mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-12-26 15:59:29 -05:00
586 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
586 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
9 page printout
|
||
|
||
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
|
||
|
||
The value of this 360K disk is $7.00. This disk, its printout,
|
||
or copies of either are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
|
||
**** ****
|
||
|
||
PAMPHLETS for the PEOPLE
|
||
No. 11
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
by
|
||
Chapman Cohen
|
||
|
||
THE PIONEER PRESS
|
||
**** ****
|
||
|
||
Deity and Design
|
||
|
||
THE ONE certain thing about the history of the human intellect
|
||
is that it runs, from ignorance to knowledge. Man begins knowing
|
||
nothing of his own nature or of the nature of the world in which he
|
||
is living. He continues acquiring a little knowledge here and
|
||
there, with his vision broadening and his understanding deepening
|
||
as his knowledge increases. Had man commenced with but a very small
|
||
fraction of the knowledge he now possesses, the present state of
|
||
the human mind would be very different from what it is. But the
|
||
method by which knowledge is acquired is of the slowest. It is by
|
||
way of what is called trial and error. Blunders are made rapidly,
|
||
to be corrected slowly; some of the most primitive errors are not,
|
||
on a general scale, corrected even to-day. Man begins by believing,
|
||
on what appears to be sound evidence, that the earth is flat, only
|
||
to discover later that it is a sphere. He believes the sky to be a
|
||
solid something and the heavenly bodies but a short distance away.
|
||
His conclusions about himself are as fantastically wrong as those
|
||
he makes about the world at large. He mistakes the nature of the
|
||
diseases from which he suffers, and the causes of the things in
|
||
which he delights. He is as ignorant of the nature of birth as he
|
||
is of the cause of death. Thousands of generations pass before he
|
||
takes the first faltering steps along the road of verifiable
|
||
knowledge, and hundreds of thousands of generations have not
|
||
sufficed to wipe out from the human intellect the influence of
|
||
man's primitive blunders.
|
||
|
||
Prominent among these primitive misunderstandings is the
|
||
belief that man is surrounded by hosts of mysterious ghostly
|
||
agencies that are afterwards given human form. These ghostly beings
|
||
form the raw material from which the gods of the various religions
|
||
are made, and they flourish best where knowledge is least. Of this
|
||
there can be no question. Atheism, the absence of belief in gods,
|
||
is a comparatively late phenomenon in history. It is the belief in
|
||
gods that begins by being universal. And even among civilized
|
||
peoples it is the least enlightened who are most certain about the
|
||
existence of the gods. The religions scientist or philosopher says:
|
||
"I believe "; the ignorant believer says: " I know."
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
1
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
Now it would indeed be strange if primitive man was right on
|
||
the one thing concerning which exact knowledge is not to be gained,
|
||
and wrong about all other things on which knowledge has either
|
||
been, or bids fair to be, won. All civilized peoples reject the
|
||
world-theories that the savage first formulates. Is it credible
|
||
that with regard to gods he was at once and unmistakably correct?
|
||
|
||
It is useless saying that we do not accept the gods of the
|
||
primitive world. In form, no; in essence, yes. The fact before us
|
||
is that all ideas of gods can be traced to the earliest stages of
|
||
human history. We have changed the names of the gods and their
|
||
characteristics; we even worship them in a way that is often
|
||
different from the primitive way; but there is an unbroken line of
|
||
descent linking the gods of the most primitive peoples to those of
|
||
modern man. We reject the world of the savage; but we still, in our
|
||
churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, perpetuate the theories
|
||
he built upon that world.
