302 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



this aspect of God is common to all theologies, however much in some 

 it may be slighted or depreciated ; and, lastly, because I do not believe 

 that any theology can be real or satisfying that does not make it promi- 

 nent as well as admit it. I can conceive no religion as satisfactory 

 that falls short of Christianity ; but, on the other hand, I cannot be- 

 lieve any religion to be healthy that does not start from Nature-wor- 

 ship. It is in the free and instinctive admiration of human beings for 

 the glory of heaven, earth and sea, that religion begins, and I cannot 

 imagine but as morbid a religion which has ceased to admire them. 



But many readers will probably think that not much is to be hoped 

 for from dwelling on this subject. " We know very well that the uni- 

 verse is glorious, but, when you have said that, there is an end of the 

 matter. "We want to make atheists believe in God, and you do it not 

 by changing their minds, but by changing the meaning of the word 

 God. It is not a verbal controversy that rages between atheists and 

 Christians, but a controversy that concerns the most serious realities. 

 When people display such rancor against religion as was shown by 

 the Paris Commune, you may be sure there is some essential matter in 

 dispute, and that nothing is more vain than to attempt to reconcile 

 them by refining upon words. According to the definition you have 

 given of theism, no rational being could ever be an atheist." 



I will endeavor to answer this supposed objection at length, and 

 the part of it which sounds the most formidable will give me the least 

 trouble. That people do not shoot and stab each other for a word is 

 not always true. In fact, when the word is theological that is just 

 what people do. It has often been remarked of theological controver- 

 sies, that they are never conducted more bitterly than when the dif- 

 ference between the rival doctrines is very small. This is nearly cor- 

 rect, but not quite. If you want to see the true white heat of contro- 

 versial passion, if you want to see men fling away the very thought 

 of reconciliation, and close in internecine conflict, you should look at 

 controversialists who do not differ at all^ but who have adopted dif- 

 fei'ent words to express the same opinion. 



But the other question raised in the objection, the question whether 

 there can be such a thing as atheism, will furnish me with a convenient 

 point from which I may start for a fuller explanation of what I mean 

 by the worship of God in Nature. As I have represented modern 

 science as a form of theism, and as there is no rational man who does 

 not believe at least, in a general way in science, it follows of course 

 tbat no sensible man in these times can be speculatively an atheist. 

 And I believe no one can, however many great philosophers may have 

 congratulated themselves upon accomplishing that feat. If, then, no 

 man could be an atheist practically without being one speculatively 

 also, it would be true that men are entirely mistaken in the importance 

 they attach to the distinction between theist and so-called atheist. It 

 would then appear to be a misdescribed distinction, and to be in reality 



