Letter: Socialism versus Religion (1957)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism versus Religion

To the Editorial Committee.

In the August issue Mr. John Wyatt, in answer to the criticism of the report of the debate on "Socialism versus Religion,” as reported in the June issue, writes: "If the New Testament is read right, one can find very much to support Socialism.” In so far as our understanding of Socialism is concerned, it arises out of capitalism through the class struggle. There is no "turn the other cheek” about it. Many of the teachings of Christ were devoted to telling the people (the slaves) to put up with the conditions in which they lived for treasure to come in heaven. We are determined to wage a struggle against labourites and alleged Socialists as well as avowedly capitalists—so different from the pacifism of the New Testament.

Mr, R. Smith writes—quoting the report of the debate above: “The existence of religion presupposes a belief in the existence of God.” Then he takes me to task because I asked my opponent for proof of the existence of God. What's wrong with this? Nobody will doubt that religious people believe in God, but because they believe in God this does not prove that He exists. Socialists believe in Socialism, but that does not prove that Socialism exists.

H. Jarvis.

Letter: Decline (2014)

Letter to the editors from the September 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Decline

Dear Editors

I am writing with a query about an item in ‘Voice from the Back’ in your July issue. In the paragraph headed ‘the Decline of Religion’ you conclude that ‘religion has always been a barrier to socialism; so no tears here on learning churches are closing’. I understand the decline in organised religion is largely confined to ‘the West’. Does your comment imply that people here are now more open to receiving the ideas of socialism? Is this your experience; and, if not, why not.

Andrew Durrant, 

Norwich

Reply: 
There are many barriers to workers understanding and supporting socialism. Here are just a few. Some believe there is a God and an after-life, so this present existence is of little importance. Some believe that patriotism is of prime importance and we should be concerned about ‘our’ country rather than a world-wide solution. Others think that it is ‘human nature’ to be greedy and acquisitive, so socialism is impossible. All of these barriers to understanding the case for world-wide socialism have to be overcome before we can get socialism. Probably greater than all these barriers is the lack of imagination that can foresee a future society based on co-operation and harmony rather than capitalism with its wars, poverty, starvation, racialism and crime. All we were saying in our article was that the diminishing power of religion is a step forward in the eventual attaining of a new socialist society. --Editors

Letter: Fetish for a moneyless society? (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fetish for a moneyless society?

Dear Editors,

I have read a number of Socialist Standards over the last couple of years, and whilst I agree in very general terms with your espousal of socialism, it seems to me that your outlook tends to be naive in the extreme.

Your journal suffers the common affliction of preaching to the converted. For instance, a recent article on Trade Unions and the Labour Party was somewhat simplistic and presumptuous of the reader's left-wing sympathies. After the "Winter of Discontent" debacle we have had to endure a certain legacy of "the unions were running the country". Now whilst you and I might dispute this line, the general public remain cynical of organised labour. The strikes of the late 70s and the miners’ great strike of '84-'85 raised concerns (whether justified or not) about trade union democracy, so some attempts could have been made to tackle the “overmighty unions” thesis.

It might be an altogether better idea to encourage something of a radical forum, and solicit letters and essays from right-wingers so that some of these issues can actually be open to debate.

As for your criticisms of New Labour, this is surely superfluous. I am intrigued by critique of the old clause IV. part IV which differed from your own formulation of common ownership in respect of the socialisation of the “means of exchange”. Well, this really is splitting hairs, isn’t it? This particular fetish of yours for the moneyless society is analogous to the number of angels dancing on a pinhead, a largely esoteric and pedantic concern. You would have been on better ground lambasting Labour for its failure in socialist political economy than arguing about these semantic totems. Money, alas, isn't the problem, the profit motive is! Besides a socialist economy would surely have to ration scarce resources, or at least avoid the “double coincidence of wants". Free access ignores the physical constraints of scarcity.

Your constitution sounds very libertarian, you make a point of saying there are no leaders or followers with the SPGB. This cannot be so, you have an editorial team, presumably an NEC/executive committee. You make decisions and decide a party line, as your journal testifies to. This is leadership of a kind, even if collectively administered and democratically accountable. Presumably you also expel people from time to time.

Perhaps the most damning tenet of the SPGB is that your members have to be avowed atheists to join. I can understand a socialist party advocating the privatisation of religion, but to demand a doctrinaire atheism, is, dare I say it, very Stalinist of you. Of course from a purely scientific viewpoint agnosticism makes sense, but to officially control a person’s private metaphysical leanings is dangerous. Fair enough, I may be personally inclined to atheism, but science cannot resolve this philosophical question, and probably never will. Whilst I may think a person’s metaphysical beliefs irrational, s/he is still entitled to them (in so far as they harm no others), especially as this is pure speculation.

I dislike scientific socialism because it then becomes a caricature, a scientism, a crude 19th century positivism. Socialism should be humanistic and conjectural rather than a Marxist teleology of self-confirming dogma. As such it should concede its limitations and move towards some kind of genuine enlightenment.

A. M. Wallace, 

Rochdale

Reply:

We have our own criticism of the unions. They tend to be bureaucratic not democratic organisations. Many of them support the Labour Party. All of them seek “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work" instead of the "abolition of the wages system". All we say in their favour is that they do by and large succeed in acting as a brake against the ever-present downward pressures of employers and governments on wages and working conditions. That’s why our members join them and why other workers should join them too.

2. You are quite right. It isn’t money in itself that is the problem. It is what the existence of money represents that is the problem. Money means that goods and services are produced to be bought and sold; which in turn means that private ownership exists. Socialists stand for common ownership, for all land and industry becoming the common heritage of the whole community instead of being the exclusive property of individuals, companies and governments. With common ownership, goods are not produced to be sold (how can you sell what you already own?) but to be distributed, or rather to be made available for people to take according to their needs. So you don’t need money, and if you don't need money you don’t need banks, insurance companies, pension funds and other financial institutions which Labour's old Clause IV wanted to nationalise as “means of exchange”. This is not being pedantic: if someone speaks in terms of nationalising “the means of exchange" this shows that they are still thinking in terms of capitalism and so stand for state capitalism not socialism.

3. Yes. we have no leaders. There is an executive committee. elected each year in a vote of the whole membership. The editorial committee of this journal is appointed by the executive committee, but both committees are purely administrative and technical bodies. Policies are decided by a vote at our annual conference of mandated branch delegates and, occasionally, by a referendum of the whole membership. The executive committee, the editorial committee and all other committees are there to carry out those policies. People elected to carry out specific functions on behalf of an organisation and who remain responsible to those who elected them are not leaders, they are delegates. How else could an organisation function democratically?

4. We are not saying that people are not entitled to hold religious and other irrational beliefs if they want to. Of course they are. We are merely say that people with such views are ineligible to join our organisation, as are racists, nationalists. Tories. Labourites and other people whose views we regard as mistaken (including atheists who support capitalism). What’s "Stalinist" about a voluntary organisation laying down conditions of membership? All organisations do this.

