Posted on 01/24/2009 5:28:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
There is a relationship between Rationalist Press and Kerr & Co., which published communist books, tracts, and The International Socialist Review. [1] Charles Kerr was himself a raving communist, and there is much overlap in the choice of materials published by Kerr and RPA-Watts. Kerr & Co published the 1904 book God and My Neighbour, a dismal and idiotic tract by the communist Robert Blatchford, a compendium of insufferable moralizing atheist intellectual lobotomizations, and in the lowest denomenator of it as well. This is an interesting book for two reasons. First, absolutely anything you are likely to hear from a raving atheist of today has already been said (word-for-word) by Blatchford in 1904 -- it is quite striking to see this -- proving once again that every atheist book is just like every other atheist book. If you have heard one raving atheist, you have heard them all. Second, and more important, are the publisher's notes, by Charles Kerr himself, and the preambles by Blatchford. Here they are (abridged):
From the Publisher's Note, Charles Kerr:
The publishing house of which I am manager is composed of socialists, but it has no official connection with the Socialist Party of America. As a member of the Socialist Party, I recognize the right of every other member to complete liberty of opinion in matters of religion. As a matter of fact, many of our members are Catholics, and many are orthodox Protestants. Our publishing house has issued a number of books written from the Christian point of view, and may issue more of them in future. But I claim for myself the same liberty I concede to others, and speaking for myself I recommend this book by Robert Blatchford as one of the clearest, sanest, most sympathetic and most helpful discussions of the deep and vital problem of religion that it has ever been my good fortune to read.
When we grow out of childish conceptions into clearer ones, we have to choose between discarding our old phrases and keeping them, but reading a new meaning into them. I may prefer to do the latter because, all things considered, there may seem to be less danger of being misunderstood by following this course. I do not question the sincerity nor the clear vision of those who, like Blatchford, take the other course. I merely see that untrained minds attach themselves to words, and that it may be a waste of effort to try to detach them.
As socialists, we realize that a religion arises from and corresponds to certain definite economic conditions. Christianity was originally a religion of consolation for slaves whose material condition was hopeless. Later it became an instrument of the ruling class for perpetuating slavery. But economic conditions are now making the longer continuance of slavery impossible, and the era of collectivism seems close at hand. What will be the religion corresponding to the conditions of freedom? I suspect that in English-speaking countries it will be a modified form of Christianity, stripped of its supernaturalism, its asceticism, its introspective ethics, its insistence on individual immortality, and other irrational ideas...
Meanwhile Robert Blatchford has done splendid service in pointing out the unworthy elements that must be removed from Christianity if it is to be transformed into the religion of the future. [2]
From the Preface, Robert Blatchford:
Which is worse, to be a Demagogue or an Infidel? I am both. For while many professed Christians contrive to serve both God and Mammon, the depravity of my nature seems to forbid my serving either.
Is there a man amongst all London's millions brave enough to tell the naked truth about the vice and crime, the misery and meanness, the hypocrisies and shames of the great, rich, heathen city? Were such a man to arise amongst us and voice the awful truth, what would his reception be? How would he fare at the hands of the Press, and the Public -- and the Church?
"Ladies and Gentlemen," I say, "you are Christian in name, but I discern little of Christ in your ideals, your institutions, or your daily lives. You are a mercenary, self-indulgent, frivolous, boastful, blood-guilty mob of heathen. I like you very much, but that is what you are. And it is you -- you who call men "Infidels." You ridiculous creatures, what do you mean by it? If to praise Christ in words, and deny Him in deeds, be Christianity, then London is a Christian city, and England is a Christian nation.
My Christian friends, I am a Socialist, and as such believe in, and work for, universal freedom, and universal brotherhood, and universal peace.
From the Foreward, Robert Blatchford:
It is impossible for me to present the whole of my case in the space at my command; I can only give an outline. Neither can I do it as well as it ought to be done, but only as well as I am able. To make up for my shortcomings, and to fortify my case with fuller evidence, I must refer the reader to books written by men better equipped for the work than I. To do justice to so vast a theme would need a large book, where I can only spare a short chapter, and each large book should be written by a specialist.
