   
mystery than is the compilation of the  
multiplication table1 and it has no     
greater need of a supernatural sanction 
than has the law of gravitation4        

,morality is a natural fact1 and its    
enforcement and growth are brought about
 by natural means4 ,in its lower form1  
morality is no more than an expression  
of those conditions under which social  
life is possible1 and in its higher one1
 an expression of those ideal conditions
 under which corporate life is          
desirable4 ,in studying morality we are 
really studying the physiology of       
associated life1 and that study aims at 
the determination of the conditions     
under which the best form of living is  
possible4 ,it is thus that here1 as     
elsewhere1 man is thrown back upon      
himself for enlightenment and help4 ,and
 if the process is a slow one we may at 
least console ourselves with the        
reflection that the labours of each     
generation are making the weapons which 
we bring to the fight keener and better 
able to do their work4     ,,chapter    
,,xv4  ,,morality ,,without ,,god4      
7,continued47   ,in the preceding       
chapter ,i have been concerned with     

providing the most meagre of skeleton   
outlines of the way in which our moral  
laws and our moral sense have come into 
existence4 ,to make this as clear as    
possible the chapter was restricted to  
exposition4 ,controversial points were  
avoided4 ,and as a matter of fact there 
are many religionists who might concede 
the truth of what has been said         
concerning the way in which morality has
 arisen1 and the nature of the forces   
that have assisted in its development4  
,but they would proceed to argue1 as men
 like ,mr4 ,balfour and ,mr4 ,benjamin  
,kidd1 with others of the like1 have    
argued1 that a natural morality lacks   
all coercive power4 ,the ,freethought   
explanation of morality1 they say1 is   
plausible enough1 and may be correct1   
but in conduct we have to deal not      
merely with the correctness of things   
but with sanctions and motives that     
exercise a compulsive influence on men  
and women4 ,the religionist1 it is      
argued1 has such a compulsive force in  

the belief in ,god and in the effect on 
our future life of our obedience or     
disobedience to his commands4 ,but what 
kind of coercion can a purely           
naturalistic system of morals exert8 ,if
 a man is content to obey the           
naturalistic command to practise certain
 virtues and to abstain from certain    
vices1 well and good4 ,but suppose he   
chooses to disregard it4 ,what then8    
,above all1 on what compulsion is a man 
to disregard his own inclinations to act
 as seems desirable to himself1 and not 
in conformity with the general welfare8 
,we disregard the religious appeal as   
pure sentimentalism1 or worse1 and we at
 once institute an ethical              
sentimentalism which is1 in practice1   
foredoomed to failure4  ,or to put the  
same point in another way4 ,each        
individual1 we say1 should so act as to 
promote the general welfare4            
,freethinker and religionist are in     
agreement here4 ,and so long as one's   
inclinations jump with the advice no    

difficulty presents itself4 ,but suppose
 a man's inclinations do not run in the 
desired direction8 ,you tell him that he
 must act so as to promote the general  
well-being1 and he replies that he is   
not concerned with the promotion of the 
public welfare4 ,you say that he ought  
to act differently1 and he replies1 ,my 
happiness must consist in what ,i regard
 as such1 not in other people's         
conception of what it should be4 ,you   
proceed to point out that by persisting 
in his present line of conduct he is    
laying up trouble for the future1 and he
 retorts1 ,i am willing to take the     
risk4 ,what is to be done with him8 ,can
 naturalism show that in acting in that 
way a man is behaving unreasonably1 that
 is1 in the sense that he can be shown  
to be really acting against his own     
interests1 and that if he knew better he
 would act differently8  ,now before    
attempting a reply to this it is worth  
while pointing out that whatever        
strength there may be in this criticism 

when directed against naturalism1 it is 
equally strong when directed against    
supernaturalism4 ,we can see this at    
once if we merely vary the terms4 ,you  
tell a man to act in this or that way in
 the name of ,god4 ,he replies1 ,i do   
not believe in ,god1 and your injunction
 loses all force4 ,or1 if he believes in
 ,god1 and you threaten him with the    
pains and penalties of a future life1 he
 may reply1 ,i am quite willing to risk 
a probable punishment hereafter for a   
certain pleasure here4 ,and it is       
certain that many do take the risk1     
whether they express their determination
 to do so in as many words or not4      
,what is a supernaturalist compelled to 
do in this case8 ,his method of         
procedure is bound to be something like 
the following4 ,first of all he will    
seek to create assent to a particular   
proposition such as ,god exists1 and    
also that a belief in his existence     
creates an obligation to act in this or 
that manner in accordance with what is  

believed to be his will4 ,that          
proposition once established1 his next  
business will be to bring the subject's 
inclinations into line with a prescribed
 course of action4 ,he is thus acting in
 precisely the same manner as is the    
naturalist who starts from an altogether
 different set of premises4 ,and both   
are resting their teaching of morals    
upon an intellectual proposition to     
which assent is either implied or       
expressed4 ,and that lies at the basis  
of all ethical teaching--not ethical    
practice1 be it observed1 but teaching4 
,the precise form in which this         
intellectual proposition is cast matters
 little4 ,it may be the existence of    
,god1 or it may be a particular view of 
human nature or of human evolution1 but 
it is there1 and in either case the     
authoritative character of moral        
precepts exists for such as accept it1  
and for none other4 ,moral practice is  
rooted in life1 but moral theory is a   
different matter4  ,so far1 then1 it is 

clear that the complaint that           
,freethought ethics has nothing about it
 of a compulsive or authoritative       
character is either a begging of the    
question or it is absurd4  ,naturalistic
 ethics really assert three things4 ,the
 first is that the continuance of life  
ensures the performance of a certain    
level of conduct1 conduct being merely  
one of the means by which human beings  
react to the necessities of their       
environment4 ,second1 it asserts that a 
proper understanding of the conditions  
of existence will in the normally       
constituted mind strengthen the         
development of a feeling of obligation  
to act in such and such a manner2 and   
that while all non-reasonable conduct is
 not immoral1 all immoral conduct is    
fundamentally irrational4 ,third1 there 
is the further assumption that at bottom
 individual and general welfare are not 
contradictory1 but two aspects of the   
same thing4  ,concerning the second     
point1 ,sir ,leslie ,stephen warns us   

7,science of ,ethics1 p4 #dcg7 that     
every attempt so to state the ethical   
principle that disobedience will be     
unreasonable is doomed to failure in a  
world which is not made up of working   
syllogisms4 ,and for the other two      
points ,professor ,sorley 7,ethics of   
,naturalism1 p4 #db7 tells us that ,it  
is difficult 444 to offer any           
consideration fitted to convince the    
individual that it is reasonable for him
 to seek the happiness of the community 
rather than his own2 while ,mr4         
,benjamin ,kidd asserts that the        
interests of the individual and those of
 the social organism are not either     
identical or capable of being           
reconciled1 as has been necessarily     
assumed in all those systems of ethics  
which have sought to establish a        
naturalistic basis of conduct4 ,the two 
are fundamentally and inherently        
irreconcilable1 and a large proportion  
of the existing individuals at any time 
have 444 no personal interest whatever  

in the progress of the race1 or in the  
social development we are undergoing4   
,it has already been said that however  
difficult it may be to establish the    
precise relationship between reason and 
ethical commands1 such a connection must
 be assumed1 whether we base our ethics 
on naturalistic or supernaturalistic    
considerations4 ,and it cannot be denied
 by anyone to-day that a causal relation
 must exist between actions and their   
consequences1 whether those causal      
consequences be of the natural and      
non-moral kind1 or of the more          
definitely moral order such as exists in
 the shape of social approval and       
disapproval4 ,and if we once grant that1
 then it seems quite allowable to assume
 that provided a man perceives the      
reason underlying moral judgments1 and  
also the justification for the sense of 
approval and disapproval expressed1 we  
have as much reason for calling his     
conduct reasonable or unreasonable as we
 have for applying the same terms to a  

man's behaviour in dressing in view of  
the variations of the temperature4      
,consequently1 while ,i agree that in   
the present state of knowledge it is    
impossible in all cases to demonstrate  
that immoral conduct is irrational in   
the sense that it would be unreasonable 
to refuse assent to a mathematical      
proposition1 there seems no             
justification for regarding such a state
 of things as of necessity permanent4   
,if a scientific system of ethics       
consists in formulating rules for the   
profitable guidance of life1 not only   
does their formulation presuppose a     
certain constancy in the laws of human  
nature and of the world in general1 but 
the assumption is also involved that one
 day it may be possible to give to moral
 laws the same precision that now is    
attached to physiological laws and to   
label departure from them as            
unreasonable in a very real sense of the
 word4  ,the other objection that it is 
impossible to establish a reasonable    

relation between individual and social  
well-being arises from a dual confusion 
as to what is the proper sphere of      
ethics1 and of the mutual relation of   
the individual and society4 ,to take an 
individual and ask1 ,why should he act  
so as to promote the general welfare8 is
 to imply that ethical rules may have an
 application to man out of relation with
 his fellows4 ,that1 we have already    
seen1 is quite wrong1 since moral rules 
fail to be intelligible once we separate
 man from his fellows4 ,discussing      
ethics while leaving out social life is 
like discussing the functions of the    
lungs and leaving out of account the    
existence of an atmosphere4  ,if1 then1 
instead of treating the individual and  
society as two distinct things1 either  
of which may profit at the expense of   
the other1 we treat them as two sides of
 the same thing1 each an abstraction    
when treated alone1 the problem is      
simplified1 and the solution becomes    
appreciably easier4 ,for the essential  

truth here is that just as there is no  
such thing as a society in the absence  
of the individuals composing it1 so the 
individual1 as we know him1 disappears  
when we strip him of all that he is in  
virtue of his being a part of the social
 structure4 ,every one of the           
characteristic human qualities has been 
developed in response to the            
requirements of the social medium4 ,it  
is in virtue of this that morality has  
anything of an imperative nature        
connected with it1 for if man is1 to use
 ,sir ,leslie ,stephen's phrase1 a cell 
in the social tissue1 receiving injury  
as the body social is injured1 and      
benefitting as it is benefitted1 then   
the refusal of a man to act so that he  
may promote the general welfare can be  
shown to be unreasonable1 and also      
unprofitable to the individual himself4 
,in other words1 our efficiency as an   
individual must be measured in terms of 
our fitness to form part of the social  
structure1 and consequently the         

antithesis between social and personal  
well-being is only on the surface4      
,deeper knowledge and a more exact      
understanding reveals them as two sides 
of the same fact4  ,it may be granted to
 ,mr4 ,kidd that a large proportion of  
the existing individuals at any time    
have no conscious interest in the       
progress of the race or in the          
development we are undergoing1 and that 
is only what one would expect1 but it   
would be absurd to therefore come to the
 conclusion that no such identity of    
interest exists4 ,moliere's character1  
who all his life had been talking prose 
without knowing it1 is only a type of   
the majority of folk who all their lives
 are acting in accordance with          
principles of which they are ignorant1  
and which they may even repudiate when  
they are explained to them4 ,from one   
point of view the whole object of a     
scientific morality is to awaken a      
conscious recognition of the principles 
underlying conduct1 and by this means to

 strengthen the disposition to right    
action4 ,we make explicit in language   
what has hitherto been implicit in      
action1 and thus bring conscious effort 
to the aid of non-conscious or          
semi-conscious behaviour4  ,in the light
 of the above consideration the long and
 wordy contest that has been waged      
between ,altruists and ,egoists is seen 
to be very largely a waste of time and a
 splutter of words4 ,if it can be shown 
on the one hand that all men are not    
animated by the desire to benefit self1 
it is as easy to demonstrate that so    
long as human nature is human nature1   
all conduct must be an expression of    
individual character1 and that even the 
morality of self-sacrifice is           
self-regarding viewed from the personal 
feelings of the agent4 ,and it being    
clear that the position of ,egoist and  
,altruist1 while each expressing a      
truth1 is neither expressing the whole  
truth1 and that each does in fact embody
 a definite error1 it seems probable    

that here1 as in so many other cases1   
the truth lies between the two extremes1
 and that a reconciliation may be       
effected along these lines4  ,taking    
animal life as a whole it is at least   
clear that what are called the          
self-regarding feelings must come first 
in order of development4 ,even with the 
lower races of human beings there is    
less concern shown with the feelings and
 welfare of others than is the case with
 the higher races of men4 ,or1 again1   
with children we have these feelings    
strongest in childhood and undergoing a 
gradual expansion as maturity is        
reached4 ,this is brought about1 as was 
shown in the last chapter1 not by the   
destruction of existing feelings1 but by
 their extension to an ever widening    
area4 ,there is a transformation1 or an 
elaboration of existing feelings under  
the pressure of social growth4 ,one may 
say that ethical development does not   
proceed by the destruction of the       
feeling of self-interest1 so much as by 

its extension to a wider field4 ,ethical
 growth is thus on all fours with       
biological growth4 ,in biology we are   
all familiar with the truth that        
maintenance of life is dependent upon   
the existence of harmonious relations   
between an organism and its environment4
 ,yet it is not always recognized that  
this principle is as true of the moral  
self as it is of the physical structure1
 nor that in human evolution the        
existence of others becomes of          
increasing importance and significance4 
,for not only do ,i have to adapt       
myself1 mentally and morally1 to the    
society now existing1 but also to       
societies that have long since passed   
away and have left their contribution to
 the building up of my environment in   
the shape of institutions and beliefs   
and literature4  ,we have in this one   
more illustration that while the        
environment of the animal is            
overwhelmingly physical in character1   
that of man tends to become             

overwhelmingly social or psychological4 
,desires are created that can only be   
gratified by the presence and the labour
 of others4 ,feelings arise that have   
direct reference to others1 and in      
numerous ways a body of altruistic      
feeling is created4 ,so by social growth
 first1 and afterwards by reflection1   
man is taught that the only life that is
 enjoyable to himself is one that is    
lived in the companionship and by the   
co-operation of others4 ,as ,professor  
,ziegler well puts the process3--       
,not only on the one hand does it       
concern the interests of the            
general welfare that every individual   
should take care of himself             
outwardly and inwardly2 maintain his    
health2 cultivate his      faculties and
 powers2 sustain his position1 honour1  
and worth1 and      so his own welfare  
being secured1 diffuse around him       
happiness and      comfort2 but also1 on
 the other hand1 it concerns the        
personal1      well understood interests