|
||
_____
|
||
|
||
In this pamphlet I am not concerned with all the so-called
|
||
evidences that are put forth to prove the existence of a God. I say
|
||
"so called evidences," because they are not grounds upon which the
|
||
belief in God rests; they are mere excuses why that belief should
|
||
be retained. Ninety per cent. of believers in God would not
|
||
understand these "proofs." Roman Catholic propagandists lately, as
|
||
one of the advertisements of the Church, have been booming the
|
||
arguments in favor of a God as stated by Thomas Aquinas. But they
|
||
usually preface their exposition -- which is very often
|
||
questionable -- by the warning that the subject is difficult to
|
||
understand. In the case of Roman Catholics I think we might well
|
||
raise the percentage of those who do not understand the arguments
|
||
to ninety-five per cent. In any case these metaphysical,
|
||
mathematical, and philosophic arguments do not furnish the grounds
|
||
upon which anyone believes in God. They are, as I have just said,
|
||
nothing more than excuses framed for the purpose of hanging on to
|
||
it. The belief in God is here because it is part of our social
|
||
inheritance. We are born into an environment in which each newcomer
|
||
finds the belief in God established, backed up by powerful
|
||
institutions, with an army of trained advocates committed to its
|
||
defence and to the destruction of everything that tends to weaken
|
||
the belief. And behind all are the countless generations during
|
||
which the belief in God lived on man's ignorance and fear.
|
||
|
||
In spite of the alleged "proofs" of the existence of God,
|
||
belief in him, or it, does not grow in strength or certainty. These
|
||
proofs do not prevent the number of avowed disbelievers increasing
|
||
to such an extent that, whereas after Christians proclaiming for
|
||
several generations that Atheism -- real Atheism -- does not exist,
|
||
the defenders of godism are now shrieking against the growing
|
||
number of Atheists, and there is a call to the religious world to
|
||
enter upon a crusade against Atheism. The stage in which heresy
|
||
meant little more than all exchange of one god for another has
|
||
passed. It has become a case of acceptance or rejection of the idea
|
||
of God, and the growth is with those who reject.
|
||
|
||
This is not the way in which proofs, real proofs, operate. A
|
||
theory may have to battle long for general or growing acceptance,
|
||
but it grows provided it can produce evidence in its support. A
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
2
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
hypothesis is stated, challenged, discussed, and finally rejected
|
||
or accepted. On the question of the hypothesis of God the longer it
|
||
is discussed the less it is believed. No wonder that the ideal
|
||
attitude of the completely religious should be "on the knee," with
|
||
eyes closed and mouths full of nothing but petitions and grossly
|
||
fulsome praise. That is also the reason why every religions
|
||
organization in the world is so keen upon capturing the child. The
|
||
cry is: "If we lose the child we lose everything" -- which is
|
||
another way of saying that if we cannot implant a belief in God
|
||
before the child is old enough to understand something of what it
|
||
is being told, the belief may have to be given up altogether. Keep
|
||
the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist.
|
||
|
||
If there is a God, the evidence for his existence must be
|
||
found in this world. We cannot start with another world and work
|
||
back to this one. That is why the argument from design in nature is
|
||
really fundamental to the belief in deity. It is implied in every
|
||
argument in favor of Theism, although nowadays, in its simplest and
|
||
most honest form, it is not so popular as it was. But to ordinary
|
||
men and women it is still the decisive piece of evidence in favor
|
||
of the existence of a God. And when ordinary men and women cease to
|
||
believe in God, the class of religious philosophers who spend their
|
||
time seeing by what subtleties of thought and tricks of language
|
||
they can make the belief in deity appear intellectually respectable
|
||
will cease to function.
|
||
_____
|
||
|
||
But let it be observed that we are concerned with the
|
||
existence of God only. We are not concerned with whether he is good
|
||
or bad; whether his alleged designs are commendable or not. One
|
||
often finds people saying they cannot believe there is a God
|
||
because the works of nature are not cast in a benevolent mould.
|
||
That has nothing to do with the essential issue, and proves only
|
||
that Theists cannot claim a monopoly of defective logic. We are
|
||
concerned with weather nature, in whole, or in part, shows any
|
||
evidence of design.
