BIGOTRY IN SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. 329 



well knows that, although the public might not admit, totidem verbis 

 (in so many words), that "whatever an atheist advances must be 

 false," or that "every theory once pronounced atheistic must be erro- 

 neous," yet it will practically act as if such propositions were estab- 

 lished. Hence by making such charges he fraudulently attempts to 

 steal from the public, through an appeal to their passions, a verdict 

 which he has no hope of obtaining from their reason. Knowing and 

 trading on the extreme animosity with which the heretic, the skeptic, 

 and the atheist are rightly or wrongly regarded, he seeks to deprive 

 his opponents of a fair hearing by applying to them these dreaded 

 names. A meaner, a more infamous stratagem can scarcely be con- 

 ceived. Yet more: it is not the man conscious of the goodness of his 

 cause who fights with such weapons. He who knows that his views 

 are in harmony with facts lias nothing to gain by foul play ; but if he 

 feels inward misgivings concerning the doctrines which he advocates, 

 or doubts at least the possibility of bringing forward valid arguments 

 in their defense, he may readily, if dishonest enough, seek to blacken 

 the character of an opponent. 



We may, therefore, safely and fairly conclude that whosoever in 

 scientific controversy introduces accusations of atheism is, if not 

 knowingly and willfully, still decidedly in the wrong. We are conse- 

 quently fully justified in shutting his book, and giving judgment 

 against him. 



But there is another consideration which here forces itself upon 

 our attention. All writings calculated to bring a man into general 

 " ridicule, hatred, or contempt," are by the law declared to be libel- 

 ous. Now, it is very questionable if, in England, any accusation is 

 so much calculated to bring a man into " hatred and contempt " as a 

 charge of atheism or "materialism," however ill-founded it maybe. 

 Surely therefore such charges, whether brought directly or by impli- 

 cation, are libelous, and as such they are more fitted to be dealt with 

 by a criminal court than by i*eviewers. We should like to see such a 

 case decided, and we believe that the result would be a great improve- 

 ment in the tone of scientific and semi-scientific controversy. 



But even if such accusations should be pronounced not libelous, 

 and if those who resort to them have no legal penalties to dread, 

 there is another tribunal which might interfere. Why should not 

 scientific men, scientific societies, and scientific journals, agree that 

 whosoever in a scientific controversy attempts to get rid of an oppo- 

 nent by raising the cry of atheism should be held to be ipso facto an 

 outlaw, and to be no longer entitled to the treatment of a gentleman 

 and a scholar? Nay, why should not other charges affecting the per- 

 sonal character of an opponent be dealt with in a similar manner? 

 We do not, of course, seek to screen the man who can be proved to 

 have suppressed documents, cooked results, or claimed as his own dis- 

 coveries those which he well knew belonged to another. We refer to 