For the reader's own satisfaction, then, and for the sake of justice to my cause, I shall venture to suggest a list of books whose contents will atone for all my failures and omissions. And I am justified, I think, in saying that no reader who has not read the books I recommend, or others of like scope and value, can fairly claim to sit on the jury to try this case. And of these books I shall, first of all, heartily recommend the series of cheap sixpenny reprints now published by the Rationalist Press Association, Johnson's Court, London, E.G.
R.P.A Reprints
Huxley's Lectures and Essays.Tyndall's Lectures and Essays.Laing's Human Origins.Laing's Modern Science and Modern Thought.Clodd's Pioneers of Evolution.Mathew Arnold's Literature and Dogma.Haeckel's Riddle of the Universe.Grant Allen's Evolution of the Idea of God.Cotter Morrison's Service of Man.Herbert Spencer's Education.Some Apologists have, I am sorry to say, attempted to disparage those excellent books by alluding to them as "Sixpenny Science" and "Cheap Science." The same method of attack will not be available against most of the books in my next list: [3]
The Golden Bough, Frazer. Macmillain, 36s.The Legend of Perseus, Hartland. D. Nutt, 25s.Christianity and Mythology, Robertson. Watts, 8s.Pagan Christs, Robertson. Watts, 8s.Supernatural Religion, Cassel. Watts, 6s.The Martyrdom of Man, Winwood Reade. Kegan Paul, 6s.Mutual Aid, Kropotkin. Heinemann, 7s. 6d.The Story of Creation, Clodd. Longmans, 3s. 6d.Buddha and Buddhism, Lille. Clark, 3s. 6d.Shall We understand the Bible? Williams. Black, 1s.What is Religion? Tolstoy. Free Age Press, 6d.What I believe, Tolstoy. Free Age Press, 6d.The Life of Christ, Renan. Scott, 1s. 6d.I also recommend Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology, and Lecky's History of European Morals. Of pamphlets there are hundreds. Readers will get full information from Watts & Co., 17 Johnson's Court, London, E.C. I can warmly recommend The Miracles of Christian Belief and The Claims of Christianity, by Charles Watts, and Christianity and Progress, a penny pamphlet, by G. W. Foote (The Freethought Publishing Company). [4] I should also like to mention An Easy Outline of Evolution, by Dennis Hird (Watts & Co., 2s. 6d.). This book will be of great help to those who want to scrape acquaintance with the theory of evolution.
Finally, let me ask the general reader to put aside all prejudice, and give both sides a fair hearing. Most of the books I have mentioned above are of more actual value to the public of to-day than many standard works which hold world-wide reputations.
No man should regard the subject of religion as decided for him until he has read The Golden Bough. The Golden Bough is one of those books that unmake history. [5]
We might as well dip into Blatchford's book and enjoy basking in the light of rationalism-communism-atheism-darwinism. This book can save you a lot of personal trouble. You need not discourse or argue with communists, atheists, etc. and the like. Whatever they will say is to be found already in Blatchford's book. So read it, and in that way you spare yourself the tedium of repeatedly parsing the very same sentiments from dozens of atheists, communists, rationalists, etc. [6]
Now, with those last words, consider the blessings socialism has heaped upon "man, woman, and child" since 1904.They used to believe in witchcraft, and they burned millions -- yes, millions -- of innocent women as witches... They used to believe the legends of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. They call them allegories now. They used to denounce Darwinism as impious and absurd. They have since "cheerfully accepted " the theory of evolution. (pg. 5)
I cannot believe that man was at the first created "perfect," and that he "fell." (How could the perfect fall?) I believe the theory of evolution, which shows not a fall but a gradual rise... I accept the theory of evolution, which teaches that man was slowly evolved by natural process from lower forms of life, and that this evolution took millions of years. (pg. 10)
The differences between the religious and the scientific theories, or, as I should put it, between superstition and rationalism, are clearly marked and irreconcilable. The supernatural stands by "creation": the rationalist stands by "evolution." The creation theory alleges that the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and man, and the animals were "created " by God, 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 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 opposite theories denominator... 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... (pg. 11-13)