 of the individual himself that he      
should      promote the interests of    
others1 contribute to their happiness1  
serve their interests1 and even make    
sacrifices for them4 ,just as      one  
forgoes a momentary pleasure in order to
 secure a lasting and      greater      
enjoyment1 so the individual willingly  
sacrifices his      personal welfare and
 comfort for the sake of society in     
order to      share in the welfare of   
this society2 he buries his individual  
well-being in order that he may see it  
rise in richer and fuller      abundance
 in the welfare and happiness of the    
whole community      7,social ,ethics1  
pp4 #ei-fj74  ,these motives are not of 
necessity conscious ones4 ,no one       
imagines that before performing a social
 action each one sits down and goes     
through a more or less elaborate        
calculation4 ,all that has been written 
on this head concerning a ,utilitarian  
calculus is poor fun and quite beside   
the mark4 ,in this matter1 as in so many

 others1 it is the evolutionary process 
which demands consideration1 and        
generations of social struggle1 by      
weeding out individuals whose           
inclinations were of a pronounced       
anti-social kind1 and tribes in which   
the cohesion between its members was    
weak1 have resulted in bringing about   
more or less of an identification       
between individual desires and the      
general welfare4 ,it is not a question  
of conscious evolution so much as of our
 becoming conscious of an evolution that
 is taking place1 and in discussing the 
nature of morals one is bound to go     
beyond the expressed reasons for        
conduct--more often wrong than          
right--and discover the deeper and truer
 causes of instincts and actions4 ,when 
this is done it will be found that while
 it is absolutely impossible to destroy 
the connection between conduct and      
self-regarding actions1 there is        
proceeding a growing identity between   
the gratification of desire and the     

well-being of the whole4 ,this will be1 
not because of some fantastical or      
ascetic teaching of self-sacrifice1 but 
because man being an expression of      
social life is bound to find in         
activities that have a social reference 
the beginning and end of his conduct4   
,the fears of a morality without ,god   
are1 therefore1 quite unfounded4 ,if    
what has been said be granted1 it       
follows that all ethical rules are      
primarily on the same level as a        
generalization in any of the sciences4  
,just as the laws of astronomy or of    
biology reduce to order the apparently  
chaotic phenomena of their respective   
departments1 so ethical laws seek to    
reduce to an intelligible order the     
conditions of individual and social     
betterment4 ,there can be no ultimate   
antithesis between individual reason and
 the highest form of social conduct1    
although there may exist an apparent    
conflict between the two1 chiefly owing 
to the fact that we are often unable to 

trace the remote effects of conduct on  
self and society4 ,nor can there be an  
ultimate or permanent conflict between  
the true interests of the individual and
 of society at large4 ,that such an     
opposition does exist in the minds of   
many is true1 but it is here worthy of  
note that the clearest and most profound
 thinkers have always found in the field
 of social effort the best sphere for   
the gratification of their desires4 ,and
 here again we may confidently hope that
 an increased and more accurate         
appreciation of the causes that         
determine human welfare will do much to 
diminish this antagonism4 ,at any rate  
it is clear that human nature has been  
moulded in accordance with the reactions
 of self and society in such a way that 
even the self has become an expression  
of social life1 and with this dual      
aspect before us there is no reason why 
emphasis should be laid on one factor   
rather than on the other4  ,to sum up4  
,eliminating the form of coercion that  

is represented by a policeman1 earthly  
or otherwise1 we may safely say that a  
naturalistic ethics has all the coercive
 force that can be possessed by any     
system4 ,and it has this advantage over 
the coercive force of the               
supernaturalist1 that while the latter  
tends to weaken with the advance of     
intelligence1 the former gains strength 
as men and women begin to more clearly  
appreciate the true conditions of social
 life and development4 ,it is in this   
way that there is finally established a 
connection between what is reasonable   
and what is right4 ,in this case it is  
the function of reason to discover the  
forces that have made for the           
moralization--really the                
socialization--of man1 and so strengthen
 man's moral nature by demonstrating the
 fundamental identity between his own   
welfare and that of the group to which  
he belongs4 ,that the coercion may in   
some cases be quite ineffective must be 
admitted4 ,there will always1 one       

fancies1 be cases where the personal    
character refuses to adapt itself to the
 current social state4 ,that is a form  
of mal-adaptation which society will    
always have to face1 exactly as it has  
to face cases of atavism in other       
directions4 ,but the socializing and    
moralizing process continues4 ,and      
however much this may be1 in its earlier
 stages1 entangled with conceptions of  
the supernatural1 it is certain that    
growth will involve the disappearance of
 that factor here as it has done        
elsewhere4     ,,chapter ,,xvi4         
,,christianity ,,and ,,morality4   ,the 
association of religion with morality is
 a very ancient one4 ,this is not       
because the one is impossible without   
the other1 we have already shown that   
this is not the case4 ,the reason is    
that unless religious beliefs are       
associated with certain essential social
 activities their continuance is almost 
impossible4 ,thus it happens in the     
course of social evolution that just in 

proportion as man learns to rely upon   
the purely social activities to that    
extent religion is driven to dwell more 
upon them and to claim kinship with     
them4  ,while this is true of religions 
in general1 it applies with peculiar    
force to ,christianity4 ,and in the last
 two or three centuries we have seen the
 emphasis gradually shifted from a set  
of doctrines1 upon the acceptance of    
which man's eternal salvation depends1  
to a number of ethical and social       
teachings with which ,christianity1 as  
such1 has no vital concern4 ,the present
 generation of ,christian believers has 
had what is called the moral aspect of  
,christianity so constantly impressed   
upon them1 and the essential and        
doctrinal aspect so slurred over1 that  
many of them have come to accept the    
moral teaching associated with          
,christianity as its most important     
aspect4 ,more than that1 they have come 
to regard the immense superiority of    
,christianity as one of those statements

 the truth of which can be doubted by   
none but the most obtuse4 ,to have this 
alleged superiority of ,christian       
ethical teaching questioned appears to  
them proof of some lack of moral        
development on the part of the          
questioner4  ,to this type of believer  
it will come with something of a shock  
to be told quite plainly and without    
either circumlocution or apology that   
his religion is of an intensely selfish 
and egoistic character1 and that its    
ethical influence is of a kind that is  
far from admirable4 ,it will shock him  
because he has for so long been told    
that his religion is the very           
quintessence of unselfishness1 he has   
for so long been telling it to others1  
and he has been able for so many        
generations to make it uncomfortable for
 all those who took an opposite view1   
that he has camouflaged both the nature 
of his own motives and the tendency of  
his religion4  ,from one point of view  
this is part of the general scheme in   

virtue of which the ,christian ,church  
has given currency to the legend that   
the doctrines taught by it represented a
 tremendous advance in the development  
of the race4 ,in sober truth it         
represented nothing of the kind4 ,that  
the elements of ,christian religious    
teaching existed long before            
,christianity as a religious system was 
known to the world is now a commonplace 
with all students of comparative        
religions1 and is admitted by most      
,christian writers of repute4 ,even in  
form the ,christian doctrines           
represented but a small advance upon    
their pagan prototypes1 but it is only  
when one bears in mind the fact that the
 best minds of antiquity were rapidly   
throwing off these superstitions and    
leading the world to a more enlightened 
view of things1 we realize that in the  
main ,christianity represented a step   
backward in the intellectual evolution  
of the race4 ,what we then see is       
,christianity reaffirming and           

re-establishing most of the old         
superstitions in forms in which only the
 more ignorant classes of antiquity     
accepted them4 ,we have an assertion of 
demonism in its crudest forms1 an       
affirmation of the miraculous that the  
educated in the ,roman world had learned
 to laugh at1 and which is to-day found 
among the savage people of the earth1   
while every form of scientific thought  
was looked upon as an act of impiety4   
,the scientific eclipse that overtook   
the old pagan civilization was one of   
the inevitable consequences of the      
triumph of ,christianity4 ,from the     
point of view of general culture the    
retrogressive nature of ,christianity is
 unmistakable4 ,it has yet to be        
recognized that the same statement holds
 good in relation even to religion4 ,one
 day the world will appreciate the fact 
that no greater disaster ever overtook  
the world than the triumph of the       
,christian ,church4  ,for the moment1   
however1 we are only concerned with the 

relation of ,christianity to morality4  
,and here my thesis is that             
,christianity is an essentially selfish 
creed masking its egoistic impulses     
under a cover of unselfishness and      
self-sacrifice4 ,to that it will        
probably be said that the charge breaks 
down on the fact that ,christian        
teaching is full of the exhortation that
 this world is of no moment1 that we    
gain salvation by learning to ignore its
 temptations and to forgo its pleasures1
 and that it is1 above all other faiths1
 the religion of personal sacrifice4    
,and that this teaching is there it     
would be stupid to deny4 ,but this does 
not disprove what has been said1 indeed1
 analysis only serves to make the truth 
still plainer4 ,that many ,christians   
have given up the prizes of the world is
 too plain to be denied2 that they have 
forsaken all that many struggle to      
possess is also plain4 ,but when this   
has been admitted there still remains   
the truth that there is a vital         

distinction in the consideration of     
whether a man gives up the world in     
order to save his own soul1 or whether  
he saves his soul as a consequence of   
losing the world4 ,in this matter it is 
the aim that is important1 not only to  
the outsider who may be passing         
judgment1 but more importantly to the   
agent himself4 ,it is the effect of the 
motive on character with its subsequent 
flowering in social life that must be   
considered4  ,the first count in the    
indictment here is that the ,christian  
appeal is essentially a selfish one4    
,the aim is not the saving of others but
 of one's self4 ,if other people must be
 saved it is because their salvation is 
believed to be essential to the saving  
of one's own soul4 ,that this involves1 
or may involve1 a surrender of one's    
worldly possessions or comfort1 is of no
 moment4 ,men will forgo many pleasures 
and give up much when they have what    
they believe to be a greater purpose in 
view4 ,we see this in directions quite  

unconnected with religion4 ,politics    
will show us examples of men who have   
forsaken many of what are to others the 
comforts of life in the hopes of gaining
 power and fame4 ,others will deny      
themselves many pleasures in the        
prospect of achieving some end which to 
them is of far greater value than the   
things they are renouncing4 ,and it is  
the same principle that operates in the 
case of religious devotees4 ,there is no
 reason to doubt but that when a young  
woman forsakes the world and goes into a
 cloister she is surrendering much that 
has considerable attractions for her4   
,but what she gives is to her of small  
importance to what she gains in return4 
,and if one believed in ,christianity1  
in immortal damnation1 with the         
intensity of the great ,christian types 
of character1 it would be foolish not to
 surrender things of so little value for
 others of so great and transcendent    
importance4  ,to do ,christians justice 
they have not usually made a secret of  

their aim4 ,right through ,christian    
literature there runs the teaching that 
it is the desire of personal and        
immortal salvation that inspires them1  
and they have affirmed over and over    
again that but for the prospect of being
 paid back with tremendous interest in  
the next world they could see no reason 
for being good in this one4 ,that is    
emphatically the teaching of the ,new   
,testament and of the greatest of       
,christian characters4 ,you are to give 
in secret that you may be rewarded      
openly1 to cast your bread upon the     
waters that it may be returned to you1  
and ,paul's counsel is that if there be 
no resurrection from the dead then we   
may eat1 drink1 and be merry for death  
only is before us4 ,thus1 what you do is
 in the nature of a deliberate and      
conscious investment on which you will  
receive a handsome dividend in the next 
world4 ,and your readiness to invest    
will be exactly proportionate to your   
conviction of the soundness of the      

security4 ,but there is in all this no  
perception of the truly ethical basis of
 conduct1 no indication of the          
inevitable consequences of conduct on   
character4 ,what is good is determined  
by what it is believed will save one's  
own soul and increase the dividend in   
the next world4 ,what is bad is anything
 that will imperil the security4 ,it is 
essentially an appeal to what is        
grasping and selfish in human nature1   
and while you may hide the true         
character of a thing by the lavish use  
of attractive phrases1 you cannot hinder
 it working out its consequences in     
actual life4 ,and the consequence of    
this has been that while ,christian     
teaching has been lavish in the use of  
attractive phrases its actual result has
 been to create a type of character that
 has been not so much immoral as amoral4
 ,and with that type the good that has  
been done on the one side has been more 
than counterbalanced by the evil done on
 the other4  ,what the typical          

,christian character had in mind in all 
that he did was neither the removal of  
suffering nor of injustice1 but the     
salvation of his own soul4 ,that        
justified everything so long as it was  
believed to contribute to that end4 ,the
 social consequences of what was done   
simply did not count4 ,and if1 instead  
of taking mere phrases from the         
principal ,christian writers1 we        
carefully examine their meaning we shall
 see that they were strangely devoid of 
what is now understood by the expression
 moral incentive4 ,the more impressive  
the outbreak of ,christian piety the    
clearer does this become4 ,no one could 
have illustrated the ,christian ideal of
 self-sacrifice better than did the     
saints and monks of the earlier         
,christian centuries4 ,such a character 
as the famous ,st4 ,simon ,stylites1    
living for years on his pillar1 filthy  
and verminous1 and yet the admired of   
,christendom1 with the lives of numerous
 other saints1 whose sole claim to be   

remembered is that they lived the lives 
of worse than animals in the selfish    
endeavours to save their shrunken souls1
 will well illustrate this point4 ,if it
 entered the diseased imagination of    
these men that the road to salvation lay
 through attending to the sick and the  
needy1 they were quite ready to labour  
in that direction2 but of any desire to 
remove the horrible social conditions   
that prevailed1 or to remedy the        
injustice of which their clients were   
the victims1 there is seldom a trace4   
,and1 on the other hand1 if they        
believed that their salvation involved  
getting away from human society         
altogether and leading the life of a    
hermit1 they were as ready to do that4  
,if it meant the forsaking of husband or
 wife or parent or child1 these were    
left without compunction1 and their     
desertion was counted as proof of       
righteousness4 ,the lives of the saints 
are full of illustrations of this4      
,professor ,william ,james well remarks1

 in his ,varieties of ,religious        
,experience1 that ,in gentle characters1
 where devoutness is intense and the    
intellect feeble1 we have an imaginative
 absorption in the love of ,god to the  
exclusion of all practical human        
interests4444 ,when the love of ,god    
takes possession of such a mind it      
expels all human loves and human uses4  
,of the ,blessed ,st4 ,mary ,alacoque1  
her biographer points out that as she   
became absorbed in the love of ,christ  
she became increasingly useless to the  
practical life of the convent4 ,of ,st4 
,teresa1 ,james remarks that although a 
woman of strong intellect his impression
 of her was a feeling of pity that so   
much vitality of soul should have found 
such poor employment4 ,and of so famous 
a character as ,st4 ,augustine a        
,christian writer1 ,mr4 ,a4 ,c4 ,benson1
 remarks3--       ,i was much interested
 in reading ,st4 ,augustine's           
,confessions      lately to recognize   
how small a part1 after his conversion1 