|
||
|
||
My case is, first, the argument is fallacious in its
|
||
structure; second, it assumes all that it sets out to prove, and
|
||
begs the whole question by the language employed; and, third, the
|
||
case against design in nature is, not merely that the evidence is
|
||
inadequate, but that the evidence produced is completely
|
||
irrelevant. If the same kind of evidence were produced in a court
|
||
of law, there is not a judge in the country who would not dismiss
|
||
it as having nothing whatever to do with the question at issue. I
|
||
do not say that the argument from design, as stated, fails to
|
||
convince; I say that it is impossible to produce any kind of
|
||
evidence that could persuade an impartial mind to believe in it.
|
||
|
||
The argument from design professes to be one from analogy.
|
||
John Stuart Mill, himself without a belief in God, thought the
|
||
argument to be of a genuinely scientific character. The present
|
||
Dean of St. Paul's, Dr Matthews, says that "the argument from
|
||
design employs ideas which everyone possesses and thinks he
|
||
understands; and, moreover, it seems evident to the simplest
|
||
intelligence that if God exists he must be doing something, and
|
||
therefore must be pursuing some ends and carrying out some
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
3
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
purpose." (The Purpose of God, p. 13.) And Immanuel Kant said the
|
||
argument from design was the, oldest, the clearest and the best
|
||
adapted to ordinary human reason. But as Kant proceeded to smash
|
||
the argument into smithereens, it is evident that he had not very
|
||
flattering opinion of the quality of the reason displayed by the
|
||
ordinary man.
|
||
|
||
But what is professedly an argument from analogy turns out to
|
||
offer no analogy at all. A popular Non-conformist preacher, Dr.
|
||
Leslie Weatherhead, whose book, Why do Men Suffer? might be taken
|
||
as a fine text-book of religious foolishness, repeats the old
|
||
argument that if we were to find a number of letters so arranged
|
||
that they formed words we should infer design in the arrangement.
|
||
Agreed, but that is obviously because we know that letters and
|
||
words and the arrangement of words are due to the design of man.
|
||
The argument here is from experience. We infer that a certain
|
||
conjunction of signs are designed because we know beforehand that
|
||
such things are designed. But in the case of nature we have no such
|
||
experience on which to build. We do not know that natural objects
|
||
are made, we know of no one who makes natural objects. More, the
|
||
very division of objects into natural and artificial is all
|
||
admission that natural objects are not, prima facie, products of
|
||
design at all. To constitute an analogy we need to have the same
|
||
knowledge that natural objects are manufactured as we have that
|
||
man's works are manufactured. Design is not found in nature; it is
|
||
assumed. As Kant says, reason admires a wonder created by itself.
|
||
|
||
The Theist cannot move a step in his endeavor to prove design
|
||
in nature without being guilty of the plainest of logical blunders.
|
||
It is illustrated in the very language employed. Thus, Dr. Matthews
|
||
cites a Roman Catholic priest as saying, "The adaptation of means
|
||
to ends is an evident sign of an intelligent cause. Now nature
|
||
offers on every side instances of adaptations of means to ends,
|
||
hence it follows that nature is the work of an intelligent cause."
|
||
Dr. Matthews does not like this way of putting the case, but his
|
||
own reasoning shows that he is objecting more to the argument being
|
||
stated plainly and concisely rather than to its substance. Nowadays
|
||
it is dangerous to make one's religious reasoning so plain that
|
||
everyone can understand the language used.
|
||
|
||
Consider. Nature, we are told, shows endless adaptations of
|
||
means to ends. But nature shows nothing of the kind -- or, at
|
||
least, that is the point to be proved, and it must not be taken for
|
||
granted. If nature is full of adaptation of means to ends, then
|
||
there is nothing further about which to dispute. For adaptation
|
||
means the conscious adjustment of things or conditions to a desired
|
||
consummation. To adapt a thing is to make it fit to do this or
|
||
that, to serve this or that purpose. We adapt our conduct to the
|
||
occasion, our language to the person we are addressing, planks of
|
||
wood to the purpose we have in mind, and so forth. So, of course,
|
||
if nature displays an adaptation of means to ends, then the case
|
||
for an adapter is established.