5. Socialism is "humanistic" in the sense of wanting a society where humans can relate to each other as human beings and not as commodities and where human welfare is the overriding priority. There’s no contradiction between this and taking a scientific approach to nature and society. In fact it’s the best approach to take if you want to find out the best way to establish such a society.

Editors.

 

 

Blogger's Note:

The above photograph of the SPGB Executive Committee is from the original September 1996 issue of the Standard. I'm not sure who the person is with their back to the camera, but those facing on are, from left to right, Richard Headicar, Gwynn Thomas, Les Cox, Dick Donnelly and Mike Browne.

Letters: Religion (1966)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion

Dear Sir,

I believe Socialists who attack religion are acting against the interests of the people and against the establishment of Socialism.

I am referring specifically to your article "Catholics In Confusion" in the April Socialist Standard. Of course there was much in that article which is true—where it describes the evil doings of some clergy— but evil doings are not religion they are just evil doings.

The point is that true religion is pro-Socialism and anti-capitalism. The Bible is very anti-usury which is the corner stone of capitalism.

Did not Jesus knock the rich money-lenders? He was in fact a Socialist as every decent religionist must be.

By all means knock bad religionists but praise the Socialist principles in true religion—such as brotherly love and compassion. There are many good Socialists who believe in God—for example the Rev. Hewlett Johnson, the Red Dean. Indeed I would go so far as to say that to be a sincere believer in God one has to be a Socialist.

To be an out-and-out materialist is getting a bit old-fashioned. Universities (even in Russia) are devoting part of their efforts to research into such things as telepathy and prediction and even survival of the human soul after bodily death. 1 have had cast iron proof of such things as telepathy, prediction, yes and even survival.

There is no irreconcilable conflict between Socialism and religion.

H. Horwood,

London, N.W.9.

Reply:

Mr. Horwood claims that his is the true religion but so do the clergy whose "evil doings’' he condemns.

Usury is not the cornerstone of capitalism; it is only one branch of capitalism's structure which derives its unearned income from the surplus value produced by the working class. The basis of the workers' exploitation is not usury; it is private ownership of the means of wealth production.

Even if we accept the Bible story of Jesus turning the money-lenders out of the temple it does not alter the fact that the basis of religion belief in the supernatural and a life after death is directly opposed to Socialism.

The religious person accepts the conditions in this life because he thinks that there is a better life coming. His philosophy explains society in terms of "good" and “evil"; the Socialist explains it in means of society's economic development.

Dr. Hewlett Johnson is a well-known supporter of capitalism in Russia, China and Eastern Europe. These countries are run by dictatorships which show little brotherly love and compassion to their political opponents.

Universities have been studying telepathy, life after death and so on for a very long time. Up to the present, despite all the investigations, there is no scientific proof whatever to support the claim that such things exist.

There is no reason to believe in the existence of a supernatural. This is the only life which we know of and Socialists work to make it the best possible, by establishing a humane world: In this, one of the barriers we meet is religion.

Editorial Committee.

The Return of God. (1913)

From the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The materialism of a former generation of scientists is in the melting pot, and a reversion to the metaphysical idealism is becoming very popular and common. Philosophically we can understand and sympathise, though we may not agree with, the distinction, between the idea and the thing, and the logical processes between them. Scientifically, however, we can neither understand nor sympathise with the confusion between the matter of the thing and the force or energy it manifests.

Yet it seems to be the purpose of prominent scientists to restate the scientific proposition in terms of a very much qualified materialism. The outcome of the materialistic hypothesis is too revolutionary for our masters, and its disquietening effects have to be scotched at the fountain head.

The immortality of the soul having been shown to be incompatible with a materialistic and evolutionary explanation of life, the power of the Church as a soporific for the under dogs of this world has waned. That power can be revived only by a scientific sanction of the ideas on which the Church rests, even though the whole gamut of the Church’s creed is not included. So at the British Association, the President, Sir Oliver Lodge, promulgated the opinion that the individual consciousness survived death, and was able to communicate with the living.

The phenomena of spiritualism is thus homologated, and the materialist who has insisted that the mind was of the brain, which was a purely physical organ whose functions, however complicated and obscure, were no more incapable of being understood and explained than is the process of digestion, the circulation of the blood, or any other functions performed by the various organs or collections of organs, of the body.

We do not know whether the discarnate spirit still experiences, over yonder, the inconveniences of, say, a faulty stomach or a gouty toe ; neither does Sir Oliver say that the spirit persists for ever, and is therefore immortal in the theological sense.

But of even more importance than the question of survival after death is the reference to the transcendental god as the ruler of the universe. Thus the teleology of the early Victorian era is restated with all the authority of twentieth century science. We had thought God and the ghosts were laid long since, and our spirit that was ordained either to everlastingly burn, or to perpetually twang the celestial harp in the clouds, had passed into the limbo of forgotten puerilities along with our belief in these mythical places.

For science had laid bare the majestic sweep of evolution from the star-dust of the nebula, through the material earth stage, with its atmosphere and water complete, to the burnt out cinder stage, like the moon ; had traced animal life from the amoeba to man ; and generally unravelled the whole cosmic scheme. Evolution is accepted as a fact by all the scientists and most laymen, to such an extent that even the Church has adopted it and interpreted it to fit its own theories, while active opposition to the principles of evolution is practically extinct.

If evolution means anything ; if the data of paleontology and of embryology teach anything ; it is surely the unbroken succession of changes from the lower to the higher, culminating in man. There was a great dispute as to whether man was not a special edition by himself, equipped with something different—not in degree but in kind—from any other living being. That dispute was settled by Huxley by his brilliant and conclusive contribution, “Man’s Place in Nature,” in which the reasons for placing man in a group with the “Primates,” and not in a class alone, are given.

At what stage, then, does the immortal soul appear ? Does the personality of the gorilla survive death, or does the Tasmanian aborigine start the immortals ? Or is it something between these ? In any case, what a fearful—almost hellish—confusion must reign “over there” if the souls of the millions of men and women, for the hundreds of thousands of years men have been on this planet keep on accumulating !

The Ruler of the Universe who made all that therein is, who “shaped the suns and marked their ways upon the ancient deep,” and who finally “created man in His own image,” has hitherto found no justification in science. Rather on the contrary has it been found that man in his different stages of knowledge, has created for himself a god or gods in the image of his knowledge—or want of it. And so to-day, when Sir Oliver Lodge creates for himself a god, He will be in a somewhat different image naturally from that of the Hebrew wise men emerging from the later stage of barbarism, but will have all the indications of being the embodiment of what we do not yet know. For that is what “God” has invariably represented. Backward as far as we may push the limits of our knowledge, as much as we may discover, if the workings of nature, there ever remain the doubts and questionings of the enquiring mind, and that ignorance is covered by attributing the unknown to “God.” At, best it is a begging of the question.

The fact remains that we who are of the earth earthy, are satisfied that sufficient is known to make a vast difference to our life here—the life of which we are certain and which we know most about the life of which we have tried to picture, and make practicable the realisation of, the possibilities.

