DURING the past thirty years I have met in public discussion
fifty Christian disputants, many of whom were fair in controversy.
But some of my opponents appeared to have peculiar views as to what
was right and horrorable in their dealings with Secularists. In
1872 I held a four nights' debate With the Rev. A. Stewart, of
Aberdeen, who, not content with publishing the debate as it was
taken down, added to the printed report a long list of notes,
either explaining the statements which he had made during the
discussion, or answering points that I had urged upon the platform,
and which the rev. gentleman had failed to answer at the time. On
ascertaining that he was doing this, I requested the same privilege
for myself; but it was not granted, upon the ground that the
Christian Committee, who were issuing the debate, could not
"publish new sceptical matter." The result was that the readers of
the debate had a one-sided report presented to them. Such is the
love of justice and fair play that is sometimes inspired by
Chriatiahity. Truly, "the tree is known by its fruits." The Rev.
Z.B. Woffendale, acted in a similarly discreditable manner in
reporting a debate he had with Mr. G.W. Foote. Christian disputants
evidently recognise, after the debate is over, their controversial
shortcomings, and try to cover their defects by replying to their
opponents when no rejoinder is allowed.
The same kind of tactics was resorted to by Dr. A. Jamieson,
of Glasgow, with whom I debated in 1894. Several months after the
discussion took place the Doctor published a report of it,
accompanied by an Appendix of sixteen pages, wherein he manifests
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
DISCREDITABLE TACTICS
a sad bitterness, of temper, and indicates his disappointment at
the part he played upon the platform. Here are a few specimens of
how he deals, in the Appendix, with my arguments, after having had
months of study to consider what he should say in reply to my
statement, that I believed in one existence which I called the
universe, the Doctor says: "The universe is not one, but is
composed of a multiplicity of diffrent existences, as the sun,
moon, stars, animals, plants, gold, silver, etc., each of which
has an existence of its own." Now, the Doctor ought to know that
the composition does not affect the unity. Its forms and
appearances -- in other words, its phenomena -- are numerous; but
its noumenon, which underlies all external aspects, is one, hence
its name. Why is it called the universe? The name is derived from
unus, One, and therefore implies all that I contend for. The
separate existences referred to by Dr. Jamieson such as suns,
stars, animals, plants, etc., are simply different modes of the one
existence. They are all phenomenal, and will pass away by changing
their forms; but the one existance, of which all things are simply
modes, must remain to all eternity, as it has been from all
eternity. Besides this there can be no other. This is the doctrine
of Monism, which is now every day becoming more and more widely
accepted by men of the profoundest intellect. Dr. Jamieson's
quibble about the impossibility of an infinite whole being made up
of finite parts goes to show what Sir W. Hamilton so clearly
pointed out, that no human conception can be formed of the infinite
at all, and hence any attempt to theorise about it will involve one
in a contradiction.
During the debate I used the following argument, which the
late Mr. Charles Bradlaugh frequently employed, with the view of
showing that the universe could not have been created by an
intelligent power extraneous to itself: --
"The fact I start from is the fact that something exists.
Now, this existence is either infinite in duration -- that is,
unlimited in duration -- that is, eternal -- or else it has
been created or brought into existence. If created, then it
must have been by some existence the same as itself, or
different from it; but it cannot have been created by any
existence the same as itself, because that would have been but
a continuation of the same existence; and it cannot have been
created by any existence differing from itself, because things
which have nothing in common with each other cannot, be
conceived in relation to each other and cannot be the cause
of, or affect, one another."
Not once throughout the discussion did Dr. Jamieson notice this,
but in his Appendix he elegantly remarks: --
"This argument (?) is not only weak, but it is supremely
silly, and by it it could be easily proved that Mr. Watts
himself is infinite, both in extent and duration, and,
consequently, that he himself is the 'one existence.' If we
substitute the words, Mr. Watts exists, for the phrase
'something exists,' throughout the argument, we will at once
see the absurdity of which both Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr. Watts
are guilty. The argument would then read thus: The fact I
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
DISCREDITABLE TACTICS
start from is, that Mr. Watts exists. This existence (Mr.
Watts) is either infinite in duration, which is unlimited in
duration -- that is, eternal -- or else he has been created or
brought into existence. If created, then it must have been by
some existence the same as himself, or different from himself;
but he cannot have been created by an existence the same as
himself, because that would have been but a continuation of
the same existence; and he cannot have been created by any
existence different from himself, because things which have
nothing in common with each other cannot be conceived as
having any relation to each other, and cannot be either the
cause or effect of each other. The argument carried out in the
same way with regard to extent would prove Mr. Watts to be
infinite in that respect as well. An argument that leads to
such an absurdity must itself be the very essence of
absurdity. In face of the statement quoted, I think I may
safely say that Mr. Watts's positron is 'gone.'"
This is another of those sophisms which play so conspicuous a
part in the Doctor's reasoning. Can he not see that Mr. Watts was
not, and does not pretend to have been, "created," but to have been
formed out of preexistent material of the same nature as himself?