In The Story of Creation Mr. Ed. Clodd tells us that one cubic inch of rotten stone contains 41 thousand million vegetable skeletons of diatoms... When did a poet conceive an idea so vast and so astounding as the theory of evolution? What are a few paltry lumps of crystallised carbon compared to a galaxy of a million million suns? Did any Eastern inventor of marvels ever suggest such a human feat as that accomplished by the men who have, during the last handful of centuries, spelt out the mystery of the universe? These scientists have worked miracles before which those of the ancient priests and magicians are mere tricks of hanky-panky. (pg. 44)
Is this unspeakable monster, Jahweh, the Father of Christ? Is he the God who inspired Buddha, and Shakespeare, and Herschel, and Beethoven, and Darwin, and Plato, and Bach? No; not he. But in warfare and massacre, in rapine and in rape, in black revenge and deadly malice, in slavery, and polygamy, and the debasement of women; and in the pomps, vanities, and greeds of royalty, of clericalism, and of usury and barter -- we may easily discern the influence of his ferocious and abominable personality. It is time to have done with this nightmare fetish of a murderous tribe of savages. We have no use for him. We have no criminal so ruthless nor so blood-guilty as he. He is not fit to touch our cities, imperfect as we are. The thought of him defiles and nauseates. We should think him too horrible and pitiless for a devil, this red-handed, black-hearted Jehovah of the Jews. (pg. 56)
First, as to Adam and the Fall and inherited sin. Evolution, historical research, and scientific criticism have disposed of Adam. Adam was a myth. Hardly any educated Christians now regard him as an historic person. But -- no Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no Atonement; no Atonement, no Saviour. Accepting Evolution, how can we believe in a Fall? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey, or after? Was it when he was a tree man, or later? Was it in the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or in the Age of Iron? There never was any "Fall." Evolution proves a long, slow rise. And if there never was a Fall, why should there be any Atonement? Christians accepting the theory of evolution have to believe that God allowed the sun to form out of the nebula, and the earth to form from the sun. That He allowed man to develop slowly from the speck of protoplasm in the sea. That at some period of man's gradual evolution from the brute, God found man guilty of some sin, and cursed him. That some thousands of years later God sent His only Son down upon the earth to save man from Hell. But Evolution shows man to be, even now, an imperfect creature, an unfinished work, a building still undergoing alterations, an animal still evolving... (pg. 124)
Are we to believe that the God who created all this boundless universe got so angry with the children of the apes that He condemned them all to Hell for two score centuries, and then could only appease His rage by sending His own Son to be nailed upon a cross ? Do you believe that? Can you believe it? No. As I said before, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sifined against God. In fact, the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no Fall. There was no Atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no Eden, and no Devil, and no Hell. (pg. 125)
For whereas the Christian theory of free will and personal responsibility results in established ignorance and injustice, with no visible remedies beyond personal denunciation, the prison, and a few coals and blankets, the Determinist method would result in the abolition of lords and burglars, of slums and palaces, of caste and snobbery. There would be no ignorance and no poverty left in the world. That is because the Determinist understands human nature, and the Christian does not. It is because the Determinist understands morality, and the Christian does not. For the Determinist looks for the cause of wrong-doing in the environment of the wrong-doer. While the Christian puts all the wrongs which society perpetrates against the individual, and all the wrongs which the individual perpetrates against his fellows down to an imaginary "free will." (pg. 142--144)
Which religion was the borrower from the other -- Buddhism or Christianity?... But the altruistic idea is very much older than Buddha, for it existed among forms of life very much earlier and lower than the human, and has, indeed, been a powerful factor in evolution. Speaking of "The Golden Rule" in his Confessions of Faith of a Man of Science Haeckel says:
In the human family this maxim has always been accepted as self-evident; as ethical instinct it was an inheritance derived from our animal ancestors. It had already found a place among the herds of apes and other social mammals; in a similar manner, but with wider scope, it was already present in the most primitive communities and among the hordes of the least advanced savages... their oldest prehistoric source, as Darwin has shown, is to be sought in the social instincts of animals...It is not to revelation that we owe the ideal of human brotherhood, but to evolution. (pg. 159--160)