any      aspirations for the welfare of 
humanity seem to play in his mind       
compared with the consciousness of his  
own personal relations with      ,god4  
,it was this which gave him his         
exuberant sense of joy and      peace1  
and his impulse was rather the impulse  
of sharing a      wonderful and         
beautiful secret with others than an    
immediate desire      for their welfare1
 forced out of him1 so to speak1 by his 
own      exultation rather than drawn   
out of him by compassion for the needs  
of others4  ,that is one of the most    
constant features which emerges from a  
careful study of the character of       
,christian types4 ,st4 ,francis         
commenced his career by leaving his     
parents4 ,john ,fox did the same4 ,in   
that ,puritan classic1 ,the ,pilgrim's  
,progress1 one of the outstanding       
features is the striking absence of     
emphasis on the value of the social and 
domestic virtues1 and the ,rev4         
,principal ,donaldson notes this as one 

of the features of early ,christian     
literature in general4 ,christian       
preaching was for centuries full of     
contemptuous references to filthy rags  
of righteousness1 mere morality1 etc4   
,the aim of the saints was a purely     
selfish and personal one4 ,it was not   
even a refined or a metaphysical        
selfishness4 ,it was a simple teaching  
that the one thing essential was to save
 one's own soul1 and that the main      
reason for doing good in this world was 
to reap a benefit from it in the world  
to come4 ,if it can properly be called  
morality1 it was conduct placed out at  
the highest rate of interest4           
,christianity may often have used a     
naturally lofty character1 it was next  
to impossible for it to create one4  ,if
 one examines the attack made by        
,christians upon ,freethought morality1 
it is surprising how often the truth of 
what has been said is implied4 ,for the 
complaint here is1 in the main1 not that
 naturalism fails to give an adequate   

account of the nature and development of
 morality1 but that it will not satisfy 
mankind1 and so fails to act as an      
adequate motive to right conduct4 ,when 
we enquire precisely what is meant by   
this1 we learn that if there is no      
belief in ,god1 and if there is no      
expectation of a future state in which  
rewards and punishments will be         
dispensed1 there remains no inducement  
to the average man or woman to do right4
 ,it is the moral teaching of ,st4 ,paul
 over again4 ,we are in the region of   
morality as a deliberate investment1 and
 we have the threat that if the interest
 is not high enough or certain enough to
 satisfy the dividend hunting appetite  
of the true believer1 then the          
investment will be withdrawn4 ,really   
this is a complaint1 not that the       
morality which ignores ,christianity is 
too low but that it is too high4 ,it is 
doubted whether human nature1           
particularly ,christian human nature1   
can rise to such a level1 and whether1  

unless you can guarantee a ,christian a 
suitable reward for not starving his    
family or for not robbing his neighbour1
 he will continue to place any value on 
decency or honesty4  ,so to state the   
case makes the absurdity of the argument
 apparent1 but unless that is what is   
meant it is difficult to make it        
intelligible4 ,to reply that ,christians
 do not require these inducements to    
behave with a tolerable amount of       
decency is not a statement that ,i      
should dispute2 on the contrary1 ,i     
would affirm it4 ,it is the ,christian  
defender who makes himself and his      
fellow believers worse than the         
,freethinker believes them to be4 ,for  
it is part of the case of the           
,freethinker that the morality of the   
,christian has really no connection with
 his religion1 and that the net         
influence of his creed is to confuse and
 distort his moral sense instead of     
developing it4 ,it is the argument of   
the ,christian that makes the           

,freethinker superior to the ,christian2
 it is the ,freethinker who declines the
 compliment and who asserts that the    
social forces are adequate to guarantee 
the continuance of morality in the      
complete absence of religious belief4   
,how little the ,christian religion     
appreciates the nature of morality is   
seen by the favourite expression of     
,christian apologists that the tendency 
of non-religion is to remove all moral  
restraints4 ,the use of the word is     
illuminating4 ,to the ,christian        
morality is no more than a system of    
restraints which aim at preventing a man
 gratifying his appetite in certain     
directions4 ,it forbids him certain     
enjoyments here1 and promises him as a  
reward for his abstention a greater     
benefit hereafter4 ,and on that         
assumption he argues1 quite naturally1  
that if there be no after life then     
there seems no reason why man should    
undergo the restraints which moral rules
 impose4 ,on this scheme man is a born  

criminal and ,god an almighty policeman4
 ,that is the sum of orthodox ,christian
 morality4 ,to assume that this         
conception of conduct can have a really 
elevating effect on life is to          
misunderstand the nature of the whole of
 the ethical and social problem4  ,what 
has been said may go some distance      
towards suggesting an answer to the     
question so often asked as to the reason
 for the moral failure of ,christianity4
 ,for that it has been a moral failure  
no one can doubt4 ,nay1 it is an        
assertion made very generally by        
,christians themselves4 ,right from ,new
 ,testament times the complaint that the
 conduct of believers has fallen far    
short of what it should have been is    
constantly met with4 ,and there is not a
 single direction in which ,christians  
can claim a moral superiority over other
 and non-,christian peoples4 ,they are  
neither kinder1 more tolerant1 more     
sober1 more chaste1 nor more truthful   
than are non-,christian people4 ,nor is 

it quite without significance that those
 nations that pride themselves most upon
 their ,christianity are what they are4 
,their state reflects the ethical spirit
 ,i have been trying to describe4 ,for  
when we wipe out the disguising phrases 
which we use to deceive ourselves--and  
it is almost impossible to continually  
deceive others unless we do manage to   
deceive ourselves--when we put on one   
side the rationalizing phrases about    
,imperial races1 carrying civilization  
to the dark places of the earth1 bearing
 the white man's burden1 peopling the   
waste places of the earth1 etc41 we may 
well ask what for centuries have the    
,christian nations of the world been but
 so many gangs of freebooters engaged in
 world-wide piracy8 ,all over the world 
they have gone1 fighting1 stealing1     
killing1 lying1 annexing1 in a steadily 
rising crescendo4 ,to be possessed of   
natural wealth1 without the means of    
resisting aggression1 has for four      
centuries been to invite the            

depredations of some one or more of the 
,christian powers4 ,it is the ,christian
 powers that have militarized the world 
in the name of the ,prince of ,peace1   
and made piracy a national occupation in
 the name of civilization4 ,everywhere  
they have done these things under the   
shelter of their religion and with the  
sanction of their creed4 ,christianity  
has offered no effective check to the   
cupidity of man1 its chief work has been
 to find an outlet for it in a disguised
 form4 ,to borrow a term from the       
psycho-analysts1 the task of            
,christianity has been to rationalize   
certain ugly impulses1 and so provide   
the opportunity for their continuous    
expression4 ,the world of to-day is     
beginning to recognize the intellectual 
weakness of ,christianity2 what it has  
next to learn is that its moral         
bankruptcy is no less assured4  ,one of 
the great obstacles in the way of this  
is the sentimentalism of many who have  
given up all intellectual adherence to  

the ,christian creed4 ,the power of the 
,christian ,church has been so great1 it
 has for so long had control of the     
machinery of public education and       
information1 that many find it almost   
impossible to conclude that the ethical 
spirit of ,christianity is as alien to  
real progress as are its cosmical       
teachings4 ,the very hugeness of this   
century-old imposture blinds many to its
 inherent defects4 ,and yet the         
continuous and world-wide moral failure 
of ,christianity can only be accounted  
for on the ground that it had a fatal   
moral defect from the start4 ,i have    
suggested above what is the nature of   
that defect4 ,it has never regarded     
morality as a natural social growth1 but
 only as something imposed upon man from
 without4 ,it has had no other reason   
for its existence than the fear of      
punishment and the hope of reward4      
,christian morality is the morality of  
the stock exchange plus the intellectual
 outlook of the savage4 ,and with that  

in control of national destinies our    
surprise should be1 not that things are 
as they are1 but rather that with so    
great a handicap the world has contrived
 to reach its present moderate degree of
 development4     ,,chapter ,,xvii4     
,,religion ,,and ,,persecution4         
,intolerance is one of the most general 
of what we may call the mental vices4   
,it is so general that few people seem  
to look upon it as a fault1 and not a   
few are prepared to defend it as a      
virtue4 ,when it assumes an extreme     
form1 and its consequences are          
unpleasantly obvious1 it may meet with  
condemnation1 but usually its nature is 
disguised under a show of earnestness   
and sincere conviction4 ,and1 indeed1 no
 one need feel called upon to dispute   
the sincerity and the earnestness of the
 bigot4 ,as we have already pointed out1
 that may easily be seen and admitted4  
,all that one need remark is that       
sincerity is no guarantee of accuracy1  
and earnestness naturally goes with a   

conviction strongly held1 whether the   
conviction be grounded on fact or fancy4
 ,the essential question is not whether 
a man holds an opinion strongly1 but    
whether he has taken sufficient trouble 
to say that he has a right to have that 
opinion4 ,has he taken the trouble to   
acquaint himself with the facts upon    
which the expressed opinion is          
professedly based8 ,has he made a due   
allowance for possible error1 and for   
the possibility of others seeing the    
matter from another and a different     
point of view8 ,if these questions were 
frankly and truthfully answered1 it     
would be found that what we have to face
 in the world is not so much opinion as 
prejudice4  ,some advance in human      
affairs is indicated when it is found   
necessary to apologise for persecution1 
and a still greater one when men and    
women feel ashamed of it4 ,it is some of
 these apologies at which we have now to
 glance1 and also to determine1 if      
possible1 the probable causes of the    

change in opinion that has occurred in  
relation to the subject of persecution4 
,a favourite argument with the modern   
religionist is that the element of      
persecution1 which it is admitted1 has  
hitherto been found in association with 
religion1 is not due to religion as     
such1 but results from its connection   
with the secular power4 ,often1 it is   
argued1 the ,state for its own purposes 
has seen fit to ally itself with the    
,church1 and when that has taken place  
the representatives of the favoured     
,church have not been strong enough to  
withstand the temptation to use physical
 force in the maintenance of their      
position4 ,hence the generalization that
 a ,state ,church is always a           
persecuting ,church1 with the corollary 
that a ,church1 as such1 has nothing to 
do with so secular a thing as           
persecution4  ,the generalization has   
all the attractiveness which appeals to 
those who are not in the habit of       
looking beneath the surface1 and in     

particular to those whose minds are     
still in thraldom to religious beliefs4 
,it is quite true that ,state ,churches 
have always persecuted1 and it is       
equally true that persecution on a      
general scale could not have been       
carried on without the assistance of the
 ,state4 ,on the other hand1 it is just 
as true that all ,churches have         
persecuted within the limits of their   
opportunity4 ,there is no exception to  
this rule in any age or country4 ,on a  
wider survey it is also clear that all  
forms of religious belief carry with    
them a tendency to persecution more or  
less marked4 ,a close examination of the
 facts will show that it is the tendency
 to toleration that is developed by the 
secular power1 and the opposite tendency
 manifested by religion4  ,it is also   
argued that intolerance is not a special
 quality of religion2 it is rather a    
fault of human nature4 ,there is more   
truth in this than in the previous plea1
 but it slurs over the indictment rather

 than meets it4 ,at any rate1 it is the 
same human nature that meets us in      
religion that fronts us in other        
matters1 and there is no mistaking the  
fact that intolerance is far more       
pronounced in relation to religion than 
to any other subject4 ,in secular       
matters--politics1 science1 literature1 
or art--opinions may differ1 feelings   
run high1 and a degree of intolerance be
 exhibited1 but the right to differ     
remains unquestioned4 ,moreover1 the    
settlement of opinion by discussion is  
recognized4 ,in religion it is the very 
right of difference that is challenged1 
it is the right of discussion that is   
denied4 ,and it is in connection with   
religion alone that intolerance is      
raised to the level of a virtue4        
,refusal to discuss the validity of a   
religious opinion will be taken as the  
sign of a highly developed spiritual    
nature1 and a tolerance of diverging    
opinions as an indication of unbelief4  
,if a political leader refused to stand 

upon the same platform with political   
opponents1 on non-political questions1  
nearly everyone would say that such     
conduct was intolerable4 ,but how many  
religious people are there who would see
 anything wrong in the ,archbishop of   
,canterbury refusing to stand upon the  
same platform as a well-known ,atheist8 
,we are here approaching the very heart 
of the subject1 and in what follows ,i  
hope to make clear the truth of the     
following propositions3 7#a7 ,that the  
great culture ground of intolerance is  
religion2 7#b7 ,that the natural        
tendency of secular affairs is to breed 
tolerance2 7#c7 ,that the alliance of   
religion with the ,state has fostered   
persecution by the ,state1 the          
restraining influences coming from the  
secular half of the partnership2 7#d7   
,that the decline of persecution is due 
to causes that are quite unconnected    
with religious beliefs4  ,the first     
three points can really be taken        
together4 ,so far as can be seen there  

is no disinclination among primitive    
peoples to discuss the pros and cons of 
matters that are unconnected with       
religious beliefs4 ,so soon as we get   
people at a culture stage where the     
course of events is seen to be decided  
by human action1 there goes on a        
tolerance of conflicting opinions that  
is in striking contrast with what occurs
 with such matters as are believed to   
directly involve the action of deity4   
,one could not expect things to be      
otherwise4 ,in the carrying on of       
warfare1 as with many other tribal      
activities1 so many of the circumstances
 are of a determinable character1 and   
are clearly to be settled by an appeal  
to judgment and experience1 that very   
early in social history they must have  
presented themselves as a legitimate    
field for discussion1 and to discussion1
 as ,bagehot says1 nothing is sacred4   
,and as a matter of fact we have a      
survival of this to-day4 ,however       
intolerant the character1 so long as we 

are dealing with secular matters it is  
admitted that differences of opinion    
must be tolerated1 and are1 indeed1     
necessary if we are to arrive at the    
wisest conclusion4 ,the most autocratic 
of monarchs will call upon his advisers 
and take their dissension from his own  
views as a matter of course4 ,but when  
we get to the field of religion1 it is  
no longer a question of the legitimacy  
of difference1 but of its wrongness4    
,for a religious man to admit a         
discussion as to whether his religious  
belief is founded on fact or not is to  
imply a doubt1 and no thoroughly        
religious man ever encourages that4     
,what we have is prayers to be saved    
from doubt1 and deliberate efforts to   
keep away from such conditions and      
circumstances as may suggest the        
possibility of wrong4 ,the ideal        
religious character is the one who never
 doubts4  ,it may also be noted1 in     
passing1 that in connection with        
religion there is nothing to check      