What possible analogy is there between this process of moulding or
forming and the calling into existedee of a material universe from
nothing? Mr. Watts was formed out of an existence the same as
himself, and which existence, in one of its phases, is continued in
him. The argument which I employed is irrefutable when applied to
a supposed creation as I applied it; but, of course, it has no
bearing upon the mere modification of things out of preexistent
material. It remains, therefore, in full force, and will remain
until a better reason than Dr. Jamieson has furnished is
forthcoming to set it aside.
Dr. Jamieson prides himself on having produced a "new
argument," and no doubt he hopes to attain to a sort of immortality
as its inventor. Strange that so many centuries should have passed
before this marvellous proof of God's existence was made known to
the benighted world. Paley may now hide his diminished head, and
all the Bridgewater Treatises be consigned to oblivion, since a new
natural theologian has arisen with a brand-new argument, which must
silence all Atheists, Agnostics, and doubters of the Divine. Here
is this wonderful argument (?): "It is admitted that the universe
in whole or in part is cooling. It is also admitted that cooling
bodies contract. That which has contrarted occupies less space than
it once did. The material universe, in whole or in part, has
contracted, consequently it now occupies less space than it once,
did. It must then be finite in extent. If finite in one way, it
must be finite in all ways, and, consequently, in duration. If
finite in duration, it must have had a beginning, and consequently
a Cause. There must, then, be a Powerful Being distinct from the
material universe upon whom it depends for its existence."
Such is this new argument (?), which the Doctor invites me to
answer. I do so by pronouncing it as being the very essence of
sophistry. The whole "argument" is based upon a mistake, and, upon
this mistake, certain "ifs" are stated, and then the imperative
there "must" have been "a powerful Being," etc., is assumed. This
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
DISCREDITABLE TACTICS
is a fair sample of the Doctor's metaphysics. Now, what are the
facts? It is not true that cooling bodies always contract, for snow
and ice occupy more space than water, although the temperature of
the former is much lower than that of the latter. Cooling in this
case expands, instead of contracting, Mark the sophism of the
Doctor's. He says "the material universe in whole or in part has
contracted; consequently it [what? -- the whole or the part?]
occupies less space than it once did." If the whole has contracted,
no doubt that is so. But the Doctor does not venture to assert that
the whole has contracted, but that the contraction may have been in
part only. Yet the conclusion drawn is on the supposition that
there has been contraction of the entire mass. This is manifestly
illogical. What do we know of distant parts of the universe as to
whether the matter in existence there is cooling or not? In one
part the temperature falls, and in another it rises, leaving
probably the same amount of heat on the whole. No one can assert
that the entire universe is cooling, and, therefore, undergoing
contraction; hence the "new argument" that was to revolutionise the
Theistic philosophy is not worth the paper it is written on.
Dr. Jamieson persists in his contention that "the effect can
never be superior to the cause," and upon this assumption he gives
what he terms "a fatal blow to the Atheistic hypothesis." In the
debate I quoted J.S. Mill, who said: "How vastly nobler and more
precious, for instance, are the vegetables and animals than the
soil and manure out of which they are raised up." "But," says the
Doctor, "the soil and the manure are not the cause either of
vegetables or animals," but the cause is "a living germ" which is
there. Granted; yet surely it will not be urged that this simple
unicellular germ is greater than the oak tree which springs from
it, or the animal -- perhaps man -- in which it developes. That
germ has no intelligence, yet from it comes a Milton, a Bacon, or
a Shakespeare. Was not the effect greater than the cause in such a
case? Take another illustration of an opposite character. A
baccilus, almost inconceivable in its minuteness, several millions
of which could pass at the same time through the eye of an ordinary
sewing-needle, enters the body of a strong man and sets up an
action which stops all the vital forces of the powerful and well-
knit organism. The cause here was this tiny thing, composed of just
a single cell; the result, the death of a man of great vigor of
body and strength of mind. Surely no one out of a lunatic asylum
will maintain in such a case as this that the effect was inferior
to the cause.
Dr. Jamieson's statement, that life precedes organisation, is
so startling that one can hardly imagine it possible for anyone to
make it who is acquainted with the merest rudiments of biology. Can
we even imagine life apart from organisation? Will the Doctor tell
us where it is to be found, and what it is like? That organisation
and life are always found associated no one, we presume, will deny,
just as force is always found in connection with matter. But it
would be no less absurd to say that force was the cause of matter
than that life was the cause of organization. Most of the
quotations given by Dr. Jamieson from men of science are quite
beside the question, and only show that the writers held life to be
something distinct from organisation, which no more proves life to
have been the causc of organisation than the holding that
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
DISCREDITABLE TACTICS
electricity is something distinct from the battery proves it to
have been the cause of the combination of metals and acids
employed. However, the quotations themselves are from books written
long ago. The one most in harmony with the views under
consideration is that from the 'Reign of Law' by the Duke of
Argyll. And this book was written nearly thirty years since, and
its author was certainly never considered an authority upon
questions of biology. Huxley most assuredly hild a view
diametricaiiy opposed to this, as any one can see who will take the
trouble to read his 'Physical Basis of Life.' In that discourse he
redoculed the notion that life is anything more than a result of
organisation, by comparing it with the old theory that acquaosity
was something added to the hydrogen and oxygen in the formation of
water. For instance, the Professor wrote: "It will be observed that
the existence of the matter of life depends on the pre-existence of
certain compounds -- namely, carbonic acid, water, and ammonia.