It is an attempt of our masters to divert our attention to an imaginary life elsewhere in order to cover up and minimise the shortcomings of our life here. We doubt whether at this time of day the eyes of the working class can again be directed heavenward. For centuries they looked that way, and nothing came of it. “No Saviour from on high delivers” us from our slavery here ; it is to ourselves and our fellow mortals we have to look for deliverance. Science has provided us with sufficient material to afford a solution, and it now requires but the co-operation of the workers in making use of that information to solve once and for ever the social problem, through the overthrow of capitalism, and the construction of a Socialist co­-operative commonwealth out of the materials collected by capitalism in its ruthless course.

D. K.

The Forum: Socialism versus Secularism. (1913)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the editor.]

Sir,—While agreeing with a good deal in the article under the above heading in your August issue, there are some points in it which seem to me to require criticism.

To start with, the title is misleading. Socialism cannot be versus Secularism. It is Secularism. Your point should be that it is the only Secularism. This would then place you in your true relationship with the N.S.S. The writer objects that Atheism is anything more than anti-Theism—the negation of the God idea. He will find that that is all it is. You cannot saddle Atheism with all or any of the theories of origin which do not come within the conception of the God-origin of the Cosmos. On the contrary, it is only Atheism that is capable of analysing scientific ideas properly.

Neither is Atheism committed to the ridiculous position about the inconceivability of infinity. Atheists may be so committed. Atheism is not a red-herring. The need for your excellent pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” proves this. The only virtue or utility in Atheism is (and Atheism loses nothing by confessing it), that, properly conceived, it frees the mind to enter the analysis of Socialism and sociology with the impartiality and right thinking which religion prevents. Religion distorts the mind, therefore Socialism stands no chance of being understood.

That all the Atheists are not supporting the Socialist theories is no more the fault of Atheism than it is the fault of Socialism that some “Socialists” turn bourgeois in ideas when they become bourgeois in the manner of getting their living.

You may answer that these “Socialists” are not Socialists. I offer a similar reply re J. M. Robertson, M.P., etc. Their Atheism has done them no good. The other matter raised in Mr. Le Cart’s article I thoroughly endorse.

Yours truly,

Thomas Reynolls

——————————————

The above criticism clearly indicates that the person responsible for it is wholly ignorant of Socialism and consequently associates it with all sorts of concepts which are, in reality, quite foreign to it.

Our correspondent holds that Secularism properly understood is synonymous with Socialism. Not only is that statement delightfully ridiculous in view of the confusion that exists among Secularists in regard to the political aspect of society, but it is untrue.

Secularism merely represents the opinions of people whose observations have been narrowed down to one single aspect of society, viz., the religious one. It stands for “this-worldism” in opposition to the belief in the existence of another world.

Religious ideas, however, being shaped and determined by social conditions, only exist as a product of the particular social system in which they are manifested, and as such are not based at all on the existence of another world. Secularism, therefore, is essentially nothing but a futile negation; it mistakes a shadow for the thing that casts it and, at its best, only comes to the level of other organisations which are out to secure certain reforms while leaving untouched the cause that produces the very evil they profess to eradicate. Thus our correspondent’s attempt to justify atheistic Secularism on the ground that “religion distorts the mind” falls to pieces, for Secularism is itself guilty of inaccurate mental vision. An examination of the written objects of Secularism as it appears in its organised and concrete form clearly shows that it attacks certain superstitions only to replace them with others just as bad and just as reactionary from the point of view of the working class. Nor is there any excuse in the paltry suggestion that it is misunderstood and ill-used by its adherents, for if it leaves room for misunderstanding and ill-usage it stands condemned as a proper means of education and enlightenment.

Now, the reply to the “step-by-step and wait and see” policy of our critic, who says that Socialism stands no chance of being understood while religious influence lasts, is obvious. We submit to him that if it is possible to free the mind from religious ideas without destroying the cause that produces them, then it is even more possible to make that mind at once understand the cause of the trouble and the remedy for it. Success in the first instance would be nothing short of a miracle; in the second it is the result of a clear and simple process of education.

Unlike Secularism, Socialism is not governed by appearances, but explains them. Its policy is the outcome of an analysis of the economic forces which always lie at the base of all social structures, so that it reaches the root from which not only springs the world of ideas, but in which is also to be found the cause of all evil. These economic forces create an antagonism of interests between the few and the many, and it naturally follows that the minds of the many must be misguided if the few are to survive—hence the need for and the use of religious influence so long as that antagonism lasts. The object of Socialism is to destroy this antagonism by substituting common for private ownership of the means of life, and this transformation alone will sound the death-knell of religious influence, for the robbery of the working class will have ceased, and with it the need to subject the mind to misguidance.

Thus Socialism is anti-religious, but to say that it is the logical outcome of Atheism and Secularism is as silly as to expect a mouse to give birth to a mountain.

M. J. Le Cart.

What is religion? - Part 8 (1954)

From the April 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 7.

The Economics of Religion

Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great, because it was thought to be a suitable religion for slaves. It was a “hotch-potch religion," or a “cemetery of dead religions,” because when the slaves were brought into Rome from many different lands, they brought with them their many religious ideas. Professor Seeley says, “the age was religious because it was an age of servitude" and the Christian teachings of “blessed are the meek, the humble, and the merciful,” fitted very well into needs of society at that time. “ Christianity produced a complete change in the attitude to the Emperor. It made their loyalty more intense.” (Professor Seeley, lectures and essays page 75.) As the New Testament admirably puts it, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but God; the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Romans Ch. 13 ver. 1 and 2. The Roman Empire was already in decay when Christianity was ushered in, and it was no coincidence that some spiritual opium was needed to quieten the slaves against revolt

In the middle ages the church controlled most of the land. This meant that they had a considerable amount of real economic control in their hands, for under feudalism he who controlled the land controlled most of what was on it. Of more recent times we have seen the power of the Catholic political parties in pre-Nazi Germany, Spain, France, Austria, etc. The controlling of education by the Church, and antagonism to divorce, contraception, etc.

When capitalism was beginning to expand, missionaries played a very important part in paving the way for the trade that was to come, and often in a very crude way. The African natives who were discovered in a state of nakedness, were told by the missionaries that God frowned on such things, and that to be a good Christian one should at least cover the genitals. But the natives had no clothes with which to gain the favours of God; they only had bars of Gold, diamonds and ivory tusks. As chance would have it Lancashire had plenty of cheap pants and pyjamas in all the colours of the rainbow which no self-respecting Englishman would wear, not even in bed. Then guess what happened—yes trade started—and no wonder they called it the “Gold Coast” Where the missionaries didn’t conduct the trade themselves, it didn’t need a lot of imagination for an enterprising trader to follow the missionaries up.

“Look up to Heaven,” said the missionary to the native, and the latter did so. When he looked down again he found that his land was appropriated! As the Zulus say “When white man first came to us he had the Bible, and we owned the land. Now he’s got the land, and we’ve got the Bible.”

Of recent years Bishops and other church dignitaries have become in some cases fabulously rich, so rich that many have been able to invest thousands of pounds in armament firms. (See Alan Handsacre “The Revenues of Religion.”) In Russia we had many examples of millionaire priests investing sums as large as half a million roubles in Soviet War Bonds. This is strange in a country which not long ago was turning churches into anti-religious museums, and persecuting followers of all religions.

