The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-09-03
THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS
HEART

III Il 4 n L.
There are many highly cultivated and
intelligent people now who do not believe
that there is God, They are among the
leaders of modern thought Or if they
do not hold this opinion, they take this
other position, that they know nothing
about it. They are men deeply learned
in the science of the day. Atheism, or
Agnosticism (the second of the above po-
sitions,) is the most conspicuous form of
InfdeIity in our day.
The world we live in, and the great
universe over and around US, are postu-
lated to be mere accidents, built up we
know not how, the materials contributed
we know not whence.
We do not say that this is the teaching
Of science-but it is the teaching Of a
large portion of the scientific thinkers Of
the day. 1t is the teaching of Huxley in
England, of Haeckel in Germany. 1t is
the teaching Of the metaphysical schools
of Mil and Herbert Spencer. Let us sup
pose for a moment that these teachings
are true; that there is no God-no coz
irving, shaping intelligence back of all
and over all the manifestations of nature
w6stls-ttae consequence?
Where did MAN come from? Where
did my consciousness come from? How
did Life originate? The sceptical phil
osophers seriously affirm that man is a
mere unconscious exfoGation from gela-
tinous mass which they call protoplasm.
This protoplasm is we know not by what
process a product from some mineral sub
stance. Man was originally star-dust
By myriad transformations-all purely
accidental and undesigned-the dust be-
comes a vegetable worm-a fsh-a
reptile-a bird-a beast-and finally an
erect human being, with consciousness,
Will, intelligence, feeling, and a sense of
right and wrong. We are not exaggerat-
ing at all; that is the advanced philoso-
ply Of the day. We do not say it is not
true. 1t is either that or Creator. We
suppose it for the moment to be true, and
reject the idea of God. We ask again,
What is the result? Obviously yoo who
are reading these lines are no more re-
sponsible than the paper you crush with
your hand. You are certainly not re-
sponsible to God, for there is no God.
But you are not responsible in any sense;
you are no more responsible than the
arsenic brewed in the bowels of the earth,
or so much sui hate of soda produced in
the chemists furnace You are nothing
but a transformed crystal, and your sense
of right and wrong if you really have
any, is merely property of your animal
tissues Just as the peculiar fame of arsenic
or the peculiar taste of Glauber's Salts are
properties of those bodies with which we
do not associate the idea accountability.
There can be no responsibility where
there is no moral law, and it is impossible
that there can be moral law if we are
merely transformed stones or plants, con-
yerted into our present shape by mere
chance, without the intervention Of God,
and Independently of our own conscious
ness and voGtion. All animated nature
is mere undirected growth-developed
under a system which can have no law,
because there is no law-giver. There is
not only no moral law, but there is no
law of any kind. There can be no eter-
nal laws unassocisted with Personality.
You must first assume Consciousness and
Personality before you can have Law.
Therefore, if our Religion be false, and
there is in fact no God then there is no
such thing as good and bad, right and
wrong Now, what sort Of world is that?