|
||
|
||
But nature shows nothing of the kind. What nature provides is
|
||
processes and results. That and nothing more. The structure of an
|
||
animal and its relation to its environment, the outcome of a
|
||
chemical combination, the falling of rain, the elevation of a
|
||
mountain, these things, with all other natural phenomena, do not
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
4
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
show an adaptation of means to ends, they show simply a process and
|
||
its result. Nature exhibits the universal phenomenon of causation,
|
||
and that is all. Processes and results looked like adaptations of
|
||
means to ends so long as the, movements of nature were believed to
|
||
be the expression of the will of the gods. Bat when natural
|
||
phenomena are regarded as the inevitable product of the properties
|
||
of existence, such terms as "means" and "ends" are at best
|
||
misleading, and in actual practice often deliberately dishonest.
|
||
The situation was well expressed by the late W.H. Mallock, --
|
||
|
||
"When we consider the movements of the starry heavens to-
|
||
day, instead of feeling it to be wonderful that these are
|
||
absolutely regular, we should feel it to be wonderful if they
|
||
were ever anything else. We realize that the stars are not
|
||
bodies which, unless they are made to move uniformly, would be
|
||
floating in space motionless, or moving across it in random
|
||
courses. We realize that they are bodies which, unless they
|
||
moved uniformly, would not be bodies at all, and would exist
|
||
neither in movement nor in rest. We realize that order,
|
||
instead of being the marvel of the universe, is the
|
||
indispensable condition of its existence -- that it is a
|
||
physical platitude, not a divine paradox."
|
||
|
||
But there are still many who continue to marvel at the wisdom of
|
||
God in so planning the universe that big rivers run by great towns,
|
||
and that death comes at the end of life instead of in the middle of
|
||
it. Divest the pleas of such men as the Rev. Dr. Matthews of their
|
||
semi-philosophic jargon, reduce his illustrations to homely
|
||
similes, and he is marvelling at the wisdom of God who so planned
|
||
things that the two extremities of a Piece of wood should come at
|
||
the ends instead of in the middle.
|
||
|
||
The trick is, after all, obvious. The Theist takes terms that
|
||
can apply to sentient life alone, and applies them to the universe
|
||
at large. He talks about means, that is, the deliberate planning to
|
||
achieve certain ends, and then says that as there are means there
|
||
must be ends. Having, unperceived, placed the rabbit in the hat, he
|
||
is able to bring it forth to the admiration of his audience. The
|
||
so-called adaptation of means to ends -- property, the relation of
|
||
processes to results -- is not something that can be picked out
|
||
from phenomena as a whole as an illustration of divine wisdom; it
|
||
is an expression of a universal truism. The product implies the
|
||
process because it is the sum of the power of the factors expressed
|
||
by it. It is a physical, a chemical, a biological platitude.
|
||
_____
|
||
|
||
I have hitherto followed the lines marked out by the Theist in
|
||
his attempt to prove that there exists a "mind" behind natural
|
||
phenomena, and that the universe as we have it is, at least
|
||
generally, an evidence of a plan designed by this "mind." I have
|
||
also pointed out that the only datum for such a conclusion is the
|
||
universe we know. We must take that as a starting point. We can get
|
||
neither behind it nor beyond it. We cannot start with God and
|
||
deduce the universe from his existence; we must start with the
|
||
world as we know it, and deduce God from the world. And we can only
|
||
do this by likening the universe as a product that has come into
|
||
existence as part of the design of God, much as a table or a
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
5
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
wireless-set comes into existence as part of the, planning of a
|
||
human "mind." But the conditions for doing this do not exist, and
|
||
it is remarkable that in many cases critics of the design argument
|
||
should so often have criticized it as though it were inconclusive.
