THE LIMITS OF ATHEISM

PREFACE.

The object of these pages* is not to defend the intellectual accuracy of
Atheism (which could not be attempted in this brief space), the object
is to explain its case, to vindicate its moral rectitude, and the right
of those who hold these views, to legal equality. There are two Atheisms
in literature--the ancient one of mere negation; and the affirmative
form, whose relevant name is Cosmism, and of which Humboldt, in
his 'Cosmos,' is a great illustrator, and Comte, in his 'Positive
Philosophy,' an expounder. The term Cosmism ought to supersede the
misleading term Atheism; just as Secularism has superseded the libellous
term Infidelity. Cosmism, as well as Secularism, expresses a new form
of Freethought, and I use the term Atheism, as the subject of a Lecture,
for the first time here. It is a worn-out word, used by Theists in
hateful senses. I employ it, as a title, to-day for political reasons,
in order to show those who make it a ground of civil exclusion, that
it is a thing of law and limits: that the reputed Atheism of English
working men, so far as it prevails, is no longer the old Atheism of
mere negation, but the Cosmism of modern science; neither dissolute,
anarchical, nor impious--recognises that the universe is, without
theorising _why_ it is. Negative Atheism says there is nothing beyond
the universe. Cosmism says it cannot explain anything beyond, and pauses
where its knowledge ends.

*A report of a Lecture delivered in Bendall's Assembly
Rooms, City Road, London, March 8rd, 1861.

Atheism questions--Cosmism affirms. The language of Cosmism is that of
the poet in the 'Purgatory of Suicides':--

'I do not say--there is no God,
But this I say--I know not.'

I prefer Secularism, which concerns itself with the moral life of
man, and maintains a well-advised neutrality upon these speculative
questions. My sympathies are with 'Adam Bede,' that striking and
greatest creation of modern genius, in which the _National Review_
recognised 'The strong-headed, manly, sharp-tempered, secular carpenter,
with his energetic satisfaction in his work, and impatience of
dreamers.' But as I stated in the York Debate, in 1858, at which the
Reverend Canons Hey and Robinson presided, it is an act of self-defence
in England to question the assumed infallibility of Theism--to prove
that Atheists are entitled to civil recognition, as persons having
legitimate, actual, and conscientious views, and who, therefore, ought
not to be outlawed as they are now. So long as sceptics of Theism are
refused the right of affirmation in courts of law, and their lives and
property consequently placed at the mercy of every ruffian and knave,
so long will a Sceptical propaganda be a parliamentary necessity, to
justify these opinions, and to spread them, that those who hold them
may, like the Quakers, win by pertinacity what is denied to reason. And
while this state of things lasts, I confess that I listen to arguments
of opponents with distrust, for I see in them, not so much the
confutation of my opinions, as the limitation of my freedom, and
the justification of my political exclusion. In the present state of
theological liberty in England, for the alleged Atheist to be silent, is
to be a slave consenting to his own degradation.

G. J. H.

147, Fleet Street, London, E.C., April 13th, 1861.




THE LIMITS OF ATHEISM

Twenty years ago I stepped forward to defend the right of expressing
Atheism on the part of those who conscientiously held it. On Mr.
Southwell's imprisonment in Bristol, I took his place as Editor of the
_Oracle of Reason_, and shared his fate at Gloucester. Under the same
circumstances I would do it again to-morrow. In the expression of
speculative opinions there may be error and there may be outrage;
but the error is best corrected by discussion, and the outrage by
cultivation; but to prohibit the free publication of opinion is to
strike at the root of all intrepidity of thought and individuality of
character; and against a uniformity of profession, whether brought about
by the tyranny of the majority, by the policeman, or by the magistrate,
I ever have, and ever will, protest as unwise, dishonest, and degrading.

Because Atheistical opinions were attacked by the law I defended them:
I defended the right to hold them without sharing them. And in all the
publications I have edited, I have accepted the responsibility of the
views of coadjutors and correspondents without conditions, and my name
is associated in consequence much more with other persons' opinions than
with my own.