Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 5.djvu/381

 might be twisted into any such construction. It is the theological teachers, the editors of religions newspapers, that thrust the question forward; and they treat it in a way that will entitle them, in our opinion, to rank among the most efficient propagators of atheism. The Rev. Mr. Talmage is an authorized teacher of religion, and, as he is followed by multitudes, it is presumable that his statements have weight with them. He tells them that the is a propagator of atheism, because it states in three lines the scientific principle that matter is indestructible. Atheism is here put as the necessary consequence of a demonstrated truth—rather suicidal theology, we should say—but who is the real propagator of atheism, he who simply states the truth, or he who construes it as atheistic? An established principle of science is taken up and subjected to a little theological fumbling, with the result—no God!—let the fumbler take the responsibility. We throw back this charge of propagating atheism where it belongs, upon those who seek every occasion to declare that the question of the existence of God is dependent upon what is going on in the field of scientific research. It was those religious teachers who affirmed that, if the earth is in motion, or was not created in six days, there is no God; and it is these who now say that if evolution, or spontaneous generation, or the doctrine of the correlation of physical and mental forces be true, there is an end to all religion; or, if matter is indestructible, atheism is the consequence—it is these that are sowing the seeds of doubt in the community, and doing more than any other parties to familiarize the general mind with the question of theism in its aspects of assumed uncertainty. We smile at the religious proceedings of the heathen who, after praying to his god for rain until he loses patience, takes him down and thrashes, kicks, and variously maltreats him for neglecting his duties. Yet, after all, how much worse is this than the habit of taking down the idea of God, and profanely battering it about like a foot-ball in the logical arena? We have preachers who make the pulpit a kind of conjurer's platform, where the conception of the Deity is manipulated by syllogistic legerdemain, appearing here and vanishing there, now under this hat, and now under that, to the due astonishment of all beholders. Of the pagan referred to, one thing must in justice be said, that, although he pummels his god with great irreverence, he never doubts him. Some of our own theologians, on the contrary, seem to be more possessed with the idea of doubt in regard to the existence of the Deity, than any thing else. They treat it as an open question, and are forever dwelling upon its contingencies, and showing how if this, that, or the other thing be true, then there is no God at all, and every thing like religion is given over to destruction. We are constantly told that there is an alarming spread of disbelief in these days; what else can be expected under such inculcations? Let it be accredited to its chief source—the audacity and folly of those who use science to unsettle faith by forever insisting upon their antagonism; for religion has no enemies so dangerous as those who insist upon staking its truth upon any conditions or results into which it is the legitimate business of Science to inquire.

American Social Science Association held its May session in New York, and its proceedings have been made familiar to the public through the newspapers. They were of an interesting character, embracing able papers and discussions on a wide range of topics—education, labor, civil service, finance, sanitary subjects, etc. The earnest consideration of these