It is often argued that Jesus was a Socialist, and Keir Hardie stated that he learnt his socialism from the New Testament. The idea of the disciples having all things in common gives rise to this misunderstanding. Jesus could only have been a socialist if he and his disciples fished with a steam trawler in an environment in which capitalism had already developed. Nothing that Jesus was alleged to have said, makes him a socialist in any way. The whole essence of his teaching was to tolerate the unpleasant things of life for treasure to come in heaven. His whole teaching and prophesies were based on survival after death. We socialists want to survive before death, and to have our good time in this world which we know that we have to live and work.

There are plenty of arguments against religion, and they come from many angles. Perhaps the chief one is that religion is false, and because of this it discourages people from thinking. Socialism, unlike religion, needs understanding and not just believing. Well did Marx say “the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism” for when we come to realise that there is no subject so holy that we must not or dare not criticise, then we begin to look at everything critically and to accept nothing at its face value. Again Marx wrote “For too long has religion explained history, let us with history explain religion”!

Horace Jarvis

 

(Concluded.)

What is religion? - Part 7 (1954)

From the March 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 6.

The Bible

The Bible is the most important book in the world if judged by its influence upon mankind. It is the source of all our knowledge of God, Christ, and the background of Christianity. Thousands of men have wasted their lives in reading and re-reading it, learning to recite parts of it, repeating it dozens of times and holding discussions on its thousands of meaningless phrases. True there are some good things in it but they are so mixed up with and adulterated by nonsense, that its net value to the human race, if judged on the whole, can only be to its detriment. It is because of the interpretation of some of its phrases that many men have been put to death by the cruellest means of being burnt alive, or starved to death in jails. Much blood has been shed over the interpretation of the scriptures.

The main argument against the Bible is that it certainly is not the word of God, or men inspired by God, and that it contains a host of stupid mistakes, useless ideas, and accounts which can only spread ignorance and confusion. Those who accept the Bible as the word of God or as their guide to life would do well to consider some of these examples.

In Genesis Ch. 1 we are told that animals were made before man, while in Ch. 2 we are told that man was made first and the animals afterwards. Both these accounts cannot be right. As Socialists we know that both are wrong for creation itself is a false theory, no matter which way round it was supposed to have gone.

That God, after making animals and man and peopling the earth with everything that was pleasant and nice, decided to destroy it all, is a peculiar act for an almighty God. Especially if we bear in mind that he knew everything in advance and therefore must have known that Adam and Eve would sin and the devil would triumph and he would have to drown the whole world and start again with Noah and his family. Why did he not start with Noah and Co. in the first place? Millions of innocent animals were sent to an untimely grave through no fault of their own, but by their own creator.

Noah was first told to put two of each animal in the Ark (Genesis Ch. 6 verse 19) and afterwards to put seven of each into the ark (Genesis Ch. 7 verse 2). How all these thousands of animals could be packed into a small boat does not need to be carefully analyzed. All the food needed for these animals and the enormous quantity of excreta deposited in the ark must have made things a little unpleasant for Noah and his family. Where all the rain came from—for it covered the Earth including Mt. Everest, and where all the water disappeared to is problem enough to bamboozle all the clerks of the weather that have ever existed.

We are told that David was a man after God's own heart, and he was in direct descent between Adam and Christ, yet this David (King David it was) amused himself climbing upon the roof of Uriah's house to watch Uriah’s wife bathing. As Uriah was one of his soldiers the Bible tells us how David sent Uriah to fight in the hottest battle in order that he might get killed, while he, the great King David, carried on his interesting occupation undisturbed and committed adultery with her. II Sam. Ch. XI verses 2-1$. Not exactly the correct conduct for a man after God's own heart.

In the first book of Samuel Ch. 18 verse 27 is an account of David having killed 200 Philistines, cut off their foreskins and giving them to Saul in exchange for his daughter Michal for a wife.

The book of Ecclesiastes is said to have been written by an unbeliever because it “lets the cat out of the bag," in Ch. 9 verse S which states “ the dead are dead, they know no more, neither will they have any reward!”

If it is objected to that the Old Testament is a little the worse for its age, let us look at the New Testament, for it contains the words of Christ, so it is alleged, although Jesus never wrote a word of it, nor did his disciples, who passed on to others his ideas by word of mouth and who succeeded admirably in getting the master’s ideas all mixed up and confused, as he being the Son of God knew full well they would before he died. One would have thought that if the whole thing is of any importance to the world and to mankind for generations to come, at least Christ would have written Ins own ideas down crystal clear so that they did not cause any confusion. If God has spoken then why is it that the world is not convinced?

The sermon on the mount is the star sermon, the Gettysburg address of the Bible, the greatest of all sermons preached by the greatest of men, in fact preached by God himself disguised as a man. In this sermon we find the philosophy of Christ, so let us pause and look at it Matt. Ch. 5 verse 29. "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." Such self-mutilation or self-surgery is a relic of the barbarous past and nobody today would attempt to follow it not even the divines. Verse 40 (same chapter) states, "If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, give him thy cloke also." In other words, if any man sues you for £100, insist on paying £200. "Take no account for your life what yea shall eat or what yea shall drink, or for your body what yea shall put on." Matt Ch. 6 verse 25. Just try to carry this out in practice and tomorrow you will be in the workhouse, in prison, in hospital, or in debt.

Another real truth, direct from the mouth of Christ. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I come not to bring peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Matt. Ch. 10 verse 34.) Then if it was Christ's purpose to bring a sword and disturb the peace of the world, how much better would it have been for mankind if he had stayed away. If it was his avowed purpose to cause family quarrels, then mankind would have benefited by his absence. In one place he poses as the apostle of peace and good will, and in another place we find him declaring that his intentions were to disturb the peace. Can we from this conclude that the Bible is the word of God divinely inspired and suitable for. man's guidance?

St. Matthew was one of Christ’s disciples, and yet he never had the idea that it was necessary to believe anything to go to heaven. “Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the humble, the meek and the merciful, for they will have treasure in heaven.” All this suited the capitalist very nicely when they took over from feudalism, be humble and submissive, and put up with this "vale of tears” for treasure in heaven (but I want my treasure in this world).

When we come to St. Mark’s gospel we find “He that believeth will be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Ch. 16 verse 16.). According to St. Matthew unbelievers will go to heaven, if there is such a place, but according to St. Mark we will not, and yet these two disciples were with Christ When we get to St. John’s gospel we find that everlasting fire is the punishment for not believing. St. Mark goes on to tell us “And these signs will follow those who believe. In my name will they cast out devils, and if they drink any deadly thing it will not hurt them.” Bring on your believer; I’ll not trouble him to cast out any devils, but drink just a wine glass full of sulphuric acid and if it does hurt him, then I should like to know how the conjuring trick is done.

What conclusions can we form from all this contradiction and confusion of ideas? There is only one answer, the Bible cannot be inspired, and as such it should be relegated to the place to which it rightly belongs alongside of many similar manuscripts. This would at least help to free many from the bondage of religious ties which is causing diem to read the Bible under the threat of God and with the glare of hell.