|
||
But the true line of criticism, the criticism that is absolutely
|
||
fatal to the design argument is that there is no logical
|
||
possibility of deducing design from a study of natural phenomena.
|
||
And there is no other direction in which we can look for proof. The
|
||
Theist has never yet managed to produce a case for design which
|
||
upon examination might not rightly be dismissed as irrelevant to
|
||
the point at issue.
|
||
|
||
In what way can we set about proving that a thing is a product
|
||
of design? We cannot do this by showing that a process ends in a
|
||
result, because every process ends in a result, and in every case
|
||
the result is an expression of the process. If I throw a brick, it
|
||
matters not whether the brick hits a man on the head and kills him,
|
||
or if it breaks a window, or merely falls to the,ground without
|
||
hurting anyone or anything. In each case the distance the brick
|
||
travels, the force of the impact on the head, the window, or the
|
||
ground, remains the same, and not the most exact knowledge of these
|
||
factors would enable anyone to say whether the result following the
|
||
throwing of the brick was designed or not. Shakespeare is credited
|
||
with having written a play called King Lear. But whether
|
||
Shakespeare sat down with the deliberate intention of writing Lear,
|
||
or whether the astral body of Bacon, or someone else, took
|
||
possession of the body of Shakespeare during the writing of Lear,
|
||
makes no difference whatever to the result. Again, an attendant on
|
||
a sick man is handling a number of bottles, some of which contain
|
||
medicine, others a deadly poison. Instead of giving his patient the
|
||
medicine, the poison is administered and the patient dies. An
|
||
inquest is held, and whether the poison was given deliberately, or,
|
||
as we say, by accident, there is the same sequence of cause and
|
||
effect, of process and result. So one might multiply the
|
||
illustrations indefinitely. No one observing the sequences could
|
||
possibly say whether any of these unmistakable results were
|
||
designed or not. One cannot in any of these cases logically infer
|
||
design. The material for such a decision is not present.
|
||
|
||
Yet in each of these cases named we could prove design by
|
||
producing evidence of intention. If when throwing the brick I
|
||
intended to kill the man, I am guilty of murder. If I intend to
|
||
poison, I am also guilty of murder. If there existed in the mind of
|
||
Shakespeare a conception of the plan of Lear before writing, and if
|
||
the play carried out that intention, then the play was designed. In
|
||
every case the essential fact, without a knowledge of which it is
|
||
impossible logically to assume design, is a knowledge of intention.
|
||
We must know what was intended, and we must then compare the result
|
||
with the intention, and note the measure of agreement that exists
|
||
between the two. It is not enough to say that one man threw the
|
||
brick, and that, if it had not been thrown, the other would not
|
||
have been killed. It is not enough to say if the poison had not
|
||
been given the patient would not have died. And it certainly is not
|
||
enough to argue that the course of events can be traced from the
|
||
time the brick left the hands of the first man until it struck the
|
||
second one. That, as I have said, remains true in any case. The law
|
||
is insistent that in such cases the intent must be established; and
|
||
in this matter the law acts with scientific and philosophic Wisdom.
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
6
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
Now in all the cases mentioned, and they are, of course,
|
||
merely "samples from bulk," we look for design because we know that
|
||
men do write plays. men do poison other men, and men do throw
|
||
things at each other, with the purpose of inflicting bodily injury.
|
||
We are using what is known, as a means of tackling, for the time
|
||
being, the unknown. But our knowledge of world-builders, or
|
||
universe designers, is not on all-fours with the cases named. We
|
||
know nothing whatever about them, and therefore cannot reason from
|
||
what is known to what is unknown in the hopes of including the
|
||
unknown in the category of the known.
|
||
|
||
Second, assuming there to be a God, we have no means of
|
||
knowing what his intentions were when he made the world -- assuming
|
||
that also. We cannot know what his intention was, and we contrast
|
||
that intention with the result. On the known facts, assuming God to
|
||
exist, we have no means of deciding whether the world we have is
|
||
part of his design or not. He might have set about creating and
|
||
intended something different. You Cannot, in short, start with a
|
||
physical, with a natural fact, and reach intention. Yet if we are
|
||
to prove purpose we must begin with intention, and having a
|
||
knowledge of that see how far the product agrees with the design.