intolerance at any stage4 ,in relation  
to secular matters an opinion is        
avowedly based upon verifiable facts and
 has no value apart from those facts4   
,the facts are common property1 open to 
all1 and may be examined by all4 ,in    
religion facts of a common and          
verifiable kind are almost wanting4 ,the
 facts of the religious life are mainly 
of an esoteric character--visions1      
intuitions1 etc4 ,and while on the      
secular side discussion is justified    
because of the agreement which results  
from it1 on the religious side the value
 of discussion is discounted because it 
never does lead to agreement4 ,the more 
people discuss religion the more        
pronounced the disagreement4 ,that is   
one reason why the world over the only  
method by which people have been brought
 to a state of agreement in religious   
doctrines is by excluding all who       
disagreed4 ,it is harmony in isolation4 
,now if we turn to religion we can see  
that from the very beginning the whole  

tendency here was to stifle difference  
of opinion1 and so establish intolerance
 as a religious duty4 ,the ,biblical    
story of ,jonah is a case that well     
illustrates the point4 ,god was not     
angry with the rest of the ship's       
inhabitants1 it was ,jonah only who had 
given offence4 ,but to punish ,jonah a  
storm was sent and the whole crew was in
 danger of shipwreck4 ,in their own     
defence the sailors were driven to throw
 ,jonah overboard4 ,jonah's disobedience
 was not1 therefore1 his concern alone4 
,all with him were involved2 ,god was   
ready to punish the whole for the       
offence of one4  ,now if for the ship we
 take a primitive tribe1 and for ,jonah 
a primitive heretic1 or one who for some
 reason or other has omitted a service  
to the gods1 we have an exact picture of
 what actually takes place4 ,in         
primitive societies rights are not so   
much individual as they are social4     
,every member of the tribe is           
responsible to the members of other     

tribes for any injury that may have been
 done4 ,and as with the members of      
another tribe1 so with the relation of  
the tribe to the gods4 ,if an individual
 offends them the whole of the tribe may
 suffer4 ,there is a splendid           
impartiality about the whole            
arrangement1 although it lacks all that 
we moderns understand by ,justice4 ,but 
the point here is that it makes the     
heretic not merely a mistaken person1   
but a dangerous character4 ,his heresy  
involves treason to the tribe1 and in   
its own defence it is felt that the     
heretic must be suppressed4 ,how this   
feeling lingers in relation to religion 
is well seen in the fact that there are 
still with us large numbers of very     
pious people who are ready to see in a  
bad harvest1 a war1 or an epidemic1 a   
judgment of ,god on the whole of the    
people for the sins of a few4 ,it is    
this element that has always given to   
religious persecutions the air of a     
solemn duty4 ,to suppress the heretic is

 something that is done in the interests
 of the whole of the people4            
,persecution becomes both a religious   
and a social duty4  ,the pedigree of    
religious persecution is thus clear4 ,it
 is inherent in religious belief1 and to
 whatever extent human nature is prone  
to intolerance1 the tendency has been   
fostered and raised to the status of a  
virtue by religious teaching and        
practice4 ,religion has served to       
confuse man's sense of right here as    
elsewhere4  ,we have thus two currents  
at work4 ,on the one hand1 there is the 
influence of the secular side of life1  
which makes normally for a greater      
tolerance of opinion1 on the other side 
there is religion which can only        
tolerate a difference of opinion to the 
extent that religious doctrines assume a
 position of comparative unimportance4  
,instead of it being the case that the  
,church has been encouraged to persecute
 by the ,state1 the truth is the other  
way about4 ,i know all that may be said 

as to the persecutions that have been   
set on foot by vested interests and by  
governments1 but putting on one side the
 consideration that this begs the       
question of how far it has been the     
consequence of the early influence of   
religion1 there are obvious limits      
beyond which a secular persecution      
cannot go4 ,a government cannot destroy 
its subjects1 or if it does the         
government itself disappears4 ,and the  
most thorough scheme of exploitation    
must leave its victims enough on which  
to live4 ,there are numerous            
considerations which weigh with a       
secular government and which have little
 weight with a ,church4  ,it may safely 
be said1 for example1 that no government
 in the world1 in the absence of        
religious considerations would have     
committed the suicidal act which drove  
the ,moors and the ,jews from ,spain4#bd
 ,as a matter of fact1 the landed       
aristocracy of ,spain resisted          
suggestions for expulsions for nearly a 

century because of the financial ruin   
they saw would follow4 ,it was the      
driving power of religious belief that  
finally brought about the expulsion4    
,religion alone could preach that it was
 better for the monarch to reign over a 
wilderness than over a nation of ,jews  
and unbelievers4 ,the same thing was    
repeated a century later in the case of 
the expulsion of the ,huguenots from    
,france4 ,here again the crown resisted 
the suggestions of the ,church1 and for 
the same reason4 ,and it is significant 
that when governments have desired to   
persecute in their own interests they   
have nearly always found it advantageous
 to do so under the guise of religion4  
,so far1 and in these instances1 it may 
be true that the ,state has used        
religion for its own purpose of         
persecution1 but this does not touch the
 important fact that1 given the sanction
 of religion1 intolerance and           
persecution assume the status of        
virtues4 ,and to the credit of the      

,state it must be pointed out that it   
has over and over again had to exert a  
restraining influence in the quarrels of
 sects4 ,it will be questioned by few   
that if the regulative influence of the 
,state had not been exerted the quarrels
 of the sects would have made a settled 
and orderly life next to impossible4    
#bd ,for this1 as well as for the       
general consequences of persecution on  
racial welfare1 see my pamphlet ,creed  
and ,character4  ,so far as             
,christianity is concerned it would     
puzzle the most zealous of its defenders
 to indicate a single direction in which
 it did anything to encourage the       
slightest modification of the spirit of 
intolerance4 ,mohammedans can at least  
point to a time when1 while their       
religion was dominant1 a considerable   
amount of religious freedom was allowed 
to those living under its control4 ,in  
the palmy days of the ,mohammedan rule  
in ,spain both ,jews and ,christians    
were allowed to practise their religion 

with only trifling inconveniences1      
certainly without being exposed to the  
fiendish punishments that characterized 
,christianity all over the world4       
,moreover1 it must never be overlooked  
that in ,europe all laws against heresy 
are of ,christian origin4 ,in the old   
,roman ,empire liberty of worship was   
universal4 ,so long as the ,state       
religion was treated with a moderate    
amount of respect one might worship     
whatever god one pleased1 and the number
 was sufficient to provide for the most 
varied tastes4 ,when ,christians were   
proceeded against it was under laws that
 did not aim primarily to shackle       
liberty of worship or of opinion4 ,the  
procedure was in every case formal1 the 
trial public1 time was given for the    
preparation of the defence1 and many of 
the judges showed their dislike to the  
prosecutions4#be ,but with the          
,christians1 instead of persecution     
being spasmodic it was persistent4 ,it  
was not taken up by the authorities with

 reluctance1 but with eagerness1 and it 
was counted as the most sacred of       
duties4 ,nor was it directed against a  
sectarian movement that threatened the  
welfare of the ,state4 ,the worst       
periods of ,christian persecution were  
those when the ,state had the least to  
fear from internal dissension4 ,the     
persecuted were not those who were      
guilty of neglect of social duty4 ,on   
the contrary they were serving the      
,state by the encouragement of          
literature1 science1 philosophy1 and    
commerce4 ,one of the ,pagan ,emperors1 
the great ,trajan1 had advised the      
magistrates not to search for           
,christians1 and to treat anonymous     
accusations with contempt4 ,christians  
carried the search for heresy into a    
man's own household4 ,it used the child 
to obtain evidence against its own      
parents1 the wife to secure evidence    
against the husband2 it tortured to     
provide dictated confessions1 and placed
 boxes at church doors to receive       

anonymous accusations4 ,it established  
an index of forbidden books1 an         
institution absolutely unknown to the   
pagan world4 ,the ,roman trial was open1
 the accused could hear the charge and  
cite witnesses for the defence4 ,the    
,christian trial was in secret2 special 
forms were used and no witnesses for the
 defence were permitted4 ,persecution   
was raised to a fine art4 ,under        
,christian auspices it assumed the most 
damnable form known in the history of   
the world4 ,there are no wild beasts so 
ferocious as ,christians was the amazed 
comment of the ,pagans on the behaviour 
of ,christians towards each other1 and  
the subsequent history of ,christianity 
showed that the ,pagans were but        
amateurs in the art of punishing for a  
difference of opinion4  #be ,i am taking
 the story of the persecutions of the   
early ,christians for granted1 although 
the whole question is surrounded with   
the greatest suspicion4 ,as a matter of 
fact the accounts are grossly           

exaggerated1 and some of the alleged    
persecutions never occurred4 ,the story 
of the persecutions is so foreign to the
 temper of the ,roman government as to  
throw doubt on the whole account4 ,the  
story of there being ten persecutions is
 clearly false1 the number being        
avowedly based upon the legend of the   
ten plagues of ,egypt4  ,up to a        
comparatively recent time there existed 
a practically unanimous opinion among   
,christians as to the desirability of   
forcibly suppressing heretical opinions4
 ,whatever the fortunes of              
,christianity1 and whatever the         
differences of opinion that gradually   
developed among ,christians there was   
complete unanimity on this point4       
,whatever changes the ,protestant       
,reformation effected it left this      
matter untouched4 ,in his ,history of   
,rationalism ,lecky has brought forward 
a mass of evidence in support of this1  
and ,i must refer to that work readers  
who are not already acquainted with the 

details4 ,luther1 in the very act of    
pleading for toleration1 excepted such  
as deny the common principles of the    
,christian religion1 and advised that   
the ,jews should be confined as madmen1 
their synagogues burned and their books 
destroyed4 ,the intolerance of ,calvin  
has became a byword2 his very apology   
for the burning of ,servetus1 entitled  
,a ,defence of the ,orthodox ,faith1    
bore upon its title page the significant
 sentence ,in which it is proved that   
heretics may justly be coerced with the 
sword4 ,his follower1 ,knox1 was only   
carrying out the teaching of the master 
in declaring that provoking the people  
to idolatry ought not to be exempt from 
the penalty of death1 and that          
magistrates and people are bound to do  
so 7inflict the death penalty7 unless   
they will provoke the wrath of ,god     
against themselves4 ,in every           
,protestant country laws against heresy 
were enacted4 ,in ,switzerland1 ,geneva1
 ,sweden1 ,england1 ,germany1 ,scotland1

 nowhere could one differ from the      
established faith without running the   
risk of torture and death4 ,even in     
,america1 with the exception of         
,maryland1#bf the same state of things  
prevailed4 ,in some ,states ,catholic   
priests were subject to imprisonment for
 life1 ,quaker women were whipped       
through the streets at the cart's tail1 
old men of the same denomination were   
pressed to death between stones4 ,at a  
later date 7about #aggj7 laws against   
heresy were general4 ,anyone1 says      
,fiske1--       who should dare to      
speculate too freely about the nature of
 ,christ1      or the philosophy of the 
plan of salvation1 or to express a doubt
      as to the plenary inspiration of  
every word between the two covers       
of the ,bible1 was subject to fine and  
imprisonment4 ,the tithing man          
still arrested the ,sabbath-breakers1   
and shut them up in the town      cage  
in the market-place2 he stopped all     
unnecessary riding or      driving on   

,sunday1 and haled people off to the    
meeting-house      whether they would or
 no4#bg  #bf ,the case of ,maryland is  
peculiar4 ,but the reason for the       
toleration there seems to have been due 
to the desire to give ,catholics a      
measure of freedom they could not have  
elsewhere in ,protestant countries4  #bg
 ,for a good sketch of the ,puritan     
,sunday in ,new ,england see ,the       
,sabbath in ,puritan ,new ,england1 by  
,alice ,morse ,earle4 ,for an account of
 religious intolerance see the account  
of the ,blue ,laws of ,connecticut as   
contained in ,hart's ,american ,history 
told by ,contemporaries1 ,vol4 ,i4  ,and
 we have to remember that the           
intolerance shown in ,america was       
manifested by men who had left their own
 country on the ostensible ground of    
freedom of conscience4 ,as a matter of  
fact1 in ,christian society genuine     
freedom of conscience was practically   
unknown4 ,what was meant by the         
expression was the right to express     

one's own religious opinions1 with the  
privilege of oppressing all with whom   
one happened to disagree4 ,the majority 
of ,christians would have as indignantly
 repudiated the assertion that they     
desired to tolerate non-,christian or   
anti-,christian opinions as they would  
the charge of themselves holding        
,atheistic ones4  ,how deeply ingrained 
was the principle that the established  
religion was justified in suppressing   
all others may be seen from a reading of
 such works as ,locke's ,letters on     
,toleration1 and ,milton's              
,areopagitica1 which stand in the       
forefront of the world's writings in    
favour of liberty of thought and speech4
 ,yet ,locke was of opinion that ,those 
are not at all to be tolerated who deny 
the being of a ,god4 ,promises1         
covenants1 and oaths1 which are the     
bonds of human society1 can have no hold
 upon an ,atheist4 ,the taking away of  
,god1 though but even in thought1       
dissolves all4 ,and ,milton1 while      

holding that it was more prudent and    
wholesome that many be tolerated rather 
than all compelled1 yet hastened to add 
,i mean not tolerated popery and open   
superstition1 which as it extirpates all
 religious and civil supremacies so     
should itself be extirpated4 ,in short1 
intolerance had become so established a 
part of a society saturated in religion 
that not even the most liberal could    
conceive a state of being in which all  
opinions should be placed upon an equal 
footing4  ,yet a change was all the time
 taking place in men's opinions on this 
matter1 a change which has in recent    
years culminated in the affirmation of  
the principle that the coercion of      
opinion is of all things the least      
desirable and the least beneficial to   
society at large4 ,and as in so many    
other cases1 it was not the gradual     
maturing of that principle that         
attracted attention so much as its      
statement in something like a complete  
and logical form4 ,the tracing of the   

conditions which have led to this       
tremendous revolution in public opinion 
will complete our survey of the subject4
  ,it has already been pointed out that 
in primitive societies a very important 
fact is that the relation of the        
individual to the community is of a     
different nature from that which exists 
in a later stage of culture4 ,the whole 
is responsible for the part in a very   
literal sense1 and especially so in     
regard to religious beliefs4 ,individual
 rights and responsibilities have but a 
precarious existence at best4 ,the      
individual exists far more for the      
benefit of the tribe than the tribe can 
be said to exist for the benefit of the 
individual4 ,the sense of corporate     
responsibility is strong1 and even in   
secular affairs we see this constantly  
manifested4 ,when a member of one tribe 
inflicts an injury upon a member of     
another tribe1 retaliation on any one of
 the group to which the offending person
 belongs will suffice4 ,we see the      

