The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-05-17
IDA 50 ONCE MORE.

Rot sure whether She Is Agnostic, Free
Thinker or ''Nuthin'.''
To Pollock" and some others, but
Pollock" first as matter of course: No
wonder the editor could not head US of.
gave it up myself and, like Huxley,
wasn't sure whether 1 was agnostic, free
thought or "nuthin'"
/ thought / stated what believed in
the starting point. and yet cannot see why
my statements were not in accordance
with that belief Because / do not think
the earth teaches exactly such a personal
God az we are taught exists; does not say
that necessarily nothing teaches God.
There may be forces not exactly earthly
or known at least in earth's conditions
and laws which / do believe in. IconO-
clasm may be a principle of my state
ments. do not deny it. Image breaking
is very common and no truth
was ever promulgated but what
somebody's images must TAIL
j 90 not think the statements l made of
the earth and the life upon il will prove a
soap bubble at all. II holds it's own proof
in eye-sight evidence, although new
knowledge may enlarge IL in the future.
when you know thing. you know il"
Pollock" is a hOmelY saying. but il is
true one. Suppose you and | found a
strange cake and analysed il, and we
found that cake to consist OF certain gases
and certain atomic conditions which, go
ing bsck an evolution or two, resolved
themselves into peculiar primary forms,
and We knew from previous knowledge OF
some OF the ingredients they never came
L
What We know Of this cake is no theory,
but q truth. Now, when We taught
what we knew of this cake, how could
this teaching lead 10 atheism? OF course
il we begin % quarrel over the particular
form of the cook that made this cake we
might speculate in a way some might not
think hit belief that antiquity was in
some way responsible for. but | question
whether thew would not be much farther
out OF the Way than we, the debaters.
You might take the orthodox view and
declare the cook made this cake all at one
turn OF her hand and out of nothing.s Be-
cause if there is cake. necessarily there
must be cook. forgetting that in tais
line of argument kept mp. you must &C
count for the cook also. or say she created
herself.
While might take the opposite to the
dence of itself, that it came by slow prog
ress and Of many things and
changes It's ingredients traced back
10 their primary forms are found
TO be liz perishable, therefore in antithesis
they always must have existed. This as
opposed 70 your orthodox views you
might deem atheistical, but is il? What is
there incompatible in the idea of a never
created atomic or gaseous state existing
side by side with never-created spiritual
intelligence
think the trouble with so many of US
Is that We fail to 90 far enough. We want
10 lag back with old-time tradition and
imperfection of knowledge. We are afraid
20 let 90 for fear We lose something. But
/ tell YOU the gain is much greater. There
Is nothing exactly perfect here and to as
sumo there Is is wrong. That which dimly
gives US a glimpse or fiicksring view of
the spiritual is laden with earth's i'm per-
fections Of sight. There are people
who must believe that once God
reiened lonesome and alone over nothing
and that out of nothing he formed all
things, this world first. although that is
not evident now. The bible, as far az
can see, does not make this claim. ''out of
nothing" The first of Genesis, snoDy-
NOUS and lost as its first chapters are in
misty antiquity, Is a very good ancient
description OF the earth's forming. Some
one. or maybe many, bad q pretty good
knowledge, but they failed TO know some
things and state them Alright. II Is use