Chapter VIII
I shall feel well repaid if I have said anything in these pages that will stimulate that most desirable attitude of logical questioning of all things before they are adopted into our stock of facts and philosophies as Truth. The scientist is continuously doubting his own demonstrations until the facts are established beyond even the shadow of a doubt. After an idea has been commonly accepted, the scientific mind is still trying to disprove it. No other course is commendable. We, if we would be classed as truth-lovers, should doubt our own conclusions. We may have no faith tomorrow in that which we accept to-day. No, that does not disrupt society, nor lead to indecision and pandemonium. It is the safe road to soundness of philosophy and to greater certainty of the foundation on which our faith is predicated. The child-like credulity that accepts everything advanced by a friend in whom great confidence is reposed is not, necessarily, a desirable characteristic. If we cultivate the attitude of intelligent agnosticism, we shall be less upset when we find ourselves the object of criticism, and thus life will be more filled with happiness for us. Even if our critics are supposed to be less informed than ourselves, we should carefully and coolly analyze every phase of the argument advanced. If we become angry or incensed at criticism, we are violating the law we would have every body else obey.
There are a great many good things written into our Bible. Ultra modern sermons are largely confined to these passages. Any new “Bible” that is to be adopted in the future, should be justified in including such material. Our New Testament writers borrowed much from the text of Judaism, and felt that no injustice was done. Our preachers still take great pride in acknowledging authority for present-day dogmas in the Old Testament, which the New declares becomes obsolete on the adoption of the New. And any civil court, in the governments of all the world, would hold that two wills from the same person could not be admitted to probate. (A testament is but another name for a will). So our Old Testament is superseded in toto, and has no value in Christendom, and can serve no good purpose other than its value as a reference in the study of ancient history, national and religious.
Because there are many beautiful mottoes and deeply inspiring proverbs as well as rules for human conduct and moral and social conventions expressed in the Bible, it is no proof that it is the Word of God. Any good book on etiquette should contain those things, and many of those found in the Bible were taken from still older books and traditions whose authors laid no claim to inspiration. They did not even accept Jehovah as their Deity. Those very worth-while features were based on human experience, and therein rests their value. Paul declares, long before the New Testament was compiled, that the old regime (Old Law or Testament) was taken out of the way on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus. That it was nailed to the cross. Two centuries or more elapsed before the New Testament compilation, and still several generations before it was accepted as the authoritative word of God; so it may be that the Roman Catholic contention has some merit—hat is, that their church was established before the New Testament was written and after the old was superannuated; therefore they are not compelled to take either as their authority. In that was they are certainly not embarrassed by the possibility of egregious errors in transcribing and translating fragmentary original manuscripts. Furthermore, they are not subject to every wind of doctrine, for nearly every doctrine that can originate in the minds of men may be substantiated by a “thus sayeth the Lord”, if the Bible is accepted in its entirety. Spiritualism, theosophy, sooth-saying, fortune telling, divine healing, witchcraft, and ritualistic pantomime of every imaginable kind and character have good and sufficient endorsement in “holy writ”.
I believe I have sustained my affirmation that there is an insurmountable conflict between science and the Bible, and that the controversy can never be reconciled as long as the Bible is regarded as infallible, not only when it presumes to discuss secular and material subjects but even in the realm of moral and religious codes. My final conclusion is that the Bible is not the Word of God, but that science is. And that we shall continue to comprehend more of science and that humanity shall continue to enjoy richer blessings in exact proportion to our conformity to its mandates.
I also trust that I have not left any kind of room for any one to call me an atheist. If I have, I want here, to re-affirm my abiding and unfaltering faith in that Eternal and Universal God who infinitely surmounts all the gods of all the sacred literatures of all the hitherto recorded religions of earth whose deities stooped to perform purely human artificial and ridiculous antics. I believe in that God who has not spoken to us or any other mundane creatures except through the lawful and regular behavioristics of His immutable science.
And now may the choice and rich blessings of that God—Science—be the reward of all who will join me in an honest and sincere exercise of that power to think and reason, which are a part of that Word of God that we should highly honor and obey. And I am convinced that there is a rapidly increasing number of intelligent people who sympathize with my continued inability to understand why we should remain fettered to the mythologies of superstition, even if some of them occupy positions that seem to make it impracticable for them to endorse or subscribe to my philosophy.
(Note: Here ends the typed portion of the manuscript. The remainder is written in pencil on several kinds of paper. The next few pages are written on stationery from the “New Kenmark Hotel, 17th and Welton Streets, Denver, Colorado.” There are also two pages that are on un-marked stationery, though I am unsure where in the sequence these belong. The remainder of the manuscript is written on lined “Big Bear” tablet paper. Although very good penmanship, in places the script is smeared or otherwise rather difficult to read. Areas where I cannot make out for certain what is written are so noted. Also, the manuscript is noticeably rougher from here on, not having had the benefit of a first revision when typed from these notes.–ed)