Horace Jarvis

 

(To be continued.)

What is religion? - Part 5 (1953)

From the December 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 4.

The Inspired Books

Most religions have their literature which is their source of all knowledge and wisdom, and their declaration of principles. The claim is always the same that this inspired book, work, or collection of' writings, is holy, immaculate, infallible, beyond reproach, and the only truth—in fact it is God’s word. Naturally the followers of one book will tell you that all the other books claiming to be inspired are quite false.

The book with which we are mostly concerned is the Bible, and although written between 1700 and 2700 years ago, this antiquated book of the dead has still a profound influence upon the living, as those who have had occasion to go to court know, and many who wanted a divorce have experienced, apart from the role it plays in general education of children, references in the press and on the radio, and its effects upon society. No Bible, then no Jesus, no miracles, no after life, no prayers, and all the rest of it. Our present ideas of Christianity spring from the Bible. If that is not the word of God, if it is not infallible, if it is not perfect and free from contradiction, then its value is limited as with other books, and this means that it could not have been inspired. We shall deal with the Bible in more detail in another article.

Other religions have similar books or writings. The Mohammedans have their Koran which according to Mohammed was given to him already completed and perfect, by an angel who swooped down from the clouds while Mohammed was strolling in his garden. There is the Zend Avesta of Zoroastrianism, the Vedas of the Hindus, the classical writings of Confucius may also be included, and many of the lesser religions have their Bibles.

None of these books can have any claim to have been written by a god or gods. All of them are clearly the writings of uninspired men, and all of them are full of contradictions, errors, absurdities, and the accepted ideas of the times in which they were written. Surely we are entitled to expect that inspired writings should contain ideas at least a little in advance of their time.

As many of the ruling class (as well as many of the working class) accept in the nominal Christian countries the Bible, we ought to examine it carefully, and if it is holy, wonderful, immaculate, and infallible we shall not fail to discover it. If on the other hand we find that it is full of mistakes, and contradictions, then the whole of the Christian fabric which7 is built upon the Bible as its premises, is like a house built on sand.

In the pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” published by the Party in 1911, and reprinted in 1925 and for many years now out of print, on page nine we find, “The fundamental idea of religion is a belief in the persistence of life after death.” It is true that belief in life after death does constitute one of the fundamentals of religion, but not the only one.

Man does not want to die, not even members of the working class with all the privations to which they are subjected. As far as we know primitive man did not want to die, save in exceptional circumstances. When primitive man dreamt that his lost companions were still living, as far as he could ascertain, for he saw them again, spoke to them again, hunted and fished with them once more (in his dreams that was—but he did not know he was dreaming). What more natural thing was it for him to assume than that he had another life, another self, somewhere else “on the astral plane, or in the third dimension,” as some crack-pots would say. It was always a question of mystery of death and of dreams, and naturally he linked them together. Ghosts were everywhere, nightmares were a regular occurrence and most disturbing. The anger of gods was being constantly aroused, religion was in the making in an environment full of superstition and ignorance.

Why then is it that so many people believe in life after death in these days, when we have learnt so much about the origin of religion? We might as well answer that we have learnt a lot about capitalism, but millions are still deluded by it Those who accept the "afterlife belief” today, whether in the ancient Christian form, or the more modem spiritualists’ form of survival, do so because of their explicit belief in the Bible and the existence of God or gods which dominate nature and rule the universe. All our earlier knowledge of survival if it can so be called knowledge, came from the Bible direct, except that which was disseminated by priests who in their turn got it from the Bible. Therefore if we want to follow the matter to its logical conclusion we must consider this profoundly important book from which arises the ideas of life after death.

The Bible certainly promises life after death, in several places, in fact that is the purpose of believing and the reward for believing. The Bible also tells us that it is “all up” with the grave. Ecclesiastes Ch. 9 verse 5 for instance “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." This reads strangely alongside the many better known verses such as "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; He that believeth not shall be damned.” The latter offers both a reward for believing and a punishment for not believing, so you can take your choice, but don’t say you have not been warned! We shall deal with the Bible in more detail later on, meanwhile most of us living under capitalism find it hard enough to survive before death, leave alone afterwards.

Horace Jarvis

 

(To be continued.)

What is religion? - Part 4 (1953)

From the November 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 3.

Miracles

The poet Shelley wrote “Only impossible things are miracles, therefore we know that they did not happen because they are impossible." Nothing that is ordinary or possible is a miracle. People who escape street accidents, or have narrow escapes in war or industrial accidents and are not killed or injured, should not claim that they have had a “miraculous escape.” No miracle occurs or could have occurred in connection with such events. If water gets turned into wine or runs uphill voluntarily, if dead men rise from their graves, or virgins give birth to babies—then all these constitute miracles—but not in having a narrow escape from death or injury. The two kinds of phenomena are quite different In the case of miracles the laws of nature, hitherto so immutably harmonious, suddenly and without cause undergo a violation and contradict everything which has gone before. For example the turning of stones into bread, or the feeding of thousands of people on two loaves and five fishes. The modern usage of the word miracle is very misleading and has nothing to do with these biblical and religious absurdities that have been alleged to have happened in the days when religion had growing pains.

Every religion has its lists of attested miracles and its quota of blind believers who accept the whole lot, lock, stock and barrel, without evidence or without wanting evidence. In fact they are usually offended if you offer them any evidence to the contrary. If proof is asked for about these miracles, it is not forthcoming, for the very good and simple reason that there is not a shred of evidence for any miracle. Of course one cannot prove negatives, and therefore it cannot be proved that some phenomena did not at one time occur, but the onus of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who claim these absurdities.

If we look at things from a strictly logical angle we must ask, is it more possible that Balaam’s ass spoke, or that a man told a lie? Is it more possible that Joshua’s trumpets blew down the walls of the city of Jericho—or that somebody exaggerated? The religious believer accepts the former, while the non-believer, the materialist, the socialist, the latter.

When radio-active substances were first discovered, it was soon made known to the world that the spring which supplied the holy water at Lourdes, was radioactive. Strange how those in control and in communication with the Almighty did not know this before' this scientific discovery. When a party of scientists visited the spot and tested the water, they found that it was just the ordinary water of the district, and contained no special medicinal or radio-active quality. An unfriendly visitor to Lourdes once declared that it would constitute no more of a miracle for a one-legged man to grow another leg than for hundreds of those who were alleged to have thrown away their crutches and become healed. We do not say that among these cases, there have not been those who have made through faith a profound recovery from functional disorders, but many of them were victims of "organic” conditions in which nothing short of growing a new limb could have brought about a cure.

Apart from the Catholic countries, Italy, Spain, Austria, France, etc., the only place where miracles are supposed to occur is in the U.S.A. Every few weeks a new religion is founded or a revised version of an old one is resurrected. Usually a child sees the Virgin Mary in an isolated village where life is very drab and the people starved for excitement and where the local newspapers have little sensational to offer. So the local journalists get down to it and an exaggerated write-up is given of some ghost-seeing event. The result is that the newspaper sales go up, hotels benefit, shops get record sales, churches, chapels and other local businesses including the pubs get a good rake off it, and all because of the flood of visitors into the village.

