No. 35. MAGAZINE. NOVEMBER, 1813. [VOL.3. REPLY то G. G. F. ON HIS WHIMSICAL ATTEMPT TO SHEW THAT KNOWLEDGE MAY BE OBTAINED WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF IDEAS. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, MOST perfectly accord with your note to Mr. Burdon, and shall not trouble myself or your patience by notic ing him farther: He is beneath contempt. I therefore hand him over to your correspondent G. G. F. whose ingenious trifling is so much like his own, that one might take them for twin brothers. G. G. F. says, " in your last number there are some remarks on Atheism." This is not the fact; they were remarks on Mr. Burdon, and questions put to him as an Atheist. Again (says G. G. F.) "your correspondent, like most other reasoners, is deficient in method and conciseness he wants point." This is mere assertion; he has adduced nothing to prove it; I might also say G. G. F. like many other writers, is deficient in perception and argument: he wants understanding; but he would ask me for the proof, which I am of opinion would not be very difficult to shew. I will allow him method, aye even to logical precision; but what then? how many learned blockheads do we meet, with as much method as G. G. F. who are totally destitute of common sense, and write nonsense by wholesale, as fluently and dogmatically as he does. I will admit that he is concise, but if he can write no more to the purpose than he has written in this letter, we shall only lament that he is not more so. As to point, he has a great deal of it-just such point as we witness in a school-boy, wlto, having recently left school, is proud to display the emptiness of his mind by saying smart things that he has learnt by wrote, which, while they afford him the greatest delight, excite the derision and pity of all who hear him. It is evident to me, that G. G. F. paid as little attention to my letter as he did to his own when writing it; as all that he has written is as applicable to mine, as if he had VOL. III. 3 P been reviewing the history of Tom Thumb or Jack the Giant Killer. The design of my letter was to shew the folly of Mr. Burdon's assertion, "that before we talk of revealed religion we ought to understand the metaphysical nature of that being we call God ;" and to convince him from facts that this was not necessary, as also to ask him some questions which on his system I knew he could not answer. I never once attempted to prove the existence of an "infinite God," but merely stated, that the effects I beheld in nature induced me to believe in the existence of "an omnipotent creator," and that such must be my belief till Mr. B. could remove the impression by answering my questions, and in producing an adequate cause or causes for the facts and effects I had adduced, independent of "an omnipotent creator." Had G. G. F. understood my object, he would not have begun by the quibbling question, "is there such a being as an Atheist?" or that which follows, "is there such a being as a believer in God?" But since he has put the questions, I will first explain the meaning of the word Atheist ? It is used in opposition to Theist, a believer in a God; an Atheist, or Anti-Theist, is one who denies the existence of a God. But what is the meaning of the word God? It is a relative term, and implies dominion; it is applied in the scriptures to Moses, to judges and rulers, as well as to the Supreme Being. The word itself conveys no idea of the nature or mode of existence of the being to whom it is applied, but merely to his authority and dominion. It may be finite or infinite; this is out of the question of course the believer in a God is one who believes that there is a Supreme Being, who formed and governs the universe; and this being he calls God, and such a man is a true believer, notwithstanding he may be deficient of a just and adequate idea of the Being of God: which just and adequate idea of God, G. G. F. says the human mind is incapable of attaining. It follows, he must be a true believer who entertains all the just and adequate ideas of God that human nature is capable of attaining, otherwise there can be no such person as a believer in God, and all men are Atheists. I know such a quibbler as G. G. F. may say that human nature is incapable of perfection, though Jesus has exhorted his disciples to be perfect; but surely common sense would answer, that Jesus could intend no greater perfection than human nature was capable of. I like manner we are called upon to believe in a God, but the same argument must also prove that no more belief is intended than comes within the powers of the human mind to attain. G. G. F. has concluded that the believer in 10,000 gods is an Atheist; that a Trinitarian is an Atheist; but if an Atheist is one who denies the existence of any God, another name might be found for him who believes in more gods than one. I may believe G. G. F. has 10,000 guineas, when in reality he has but one; but because I think he has more, it does not follow that I deny he has any; but as it respects the Trinitarian, why is he called an Atheist? The term Tritheist would be more applicable, especially as G. G. F. has applied the term Polytheist to his fourth gentleman, which implies a believer in a plurality of gods, and would have equally suited the man who believed in 10,000. But the fact is this, he had began his play on the word Atheist, and like the school-boy before described, was determined to have his full swing. The third person he introduces is a Freethinking Christian, into whose mouth he puts these words-" I believe, in God, who is infinite." Now, Sir, if he refers to my letter, he will find I have never used the word infinite, as applied to the Deity. I have always spoken of him as an Omnipotent Creator; and lest this quibbler should misunderstand or misrepresent this word, I will explain my meaning-I mean then by omnipotent, all powerful; and by all powerful, I wish to be understood as believing that he is all powerful so far as it respects the capability of producing all the effects in nature which I behold. Nor need I trouble myself to inquire, whether his power extends any farther: it may, or it may not; this is fully sufficient to satisfy me. But though I have not said, "I believe in a God who is infinite," I should