remnants of this primitive view of life 
in the feuds of schoolboys1 and it is   
also manifested in the relations of     
nations1 which move upon a lower ethical
 level than do individuals4 ,most wars  
are ostensibly waged because in some    
obscure way the nation is held          
responsible for the offences of one or  
more individuals4 ,and an instance of   
the same feeling is seen in the now     
obsolete practice of punishing the      
members of a man's family when the      
parents happen to have committed certain
 offences4  ,in religion1 as we have    
already pointed out1 the sense of       
corporate responsibility completely     
governs primitive man's sense of his    
relation to the tribal gods4 ,in the    
development of the tribal chief into the
 tribal god the ghost is credited with  
much the same powers as the man1 with   
the added terror of having more subtle  
and terrible ways of inflicting         
punishment4 ,the man who offends the    
ghost or the god is a standing danger to

 the whole of the tribe4 ,the whole of  
the tribe becomes responsible for the   
offence committed1 and the tribe in self
 protection must not alone take measures
 to punish the offender1 but must also  
guard itself against even the           
possibility of the offence being        
perpetrated4 ,the consequence is that   
there is not a religion in which one can
 fail to trace the presence of this     
primitive conception of personal and    
social responsibility1 and consequently1
 where we cannot find persecution1 more 
or less severe1 and also more or less   
organized1 in the interest of what is   
believed to be social welfare4 ,in the  
case of the failure of the ,spanish     
,armada to effect the conquest of       
,england1 the ,spanish monarch was      
convinced that its non-success was      
partly due to his not having weeded out 
the heretics from his own dominion      
before troubling about the heretics     
abroad4 ,and right down to our own day  
there has not been a national calamity  

the cause of which has not been found by
 numbers of religious people to lie in  
the fact that some members of the       
suffering nation have offended ,god4    
,the heretic becomes1 as we have already
 said1 a social danger of the gravest   
description4 ,society must be guarded   
against his presence just as we learn   
to-day to protect ourselves against the 
presence of a death-dealing germ4 ,the  
suppression of heresy thus becomes a    
social duty1 because it protects society
 from the anger of the gods4 ,the       
destruction of the heretic is           
substantially an act of social          
sanitation4 ,given the primitive        
conception of religion1 affiliated to   
the existing conception of corporate    
responsibility1 and persecution becomes 
one of the most important of social     
duties4  ,this1 ,i believe1 is not alone
 the root of persecution1 but it serves 
to explain as nothing else can its      
persistence in social life and the fact 
of its having became almost a general   

mental characteristic4 ,to realize this 
one need only bear in mind the          
overpowering part played by religious   
conceptions in early communities4 ,there
 is nothing done that is not more or    
less under the assumed control of       
supernatural agencies4 ,fear is the     
dominant emotion in relation to the     
gods1 and experience daily proves that  
there is nothing that can make men so   
brutal and so callous to the sufferings 
of others as can religious belief4 ,and 
while there has all along been a growing
 liberation of the mind from the control
 of religion1 the process has been so   
slow that this particular product of    
religious rule has had time to root     
itself very deeply in human nature4 ,and
 it is in accordance with all that we   
know of the order of development that   
the special qualities engendered by a   
particular set of conditions should     
persist long after the conditions       
themselves have passed away4  ,the      
conditions that co-operate in the final 

breaking down of the conviction of the  
morality of persecution are many and    
various4 ,primarily1 there is the change
 from the social state in which the     
conception of corporate responsibility  
is dominant to one in which there is a  
more or less clearly marked line between
 what concerns the individual alone and 
what concerns society as a whole4 ,this 
is illustrated in the growth from what  
,spencer called the military type of    
society to an industrial one4 ,in the   
case of a militant type of society1 to  
which the religious organization is so  
closely affiliated1 a ,state is more    
self contained1 and the governing       
principle is1 to use a generalization of
 ,sir ,henry ,maine's1 status rather    
than contract4 ,with the growth of      
commerce and industrialism there is     
developed a greater amount of individual
 initiative1 a growing consideration for
 personal responsibility1 and also the  
development of a sense of               
interdependence between societies4 ,and 

the social developments that go on teach
 people1 even though the lesson may be  
unconsciously learned1 to value each    
other in terms of social utility rather 
than in terms of belief in expressed    
dogmas4 ,they are brought daily into    
contact with men of widely differing    
forms of opinion2 they find themselves  
working in the same movements1 and      
participating in the same triumphs or   
sharing the same defeats4 ,insensibly   
the standard of judgment alters2 the    
strength of the purely social feelings  
overpowers the consciousness of         
theological differences1 and thus serves
 to weaken the frame of mind from which 
persecution springs4  ,the growing      
complexity of life leads to the same    
end4 ,where the conditions of life are  
simple1 and the experiences through     
which people pass are often repeated1   
and where1 moreover1 the amount of      
positive knowledge current is small1    
conclusions are reached rapidly1 and the
 feeling of confidence in one's own     

opinions is not checked by seeing others
 draw different conclusions from the    
same premises4 ,under such conditions an
 opinion once formed is not easily or   
quickly changed4 ,experience which makes
 for wider knowledge makes also for     
greater caution in forming opinions and 
a greater readiness to tolerate         
conclusions of an opposite character at 
which others may have arrived4          
,finally1 on the purely intellectual    
side one must reckon with the growth of 
new ideas1 and of knowledge that is in  
itself quite inconsistent with the      
established creed4 ,if the primary      
reason for killing the heretic is that  
he is a social danger1 one who will draw
 down on the tribe the vengeance of the 
gods1 the strength of that feeling      
against the heretic must be weakened by 
every change that lessens men's belief  
in the power of their deity4 ,and one   
must assume that every time a fresh     
piece of definite knowledge was acquired
 towards the splendid structure that now

 meets us in the shape of modern science
 there was accomplished something that  
involved an ultimate weakening of the   
belief in the supremacy of the gods4    
,the effect is cumulative1 and in time  
it is bound to make itself felt4        
,religious opinion after religious      
opinion finds itself attacked and its   
power weakened4 ,things that were       
thought to be solely due to the action  
of the gods are found to occur without  
their being invoked1 while invocation   
does not make the slightest difference  
to the production of given results4     
,scientific generalizations in          
astronomy1 in physics1 in biology1 etc41
 follow one another1 each helping to    
enforce the lesson that it really does  
not matter what opinions a man may hold 
about the gods provided his opinions    
about the world in which he is living   
and the forces with which he must deal  
are sound and solidly based4 ,in a world
 where opinion is in a healthy state of 
flux it is impossible for even religion 

to remain altogether unchanged4 ,so we  
have first a change in the rigidity of  
religious conceptions1 then a greater   
readiness to admit the possibility of   
error1 and1 finally1 the impossibility  
of preventing the growth and expression 
of definitely non-religious and         
anti-religious opinions in a community  
where all sorts of opinions cannot but  
arise4  ,with the social consequences of
 religious persecution1 and particularly
 of ,christian persecution1 ,i have     
dealt elsewhere1 and there is no need to
 repeat the story here4 ,i have been    
here concerned with making plain the    
fact that persecution does not arise    
with a misunderstanding of religion1 or 
with a decline of what is vaguely called
 true religion1 nor does it originate in
 the alliance of some ,church with the  
secular ,state4 ,it lies imbedded in the
 very nature of religion itself4 ,with  
polytheism there is a certain measure of
 toleration to gods outside the tribe1  
because here the admitted existence of a

 number of gods is part of the order of 
things4 ,but this tendency to toleration
 disappears when we come to the         
monotheistic stage which inevitably     
treats the claim to existence of other  
gods in the same spirit as an ardent    
royalist treats the appearance of a     
pretender to the throne4 ,to tolerate   
such is a crime against the legitimate  
ruler4 ,and when we get the ,christian  
doctrine of eternal damnation and       
salvation tacked on to the religious    
idea we have all the material necessary 
to give the persecutor the feeling of   
moral obligation1 and to make him feel  
that he is playing the part of a real   
saviour to society4  ,at bottom that is 
one of the chief injuries that a        
religion such as ,christianity inflicts 
on the race2 it throws human feeling    
into some of the most objectionable     
forms1 and provides a religious and     
moral justification for their           
expression4 ,the very desire to benefit 
one's fellows1 normally and naturally   

healthy1 thus becomes under ,christian  
influences an instrument of oppression  
and racial degradation4 ,the ,christian 
persecutor does not see himself for what
 he is1 he pictures himself as a saviour
 of men's souls by suppressing the      
unbeliever who would corrupt them4 ,and 
if ,christianity be true he is correct  
in thinking himself such4 ,i have no    
hesitation in saying that if            
,christianity be true persecution       
becomes the most important of duties4 ,a
 community that is thoroughly ,christian
 is bound to persecute1 and as a mere   
matter of historic fact every wholly    
,christian community has persecuted4    
,the community which says that a man may
 take any religion he pleases1 or go    
without one altogether if he so chooses1
 proclaims its disbelief in the         
importance of religion4 ,the measure of 
religious freedom is also the measure of
 religious indifference4  ,there are    
some experiences through which a human  
being may pass the effects of which he  

never completely outgrows4 ,usually he  
may appear to have put them quite out of
 his mind1 but there are times when he  
is lifted a little out of the normal1   
and then the recollection of what he has
 passed through comes back with         
terrifying force4 ,and acute observers  
may also be able to perceive that even  
in normal circumstances what he has     
passed through manifests itself for the 
worse in his everyday behaviour4 ,so    
with religion and the life history of   
the race4 ,for thousands of generations 
the race has been under the influence of
 a teaching that social welfare depended
 upon a right belief about the gods4    
,the consequence of this has been that  
persecution became deeply ingrained in  
human nature and in the social          
traditions which play so large a part in
 the character building of each new     
generation4 ,we have as yet hardly got  
beyond the tradition that lack of       
religion robs a man of social rights and
 dispenses with the necessity for       

courteous and considered treatment4 ,and
 there is1 therefore1 small cause for   
wonder that the element of intolerance  
should still manifest itself in         
connection with non-religious aspects of
 life4 ,but the certain thing is that   
throughout the whole of our social      
history it is religion that has been    
responsible for the maintenance of      
persecution as a social duty4 ,something
 has been done in more recent times to  
weaken its force1 the growth of science1
 the rationalizing of one institution   
after another--in a word1 the           
secularizing of life--is slowly creating
 more tolerant relations between people4
 ,but the poison is deep in the blood1  
and will not be eradicated in a         
generation4 ,religion is still here1 and
 so long as it remains it will never    
cease--under the guise of an appeal to  
the higher sentiments of man--to make   
its most effective appeals to passions  
of which the best among us are most     
heartily ashamed4     ,,chapter ,,xviii4

  ,,what ,,is ,,to ,,follow ,,religion8 
,books on the future of religion are    
numerous1 and to one blessed with a     
sense of humour1 full of entertainment4 
,they are also not without instruction  
of a psychological kind4 ,reliable      
information as to what the future will  
be like they certainly do not give1 but 
they do unlock the innermost desires of 
the writers thereof4 ,they express what 
the writers of the prophecies would like
 the future to be4 ,and they create the 
future state on earth exactly as devout 
believers have built up the character of
 their heaven beyond the clouds4 ,every 
form of faith which they disagree with  
is rejected as not possessing the       
element of vitality1 with the result    
that there is only their own form left4 
,and that1 they triumphantly proclaim1  
is the religion of the future4  ,but the
 future has an old-fashioned and        
disconcerting habit of disappointing    
expectations4 ,the factors that govern  
human nature are so many and so complex1

 their transmutations and combinations  
are so numerous1 that it is as well to  
tread cautiously1 and to a very         
considerable extent leave the future to 
take care of itself4 ,at the utmost all 
that we can do with safety is to detect 
tendencies1 and to hasten or retard     
their development as we think them good 
or bad4 ,the factors that make up a     
science of human nature are not to-day  
so well-known and so well understood    
that we can depict the state of society 
a century hence with the same certainty 
that we can foretell the position of the
 planet ,venus in the year #bjjj4  ,my  
aim in this chapter is1 therefore1 not  
to describe precisely what will be the  
state of society when religious belief  
has ceased to exist4 ,it is rather to   
offer a general reply to those gloomy   
individuals who declare that when the   
aims of the ,freethinker are fully      
realized we shall find that in          
destroying religion we have destroyed   
pretty much all that makes human life   

worth living4 ,we have managed to empty 
the baby out with the bath4  ,the most  
general form of this fear is expressed  
in calling ,freethought a creed of      
negation1 or a policy of destruction1   
and assuring the world that mankind can 
never rest content with such things4    
,that may be quite true1 but we fail to 
see in what way it touches ,freethought4
 ,a ,freethought that is wholly         
destructive1 that is a mere negation1 is
 a creation of the pulpit1 and belongs  
to the same class of imaginative efforts
 as the pietistic outbursts of famous   
unbelievers on their death-beds4 ,that  
such things could have obtained so wide 
a currency1 and be looked upon as quite 
natural occurrences1 offers             
demonstrative evidence of the paralyzing
 power of ,christian belief on the human
 mind4  ,as a matter of fact1 neither   
reformers in general nor ,freethinkers  
in particular deserve the charge of     
being mere destructionists4 ,they are   
both far more interested in building up 

than they are in pulling down1 and it is
 sheer lack of understanding that fixes 
the eyes of so many on one aspect of the
 reformer's task and so steadily ignores
 the other one4 ,of course1 the         
phenomenon is not an unusual one4 ,in a 
revolution it is the noise1 the street  
fighting1 the breaking of old rules and 
the shattering of established           
institutions that attract the most      
attention4 ,the deeper aims of the      
revolutionists1 the hidden social forces
 of which the revolution is the         
expression1 the work of reconstruction  
that is attempted1 escape notice4 ,the  
old order shrieks its loudest at the    
threat of dissolution1 the new can      
hardly make its voice heard4 ,carlyle's 
division of the people into the         
shrieking thousands and the dumb        
millions is eternally true4 ,and even   
the millions are impressed with the     
importance of the thousands because of  
the noise they are able to make4        
,actually the charge to which reformers 

in general are open is that of a too    
great zeal for reconstruction1 a        
belittling of the difficulties that     
stand in the way of a radical change4   
,they are apt to make too small an      
allowance for the occurrence of the     
unexpected and the incalculable1 both of
 which are likely to interfere with the 
fruition of the most logical of schemes4
 ,and they are so obsessed with         
reconstruction that destruction seems no
 more than an incident by the way4 ,a   
little less eagerness for reconstruction
 might easily result in a greater       
concern for what is being pulled down4  
,the two greatest destructive movements 
of modern times--the ,french revolution 
of #aghi and the ,russian               
revolution--both illustrate this point4 
,in both movements the leading figures  
were men who were obsessed with the idea
 of building a new world4 ,they saw this
 new world so clearly that the old one  
was almost ignored4 ,and this is equally
 true of the literature that precedes   