|
||
It is the marriage of a psychical fact with a physical one that
|
||
alone can demonstrate intention, or design. Mere agreement of the
|
||
"end" with the "means" proves nothing at all. The end is the means
|
||
brought to fruition. The fundamental objection to the argument from
|
||
design is that it is completely irrelevant.
|
||
|
||
The belief in God is not therefore based on the perception of
|
||
design in nature. Belief in design in nature is based upon the
|
||
belief in God. Things are as they are whether there is a God or
|
||
not. Logically, to believe in design one must start with God. He,
|
||
or it, is not a conclusion but a datum. You may begin by assuming
|
||
a creator, and then say he did this or that; but you cannot
|
||
logically say that because certain things exist, therefore there is
|
||
a God who made them. God is an assumption, not a conclusion. And it
|
||
is an assumption that explains nothing. if I may quote from my
|
||
book, Theism, or Atheism: --
|
||
|
||
"To warrant a logical belief in design, in nature, three
|
||
things are essential. First, one must assume that God exists.
|
||
Second, one must take it for granted that one has a knowledge
|
||
of the intention in the mind of the deity before the alleged
|
||
design is brought into existence. Finally, one must be able to
|
||
compare the result with the intention and demonstrate their
|
||
agreement. But the impossibility of knowing the first two is
|
||
apparent. And without the first two the third is of no value
|
||
whatever. For we, have no means of reaching the first except
|
||
through the third. And until we get to the first we cannot
|
||
make use of the third. We are thus in a hopeless impasse. No
|
||
examination of nature call lead back to God because we lack
|
||
the necessary starting point. All the volumes that have been
|
||
written and all the sermons that have been preached depicting
|
||
the wisdom of organic structures are so much waste of time and
|
||
breath. They prove nothing, and can prove nothing. They assume
|
||
at the beginning all they require at the end. Their God is not
|
||
something reached by way of inference, it is something assumed
|
||
at the very outset."
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
7
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
_____
|
||
|
||
Finally, if there be a designing mind behind or in nature,
|
||
then we have a right to expect unity. The products of the design
|
||
should, so to speak, dovetail into each other. A plan implies this.
|
||
A gun so designed as to kill the one who fired it and the one at
|
||
whom it was aimed would be evidence only of the action of a lunatic
|
||
or a criminal. When we say we find evidence of a design we at least
|
||
imply the presence of an element of unity. What do we find?
|
||
|
||
Taking the animal world as a whole, what strikes the observer,
|
||
even the religious observer, is the fact of the antagonisms
|
||
existing in nature. These are so obvious that religions opinion
|
||
invented a devil in order to account for them. And one of the
|
||
arguments used by religious people to justify the belief in a
|
||
future life is that God has created another world in which the
|
||
injustices and blunders of this life may be corrected.
|
||
|
||
For his case the Theist Requires co-operative action in
|
||
nature. That does exist among the social animals, but only as
|
||
regards the individuals within the group, and even there in a very
|
||
imperfect form. But taking animal life, I do not know of any
|
||
instance where it can truthfully be said that different species of
|
||
animals are designed so as to help each other. It is probable that
|
||
some exceptions to this might be found in the relations between
|
||
insects and flowers, but the animal world certainly provides none.
|
||
The carnivora not only live on the herbivore, but they live, when
|
||
and where they can, on each other. And God, if we may use Theistic
|
||
language, prepares for this, by, on the one hand, so equipping the
|
||
one that it may often seize its prey, and the other, that it may
|
||
often escape. And when we speak of a creation that brings an animal
|
||
into greater harmony with its environment, it must not be forgotten
|
||
that the greater harmony, the perfection of the "adaptation" at
|
||
which the Theist is lost in admiration, is often the condition of
|
||
the destruction of other animals. If each were equally well adapted
|
||
one of the competing species would die out. If, therefore, we are
|
||
to look for design in nature we can, at most, see only the
|
||
manifestations of a mind that takes a delight in destroying on the
|
||
one hand what has been built upon the other.
