The Value of Atheism

 

To the Editor of The Freethinker

 

By J.F.C. Fuller

 

Published in the Freethinker

London, England

8 September 1907

(pages 572-573)

 

 

 

Sir,—Often, upon reading such excellent articles as "What Price God?" by Mr. G. W. Foote, in the Freethinker, I have asked myself the question: "What, then, is the real value of Atheism?" And time after time, I have been forced, with perhaps few other Freethinkers, to answer: "Zero."

 

The question resolves itself thus:—

1. What is Theism? The system of thought as held by a Theist; and, we are told, a Theist is a man "with God."

 

2. What is Atheism? The system of thought as held by an Atheist; and, we are told, an Atheist is a man "without God."

And the difference scientifically:—

1. The Theist says: there is a God, and He created something out of nothing—the universe.

 

2. The Atheist says: there is not a God, and that something has ever been something—the universe.

Thus we find that the Theist postulates an "Uncreated Creator," to the Atheist's "Uncreated Creation"; and that both their arguments are merely verbal, as neither explain the creator nor the creation, and the result is—nil.

 

But, I hear many assert, science does explain creation, just as I have heard many others say theology does explain the Creator. Yet I frankly fail to see how either of these systems in any way offers an explanation. The former, as the latter, resting purely and solely on hypotheses based on ever changing philosophical arguments. Science asserts the "Laws of Nature," theology, the "Laws of God." Yet both these codes, Natural or Divine, rest, as every thinker must acknowledge, upon mere inferences drawn from the vast and unbalanced ignorance of man's mind, and his inability to grasp first principles, or things as they are in themselves.

 

Turning now from the scientific and religious aspect, let us look at the question philosophically. Roughly, Atheism philosophically falls under the system of Materialism, and Theism under that of Idealism.

 

Now let us take an infinite chain:—A, B, A, B, A, B, A, B, The Materialist will say all is matter and will place his finger on A; to him, matter is first, mind is second. The Idealist will place his finger on B and say, mind is first, matter is second. The Pantheist puts his finger on both A and B at once. And the difference philosophically:—

 

1. The Materialist says the universe began with A.

2. The Idealist says the universe began with B.

 

Thus we find that both arguments are merely verbal and that their value is—nil.

 

And so with all other systems of thought. It is much easier to prove them all one than it is to prove them all diverse. Descartes becomes Spinoza, Spinoza—Locke, Locke—Berkeley, Berkeley—Hume, Hume—Kant, Kant—Spencer, Spencer—Huxley, and Huxley—G. W. Foote, etc. To not be considered a mere babbler, I should like to explain myself as follows:—

 

It seems to me that Berkeley, nearly two hundred years ago now, answered the scientists apparently for all time, by stating, "It seems no less absurd to suppose a substance without accidents, than it is to suppose accidents without a substance." And that, "though we should grant this unknown substance may possibly exist, yet where can it be supposed to be? That it exists not in the mind is agreed; and that it exists not in place is no less certain; since all extension exists only in the mind, as hath been already proved. It remains therefore that is exists no where at all"—i.e., in the Absolute Zero. And again, he asserts, this time by the word of Philonous:—

"Consequently every corporeal substance being the substratum of extension must have in itself another extension, by which it is qualified to be a substratum: and so on to infinity? And I ask whether this be not absurd in itself, and repugnant to what you granted just now, to wit, that the substratum was something distinct from, and exclusive of extension?"

And what is pure extension?—Absolute Zero.

 

Thus, the whole cosmic process resolves itself under the one great law of Inertia; so that the entire universe lies before us, as Luther said of God, "A blank sheet, on which nothing is found but what we ourselves have written." Or, again, in the words of Spinoza, "Final or first causes are only figments of the human mind," bubbles which must burst before the finite can once again dissolve into the infinite atmosphere of eternity. In any category, infinity excludes finity, unless that finity be an identical part of that infinity. As Mr. Crowley states in his work Berashith:—

"In the category of existing things, space being infinite, for on that hypothesis we are still working, either matter fills or does not fill it. In the former matter is infinitely great; if the latter, infinitely small. Whether the matter-universe be 1010000 light-years diameter, or half a mile, it makes no difference; it is infinitely small—in effect, Nothing,"

So in the first case we see, being infinitely great all else is crowded out, and it = 0; and in the second, all being infinitely small, the unmathematical illusion (the maya of the Hindus) likewise vanishes in 0. So, likewise, does Theism resolve into Pantheism, which itself dissolve into Atheism; the I = ∞ = 0 and vice versa. But which? I for one, can but answer, Agnosco!

 

 

[420]