and is the mouthpiece of such movements4
 ,the leading appeal is always to what  
is to be1 what existed is only used as a
 means of enforcing the desirability of 
the new order4 ,it is1 in short1 the    
mania for reconstruction that is chiefly
 responsible for the destruction which  
so horrifies those whose vision can     
never see anything but the world to     
which they have become accustomed4  ,in 
parenthesis it may be remarked that it  
is a tactical blunder to make one's     
attack upon an existing institution or  
idea depend upon the attractiveness of  
the ideal state depicted4 ,it enables   
critics to fix attention on the precise 
value of the proposed remedy instead of 
discussing whether the suggested reform 
is necessary4 ,the attacker is thus     
placed in the position of the defender  
and the point at issue obscured4 ,this  
is1 that a certain institution or idea  
has outgrown its usefulness and its     
removal is necessary to healthy growth4 
,and it may well be that its removal is 

all that is required to enable the      
social organism to function naturally   
and healthily4 ,the outworn institution 
is often the grit in the machine that   
prevents it running smoothly4  ,this by 
the way4 ,the fact remains that some of 
our best teachers have shown themselves 
apt to stumble in the matter4 ,without  
belief in religion they have too often  
assumed that its removal would leave a  
serious gap in life1 and so would       
necessitate the creation of a number of 
substitutes to take the place of        
religion4 ,thus1 no less profound a     
thinker than ,herbert ,spencer remarks  
in the preface to his ,data of          
,ethics3--       ,few things can happen 
more disastrous than the death and decay
 of a      regulative system no longer  
fit1 before another and a better        
regulative system has grown up to       
replace it4 ,most of those who          
reject the current creed appear to      
assume that the controlling      agency 
furnished by it may safely be thrown    

aside1 and the vacancy      left        
unfilled by any other controlling       
agency4  ,had ,spencer first of all set 
himself to answer the question1 ,what is
 it that the ,freethinker sets himself  
to remove8 or even the question1 ,what  
is the actual control exerted by        
religion8 one imagines that the passage 
above given would either never have been
 written or would have been differently 
worded4 ,and when a man such as ,spencer
 permits himself to put the matter in   
this form one need not be surprised at  
the ordinary believer assuming that he  
has put an unanswerable question to the 
,freethinker when he asks what it is    
that we propose to put in the place of  
religion1 with the assumption that the  
question is on all fours with the       
enquiry as to what substitutes we have  
for soap and coal if we destroy all     
stocks of these articles4  ,the question
 assumes more than any scientific       
,freethinker would ever grant4 ,it takes
 for granted the statement that religion

 does at present perform some useful    
function in the ,state4 ,and that is the
 very statement that is challenged4 ,nor
 does the ,freethinker deny that some   
controlling agency is desirable4 ,what  
he does say is that in the modern       
,state1 at least1 religion exerts no    
control for good1 that its activities   
make for stagnation or retrogression1   
that its removal will make for the      
healthier operation of other agencies1  
and that to these other and             
non-religious agencies belongs the      
credit which is at present given to     
religion4  ,moreover1 ,spencer should   
not have needed reminding that systems  
of thought while they have any vital    
relation to life will successfully defy 
all attempts at eradication4 ,the main  
cause of the decay of religion is not   
the attack made upon it by the forces of
 reasoned unbelief4 ,that attack is     
largely the conscious expression of a   
revolt against a system that has long   
lost all touch with reality1 and so has 

ceased to derive support from current   
life and thought4 ,from this point of   
view the reformer is what he is because 
he is alive to the drift of events1     
susceptible to those social influences  
which affect all more or less1 and his  
strength is derived from the thousand   
and one subtle influences that extend   
from generation to generation and       
express themselves in what we are       
pleased to call the story of            
civilization4  ,but the quotation given 
does represent a fairly common point of 
view1 and it is put in a form that is   
most favourable to religious            
pretensions4 ,for it assumes that       
religion does really in our modern lives
 perform a function so useful that it   
would be the height of folly to remove  
it before we had something equally      
useful to take its place4 ,but something
 in the place of religion is a thing    
that no scientific ,freethinker desires4
 ,it is not a new religion1 or another  
religion that the world needs1 but the  

removal of religion from the control of 
life1 and a restatement of those social 
qualities that have hitherto been       
expressed in a religious form so that   
their real nature will be apparent to   
all4 ,then we shall at last begin to    
make progress with small chance of      
getting a serious set-back4  ,this does 
not1 of course1 deny that there are many
 things associated with religion for the
 absence of which society would have    
cause for regret4 ,it is part of the    
,freethought case that this is so4 ,and 
it may also be admitted that large      
numbers of people honestly believe that 
their religious beliefs serve as motives
 to the expression of their better      
qualities4 ,that1 again1 is part of the 
delusion we are fighting4 ,we cannot    
agree that religion1 as such1 contains  
anything that is essentially useful to  
the race4 ,it has maintained its power  
chiefly because of its association with 
serviceable social qualities1 and it is 
part of the work of ,freethought to     

distinguish between what properly       
belongs to religion and what has become 
associated with it during its long      
history4 ,at present the confusion      
exists and the fact need cause no       
surprise4 ,at best the instincts of man 
are deep-laid1 the motives to conduct   
are mostly of an obscure kind1 and it   
would be cause for surprise if1 seeing  
how closely religion is associated with 
every phase of primitive life1 and how  
persistent are primitive modes of       
thinking1 there were not this confusion 
between the actual part played by       
religion in life and the part assigned  
it by tradition4  ,at any rate1 it is   
idle to argue as though human conduct   
was governed by a single idea--that of  
religion4 ,at the most religious beliefs
 represent no more than a part of the   
vast mass of influences that determine  
human effort4 ,and when we see how      
largely religious beliefs are dependent 
upon constant stimulation and protection
 for their existence1 it seems extremely

 unlikely that they can hold a very     
vital relation to life4 ,the impotency  
of religion in matters of conduct is1   
too1 decisively shown in the fact that  
it is quite impossible to arrange men   
and women in a scale of values that     
shall correspond with the kind or the   
fervency of their religious beliefs4 ,a 
religious person may be a useful member 
of society or he may be a quite useless 
one4 ,a profound religious conviction   
may be accompanied by the loftiest of   
ideals or by the meanest of aims4 ,the  
unbeliever may be1 and often is1 a      
better man than the believer4 ,no       
business man would ever think of making 
a man's religion the condition of taking
 one into his service1 or if he did the 
general opinion would be that it        
indicated bigotry and not shrewdness4   
,we find it quite impossible to         
determine the nature of religious belief
 by watching the way people behave4 ,in 
no stage of social life does religion   
provide us with anything in the nature  

of a differentiating factor4  ,it was   
argued by the late ,sir ,james          
,fitzjames ,stephen1 himself a          
,freethinker1 that as men have for a    
long time been in the habit of          
associating moral feelings with the     
belief in ,god1 a severance of the two  
may entail moral disaster4 ,it is1 of   
course1 hard to say what may not happen 
in certain cases1 but it is quite       
certain that such a consequence could   
not follow on any general scale4 ,one   
has only to bring a statement of this   
kind down from the region of mere theory
 to that of definite fact to see how    
idle the fear is4 ,if1 instead of       
asserting in a vague way that the moral 
life is in some way bound up with       
religious beliefs we ask what moral     
action or moral disposition is so       
connected1 we realize the absurdity of  
the statement4 ,professor ,leuba well   
says3--       ,our alleged essential    
dependence upon transcendental beliefs  
is      belied by the most common       

experiences of daily life4 ,who does not
      feel the absurdity of the opinion 
that the lavish care for a sick         
child by a mother is given because of a 
belief in ,god and      immortality8    
,are love of father and mother on the   
part of children1      affection and    
serviceableness between brothers and    
sisters1      straightforwardness and   
truthfulness between business men       
essentially dependent upon these        
beliefs8 ,what sort of person would     
be the father who would announce divine 
punishment or reward in      order to   
obtain the love and respect of his      
children8 ,and if there      are        
business men preserved from             
unrighteousness by the fear of          
future punishment1 they are far more    
numerous who are deterred by      the   
threat of human law4 ,most of them would
 take their chances with      heaven a  
hundred times before they would once    
with society1 or      perchance with the
 imperative voice of humanity heard in  

the      conscience 7,the ,belief in    
,god and ,immortality1 p4 #cbc74  ,and  
in whatever degree the fear may be      
justified in special cases1 it applies  
to any attempt whatever that may be made
 to disturb existing conventions4       
,luther complained that some of his own 
converts were behaving worse as         
,protestants than they behaved as       
,catholics1 and even in the ,new        
,testament we have the same unfavourable
 comparison made of many of ,christ's   
followers when compared with the ,pagans
 around them4 ,a transference of        
allegiance may easily result in certain 
ill-balanced minds kicking over the     
traces1 but in the long run1 and with   
the mass1 the deeper social needs are   
paramount4 ,there was the same fear     
expressed concerning man's political and
 social duties when the relations of    
,church and ,state were first           
challenged4 ,yet the connection between 
the two has been quite severed in some  
countries1 and very much weakened in    

many more1 without society in the least 
suffering from the change4 ,on the      
contrary1 one may say that man's duties 
towards the ,state have been more       
intelligently perceived and more        
efficiently discharged in proportion as 
those religious considerations that once
 ruled have been set on one side4  ,the 
reply of the ,freethinker to the        
question of ,what is to follow religion8
 may1 therefore1 easily be seen4 ,in    
effect it is1 ,nothing at all4 ,in any  
study of social evolution the properly  
equipped student commences his task with
 the full conviction that whatever the  
future may be like its germs are already
 with us4 ,if nature does not abhor a   
vacuum it has at least an intense       
dislike to absolute beginnings4 ,the    
future will be an elaboration of the    
present as the present is an elaboration
 of the past4 ,for good or evil that    
principle remains unimpeachable4  ,the  
essential question is not1 ,what is to  
follow religion8 but rather what will   

the disappearance of religion affect    
that is of real value to the world4 ,the
 moment the question is raised in this  
unambiguous manner the answer suggests  
itself4 ,for assume that by some strange
 and unexpected happening there set in a
 raging epidemic of common sense4       
,assume that as a consequence of this   
the world was to awake with its mind    
completely cleared of all belief in     
religion4 ,what would be the effect of  
the transformation8 ,it is quite clear  
that it would not affect any of the     
fundamental processes of life4 ,the     
tragi-comedy of life would still be     
performed1 it would run through the same
 number of acts1 and it would end in the
 same happy or unhappy manner4 ,human   
beings would still get born1 they would 
grow up1 they would fall in love1 they  
would marry1 they would beget their     
kind1 and they would in turn pass away  
to make room for another generation4    
,birth and death1 with all their        
accompanying feelings1 would remain4    

,human society would continue1 all the  
glories of art1 the greatness of        
science1 all the marvels and wonders of 
the universe would be there whether we  
believed in a ,god or not4 ,the only    
difference would be that we should no   
longer associate these things with the  
existence of a ,god4 ,and in that       
respect we should be following the same 
course of development that has been     
followed in many other departments of   
life4 ,we do not nowadays associate the 
existence of spirits with a good or a   
bad harvest1 the anger of ,god with an  
epidemic1 or the good-will of deity with
 a spell of fine weather4 ,yet in each  
case there was once the same assumed    
association between these things1 and   
the same fears of what would happen if  
that association was discarded4 ,we are 
only carrying the process a step        
further2 all that is required is a      
little courage to take the step4 ,in    
short1 there is not a single useful or  
worthy quality1 intellectual or moral1  

that can possibly suffer from the       
disappearance of religion4  ,on this    
point we may again quote from ,professor
 ,leuba3--       ,the heroism of        
religious martyrs is often flaunted as  
marvellous      instances of the unique 
sustaining strength derived from the    
belief      in a personal ,god and the  
anticipation of heaven4 ,and yet for    
every martyr of this sort there has been
 one or more heroes who has      risked 
his life for a noble cause1 without the 
comfort which      transcendental       
beliefs may bring4 ,the very present    
offers almost      countless instances  
of martyrs to the cause of humanity1 who
 are      strangers to the idea of ,god 
and immortality4 ,how many men and      
women in the past decade gladly offered 
and not infrequently lost      their    
lives in the cause of freedom1 or       
justice1 or science8 ,in the            
monstrous war we are now witnessing1 is 
there a less heroic defence      of home
 and nation1 and less conscious         

self-renunciation among the             
non-believers than among the professed  
,christians8 ,have modern      nations  
shown a more intense or a purer         
patriotism than ancient      ,greece and
 ,rome1 where men did not pretend to    
derive inspiration      for their deeds 
of devotion in the thoughts of their    
gods4444 ,the      fruitful deeds of    
heroism are at bottom inspired not by   
the thought      of ,god or a future    
life1 but by innate tendencies or       
promptings      that have reference to  
humanity4 ,self sacrifice1 generosity1  
is      rooted in nothing less          
superficial and accidental than social  
instincts older than the human race1 for
 they are already present      in a     
rudimentary form in the higher animals4 
,these are quite familiar statements to 
all ,freethinkers1 but to a great many  
,christians they may come with all the  
force of a new revelation4  ,in the     
earlier pages of this work ,i have given
 what ,i conceive solid reasons for     

believing that every one of the social  
and individual virtues is born of human 
intercourse and can never be seriously  
deranged for any length of time1 so long
 as human society endures4 ,the scale of
 values may well undergo a change with  
the decay of religion1 but that is      
something which is taking place all the 
time1 provided society is not in a state
 of absolute stagnation4 ,there is not  
any change that takes place in society  
that does not affect our view of the    
relative value of particular qualities4 
,the value we place upon personal       
loyalty to a king is not what it once   
was4 ,at one stage a man is ready to    
place the whole of his fortune at the   
disposal of a monarch merely because he 
happens to be his anointed king4        
,to-day1 the man who had no better      
reason for doing that would be looked   
upon as an idiot4 ,unquestioning        
obedience to established authority1     
which once played so high a part in the 
education of children1 is now ranked    

very low by all who understand what     
genuine education means4 ,from          
generation to generation we go on       
revising our estimate of the value of   
particular qualities1 and the world is  
the better for the revision4 ,and that  
is what we may assume will occur with   
the decay of religious belief4 ,we shall
 place a higher value upon certain      
qualities than we do at present and a   
lower value upon others4 ,but there will
 be no discarding the old qualities and 
creation of new ones4 ,human nature will
 be the same then as now1 as it has been
 for thousands of years4 ,the nature of 
human qualities will be more directly   
conceived and more intelligently        
applied1 and that will be an undesirable
 development only for those who live by 
exploiting the ignorance and the folly  
of mankind4  ,thus1 if one may venture  
upon a prophecy with regard to the      
non-religious society of the future it  
may be said with confidence that what   
are known as the ascetic qualities are  