Withdraw any one of these three from the world, and all vital
phenomena come to an end. They are related to the protoplasm of the
plant, as the protoplasm of the plant is to that of the animal.
Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogon are all lifeless bodies. Of
these, carbon and oxygen unite in certain proportions, and under
certain conditions, to give rise to carbonic acid; hydrogen and
oxygen produce water; nitrogen and hydrogeyn give rise to ammonia.
These new compounds, like the elementary bodies of which they are
composed, are lifeless. But when they are brought together ander
certain conditions they give rise to the still more complex body,
protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena of life"
("Physical Basis of Life," Lay Sermons, p. 135).
In my debate with Dr. Jamieson upon the soul question I used
the phrase, "Diseased brain impaired thought." In reply to this the
Doctor, in his Appendix, gives a long string of authorities to
prove the contrary. But they do nothing of the kind. I am reminded
that Professor Ferrer said that "the half of the brain has been
diseased, and that the intellectual powers of the patient have not
been interfered with." Well, what of it? So a man may have a
disease in one eye or one ear, and yet see or hear very well with
the other. The brain is double, like the eye or the ear. There are
two hemispheres, and if one is affected with disease the other can
act bealthily. And it was to illustrate this very fact that Dr.
Ferrier introduced the case. Then there is a reference to cases in
which mental derangement has occurred, and after death no lesion of
the brain has been found. Doubtless; yet I suppose there is no
physiologist who does not believe but that there was some brain
disease which escaped detection, in consequence probably of its
minute character. But if the Doctor thinks differently, will he
kindly inform us what was diseased if the brain was not? Can the
immortal soul suffer from derangement? Is the immaterial spirit
liable to disease and decay? For, if so, would it not be a fair
deduction that death also might be the culminating point of such an
abnormal condition? Then, what would become of the supposed
immortality?
Dr. T. Cromwell, in his work upon 'The Soul and a Future
Life,' says: "Immaterialists have dwelt much on cases of
considerable, though always partial, injury to the brain, with
which no perceptible mental disorder was associated. But to this
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
DISCREDITABLE TACTICS
there are adequate replies. 'Many instances are on record in which
extensive disease has occurred in one hemisphere (of the cerebrum)
so as almost entirely to destroy it, without any obvious injury to
the mental powers, or any interruption of the influence of the mind
upon the body. But there is no case on record of any severe lesion
of both hemispheres, in which morbid phenomona were not evident
during life' (Carpenter's Human Physiology, p. 775). 'In every
instance where there exists any corresponding lesion or disease on
each side of the brain, there we are sure to find some express
injury or impairment of the mental functions' (Sir. H. Holland's
'Chapters on Mental Physiology,' p. 184). 'There are no cases on
record in which the mental faculties have remained undisturbed when
the disorganisation has extended to both sides of the brain' (Solly
on 'The Human Brai,' p. 349 1836). Dr. Maudsley, in his 'Physiology
of Mind, p. 126, observes that he has come to the assured
conviction that mind does not exist in nature apart from brain; all
his experience of it is in connection with brain. Lawrence, in his
'Lectures on Comparative Anatomy,' p. 112, says: 'I firmly believe
that the various forms of insanity, that all the affections
comprehended under the general term of mental derangement, are only
evidences of cerebral affections, disordirred manifestations of
those organs whose healthy action produces the phoriomena called
mental -- in short, symptoms of diseased brain'" (quoted by
Cromwell, p. 97).
The Doctor accuses me of ignorance because, I spoke of scars
in connection with anatomy, which, he says, belong to the province
of physiology. Let me tell my learned opponent, who informs me that
he has "successfully passed examinations in two universities," that
it would have beed still more correct to have relegated sears to
the region of pathology, or the wound which caused the sear to the
domain of surgery. Anatomy is a general term applied to the human
body, and is not always limited to a cut-and-dried description of
the bones, muscles, nerves, etc. Strictly speaking, the word
anatomy is derived from a Greek word which signifies to cut up; but
it is used by all persons -- except, perhaps, first-year students
in a medical school -- in a much broader sense. And no man who is
not bent on hair-splitting would have accused me of ignorance in
consequence of my applying it to scars. Then we are told that
sometimes scars disappear. That is true, but not always, for I have
now a scar upon my forehead that has been visible for over forty
years. In my debate with the Doctor I gave scientific reasons why
scars could remain, notwithstanding the many changes the body
undergoes. But the disappearance of some scars does not in any way
prove the Doctor's contention. Ideas sometimes disappear,
especially late in life. Memory fails almost invariably at advanced
age, and even childishness supervenes. If that be not due to brain
decay, then to what is it due?
PRICE ONE PENNY.
Published by WATTS & CO, 17 Johnson's-court, Fleet-street,
London; 1895.
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