Rightly or wrongly, I am a Democrat. Rightly or wrongly, I am for the rights of the masses as against the privileges of the classes. Rightly or wrongly, I am opposed to Godship, Kingship, Lordship, Priestship. Rightly or wrongly, I am opposed to Imperialism, Militarism, and conquest. Rightly or wrongly, I am for universal brotherhood and universal freedom. Rightly or wrongly, I am for union against disunion, for collective ownership against private ownership. Rightly or wrongly, I am for reason against dogma, for evolution against revelation; for humanity always; for earth, not Heaven; for the holiest Trinity of all -- the Trinity of man, woman, and child. (pg. 195)
notes
| [1] | See the reading Science for the Workers. |
| [2] | Compare what Kerr just said, which is the usual communist line, to what Julian Huxley said in Religion as an Objective Problem. |
| [3] | To prove his point that these are not cheap "sixpence science", he lists the price. Hilarious. But most of these are RPA books, and hence, also issued as sixpence science. Charles Watts was one of the founders of Rationalist Press Association. |
| [4] | I think Freethought published Haeckel books as well. |
| [5] | The influence of Frazer's book The Golden Bough is much underestimated. It is one of the wellsprings of the 'pagan copycat' and 'conspiracy' theories of Christianity. Modern promoters of these theories e.g., Gandy and Freke, Acharya S, Dan Brown etc., draw upon this and monistic material. It is interesting to see that many of the researchers and popularizers of these anti-Christianity theories were evolutionists like Haeckel and his followers. Julian Huxley recommends The Golden Bough in (if I recall correctly) his Essays of a Biologist. |
Links? Demonstrate that those are my beliefs or stop lying about me.
For your idea to work you have to have objects traveling faster than c and ignoring all the know laws of physics.
Tell that to the geniuses on your side that state that the known universe expanded in a trillion-trillionth of a second and excused explained it away by stating that while objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light, space can expand faster than that.
Hey! Welcome to FR.
I was thinking about asking you what your previous screen name was but I figured that I’d get slapped down for being rude to a newb, so I won’t.
Oh, I don’t think you even have to disagree very much with Evolution Theory to rate those glowing commendations, mom (actually, I don’t believe I’ve ever been accused of demented huckstering, but the others sound familiar). I can hardly quarrel with natural selection. It paid for five years’ college tuition. As for the rest of it: I think there is a ways to go before any serious value judgments can be drawn from Evolution Theory. I think the Masters of the Universe have a lot of work left to do on their theory, and, aside from the practical side of it (like genome sequencing – work that would have been done in any event), I don’t see where their precious theory has ever done me a lick of good.
But, it’s done all of Mankind a lot of harm. It’s lead otherwise reasonable men to conclude that it’s perfectly OK (morally imperative even) to kill the unborn, for any reason or no reason at all. And even the born, up to the age of one, two, three (what is the currently fashionable upper limit?) if they are bloody inconvenient or somehow incapacitated (it’s a “quality of life’ issue don’t you see). Next up on the hit list; the aged, of course, and the incapacitated, whatever age they have attained.
It doesn’t end there. Others have been impelled to conclude that dear old Mother Earth is over-populated and have given themselves, to the enthusiastic cheers and acclaim of colleagues and students, to public speculation over the most efficient method of exterminating 90% of the human population (the unleashing of highly infectious diseases on an unsuspecting populace being the most popular solution).
It’s caused others to posit a devaluation of human life leading to a greater equality with non-human life (hello PETA!). Leading another to declare that humans are no better than bacteria. Still others have developed a virtual laundry list of conclusions arising from their scientific investigations: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent; these declarations being so self-evident that no further discussion is required.
Charming lot, aren’t they.
ECO: thanks for the ping!
I sure hope DevNet wouldn't be so hypocritical as to use the terms *sunrise* and *sunset*.
Just for the record, DevNet, what terms DO you use to describe the apparent rising and setting of the sun as seen from earth?
Being on the earth and moving with it in any movement it has we have to view everything else as moving from our frame of reference on an unmoving earth.