feel no objection in making such a statement, because the word itself is used to things that are limited in their nature. One thing is said to be infinitely better than another, &c. without intending to convey any other idea than that there is a very great difference; and, when applied to the Deity, can only intend that he is so unlimited, or so immense in his nature, that it surpasses my comprehension to form any idea of limitation to him. With this explanation, I believe in God that is infinite, and though G. G. F. may call me an Atheist, I am happy in thinking that I am a true believer in God, though a Freethinking Christian. As to what he says to the fourth gentleman, Mr. B. I suppose--I shall not notice; for the questions of G. G. F. are the same in substance as those I have proposed in my letter, (which he says is so deficient in point,) though cloathed in prettier words. I shall therefore apply to him what he has said to this gentleman-alas, Mr. Philosopher, how easy it is to repeat like a cuckoo a certain form of words!" But now, Sir, we are introduced to the fifth gentleman; one whom G. F. F. admits is a rational believer: and here I would ask what have I said in my letter to Mr. B. that is contrary to this statement, save and except the sublime rhapsody of nonsense with which his letter concludes? He is made to say, "I believe in the God of nature; by nature I mean the visible objects around me, animals and trees, the sun, moon, and stars, &c. performing their respective functions." G. G. F. replies to this, "very well, Sir; thus far is very clear-as clear as the light of that sun of which you have just spoken; thus you show yourself to be a genuine philosopher your explanation is adapted to the meanest capacityeven the old lady to whom Pericles read his orations could not possibly misunderstand you." Strange! passing strange! why this is the very principle on which I reasoned with Mr. B.; for after stating a variety of effects observable in nature, I say, "whatever my contracted mind can contemplate in nature, and all that I can read in books written by Newton and other men, I do observe such striking marks, whether in the great or the minute, of order, harmony, intelligence, and design, that I am obliged to believe that it must all have had its origin from an Omnipotent Creator, possessed of power, intelligence, and benevolence." If then G. G. F.'s fifth gentleman was so lucid that Pericles' old woman could not possiby misunderstand, I can account for his misapprehension on no other ground than this, that, with all his learning, he did not possess the perception or understanding of this famous old woman! But this fifth gentleman is made to explain what he means by God. "By God I mean the invisible spirit or power which operates in all these various forms of things - it shines in the sun, cools in the breeze, twinkles in the stars, blossoms in the trees," &c. G. G. F. says, "I cannot but say I love this explanation, and feel its force." There is no accounting for any man's taste, or answering for the foolishness of his feelings; the words are very pretty,, and suitable to the poet, but very unfit for sound reasoning; for when such a poetic fit operates on the brain, there is no accounting how far it may carry us. I could easily add to the description, and every word equally true to express internal feelings, and proving just as much as his sublime effusion. I might add, “ sparkles in the glass, falls with the rain, mews with the cat, barks with the dog, crows with the cock, roars with the bull, baas with the lamb, stings in the serpent, smells in the onion, and exhibits itself most glo riously in the scolding of a wife, or the squalling of noisy children; in short, operates throughout the whole extent of nature, or visible objects." Warmed with his rhapsody, G. G. F.exclaims, " for my own part, Mr. Editor, I believe in God; I cannot avoid it." Notwithstanding he has told us but a few lines before, in answer to a question "is there an Atheist, we are all Atheists." This then is a new defi-' nition of the word; a man may be a believer in God, and at the same time an Atheist : that is, one who denies the existence of a God, may, at the same time, believe in that ex-' istence. Excellent logic! the logic of a mind formed only by the schools, which has bewildered a man to whom nature has given in other respects a tolerable understanding. : G. G. F. goes on to say, if any one asks me for an idea of God, I freely acknowledge I have none to give him." Surely he has some ideas of God, or he cannot believe in such a being I can neither believe in, nor talk about any thing of which I have no ideas. This whim of G. G. F. is indeed a new and patent idea of believing in that of which we have no idea. Ob, Locke, Locke, how art thou surpassed by G. G. F! It cannot surely follow that because I do not understand the full extent of any thing I believe that I have. no idea at all respecting it. But he adds, "to form an idea or image of God is idolatry." I have before proved that we must have ideas of God before we can believe any thing about him; he himself has stated many, but surely there is some distinction between having an idea of God, and making or imagining an image of him. G. G. F. after expatiating on the folly of the Jews in wishing for a form or shape of the Deity, says, "hence he cannot be seen, but he may be felt. My belief therefore consists of a feeling or impression, which like all feeling can only be understood by sympathy. So the poet says, "None but a mother knows a mother's joys." I confess I never in my life read such incongruous nonsense, such a mere play of words, sound without sense! God cannot be seen, but he may be felt; he is susceptible to one that of feeling, but totally imperceptible by another, that of sight; and all this sublime feeling is only known by sense, * Upon the principle maintained by G. G. F. all the idolatry that ever has existed may be justified. The Egyptian sees his God in the onion, the African in the serpent, the inhabitant of Othaeite in his ugly wooden image, and the Roman Catholic in his wafer, &c. These refined metaphysical and abstract reasoners appear amazingly wise in their own conceit, while they cannot fail to excite the pity or ri dicule of men possessing common sense. |