Generally speaking, "the age of miracles" is past. God who used to reveal himself to mankind at frequent intervals in his busy life, seems to have got fed up with it. He may of course be genuinely too busy, or he has concluded that his presence only convinces the lesser-educated with stultified powers of perception.

Seriously, the basis for miracles has largely been destroyed as a result of the better understanding of mankind generally. It doesn’t take a lot of scientific knowledge to understand the absurdities behind the claims of any miracle.

Horace Jarvis

 

(To be continued.)

What is religion? - Part 3 (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2.

Causes of Belief in God

The causes of belief in God or gods are usually to be found in fear and ignorance or a combination of both. It is quite easy to imagine how primitive man feared all the things he could not understand; natural phenomena as exemplified in volcanoes, earthquakes, storms at sea, forest fires, pestilence, plagues and disease. None of these things could he understand or explain with his limited knowledge.

The phenomenon of death was always a puzzle to mankind, especially was this the case when one lost friends with whom one had hunted, fished, talked to, etc., and when, without apparent warning, all this happy association ceased. The once animated body, pulsating with life and energy, suddenly became lifeless, cold and still. It was just as impossible for them to explain this strange affair as it is for a young child to understand that people die. Added to this came dreams in which primitive man found himself again in the company with those who had died and whom he had buried. What was the explanation of this strange happening? Little did early man realise that he had been dreaming; the same with a young child who awakes after a nightmare. He knew or believed that he had been fighting wild animals, or enemies, and with those of his companions he had recently buried. When after such a dream he awoke—what could he possibly conclude ? The idea of another self which did things on some occasions was probably one of the earliest ideas of a soul, and in this case it wasn't schizophrenia. While he was alive, i.e., awake and conscious, he knew he was alive, and yet in some unexplainable way he came into contact with those he knew or thought were dead and buried.

It is well known that indigestion causes nightmares, especially that variety of indigestion that follows feasting that all primitive races indulged in between the periods of famine and semi-starvation. When a large animal was captured for food it had to be eaten while “the going was good," for it would not keep long, and the next meal might be a few days off.

The habit of burying the dead is thought to have taken origin not from hygiene, but for the purpose of preventing the spirit of the dead from haunting the living. Hence they drove thick sticks or stakes into these bodies to hold them down (so that they wouldn't roam at night), and piled heaps of heavy stones on them, again for the same purpose. The latter was the forerunner and origin of the tombstone and the coffin.

When priests arrived on the scene at a later stage, they were not slow to capitalise these fears and dreams of early man, although they in their turn could no more explain them than could the rest.

The first gods (corpse worship) were made as effigies of the dead, especially the dead chiefs and leaders of the tribe, and the best warriors. The gods of the black races were black, with short black curly hair like those who made them. Where the races had long hair and painted skins, so, too, were the gods made. The gods of the Chinese were yellow-skinned and with slit-like eyes of their makers. Truly did man create his gods in his own image.

With the making of the gods the god business grew up with the priests as leaders, skilled in tribal magic. It was only necessary for them to possess a little knowledge above the average, or to pretend to possess it. No doubt the only knowledge some of the first priests had was that they knew that there was by bluff prestige and power to be obtained from the god business. Savages and primitive man were very credulous, seldom doubting, hence credulity became a vice, not a virtue, for religion to take root in. Believing without evidence or against evidence is the negation of thinking and logic. No wonder Marx wrote that “ the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism."

Horace Jarvis

 

(To be continued.) 

What is religion? - Part 2 (1953)

From the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Belief in God

Of the five fundamentals of religion, belief in God is certainly the most important, because if there be no God, then miracles can’t happen, there being nobody to make them happen. After-life could not be considered, and prayer would be a waste of time, for there would be nobody to pray to. Inspired books would not exist for nobody could write them. Clearly then, if there be no God the whole fabric of religion falls to the ground.

All the arguments for God yet launched fall into five categories.

1. The Aristotelean argument of First Cause.
2. The Universality of belief in God.
3. The Teleological or design in Nature.
4. The Moral or Ethical Argument.
5. Arguments built on the gaps in science.

Those who affirm God on the grounds that there must be a beginning to the Universe, to Life and to Man, argue that there' must be or has been a prime mover who started it all, and who set the wheels of the universe working.

Of course there either was or was not a beginning. If there was a beginning then there was a beginning of everything including God. But those who hold this First Cause idea find it difficult to theorise or postulate the beginning of God. God they argue always existed, which contradicts their own argument. If one thing never had a beginning, and upon this everything else rests, then the whole argument is put out of joint Materialists have consistently claimed that matter always existed and always will exist because you can neither make nor destroy matter, so we have no problem to explain how something that always existed came into existence. Therefore we can dispense with God in the first cause idea.

The Universality argument postulates God on the supposed universality of belief in his existence. This appeared true in the Middle Ages when man’s knowledge of the world was limited and there were vast tracts of unexplored territory. When Australia was first discovered, it was found that the aborigines had no ideas about God or gods, and the same with the Tasmanian aborigines (now extinct). Then the first contacts with the Eskimos revealed that they had no God or gods. In other parts of the world where primitive people had lived in comparative isolation and not been contaminated by missionaries, many of them remained agnostic.

The teleological or design in nature argument is still very popular. Those who champion it find God in the marvels of nature, the human eye, the beauty of the rose, etc. They never find God in the tape-worm with its tiny hooks so that it can hook itself into the lining of the human intestine and so prevent one’s food from washing it through the system. The tape-worm also has glands along its body which secrete a strong alkaline fluid which neutralises the gastric juice, and so prevents it from being digested or killed. Did God think out all these marvellous things, so that his masterpiece—man—could have harmful parasites sucking his very life blood from within? Those who find God in the healthy child never find God in the child born blind, deaf, dumb or an imbecile; and yet if he made the one he made the other. Whoever made health, made disease, the diphtheria bacillus, the cancer tumour and the plague, etc. The planless nature of the universe puts the teleological argument right out of bounds.

Those who find God in the moral and ethical issues proclaim that because people on the whole strive to do good and to live a just life, that there must be a God regulating their conscience. But what happens when people do wrong or act against God? As Mark Twain observed the Devil rules about three-quarters of the world and has a much larger following than any God ever had. As Socialists we know that moral and ethical problems are largely the result of economic conditions. A Bishop faced with no alternative but to starve or to steal some food, would choose the latter. Most people have little more choice than this in what they do, and are far more influenced by economic factors than they appear to realise. All moral and ethical questions are conditioned by or even changed by their social environment, and the ideas of one country or epoch are frequently the opposite to those of another.

Lastly the gaps in science. Why the rainbow, the tides, the rising and setting of the sun and the phases of the moon? To-day we know the answer to all these phenomena but primitive man didn’t know, and many don’t know to-day because of their absence of elementary knowledge of science. Such questions got people guessing and they found their answer in “God made them,” or “ God does it,” or “God controls it,” all of which mean that the whole thing is beyond their comprehension.