not likely to increase in value4 ,the   
cant of ,christianity has always placed 
an excessive value upon what is called  
self-sacrifice4 ,but there is no value  
in self-sacrifice1 as such4 ,at best it 
is only of value in exceptional         
circumstances1 as an end it is worse    
than useless1 and it may easily         
degenerate from a virtue to a vice4 ,it 
assumed high rank with ,christian       
teachers for various reasons4 ,first1 it
 was an expression of that asceticism   
which lies at the root of ,christianity1
 second1 because ,christianity pictured 
this world as no more than a preparation
 for another1 and taught that the       
deprivations and sufferings of the      
present life would be placed to a credit
 account in the next one1 and third1    
because it helped men and women to      
tolerate injustice in this world and so 
helped the political game that          
governments and the ,christian ,church  
have together played4 ,a really         
enlightened society would rank          

comparatively low the virtue of         
asceticism4 ,its principle would be not 
self-sacrifice but self-development4    
,what must result from this is an       
enlargement of our conception of justice
 and also of social reform4 ,both of    
these things occupy a very low place in 
the ,christian scale of virtues4 ,social
 reform it has never bothered seriously 
about1 and in its earlier years simply  
ignored4 ,a people who were looking for 
the end of the world1 whose teaching was
 that it was for man's spiritual good to
 suffer1 and who looked for all help to 
supernatural intervention1 could never  
have had seriously in their minds what  
we understand by social reform4 ,and so 
with the conception of ,justice4 ,there 
is much of this in pre-,christian       
literature1 and its entrance into the   
life and thought of modern ,europe can  
be traced directly back to ,greek and   
,roman sources4 ,but the work of the    
,christian1 while it may have been to   
heal wounds1 was not to prevent their   

infliction4 ,it was to minister to      
poverty1 not to remove those conditions 
that made poverty inevitable4  ,a       
,spanish writer has put this point so   
well that ,i cannot do better than quote
 him4 ,he says3--       ,the notion of  
justice is as entirely foreign to the   
spirit of      ,christianity as is that 
of intellectual honesty4 ,it lies wholly
      outside the field of its ethical  
vision4 ,christianity--,i am not        
referring to interpretations disclaimed 
as corruptions or      applications     
which may be set down to frailty and    
error1 but to the      most idealized   
conceptions of its substance and the    
most exalted      manifestations of its 
spirit--,christianity has offered       
consolation      and comfort to men who 
suffered under injustice1 but of that   
injustice itself it has remained        
absolutely incognizant4 ,it has         
called upon the weary and heavy laden1  
upon the suffering and the              
afflicted1 it has proclaimed to them the

 law of love1 the duty of      mercy and
 forgiveness1 the ,fatherhood of ,god2  
but in that torment      of religious   
and ethical emotion which has impressed 
men as the      summit of the sublime1  
and been held to transcend all other    
ethical      ideals1 common justice1    
common honesty have no place4 ,the ideal
      ,christian is seen in the saint   
who is seen descending like an angel    
from heaven amid the welter of human    
misery1 among the victims of            
ruthless oppression and injustice 444   
but the cause of that misery      lies  
wholly outside the range of his         
consciousness2 no glimmer of      right 
or wrong enters into his view of it4 ,it
 is the established      order of       
things1 the divinely appointed          
government of the world1      the trial 
laid upon sinners by divine ordinance4  
,st4 ,vincent de      ,paul visits the  
hell of the ,french galleys2 he         
proclaims the      message of love and  
calls sinners to repentance2 but to the 

iniquity which creates and maintains    
that hell he remains      absolutely    
indifferent4 ,he is appointed ,grand    
,almoner to his ,most      ,christian   
,majesty4 ,the world might groan in     
misery under the      despotism of      
oppressors1 men's lives and men's minds 
might be      enslaved1 crushed and     
blighted2 the spirit of ,christianity   
would go      forth and comfort them1   
but it would never occur to it to       
redress      a single one of those      
wrongs4 ,it has remained unconscious of 
them4      ,to those wrongs1 to men's   
right to be delivered from them1 it was 
by nature completely blind4 ,in respect 
to justice1 to right and      wrong1 the
 spirit of ,christianity is not so much 
immoral as amoral4      ,the notion was 
as alien to it as the notion of truth4  
,included in      its code was1 it might
 be controversially alleged1 an old     
formula1      the golden rule1 a        
commonplace of most literature1 which   
was      popular in the ,east from      

,china to ,asia ,minor2 but that        
isolated      precept was never         
interpreted in the sense of justice4 ,it
 meant      forgiveness1 forbearing1    
kindness1 but never mere justice1 common
      equity2 those virtues were far too
 unemotional in aspect to appeal      to
 the religious enthusiast4 ,the         
renunciation of life and all its        
vanities1 the casting overboard of all  
sordid cares for its      maintenance1  
the suppression of desire1 prodigal     
almsgiving1 the      consecration of a  
life1 the value of which had disappeared
 in his      eyes1 to charity and love1 
non-resistance1 passive obedience1 the  
turning of the other cheek to an enemy1 
the whole riot of these      hyperbolic 
ethical emotions could fire the         
,christian consciousness1      while it 
remained utterly unmoved by every form  
of wrong1 iniquity      and injustice   
7,dr4 ,falta de ,gracia4 ,cited by ,dr4 
,r4 ,briffault1 ,the      ,making of    
,humanity1 pp4 #ccd-e47  ,that1 we may  

assume1 will be one of the most striking
 consequences of the displacement of    
,christianity in the social economy4    
,there will be less time wasted on what 
is called philanthropic work--which is  
often the most harmful of all social    
labours--and more attention to the      
removal of those conditions that have   
made the display of philanthropy        
necessary4 ,there will not be less      
feeling for the distressed or the       
unfortunate1 but it will be emotion     
under the guidance of the intellect1 and
 the dominant feeling will be that of   
indignation against the conditions that 
make human suffering and degradation    
inevitable1 rather than a mere          
gratification of purely egoistic feeling
 which leaves the source of the evil    
untouched4  ,that will mean a rise in   
the scale of values of what one may call
 the intellectual virtues--the duty of  
truthseeking and truth speaking4        
,hitherto the type of character held up 
for admiration by ,christianity has been

 that of the blind believer who allowed 
nothing to stand in the way of his      
belief1 who required no proofs of its   
truth and allowed no disproofs to enter 
his mind4 ,a society in which religion  
does not hold a controlling place is not
 likely to place a very high value upon 
such precepts as ,blessed are those who 
have not seen and yet have believed1 or 
,though he slay me yet will ,i trust    
him4 ,but a very high value will be     
placed upon the duty of investigation   
and the right of criticism4 ,and one    
cannot easily over-estimate the         
consequences of a generation or two     
brought up in an atmosphere where such  
teachings obtain4 ,it would mean a      
receptiveness to new ideas1 a readiness 
to overhaul old institutions1 a         
toleration of criticism such as would   
rapidly transform the whole mental      
atmosphere and with it enormously       
accentuate the capacity for1 and the    
rapidity of1 social progress4  ,there is
 also to be borne in mind the effect of 

the liberation of the enormous amount of
 energy at present expended in the      
service of religion4 ,stupid religious  
controversialists often assume that it  
is part of the ,freethinker's case that 
religion enlists in its service bad men1
 and much time is spent in proving that 
religious people are mostly worthy ones4
 ,that could hardly be otherwise in a   
society where the overwhelming majority 
of men and women profess a religion of  
some sort4 ,but that is1 indeed1 not the
 ,freethinker's case at all1 and if the 
badness of some religious people is     
cited it is only in answer to the       
foolish argument that religionists are  
better than others4 ,the real complaint 
against religion is of a different kind 
altogether4 ,just as the worst thing    
that one can say about a clergyman      
intellectually is1 not that he does not 
believe in what he preaches1 but that he
 does1 so the most serious indictment of
 current religion is not that it enlists
 in its service bad characters1 but that

 it dissipates the energy of good men   
and women in a perfectly useless manner4
 ,the dissipation of ,christian belief  
means the liberating of a store of      
energy for service that is at present   
being expended on ends that are without 
the least social value4 ,a world without
 religion would thus be a world in which
 the sole ends of endeavour would be    
those of human betterment or human      
enlightenment1 and probably in the end  
the two are one4 ,for there is no real  
betterment without enlightenment1 even  
though there may come for a time        
enlightenment without betterment4 ,it   
would leave the world with all the means
 of intellectual and aesthetic and      
social enjoyment that exist now1 and one
 may reasonably hope that it will lead  
to their cultivation and diffusion over 
the whole of society4     ,printed and  
,published by   ,,the ,,pioneer ,,press 
7,g4 ,w4 ,,foote  ,,co41 ,,ltd471   #fa 
,farringdon ,street1 ,london1 ,e4,c4 #d4
     ,,announcements4   ,,the ,,secular 

,,society1 ,limited4  ,registered       
,office3 #fb ,farringdon ,street1       
,london1 ,e4,c4 #d4  ,secretary3 ,miss  
,e4 ,m4 ,,vance4  ,the ,memorandum of   
,association sets forth that the        
,society's ,objects are3--,to promote   
the principle that human conduct should 
be based upon natural knowledge1 and not
 upon supernatural belief1 and that     
human welfare in this world is the      
proper end of all thought and action4   
,to promote freedom of inquiry4 ,to     
promote universal ,secular ,education4  
,to promote the complete secularization 
of the ,state1 etc4 ,and to do all such 
lawful things as are conducive to such  
objects4 ,also to have1 hold1 receive1  
and retain any sums of money paid1      
given1 devised1 or bequeathed by any    
person1 and to employ the same for any  
of the purposes of the ,society4        
,members pay an entrance fee of ten     
shillings1 and a subsequent yearly      
subscription of five shillings4 ,the    
liability of members is limited to ,l#a1

 in case the ,society should ever be    
wound up4  ,the ,society's affairs are  
managed by an elected ,board of         
,directors1 one-third of whom retire 7by
 ballot71 each year1 but are eligible   
for re-election4  ,friends desiring to  
benefit the ,society are invited to make
 donations1 or to insert a bequest in   
the ,society's favour in their wills4   
,the now historic decision of the ,house
 of ,lords in re ,bowman and ,others v4 
the ,secular ,society1 ,limited1 in     
#aiag1 a verbatim report of which may be
 obtained from its publishers1 the      
,pioneer ,press1 or from the ,secretary1
 makes it quite impossible to set aside 
such bequests4  ,a ,form of             
,bequest4--,the following is a          
sufficient form of bequest for insertion
 in the wills of testators3--       ,i  
give and bequeath to the ,secular       
,society1 ,limited1 the sum of          
,l---- free from ,legacy ,duty1 and ,i  
direct that a receipt signed by      two
 members of the ,board of the said      

,society and the ,secretary      thereof
 shall be a good discharge to my        
,executors for the said      ,legacy4   
,it is advisable1 but not necessary1    
that the ,secretary should be formally  
notified of such bequests1 as wills     
sometimes get lost or mislaid4 ,a form  
of membership1 with full particulars1   
will be sent on application to the      
,secretary1 #fb ,farringdon ,street1    
,london1 ,e4,c4 #d4   ,,national        
,,secular ,,society4  ,president3       
,,chapman ,,cohen4  ,secretary3 ,,miss  
,e4 ,m4 ,,vance4 #fb ,,farringdon       
,,street1 ,,london1 ,e4,c4 #d4          
,,principles ,,and ,,objects4           
,secularism teaches that conduct should 
be based on reason and knowledge4 ,it   
knows nothing of divine guidance or     
interference2 it excludes supernatural  
hopes and fears2 it regards happiness as
 man's proper aim1 and utility as his   
moral guide4  ,secularism affirms that  
,progress is only possible through      
,liberty1 which is at once a right and a

 duty1 and therefore seeks to remove    
every barrier to the fullest equal      
freedom of thought1 action1 and speech4 
,secularism declares that theology is   
condemned by reason as superstitious1   
and by experience as mischievous1 and   
assails it as the historic enemy of     
,progress4  ,secularism accordingly     
seeks to dispel superstition2 to spread 
education2 to disestablish religion2 to 
rationalize morality2 to promote peace2 
to dignify labour2 to extend material   
well-being2 and to realize the          
self-government of the people4          
,p4,s4--,beyond a minimum of ,two       
,shillings per year1 every member is    
left to fix his own subscription        
according to his means and interest in  
the cause4  ,all applications for       
,membership to be made to the ,secretary
 as above4   ,,pioneer ,,press          
,,publications  ,by ,,chapman ,,cohen4  
,,theism ,,or ,,atheism8 ,the ,great    
,alternative4 ,bound in ,full ,cloth1   
,gilt      ,lettered4 ,price #es41      

postage #c;d4      ,,contents3 ,,part   
,i4--,,an ,,examination ,,of            
,,theism4--,chapter ,i4--,what is       
,god8 ,chapter ,,ii4--,the ,origin of   
the ,idea of ,god4 ,chapter             
,,iii4--,have     we a ,religious       
,sense8 ,chapter ,,iv4--,the ,argument  
from ,existence4     ,chapter ,v4--,the 
,argument from ,causation4 ,chapter     
,,vi4--,the ,argument     from ,design4 
,chapter ,,vii4--,the ,disharmonies of  
,nature4 ,chapter     ,,viii4--,god and 
,evolution4 ,chapter ,,ix4--,the        
,problem of ,pain4 ,,part               
,,ii4--,,substitutes ,,for              
,,atheism4--,chapter ,x4--,a ,question  
of ,prejudice4     ,chapter ,,xi4--,what
 is ,atheism8 ,chapter ,,xii4--,spencer 
and the     ,unknowable4 ,chapter       
,,xiii4--,agnosticism4 ,chapter         
,,xiv4--,atheism and     ,morals4       
,chapter ,,xv4--,atheism ,inevitable4   
,,religion ,,and ,,sex4 ,studies in the 
,pathology of ,religious ,development4  
,price #fs41 postage #i;d4      ,a      

