p. 163 | THE ATHEIST SILENCED

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 9, 1861

THE ATHEIST SILENCED.

BEING in Manchester some time since, when a certain infidel lecturer was announced to lecture on atheism, we went, out of curiosity to hear him. After indulging in a large amount of scurrility and blasphemy for about an hour and a half, he concluded by saying that the only safe rule of faith was to believe nothing that wasn't capable of mathematical demonstration; and that as the existence of God could not be demonstrated, it ought not to be believed.

When he had sat down, a gentleman whom we instantly recognized as Burlington B. Wales, Esq., whose essays and lectures on language (recently delivered at the Collegiate Institution) have won for him the reputation of a distinguished linguist, rose to reply to the remarks which had been made by the lecturer.

On being invited to take a position on the platform, he said that he had no intention of wading through the continent of mud which the lecturer had been so long constructing; he should only fasten upon his two closing remarks, namely, that nothing should be believed that was not susceptible of mathematical demonstration; and that the existence of God not being susceptible of mathematical demonstration, ought not to be believed. Now, in relation to the first position, it was a fundamental axiom in mathematics that every circle must have a center; but he need hardly tell the lecturer, that while it was absolutely necessary to admit this center, its existence had never been demonstrated.

“Let this table,” said Mr. Wales, laying his hand upon a circular table which was upon the platform, “Be considered a yard in diameter; now where is the center? It is not in either of the semi-diameters, for they are equal; and if it be in one it must be in the other; so you prove too much, for you show that there must be two centers in one circle, which is an absurdity, and destroys the very thing you are laboring to establish. It cannot be between them for they are in contact. You are thus driven to this conclusion, that this mathematical center is a point devoid of parts, namely, a spaceless point—something that does not occupy space. Now, as all entities occupy space, if this center does not, then it is not an entity; ergo, it is a non-entity, that is—nothing! So much for the lecturer's first proposition, that nothing ought to be believed that is not susceptible of mathematical demonstration.

This conducts us to the second proposition, that the existence of a God is incapable of mathematical proof. Let us test this assertion. And here I hope the lecturer will signify his admission or rejection of the premises laid down as I proceed.

“First, then, attraction either resides in matter, or it does not reside in matter.”

It was admitted to reside in matter.

“Secondly, it is equally diffused through matter, or it is not equally diffused through matter.”

Admitted that it was equally diffused.

“Thirdly, repulsion resides in matter, or does not reside in matter.”

Admitted to reside in matter.

“Fourthly, it is equally diffused through matter, or it is not equally diffused.”

Admitted that it was equally diffused.

“Now mark the result,” continued Mr. W. “Here are two permanently antagonistic forces, equally resident in matter, equally diffused through matter, equal in extent, and equal in power. These forces are said to be the motive power which moves all bodies; but it is one of the most self-evident propositions of Euclid, that where equal is to equal, the result will be equal; in other words, that where two forces of equal strength are in antagonism, the result will be the establishment of an equilibrium; not motion, but quiescence or rest. Thus, if you take a pair of scales and place a pound weight in each, you establish an equilibrium which will remain forever undisturbed, unless interfered with by some external agent. If on the other hand it is contended that attraction is stronger than repulsion; then, once stronger it will forever remain so, and drawing all bodies into one agglomerated mass, again the result would be not motion, but rest. If on the contrary, it be said that repulsion is the strongest, then every particle of matter dilating and expanding to its utmost tension, would fly off into space, which being filled with a concourse of disconnected atoms, again the result would be not motion but rest.

“But nothing is at rest; suns, systems, planets, stars, are all in rapid motion. What, then, is the power which has destroyed the equilibrium of these two antagonistic forces, and which has given to the universe that motion which they are ever striving to prevent?

We find no evidence of its existence in matter; yet it is evidently superior to matter, since it controls the motion of matter—neutralizes the tendency of those laws and forces which reside in matter. Now this power, which, without residing in matter, is evidently superior to it, constantly acting upon it, overcoming its inertia, and compelling it into motion, we call God. God! the inevitable word which terminates all our studies, the grand climax to all our knowledge, shining like a mysterious star upon the borders of both worlds, revealing to us the moral liberty of this, the moral justice of that.”

Mr. Wales's argument, certainly one of the most lucid, forcible and original, for the existence of God which it ever fell to our lot to hear, seemed to make a great impression upon the audience, more especially as his opponent declined to reply in “consequence of the lateness of the hour,” though it was not quite ten o'clock!

On leaving, Mr. Wales was warmly congratulated by the Christian portion of the audience (and especially by Dr. Middleton, who chanced to be present; and with whom he subsequently rode home to supper), upon the skill and success of his argument, and for the good feeling with which it was conducted; for Mr. Wales is sometimes apt to silence an opponent by a withering sarcasm instead of a fact or argument. We rejoice that this was not the case on the present occasion.—