To-day we know full well that the rainbow has nothing to do with God once having flooded the world and put the sign in the sky to show that he was sorry for having done such a wicked thing. The rainbow is purely a physical phenomenon not needing the help of a supernatural to explain it.

There are a lot of things about Nature which we do not know, but there is no need to postulate God because of our ignorance. To primitive man storms at sea and pestilence were signs that the gods were angry with him, but as mankind's knowledge has improved, God has disappeared from the cosmos. With the growth of intelligence God has retreated. God, who could reveal himself at any moment, has now to be searched for.

We have examined the arguments for the existence of God and found that none of them will hold water, and must therefore conclude in the absence of being able to prove a negative, that no God or gods exist. There is perhaps a little difference between what has come to be the critical atheist’s argument against God, as outlined above and what could be called the materialist’s approach. The latter is content with the fact (or rests on the basis) that one can neither make nor destroy matter, so therefore has no need to look into the pros or cons about God, but lets him sleep undisturbed except for the enquiries of the secularists, freethinkers, rationalists and the like.

Horace Jarvis

(To be continued.)

The Thinkers' Handbook: Review (1950)

Book Review from the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Thinker's Handbook: A Guide to Religious Controversy” by Hector Hawton, is published by Watts & Co. at 2/6d. With 250 pages of well-printed matter, a stout paper cover, ample index, and adequate bibliography, it would on these points alone rank as one of the cheapest books now on the market. The publishers claim that “in clear, simple language the best contemporary solution to problems that have baffled man from the dawn of reason are set out side by side in order that the reader may reach his own conclusions in accordance with the evidence.” 

The author deserves the thanks of serious students for having made a conscientious endeavour to carry out this claim; very rarely indeed is a statement of fact or opinion made without clear indication of source; attempted rebuttal on the religious side receives adequate. even generous quotations.

The book under review is a rich quarry for undisputed facts regarding the practice of prominent Christians. “Saint” is the highest title bestowed by the Church to a chosen few. On page 87, one reads that St. Augustine, a very pillar of Christian faith, “preached the damnation of unbaptised infants.” It may be added here that Pope and Saint Gregory I wrote letters of congratulation and other marks of honour to Phocus “a monster of vice and cruelty.” This is regretfully admitted in “The Students’ Ecclesiastical History” Part 1, p. 493 (in many respects a Balaam’s Ass in reverse).

Students should do their best to get two books quoted by Horton placed in the public library. They will probably be surprised to find to what a scraggy anatomy Christian “belief” has been reduced. “Doctrine in the Church of England” is a frantic effort on the part of Archbishops Temple and Davidson and their fellow Vicars of Bray to reduce to some respectable shape, the irreconcilable “beliefs” of the official clerical crowd. The “preface” alone is revealing. “Christianity in the light of Modern Knowledge” (various authors) provides entertaining reading in every essay. “The Thinkers’ Handbook” quotes from Dr. Bevan’s essay “The death of Jesus was an unquestionable fact admitted by everybody.” Is “impudence” too strong a term to ascribe to this reverend guide of theological students?

All rationalists are aware that persecution has been one of the high notes of Christian theology, the bitterest antagonisms being among rival schools of thought. Crude persecution has practically ceased, but on p. 190, of “Whither Theology?” (is quoted) the author (W. W. Robinson) claims that “The Fall” is “truth couched in symbolic form, and can only be denied by those who deliberately close their eyes to facts.” Does it require much penetration to sense here the old roaring persecutor doing his best to nightingale the roar? The ghost of the Inquisitor is not completely laid. “ Deliberately ”!

Just one suggestion; Could a future edition of Horton’s book contain some reference to the part played in the religious tragicomedy by sheer greed on the part of Church and State, and, more important still, the base part played by churches in support of the State? The saintly grovellers under the foot of a Constantine, of a Clovis, a Bluff King Harry, deserve some mention, as does the patron, if uncanonised saint of Protestantism, the baleful Luther.

“Thinkers Handbook” marks a big advance in rationalised literature; Herbert Spencer’s silly “Unknowable” is quietly by-passed; apologetic “agnosticism” whether of the order of T.H. Huxley or of Aldous Huxley receives cool attention.

The emphatic recognition of Marx as a powerful opponent of religious thought is welcome; there is a valuable extract (p. 134) from Marx’s "Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.” Above all, readers will be introduced to the flaming torch which Marx, pausing a moment from relatively dry (essentially necessary) exposition of Socialist economics, threw into the camp of all and sundry religionists. Here it is: “ The religious reflex of the real world can only finally vanish when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellow men and to nature.” (“Capital” Vol. 1, p. 51 Kerr’s edition).

The general reader interested in politics and religion will enjoy “The Thinkers’ Handbook’’—the Socialist should certainly add the book to his library, read it through at leisure once, and then compile his own Index, choosing first the chapters which have interested him most. Amen !

Augustus Snellgrove

Second Edition of “Socialism and Religion”. (1911)

Party News from the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Second Edition of “Socialism and Religion” contains a useful preface. All opponents of Socialism should read the brochure ; all workers for Socialism should have a supply at all times on hand. It is a splendid little worker for the cause, and does its business effectually, though silently.

Socialism v. Secularism. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

It will be remembered that during the time the “Daily Standard” was carrying on its campaign against what it euphemistically called “The Red Peril,” the S.P.G.B. was misrepresented by a holy leech as being Atheistic first and Socialistic afterwards. Of course, the Socialist Party at once and rightly repudiated the allegation; but in view of the fact that this lie of the reverend gentleman is widely accepted as the truth, and that it is being persistently circulated both by the enemies of Socialism and the ignoramuses of Secularism, each for purposes of their own, it is thought advisable to set out in plain and unmistakeable language the attitude of the S.P.G.B. towards the movement known as

ATHEISTIC SECULARISM.

In the course of a debate (Cohen v. Gun) on the subject of “Theism v. Atheism,” a prominent speaker for the National Secular Society pointed out that “Theism is always, in the ultimate, merely an expression of some theory of the origin of the Universe.” No doubt he was quite right in making this assertion, for the moment Theism ceases to be so characterised it becomes meaningless and loses its raison d’etre. It is in this connection alone that it can be judged on its argumentative merits or demerits. For this very reason, however, Atheism, its antithesis, finds itself, as a philosophy, within the same groove, merely representing antagonistic views on this specific subject and this alone.

In the first part of Herbert Spencer’s “First Principles” we find Atheism and Theism, as he conceives them, dealt with in an impartial and masterly way. All the arguments that may be deduced in support of either contention are clearly set forth, dissected, and analysed ; and while showing the fallacies and the self-contradictory nature of the Theistic mode of reasoning, he proceeds to show that Atheism, as a reasonable hypothesis accounting for the origin of the Universe,

CANNOT BE ACCEPTED,

not on the ground of improbability, but of inconceivability.