|
||
|
||
There, is also the myriads of parasites, as clear evidence of
|
||
design as an anything, that live by the infection and the
|
||
destruction of forms of life "higher" than their own. Of the number
|
||
of animals born only a very small proportion can ever hope to reach
|
||
maturity. If we reckon the number of spermatozoa that are "created"
|
||
then the number of those that live are ridiculously small. The
|
||
number would be one in millions.
|
||
|
||
Is there any difference when we come to man? With profound
|
||
egotism the Theist argues that the process of evolution is
|
||
justified because it has produced him. But with both structure and
|
||
feeling there is the same suicidal fact before us. Of the human
|
||
structure it would seem that for every step man has, taken away
|
||
from mere animal nature God has laid a trap and provided a penalty.
|
||
If man will walk upright then he must be prepared for a greater
|
||
liability to hernia. If he will live in cities he must pay the
|
||
price in a greater liability to tuberculosis. If he will leave his
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
8
|
||
|
||
DEITY AND DESIGN
|
||
|
||
animal brothers behind him, he must bear reminders of them in the
|
||
shape of a useless coating of hair that helps to contract various
|
||
diseases, A rudimentary second stomach that provides the occasion
|
||
for appendicitis, rudimentary "wisdom teeth" that give a chance for
|
||
mental disease. It has been calculated that man carries about with
|
||
him over one hundred rudimentary structures, each absorbing energy
|
||
and giving nothing in return.
|
||
|
||
So one might go on. Nature taken from the point of view most
|
||
favorable to the Theist gives us no picture of unified design. Put
|
||
aside the impossibility of providing a logical case for the
|
||
inferring of design in nature, it remains that the only conception
|
||
we can have of a designer is, as W.H. Mallock, a staunch Roman
|
||
Catholic, has said, that of "a scatter-brained, semi-powerful,
|
||
semi-impotent monster ... kicking his heels in the sky, not perhaps
|
||
bent on mischief, but indifferent to the fact that he is causing
|
||
it."
|
||
____________________
|
||
|
||
Issued for the Secular Society Limited, and
|
||
Printed and Published, by
|
||
The Pioneer Press (G.W. FOOTE & Co., LTD.)
|
||
2 & 3, Furnival Street, London, E.C.4,
|
||
ENGLAND
|
||
|
||
**** ****
|
||
PAMPHLETS FOR THE PEOPLE
|
||
By CHAPMAN COHEN
|
||
|
||
(The purpose of this series is to give a bird's-eye view of the
|
||
bearing of Freethought on numerous theological, sociological and
|
||
ethical questions.)
|
||
|
||
1. Did Jesus Chit Ever Exist?
|
||
2. Morality Without God.
|
||
3. what is the Use of Prayer?
|
||
4. Christianity and Woman.
|
||
5. Must We Have a Religion?
|
||
6. The Devil.
|
||
7. What is Freethought?
|
||
8. Gods and Their Makers.
|
||
9. Giving 'em Hell.
|
||
10. The Church's Fight for the Child.
|
||
11. Deity and Design.
|
||
12. What is the Use of a Future Life?
|
||
13. Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live.
|
||
14. Freethought and the Child.
|
||
15. Agnosticism or ... ?
|
||
16. Atheism.
|
||
17. Christianity And Slavery.
|
||
|
||
Price Twopence Postage One Penny
|
||
___________
|
||
|
||
Read. "THE FREETHINKER"
|
||
Edited by CHAPMAN COHEN
|
||
Every Thursday Price Threepence
|
||
Specimen Copy Post Free
|
||
|
||
Bank of Wisdom
|
||
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
|
||
9
|
||
|