{"product_id":"2940012784933","title":"THE LIMITS OF ATHEISM","description":"PREFACE.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe object of these pages* is not to defend the intellectual accuracy of\u003cbr\u003eAtheism (which could not be attempted in this brief space), the object\u003cbr\u003eis to explain its case, to vindicate its moral rectitude, and the right\u003cbr\u003eof those who hold these views, to legal equality. There are two Atheisms\u003cbr\u003ein literature--the ancient one of mere negation; and the affirmative\u003cbr\u003eform, whose relevant name is Cosmism, and of which Humboldt, in\u003cbr\u003ehis 'Cosmos,' is a great illustrator, and Comte, in his 'Positive\u003cbr\u003ePhilosophy,' an expounder. The term Cosmism ought to supersede the\u003cbr\u003emisleading term Atheism; just as Secularism has superseded the libellous\u003cbr\u003eterm Infidelity. Cosmism, as well as Secularism, expresses a new form\u003cbr\u003eof Freethought, and I use the term Atheism, as the subject of a Lecture,\u003cbr\u003efor the first time here. It is a worn-out word, used by Theists in\u003cbr\u003ehateful senses. I employ it, as a title, to-day for political reasons,\u003cbr\u003ein order to show those who make it a ground of civil exclusion, that\u003cbr\u003eit is a thing of law and limits: that the reputed Atheism of English\u003cbr\u003eworking men, so far as it prevails, is no longer the old Atheism of\u003cbr\u003emere negation, but the Cosmism of modern science; neither dissolute,\u003cbr\u003eanarchical, nor impious--recognises that the universe is, without\u003cbr\u003etheorising _why_ it is. Negative Atheism says there is nothing beyond\u003cbr\u003ethe universe. Cosmism says it cannot explain anything beyond, and pauses\u003cbr\u003ewhere its knowledge ends.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e     *A report of a Lecture delivered in Bendall's Assembly\u003cbr\u003e     Rooms, City Road, London, March 8rd, 1861.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAtheism questions--Cosmism affirms. The language of Cosmism is that of\u003cbr\u003ethe poet in the 'Purgatory of Suicides':--\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e     'I do not say--there is no God,\u003cbr\u003e     But this I say--I know not.'\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eI prefer Secularism, which concerns itself with the moral life of\u003cbr\u003eman, and maintains a well-advised neutrality upon these speculative\u003cbr\u003equestions. My sympathies are with 'Adam Bede,' that striking and\u003cbr\u003egreatest creation of modern genius, in which the _National Review_\u003cbr\u003erecognised 'The strong-headed, manly, sharp-tempered, secular carpenter,\u003cbr\u003ewith his energetic satisfaction in his work, and impatience of\u003cbr\u003edreamers.' But as I stated in the York Debate, in 1858, at which the\u003cbr\u003eReverend Canons Hey and Robinson presided, it is an act of self-defence\u003cbr\u003ein England to question the assumed infallibility of Theism--to prove\u003cbr\u003ethat Atheists are entitled to civil recognition, as persons having\u003cbr\u003elegitimate, actual, and conscientious views, and who, therefore, ought\u003cbr\u003enot to be outlawed as they are now. So long as sceptics of Theism are\u003cbr\u003erefused the right of affirmation in courts of law, and their lives and\u003cbr\u003eproperty consequently placed at the mercy of every ruffian and knave,\u003cbr\u003eso long will a Sceptical propaganda be a parliamentary necessity, to\u003cbr\u003ejustify these opinions, and to spread them, that those who hold them\u003cbr\u003emay, like the Quakers, win by pertinacity what is denied to reason. And\u003cbr\u003ewhile this state of things lasts, I confess that I listen to arguments\u003cbr\u003eof opponents with distrust, for I see in them, not so much the\u003cbr\u003econfutation of my opinions, as the limitation of my freedom, and\u003cbr\u003ethe justification of my political exclusion. In the present state of\u003cbr\u003etheological liberty in England, for the alleged Atheist to be silent, is\u003cbr\u003eto be a slave consenting to his own degradation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eG. J. H.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e147, Fleet Street, London, E.C., April 13th, 1861.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTHE LIMITS OF ATHEISM\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTwenty years ago I stepped forward to defend the right of expressing\u003cbr\u003eAtheism on the part of those who conscientiously held it. On Mr.\u003cbr\u003eSouthwell's imprisonment in Bristol, I took his place as Editor of the\u003cbr\u003e_Oracle of Reason_, and shared his fate at Gloucester. Under the same\u003cbr\u003ecircumstances I would do it again to-morrow. In the expression of\u003cbr\u003especulative opinions there may be error and there may be outrage;\u003cbr\u003ebut the error is best corrected by discussion, and the outrage by\u003cbr\u003ecultivation; but to prohibit the free publication of opinion is to\u003cbr\u003estrike at the root of all intrepidity of thought and individuality of\u003cbr\u003echaracter; and against a uniformity of profession, whether brought about\u003cbr\u003eby the tyranny of the majority, by the policeman, or by the magistrate,\u003cbr\u003eI ever have, and ever will, protest as unwise, dishonest, and degrading.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBecause Atheistical opinions were attacked by the law I defended them:\u003cbr\u003eI defended the right to hold them without sharing them. And in all the\u003cbr\u003epublications I have edited, I have accepted the responsibility of the\u003cbr\u003eviews of coadjutors and correspondents without conditions, and my name\u003cbr\u003eis associated in consequence much more with other persons' opinions than\u003cbr\u003ewith my own.","brand":"SAP","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47081739944176,"sku":"2940012784933","price":0.99,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/shop-qa.barnesandnoble.com\/products\/2940012784933","provider":"Barnes \u0026 Noble (DEV)","version":"1.0","type":"link"}