' go at that. 
one the chance to be an atheist, but that is, by its asso- 
ciations, not a nice word; instead of implying that one 
has the best of constructive creeds it hints that one has 
not got something which normal people are expected to 
have; a man is almost as diffident of describing himself 
as an atheist as a eunuch; he is therefore apt to put down 
whatever denomination his parents belonged to and let it 
Nevertheless I think quite a large percentage 
of these people are really Biosophers if they only knew 
it: from the “religious” standpoint Atheist is the proper 
census description of a Biosopher, 
173. At his best the man who makes his career in 
the Church is an intellectually ill-balanced saint, on 
average an unintelligent and not over-scrupulous parasite 
on the working population, at his worst a scheming and 
theatrical hypocrite responsible for some half of the 
major disasters of civilisation. How can rational be- 
haviour be expected in a scientifically mechanised world 
where fundamentals of conduct are still, for the 
majority, based on a tissue of lies and absurdities? 
174. Liberty of thought and belief is demanded by 
Biosophy and must be conceded to its opponents; but 
that liberty does not include justification for making 
material gain from trading in superstition. Modern 
legislation is prone to deal with such minor forms of 
charlatanry as palmistry and crystal gazing whilst 
leaving the great, organised and wealthy Churches un- 
touched. It is finance and endowment that keeps 
supernatural religion alive; whilst a living and a career 
are open in the Churches, so long will the religious 
racket continue. I do not for a moment suggest that 
religion is the only racket; there are political, aristo- 
cratic, charitable and other rackets, and all will have to 
be considered in later chapters of this outline. Such 
slogans as “For God, King and Country" are the last 
resource of the united racketeers. 
175. A sane Democracy has no need for rackets; 
charity will be superseded by publicly organised insur- 
ance and social services, and such window dressing 
activities as charity and social service on the part of 
the churches are rapidly becoming no less an 
anachronism than their supernatural doctrines. 
176. The case of Biosophy against the churches 
may be summarised as follows:— 
177. A. The supreme need of the world, in order to 
avoid chaos, is unity in intellectual honesty and clear 
thinking. The splitting of society in warring religious 
factions, warring over things that have no reality, pre- 
vents unity. Intellectual honesty and clear thinking are 
impossible so long as the falsehoods of religion are 
accepted as truths. 
178. B. The fiction of a god or providence super- 
intending human affairs confuses the essential importance 
of just and rational control. The fiction of a life after 
death palliates the existence of injustice in our actual 
life and diverts attention from the need to make the best 
of this life. "The most anti-social conduct has been and 
is being excused on the pretext of acceptability to alleged 
but non-existent gods, and sacrifice of duty to and 
63 
Chapter IV—Elimination of the Supernatural 
happiness in actual life extolled in the interest of an 
imaginary life after death, 
179, C. The chürches have always opposed the 
dissemination of scientific truth. Being themselves 
vcsted. interests founded on falsehoods they stand by 
other vested interests founded on injustice; they thus act 
as a drag on political and economic reform. Commercial 
and financial interests have secured the progress of 
scientific technology; but the corresponding advance in 
scientific sociology, which was necessary to prevent abuse 
of technology, has failed to materialise, and for this 
failure the churches and the religious outlook in general 
have been responsible to a very large extent. In other 
words, the churches by maintaining an ideology which 
has no relation to reality have stood in the way of the 
development of an ideology capable of guiding the 
modern world. 
180. By 1890 the intellectual battle between science 
and the churches was already won. Thinking people 
no doubt considered that it was only a matter of time 
before the victory of science was generally recognised 
and that the decision could safely be left to time; it was 
therefore "good form" not to discuss religious questions ` 
and not to attack the churches openly and explicitly. 
Science did not hasten to prosecute the victory which 
Huxley and his contemporaries had won. This attitude 
might have worked well enough under ordinary circum- 
stances, and in time science would have been accepted 
as the guide to conduct; but unfortunately circumstances 
have not proved to be ordinary; the tempo of invention, 
of economic production, of finance and of political 
change became so speeded up after 1880 that chaos 
speedily overwhelmed the world, finding it intellectually 
and socially unprepared. Civilisation missed its chance 
in not actively continuing the work of Huxley at a 
speed corresponding to that of technological changes in 
production and communications. Millions of lives have 
been lost, hundreds of millions have suffered and many 
more are destined for murder and suffering before this 
leeway in ideology is regained. 
The possibility of a god controlling or effectively 
acting in a world in which the greatest speed of com- 
munication is the velocity of light, and in which the 
average distance of one part from another is measured 
in hundreds of millions of light years, is no longer 
conceivable. 
181. If any one cares to study the vagaries of 
revivalist Christianity he may find an example in 
Beverley Nichols’ book, “The Fool Hath Said” (1936). 
Out of a miscellany of Bible, Biblical criticism, science, 
pacificism, symbolism and I know not what besides, the 
author concocts a journalistic exposition of the story 
of. Beverley Nichols’ fluctuating conviction of his 
salvation in Christianity. The second half of the book 
relates his experiences of the “Oxford Movement.” The 
author quotes the first principles of the group as being 
“Absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfish- 
ness and absolute love,’ But what on earth have these 