Can you point to anything demonstrating the earth has an absolute movement?
If you’re riding on a train traveling at a steady speed (forget the side motion and rail effects) the landscape seems to move past your window.
How do you know whether it really is or if it is the train that is moving in the opposite direction? You can’t. And from your frame of reference you really don’t care so long as the right station moves into view or the train moves into the right station.
I suppose that if your train is pointing due west at the equator traveling at just over 1,000 mph......
;)
Of course jets have done something similar to that but no, you would have to look at the train from another position
outside the train.
But the fast train sounds like a good idea, go fast enough and you could reach your destination the day before you left.
liberalism...
cultism...
No, she's rejecting your modern cult.
If you look into getting yourself deprogrammed you might be remotely aware of this...so until you do, you'll just continue demanding to be foolish.
“modern science” has been hijacked by the atheist/humanist crowd as this series of articles demonstrates.
What I reject is the philosophical corruption that has entered science.
“But I guess if you didn’t have Borking and character assassination you wouldn’t have anything at all. What a joke!”
Character assassination? Like this?
Or doesn’t that count?
Programmed cultists ignore their projections and hypocrisy, metmom.
Like so many of us
Bite ‘em and don’t ever let go, Ethan!
Hey you guys won, didn't you hear Bama???
Darwin Fish?
Isn’t that the belly-up fish with legs and Xs for eyes that’s being swallowed by the Jesus Fish in the bumper sticker?
It’s hard to say, it keeps evolving into something else!
Kind of like a retread?
Retreads? Kind of recycling? Yeah, yeah, recycling garbage!
I like it!
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
Some of the best, most penetrating, and most straight-forward and useful analyses of communist mentality was published by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and also by the American Bar Association Special Committee on Communist Tactics. One recurring theme is truth, or rather, absence of it: "Whoever is touched with Communism loses his sense of truth as we know it." This, of course, is true. Another point of note is that people are suceptible to marxist propaganda because they don't know what it is. They hear a scientist talking a marxist line and they fail to recognize it for what it is because they simply don't know. And in this way we have allowed ourselves to become saturated with marxist dialectical materialism in science, the arts, literature, education, etc. People repeat opinions and ideas they have had drilled into them, ideas which are in fact marxist in origin, yet they remain oblivious to it (or act like they are oblivious.) Let's take an example.
A standard line you hear from evolutionists on FR is that "truth" doesn't belong in science. Science's conceptions of "truth" are always changing and in flux, so there is really no such thing as truth in science because truth is "fixed" and science isn't. Science does not sully its hands with such things. Everything evolves, nothing is static. Theories which contain fixed truths cannot be considered science, because such theories contain elements that are not subject to revision. So they must be classified as metaphysics or religion. This, of course, is standard Marxist doctrine. That will come as a surprise perhaps, to the dozens of dupes that have repeated it hundreds of times on FR.
Coyoteman has on his homepage the following blurb by a useful idiot:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.To this, Coyoteman adds:
"If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it.If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it. But the problem is, each will give you a different version of the TRVTH and defend it to your death. That's why the Religion Forum has such tight moderation rules. Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?"But this philosophy is all old news..."You keep pushing the TRVTH, and you can fight it out with the world's 4,300 other religions each of which also claims to have the TRVTH. (And this doesn't even count the different branches within each denomination!)"
"No one's ever said there's no such thing as Truth, just that science isn't the place to look to find it."
Dialaectics tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change--that is why dialectics regards everything critically; that is why it denies the existence of a once-and-for-all established truth. Consequently, it also repudiates abstract dogmatic propositions... Metaphysics, however, tells us something altogether different. From its standpoint the world is something eternal and immutable, it has been once and for all determined by someone or something--that is why the metaphysicians always have "eternal justice" or "immutable truth" on their lips.Ponder this philosophy. Let's say you mowed your lawn on June 1st, 2008. Dialectical materialism says this cannot be a fixed truth. It may not be true in, say, 5 years. It will have to be revised. But anyway, you've heard all this before from evolutionists. IIRC they testified in courts that this is the nature of science.--Joseph Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism? Collected Works, volume 1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.