RATIONALISM BASED ON DARWINISM 23 



into ether. He conveniently fits on traits of character 

 observable in man and animals to molecules and atoms. 

 But if he compares the love of Paris for Helen with the 

 " affinity " of one atom with another, how does he account 

 for the extreme rarity of one atom only of one kind of 

 element uniting with one atom only of another kind ? 

 By far the commoner process is for a molecule to be 

 composed of more than one, often many times more 

 than one atom. Thus with water, two atoms of hydrogen 

 are always in "love" with one atom of oxygen. While 

 in living albuminous protoplasm the number of element- 

 ary atoms in love with each other are represented by 

 the formula C^oHjQjjN^gO.^o- Can absurdities gravely put 

 forth in the name of science go further ? 



Then comes the question of the soul. Once more, 

 starting from his own (he only allows psychology to be 

 a branch of physiology), how did he get it ? As there is 

 only one substance in the universe, the soul, like every- 

 thing else, must be referred back, first to the primitive 

 living cell, thence back again to inorganic molecules of 

 some sort, then to atoms and finally to ether ; as being 

 " the ultimate cause of all phenomena ". 



Any idea of the advisability, not to say necessity, of 

 looking for evidence, seems to be quite unnecessary to 

 Haeckel. Let us now compare this Monism with Secu- 

 larism. 



We have seen that Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Foote, Mr. 

 Holyoake and others were at least Secularists, if they 

 repudiated the actual title of Atheists ; but Mr. Brad- 

 laugh said that Secularism was on the high road to 

 Atheism. They were what Huxley subsequently called 

 Agnostics ; for as Mr. Foote said, there might be a God, 

 but he knew nothing about Him, and therefore the 

 moral life is entirely bound up with this world and un- 



