God and my Neighbour Part 3

The differences between the religious and the scientific theories, or, as I should put it, between superst.i.tion and rationalism, are clearly marked and irreconcilable.

The supernaturalist stands by "creation"; the rationalist stands by "evolution." It is impossible to reduce these opposite ideas to a common denominator.

The creation theory alleges that the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and man, and the animals were "created" by G.o.d, instantaneously, by word of mouth, out of nothing.

The evolution theory alleges that they were evolved, slowly, by natural processes out of previously existing matter.

The supernaturalist alleges that religion was revealed to man by G.o.d, and that the form of this revelation is a sacred book.

The rationalist alleges that religion was evolved by slow degrees and by human minds, and that all existing forms of religion and all existing "sacred books," instead of being "revelations," are evolutions from religious ideas and forms and legends of prehistoric times. It is impossible to reduce these opposite theories to a common denominator.

The Christians, the Hindoos, the Pa.r.s.ees, the Buddhists, and the Mohammedans have each their "Holy Bible" or "sacred book." Each religion claims that its own Bible is the direct revelation of G.o.d, and is the only true Bible teaching the only true faith. Each religion regards all the other religions as spurious.

The supernaturalists believe in miracles, and each sect claims that the miracles related in its own inspired sacred book prove the truth of that book and of the faith taught therein.

No religion accepts the truth of any other religion's miracles. The Hindoo, the Buddhist, the Mohammedan, the Pa.r.s.ee, the Christian each believes that his miracles are the only real miracles.

The Protestant denies the miracles of the Roman Catholic.

The rationalist denies all miracles alike. "Miracles never happen."

The Christian Bible is full of miracles. The Christian Religion is founded on miracles.

No rationalist believes in miracles. Therefore no rationalist can accept the Christian Religion.

If you discard "Creation" and accept evolution; if you discard "revelation" and accept evolution; if you discard miracles and accept natural law, there is nothing left of the Christian Religion but the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

And when one sees that all religions and all ethics, even the oldest known, have, like all language and all science and all philosophy and all existing species of animals and plants, been slowly evolved from lower and ruder forms; and when one learns that there have been many Christs, and that the evidence of the life of Jesus is very slight, and that all the acts and words of Jesus had been antic.i.p.ated by other teachers long before the Christian era, then it is borne in upon one's mind that the historic basis of Christianity is very frail. And when one realises that the Christian theology, besides being borrowed from older religions, is manifestly opposed to reason and to facts, then one reaches a state of mind which ent.i.tles the orthodox Christian to call one an "Infidel," and to make it "unpleasant" for one to the glory of G.o.d.

That is the position in which I stand at present, and it is partly to vindicate that position, and to protest against those who feel as I feel being subjected to various kinds of "unpleasantness," that I undertake this Apology.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF G.o.d?

The question of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is one of great importance.

If the Bible is a divine revelation, if it contains the actual word of G.o.d, and nothing but the word of G.o.d, then it is folly to doubt any statement it contains.

If the Bible is merely the work of men, if it contains only the words of men, then, like all other human work, the Bible is fallible, and must submit to criticism and examination, as all fallible human work must.

The Christian Religion stands or falls by the truth of the Bible.

If the Bible is the word of G.o.d the Bible must be true, and the Christian Religion must be true.

But, as I said before, the claim for the divine origin of the Bible has not been made by G.o.d, but by men.

We have therefore no means of testing the Bible's t.i.tle to divine revelation other than by criticism and examination of the Bible itself.

If the Bible is the word of G.o.d--the all-wise and perfect G.o.d--the Bible will be perfect. If the Bible is not perfect it cannot be the word of a G.o.d who is perfect.

The Bible is not perfect. Historically, scientifically, and ethically the Bible is imperfect.

If the Bible is the word of G.o.d it will present to us the perfect G.o.d as He is, and every act of His it records will be perfection. But the Bible does not show us a perfect G.o.d, but a very imperfect G.o.d, and such of His acts as the Bible records are imperfect.

I say, then, with strong conviction, that I do not believe the Bible to be the word of G.o.d; that I do not believe it to be inspired of G.o.d; that I do not believe it to contain any divine revelation of G.o.d to man. Why?

Let us consider the claim that the Bible is the word of G.o.d. Let us, first of all, consider it from the common-sense point of view, as ordinary men of the world, trying to get at the truth and the reason of a thing.

What would one naturally expect in a revelation by G.o.d to man?

1. We should expect G.o.d to reveal truths of which mankind were ignorant.

2. We should expect G.o.d to make no errors of fact in His revelation.

3. We should expect G.o.d to make His revelation so clear and so definite that it could be neither misunderstood nor misrepresented.

4. We should expect G.o.d to ensure that His revelation should reach _all_ men; and should reach all men directly and quickly.

5. We should expect G.o.d's revelation of the relations existing between Himself and man to be true.

6. We should expect the ethical code in G.o.d's revelation to be complete, and final, and perfect. The divine ethics should at least be above human criticism and beyond human amendment.

To what extent does the Bible revelation fulfil the above natural expectations?

1. Does the Bible reveal any new moral truths?

I cannot speak very positively, but I think there is very little moral truth in the Bible which has not been, or will not be traced back to more ancient times and religions.

2. Does the Bible revelation contain no errors of fact?

I claim that it contains many errors of fact, and the Higher Criticism supports the claim; as we shall see.

3. Is the Bible revelation so clear and explicit that no difference of opinion as to its meaning is possible?

No. It is not. No one living can claim anything of the kind.

4. Has G.o.d's revelation, as given in the Bible, reached all men?

No. After thousands of years it is not yet known to one-half the human race.

5. Is G.o.d's revelation of the relations between man and G.o.d true?