,systematic and ,comprehensive ,survey  
of the relations between the     sexual 
instinct and morbid and abnormal mental 
states and the sense     of religious   
exaltation and illumination4 ,the ground
 covered ranges     from the primitive  
culture stage to present-day revivalism 
and     mysticism4 ,it is a work that   
should be in the hands of all           
interested in ,sociology1 ,religion or  
,psychology4    ,,creed ,,and           
,,character4 ,the ,influence of         
,religion on ,racial ,life4 ,price      
#g;d41 postage #a-a_/b;d4               
,,contents3 ,chapter ,i4--,religion and 
,race ,survival4 ,chapter               
,,ii4--,christianity and ,social ,life4 
,chapter ,,iii4--,the ,case of the      
,jew4 ,chapter ,,iv4--,a ,lesson from   
,spain4    ,,determinism ,,or           
,,free-,,will8 ,in ,paper ,cover1 #as4  
#i;d41 postage #b;d4      ,half-,cloth1 
#bs4 #f;d41 postage #c;d4               
,,contents3 ,chapter ,i4--,the ,question
 ,stated4 ,chapter ,,ii4--,freedom      

and ,will4 ,chapter                     
,,iii4--,consciousness1 ,deliberation1  
and ,choice4     ,chapter ,,iv4--,some  
,alleged ,consequences of ,determinism4 
,chapter     ,v4--,professor ,james on  
the ,dilemma of ,determinism4 ,chapter  
,,vi4--,the ,nature and ,implication of 
,responsibility4 ,chapter               
,,vii4--,determinism and ,character4    
,chapter ,,viii4--,a ,problem in        
,determinism4 ,chapter                  
,,ix4--,environment4    ,,christianity  
,,and ,,slavery4 ,with a ,chapter on the
 ,relation of      ,christianity to the 
,labour ,movement4 ,fully ,documented   
with ,two      ,plates and ,portrait4   
,price #as41 postage #a-a_/b;d4         
,,contents3 ,chapter ,i4--,slavery and  
the ,bible4 ,chapter ,,ii4--,paganism   
and ,slavery4 ,chapter ,,iii4--,slavery 
in the ,christian ,ages4 ,chapter       
,,iv4--,the ,english ,slave ,trade4     
,chapter ,v4--,american ,slavery4       
,chapter     ,,vi4--,christianity and   
,labour4 ,chapter ,,vii4--,black and    

,white4    ,,woman ,,and ,,christianity4
 ,the ,subjection and ,exploitation of a
 ,sex4 ,an      ,anthropological and    
,historical ,inquiry4 ,fully            
,documented4 ,price      #as41 postage  
#a-a_/b;d4      ,,contents3 ,chapter    
,i4--,christianity and ,morality4       
,chapter ,,ii4--,woman     and          
,primitive ,religious ,beliefs4 ,chapter
 ,,iii4--,woman in     ,pre-,christian  
,civilization4 ,chapter ,,iv4--,woman   
and the ,bible4     ,chapter ,v4--,woman
 ,under ,christianity4 ,chapter         
,,vi4--,christianity and     the ,home4 
,chapter ,,vii4--,madonna-,worship and  
,chivalry4 ,chapter                     
,,viii4--,religion and ,woman4    ,,does
 ,,man ,,survive ,,death8 ,is the       
,belief ,reasonable8 ,verbatim ,report  
of      a ,discussion between ,horace   
,leaf and ,chapman ,cohen4 ,price #g;d41
      postage #a;d4    ,,deity ,,and    
,,design4 ,price #a;d41 postage #a_/b;d4
    ,,the ,,parson ,,and ,,the          
,,atheist4 ,a ,friendly ,discussion on  

,religion and ,life      between ,rev4  
the ,hon4 ,edward ,lyttelton1 ,d4,d41   
and ,chapman ,cohen4      ,price #as4   
#f;d41 postage #b;d4    ,,god ,,and     
,,man4 ,an ,essay in ,common ,sense and 
,natural ,morality4 ,price #c;d41       
postage #a;d4    ,,war ,,and            
,,civilization4 ,price #a;d41 postage   
#a_/b;d4    ,,socialism ,,and ,,the     
,,churches4 ,price #c;d41 postage #c;d4 
,,religion ,,and ,,the ,,child4 ,a ,plea
 for ,fair ,play to the ,child4 ,price  
#a;d41      postage #a_/b;d4    ,,modern
 ,,materialism4 ,a ,candid ,examination4
 ,by ,,walter ,,mann4 ,paper            
,cover1 #bs42 ,cloth #cs4 #f;d41 postage
 #b;d4      ,,contents3 ,chapter        
,i4--,modern ,materialism4 ,chapter     
,,ii4--,darwinian     ,evolution4       
,chapter ,,iii4--,auguste ,comte and    
,positivism4 ,chapter                   
,,iv4--,herbert ,spencer and the        
,synthetic ,philosophy4 ,chapter        
,v4--,the     ,contribution of ,kant4   
,chapter ,,vi4--,huxley1 ,tyndall1 and  

,clifford     open the ,campaign4       
,chapter ,,vii4--,buechner's ,force and 
,matter4     ,chapter ,,viii4--,atoms   
and the ,ether4 ,chapter ,,ix4--,the    
,origin of ,life4     ,chapter          
,x4--,atheism and ,agnosticism4 ,chapter
 ,,xi4--,the ,french     ,revolution and
 the ,great ,war4 ,chapter ,,xii4--,the 
,advance of     ,materialism4      ,a   
careful and exhaustive examination of   
the meaning of ,materialism     and its 
present standing1 together with its     
bearing on various     aspects of life4 
,a much needed work4    ,,god-,,eating4 
,a ,study in ,christianity and          
,cannibalism4 ,by ,j4 ,t4 ,,lloyd4      
,in ,coloured ,wrapper4 ,price #f;d41   
postage #a-a_/b;d4    ,,the ,,ruins4 ,a 
,survey of the ,revolutions of ,empires4
 ,to which is added      ,,the ,,law    
,,of ,,nature4 ,by ,c4 ,f4 ,,volney4 ,a 
,new ,edition1 being a ,revised         
,translation with ,introduction by      
,,george ,,underwood1 ,portrait1        
,astronomical ,charts1 and ,artistic    

,cover ,design by ,h4 ,,cutner4 ,price  
#es41 postage #c;d4    ,,the            
,,life-,,worship ,,of ,,richard         
,,jefferies4 ,with ,fine ,portrait of   
,jefferies4 ,by ,,arthur ,f4 ,,thorn4   
,price #as41 postage #a-a_/b;d4    ,,the
 ,,bible ,,handbook4 ,for ,freethinkers 
and ,inquiring ,christians4 ,by ,g4     
,w4 ,,foote and ,w4 ,p4 ,,ball4 ,new    
,edition4 ,cloth ,bound4 ,price #bs4    
#f;d41      postage #c;d4               
,,contents3 ,part ,i4--,bible           
,contradictions4 ,part ,,ii4--,bible    
,absurdities4 ,part ,,iii4--,bible      
,atrocities4 ,part ,,iv4--,bible        
,immoralities1 ,indecencies1            
,obscenities1 ,broken ,promises1 and    
,unfulfilled ,prophecies4      7,issued 
by the ,secular ,society1 ,limited47    
,,jesus ,,christ3 ,man1 ,god1 or ,myth8 
,with a ,chapter on ,was ,jesus a       
,socialist8 ,by ,,george ,,whitehead4   
,paper ,cover1 #bs41 postage #b;d42     
,cloth1 #cs4 #f;d41 postage #c;d4       
,,the ,,historical ,,jesus ,,and        

,,mythical ,,christ4 ,by ,,gerald       
,,massey4 ,a      ,demonstration of the 
,egyptian ,origin of the ,christian     
,myth4 ,should      be in the hands of  
every ,freethinker4 ,with ,introduction 
by ,,chapman      ,,cohen4 ,price #f;d41
 postage #a-a_/b;d4    ,,the            
,,philosophy ,,of ,,secularism4 ,by ,g4 
,w4 ,,foote4 ,price #b;d41 postage      
#a_/b;d4    ,,heresy ,,in ,,art4 ,the   
,religious ,opinions of ,famous ,artists
 and ,musicians4      ,by ,h4 ,g4       
,,farmer4 ,price #c;d41 postage #a_/b;d4
    ,,prayer3 ,its ,origin1 ,history1   
and ,futility4 ,by ,j4 ,t4 ,,lloyd4     
,price #b;d41      postage #a;d4        
,,pagan ,,and ,,christian ,,morality4   
,by ,,walter ,,mann4 ,price #b;d41      
postage #a_/b;d4    ,,science ,,and     
,,the ,,soul4 ,with a ,chapter on       
,infidel ,death-,beds4 ,by ,,walter     
,,mann4 ,price #g;d41 postage #a-a_/b;d4
    ,,society ,,and ,,superstition4 ,by 
,,robert ,,arch4 ,price #f;d41 postage  
#a;d4    ,,freethought ,,and            

,,literature4 ,by ,,mimnermus4 ,price   
#a;d41 postage #a_/b;d4    ,,the ,,robes
 ,,of ,,pan4 ,and other ,prose          
,fantasies4 ,by ,a4 ,,millar4 ,price    
#as41      postage #a-a_/b;d4    ,,the  
,,mourner3 ,a ,play of the ,imagination4
 ,by ,g4 ,h4 ,,murphy4 ,price #as41     
postage #a;d4    ,,mistakes ,,of        
,,moses4 ,by ,,colonel ,,ingersoll4     
,price #b;d41 postage #a_/b;d4    ,,is  
,,suicide ,a ,,sin8 ,,and ,,last ,,words
 ,,on ,,suicide4 ,by ,,colonel          
,,ingersoll4      ,price #b;d41 postage 
#a_/b;d4    ,,essay ,,on ,,suicide4 ,by 
,d4 ,,hume4 ,price #a;d41 postage       
#a_/b;d4    ,a ,,fight ,,for ,,right4 ,a
 ,verbatim ,report of the ,decision in  
the ,house of      ,lords in re ,bowman 
and others v4 ,the ,secular ,society1   
,limited4      ,with ,introduction by   
,,chapman ,,cohen4 ,price #as41 postage 
#a-a_/b;d4      7,issued by the ,secular
 ,society1 ,limited47    ,,robert ,g4   
,,ingersoll4 ,by ,c4 ,t4 ,,gorham4 ,a   
,biographical ,sketch of      ,america's

 ,greatest ,freethought ,advocate4 ,with
 ,four ,plates4 ,in      ,paper ,covers1
 #bs41 postage #b;d4 ,cloth ,bound1 #cs4
 #f;d41 postage #b-a_/b;d4    ,,charles 
,,bradlaugh4 ,by ,the ,right ,hon4 ,j4  
,m4 ,,robertson4 ,an ,authoritative     
,life of one of the greatest ,reformers 
of the ,nineteenth ,century1      and   
the only one now obtainable4 ,with ,four
 ,portraits4 ,in ,paper      ,covers1   
#bs41 postage #b;d4 ,cloth ,bound1 #cs4 
#f;d41 postage #b-a_/b;d4    ,,the      
,,jewish ,,life ,,of ,,christ4 ,being   
the ,sepher ,toldoth ,jeshu1 or ,book of
      the ,generation of ,jesus4 ,with  
an ,historical ,preface and ,voluminous 
,notes4 ,by ,g4 ,w4 ,,foote and ,j4 ,m4 
,,wheeler4 ,price #f;d41 postage #a;d4  
,,voltaire',s ,,philosophical           
,,dictionary4 ,vol4 ,i41 #abh pp41 with 
,fine ,cover      ,portrait1 and        
,preface by ,,chapman ,,cohen4 ,price   
#as4 #c;d41 postage      #a-a_/b;d4     
,,the ,,martyrdom ,,of ,,hypatia2 ,the  
,rise of ,christianity on the ,ruins of 

,ancient ,civilization4 ,by ,m4 ,m4     
,,mangasarian4 ,price #a;d41 postage    
#a_/b;d4    ,,who ,,was ,,the ,,father  
,,of ,,jesus8 ,by ,g4 ,w4 ,,foote4      
,price #a;d41 postage #a_/b;d4    ,,man 
,,and ,,his ,,gods4 ,by ,,george        
,,whitehead4 ,price #b;d41 postage #a;d4
    ,,the ,,superman2 ,essays in ,social
 ,idealism4 ,by ,,george ,,whitehead4   
,price      #b;d41 postage #a;d4        
,,the ,,socialist ,,sunday-,,school     
,,movement4 ,by ,,george ,,whitehead4   
,price #b;d41      postage #a;d4        
,,pioneer ,,leaflets4    ,,what ,,will  
,,you ,,put ,,in ,,its ,,place8 ,by     
,,chapman ,,cohen4 ,price #as4 #f;d4 per
      #ajj1 postage #c;d4    ,,dying    
,,freethinkers4 ,by ,,chapman ,,cohen4  
,price #as4 #f;d4 per #ajj1 postage     
#c;d4    ,,the ,,beliefs ,,of           
,,unbelievers4 ,by ,,chapman ,,cohen4   
,price #as4 #f;d4 per #ajj1      postage
 #c;d4    ,,are ,,christians ,,inferior 
,,to ,,freethinkers8 ,by ,,chapman      
,,cohen4 ,price #as4      #f;d41 per    

#ajj1 postage #c;d4    ,,does ,,man     
,,desire ,,god8 ,by ,,chapman ,,cohen4  
,price #as4 #f;d4 per #ajj1 postage     
#c;d4  ,,the ,,pioneer ,,press1 #fa     
,farringdon ,street1 ,e4,c4 #d4         
,,read    ,,the ,,freethinker           
,,edited ,,by   ,,chapman ,,cohen4      
,brilliant ,articles by ,capable        
,writers on   ,religion1 ,literature1   
and ,life4    ,one of the ,liveliest and
 ,most ,outspoken   ,journals in ,great 
,britain4    ,,published ,,every        
,,thursday4    ,,price ,,threepence4    
,of all ,newsagents1 or direct from the 
,publishing ,office1   #fa ,,farringdon 
,,street1 ,,london1 ,e4,c4 #d4          
,,specimen ,,copy ,,post ,,free4        
,transcriber's ,note3   ,minor          
punctuation errors and letters printed  
upside down have been corrected without 
note4 ,inconsistent hyphenation 7e4g4   
common-place vs4 commonplace7 has been  
retained4 ,variant and unusual spellings
 used consistently 7e4g4 indispensible7 
have also been kept4  ,the following    

corrections and changes were made to the
 text3  p4 #fe3 knowlelge to knowledge  
7accumulation of knowledge7  p4 #ih3    
upder to under 7under the old ,greek7   
p4 #ajb3 extra to removed 7owe their    
belief to the philosophical7  p4 #aad3  
sterotyped to stereotyped 7stereotyped  
phraseology7  p4 #acb3 developes to     
develops 7organ or an organism develops7
  p4 #aeg3 it to is 7,after this lame   
conclusion it is difficult7  p4 #ahf3   
percieves to perceives 7provided a man  
perceives7  p4 #aij3 ,zeigler to        
,ziegler 7,professor ,ziegler7  p4 #bae3
 mayority to majority 7majority of      
,christians7  p4 #baf3 precariout to    
precarious 7precarious existence at     
best7  ,advertisements3 entrace to      
entrance 7an entrance fee of ten        
shillings7