Speaking of Theism as a theory of the Uni­verse Herbert Spencer writes :

“To conceive existence through infinite past time implies the conception of infinite past time, which is an impossibility. To this let us add that even were self existence conceivable it would not be an explanation of the Universe. No one will say that the existence of an object at the present moment is made easier to understand by the discovery that it existed an hour ago, or a clay ago, or a year ago; and if its existence now is not made more comprehensible by knowledge of its existence during some previous finite period, then no knowledge of it during many such finite periods, even if we could extend them to an infinite period, would make it more comprehensible. Thus the Athe­istic theory is not only absolutely unthinkable, but even were it thinkable, would not be a solution. The assertion that the Universe is self-existent does not really carry us a step beyond the cognition of its present existence, and so leaves us with a mere re-statement of the mystery.”

Evidently the representative of the National Secularist Society was fully aware of this, for he was careful to point out that : “It is the

SOLE BUSINESS

of Atheism to analyse theistic arguments and to reject them if they prove unsatisfactory on account of the contradictions which they imply.”

It will here be noticed that no alternative hypothesis is offered.

The above admission (from which there appears to be no escape) by the aforementioned speaker—probably the most capable man in the ranks of Atheism, explicitly excludes that philosophy from dealing with anything outside theistic controversies, and although it may be contended that Secularists do extend their activities in other directions, yet an impartial examination of the attitude they adopt and the propaganda they advocate, will show that as far as the real, vital, and fundamental issues are concerned, they are as indifferent or as reactionary as the Theists they oppose.

The economic and political aspects of society are either rigidly kept out of their discussions or are considered as of little or no importance in comparison with Secularism. Thus, in spite of his profession of determinism, the Secularist utterly fails to understand that religious ideas, like his own—like all ideas, in fact—are determined by

SOCIAL CONDITIONS,

and are therefore nothing but the results of such conditions.

What are those conditions, and how are they characterised ?

These are questions which have no weight in the propaganda of the Secularist. To the Socialist the solution of these problems are of extreme importance, because it carries him to the very foundation of society. It breaks through the veil of idealism and enables him to see what lies behind the scenes. Such a solution affords the only explanation of the rise of and the course followed by ideas, and therefore of intellectual development. The conception of history, from the materialist point of view, is based upon the fact that before we can think and have ideas, we must have food, clothing, and shelter. How they necessaries of life are produced and distributed determines in general what the people of an epoch shall think and shall strive for. In other words, ideas are subservient to economic forces. Further, these economic forces constitute the centre of gravitation of political activities ; whether the manner in which the necessaries of existence are produced and distributed shall be preserved or abolished constitutes the object of those who endeavour to capture political power.

Thus it is that legislative measures, enacted or in the process of being enacted, no matter what aspect they may present, always find their root-motive in

MATERIAL ADVANTAGE

and are subservient to the basic principle of modern society, viz., private property.

The Secularist or pseudo-materialist places the cart before the horse in true Christian fashion. He is much more interested in effects than in the causes that produce them. Although, as we have already seen, and on their own admission, Atheism can only stand as a negation of fallacious theistic ideas, the Secularists nevertheless regard it as a basic principle upon which they proceed to elaborate a certain plan of conduct and to derive from it their conceptions of ”right” and “wrong,” “justice” and “injustice,” “good” and “evil,” and various other forms of morality. They assert that man is the creature environment and circumstances, and yet they disregard the material factors which govern the society upon which they propose to operate! And with what results ?

In the political arena, which is but a reflex of the circumstances in which we live, they are

HOPELESSLY DIVIDED.

One finds all shades of opinions among them—similar opinions, in fact, to those held by the very people they are out to attack. Such are the “refreshing fruits” of their so-called “philosophy” ! Such are the people who parade their propaganda under the name of Materialism, while they attribute their unbeliefs to the triumph of Reason ! They do not realise that such an expression is just as illogical and just as silly as any that ever flowed from the lips of a Christian. By this they imply that Reason is something transcending all laws, something beyond the scope of cause and effect, whereas, it being only a function of the brain acting in accordance with acquired experience, it cannot be conceived as triumphing over anything. One might as well talk about the wetness and ponderousity of water triumphing over oxygen and hydrogen.

The fact is that the Secularist will not atone for his sins, so a scape-goat is to be found, and he finds it in the shape of Reason.

This simply tends to show that atheistic Secularists are people who have extricated themselves from one superstition to embrace another. As the Socialist Party points out in its pamphlet “Socialism and Religion”: “The bourgeois-freethinker is, like the Christian, attributing miraculous powers to the

“FIGMENTS OF MEN’S BRAINS.”

Now, in the face of this it is obvious that the attitude of Socialists toward Secularism must be identical with that they assume towards religion: it must be one of uncompromising antagonism. Neither of them explain the bed-rock basis of society ; neither of them are concerned with the cause of increasing wealth in one section of the community at the cost of the perpetual and ever increasing poverty of the other section.. These things are outside the sphere of activity of their respective philosophies.

While the Christian from his abysmal ignorance tells us that men must be born again before they may be able to change and improve society,, the Secularist believes that social evils find their immediate cause in the existence and influence of religion ! In his study of history he sees nothing but the evil deeds of priestcraft. Deeper than this he does not go and does not

WISH TO GO.

Thus his so called philosophy is not unlike the Hindu theory of the earth resting on the back of an elephant, itself standing on a tortoise, and then — nothing except his triumphant Reason !

While the Theists and the Atheists are wasting their time and energy on things that do not matter, while academic discussion affords sport for their intelligence, there is a situation the gravity of which increases in intensity as each day passes. That situation is that the producers of the world are poor because they are robbed ; they are robbed because the means of wealth production are private property owned by those who have political power. What matters it to -the worker whether his master imposes upon him atheistic ethics or Christian morality ? In either case is his misery more bearable ? Is his insecurity lessened ? Does his worry and care for the morrow leave more room for the peaceful enjoyment of life ? Obviously no !

In the sphere of politics there is nothing to distinguish the bourgeois freethinker from the Christian. Both are to be found in the same camp, lending their efforts to the work of repressing and oppressing the working class. The J. M. Robertsons, the Greenwoods, the Haldanes and the Morleys are engaged in an unholy alliance with the Asquiths, the Isaacs and the Lloyd Georges. In France the Briands and the Clemenceaux are against the working class. In Portugal the Positivist legislators are

FILLING THE PRISONS

with exploited and discontented wage-slaves.

Secularism, forsooth ! Does any Secularist really think that the affairs of this world are run and managed by religion ? Why, if by Secularism it is meant that the affairs of this world can be run without supernatural intervention. what else is there, what else can there be, but Secularism to govern now ?

One thing reigns supreme : the grim class struggle.

The question as to how parasites shall continue to live and workers be exploited alone sways the destinies of millions to day ; and the simple and only question regarding the destinies of millions to-morrow is as to how parasites shall be swept out of existence and workers be free. This abolition of the parasites, this freeing of the workers, is the object of Socialism. The Socialist cares little for a world of ideas whereby workers are enslaved. When the workers come into their own they will have a

WORLD OF IDEAS

of their own. In the meantime, let it be noted that the Socialist looks upon Theism and Atheism, Secularism and Christism, as so many red herrings drawn across his path, as so many Will-o’-the-wisps which disappear one by one as he travels towards his emancipation.

M. J. Le Cart