O-SD-1-God vs. Atheism

God vs. Atheism (Thursday evening, August 15, 1929)

Proposition:

"There is a Supreme Being (God, Creator)."

Affirmative: W. L. Oliphant
Negative: Charles Smith.

Preliminary Statement The meeting was opened by Brother Will J. Cullum, minister for the Shawnee Church of Christ. After a brief introductory speech, he introduced Brother F. L. Young, minister for Tenth and Francis Streets Church of Christ, Oklahoma City. Brother Young lead the congregation in prayer.

Brother Cullum then introduced Brother F. L. Paisley, minister for the Church of Christ, Sem­inole, Oklahoma. Brother Paisley served as chair­man throughout the debate.

After a few words in explanation of the prop­ositions for debate, the order in which the speeches were to be delivered, etc., Brother Paisley intro­duced Brother W. L. Oliphant, the first affirmative speaker.

Oliphant’s first Affirmative Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Respected Opponent:

It is now my happy privilege to stand before you in defense of a proposition which I believe as firmly as I believe any proposition I have ever con­sidered. I am here to affirm the existence of God, the Creator of the universe, the omnipotent Personality, "in whom we live, move and have our being." I realize that with a vast majority of you, as is true of any intelligent audience in this country, there is no need of my offering proof of this proposition. Your minds are fully convinced of its truthfulness;. you believe for reasons—the sufficiency of which you have never had occasion to question—not only in the existence of God, but in His power and goodness.

I am glad to see such a large audience. I regret that because of lack of room, some have been turned away. I am especially glad to see in the audience many of my friends from various sections of the State. I appreciate your presence, and thank you for the interest that prompted your coming to hear this discussion. Let me say in the very begin­ning of the debate, that for Mr. Charles Smith, my opponent, I hold nothing but the most kindly feeling; for his degrading doctrine of atheism, I have the utmost contempt. The terms of the proposition I am to affirm are so simple that I presume no defining or explaining is necessary. However, that the precise point at issue may not escape the attention of any one, I shall say a few words along that line. I am under no obligation to comprehend and explain God. I cannot do so. In fact, if finite mind could com­prehend Him, He would not be an infinite God. The infinite cannot be completely grasped by the finite. So far as the proposition is concerned, I need not discuss the methods of God’s operations. I am under no further obligation than to prove the existence of Him Who is the Creator.

I should like to emphasize the fact that I am not under obligation to defend degradations or counterfeits of the religion of Jesus Christ, any more than a government is obligated to defend counterfeit coins. Really, the Christian religion should not be brought into the discussion of the present proposition, except perhaps, incidentally; but I feel that it is good to warn my opponent at the very outset that I shall not at any time attempt to defend sectarianism, even though it poses as the religion of the Christ. I have no sympathy or love for de­nominationalism. THE PRINCIPLE OF FAITH

It should be understood that my proposition must be accepted as a matter of faith. We cannot demonstrate God to the senses. He must be accept­ed by faith. The writer of Hebrews says faith is "the evidence of things not seen" (11:1); and in Romans we are told that "faith comes by hear­ing" (10:17). My duty then, is to examine the evidence upon which we accept the existence of God; and to determine whether our belief in God stands upon a reasonable basis. We are not the only ones who act upon the principle of faith; even the atheist does that Anything that is not sus­ceptible to demonstration to any of the five senses can be accepted only by an act of faith; even the atheist must accept many things upon the principle of faith.

Consider electricity. George D. Shepardson, A.M., M.E., Sc.D., late Professor of Electrical En­gineering, University of Minnesota, says:

"The mind of an electrical engineer at once reverts to the fact that we cannot see electricity, nor do we hear, taste, smell or feel it directly, yet we have a great deal of knowledge about it.—Electricity has long since become a relatively exact science and art, notwithstanding the fact that electricity is not directly manifest to a single one of our commonly recognized senses." (The Religion of an Electrical Engineer, pg. 38.)

So, while we light our homes and streets with electricity, and use it in various and sundry ways, still we must accept some things about it as matters of faith.

Some of the very finest principles of life must be accepted largely by faith. Who ever saw "hope"? No one; and yet, hope of some kind is enjoyed by every sane human being. We have never seen the principle of "patriotism." "Love" is not perceptible to any of the five senses. Who doubts the existence of "mother love"? Still, you have never seen that principle. You have witnessed some of its work­ings, but the principle itself escapes actual contact with any of the physical senses.

All persons and incidents of the generations past are accepted by us on the principle of faith. We hear the evidence concerning them, and then formulate our belief or faith regarding them. I accept the facts that Napoleon Bonaparte lived and ruled and that George Washington was first presi­dent of the United States, but I never saw either of those gentlemen, nor have I seen anyone who did see them. I have evidence of their having lived; and I accept the facts of their lives because of this evidence. Only by faith do I know of these men. He who denies faith must refuse to accept as facts everything which he himself has not ob­served. All historical information must be set at naught.

ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM The absurdity of the atheist’s position is evi­dent on its face. We might exercise some patience with the man who is honestly an agnostic, the man who says, "I do not know"; but the man who boldly claims to KNOW that God does not exist, takes an absurd and ridiculous position. If there is one thing he does not know, that thing may be that God exists. If there is one place in all the universe he has never been, God may be in that place. Before a man can consistently deny the existence of God, he must make a god of himself. He must declare that he is infinite in knowledge—that he knows everything. No man can consistently say these things. Therefore, no man can consistently declare that God is not. The doctrine of atheism is prepos­terous and absurd.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Man is incurably religious. No nation or tribe of people has been discovered that does not believe in some kind of Supreme Being, and practice some form of religion. We may go farther, and say that in all the religions of earth there are traces of mono­theism—belief in one God. No matter how polythe­istic we find a people, nor how deeply enshrouded in darkness their religion is, there are always faint, glimmering rays of a purer light. In the midst of the belief in many gods we find relics of the faith of a previous time—a pure monotheism. It is also worthy of note that the earlier forms of the various heathen religions are purer than the later forms. Principal Fairbairn, of Oxford, lays down this gen­eral rule with regard to historical religions:

"The younger the polytheism, the fewer its gods." (Studies in Philosophy of Religion, pg. 22.)

Dr. James Orr, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology, United Free Church College, Glasgow, quotes this rule, with approval, and says:

"Man’s earliest ideas of God were not, as is commonly assumed, his poorest.—No savage tribes are found who do not seem to have higher ideas of God along with their superstitions. Man does not creep up from fetishism, through polytheism, to monotheism, but polytheism repre­sents rather the refraction of an original undifferentiated sense, or consciousness, or perception, of the divine.—In the oldest religions, without exception, along with the poly­theism, we find a monotheistic background." (The Problem of the Old Testament, pg. 496.)

Hear Dr. W. M. F. Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D., Lit.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., F.B.A., F.S.A., Professor of Egypt- ology, University College, London:

"Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship (referred to on previous page) we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god, polytheism would precede monotheism in each tribe or race. What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology. Wher­ever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find that it results from combinations of monotheism." (The Religion of Ancient Egypt, pg. 4.)

I next offer the testimony of Dr. E. W. Hop­kins, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Sanskrit and Com­parative Philology, Yale University. He says:

"That religions may all be traced back to one primor­dial religion is not wholly a narrow ’orthodox’ view. In this form, however, it is still held by both the Hindu and the Christian of very conservative type. For example, about two thousand years ago Manu, the Hindu law-giver, declared, what is still believed by orthodox Brahmans, that one true religion was revealed to man in the beginning and that all later types of religion have been vain divergences from this divine model." (The History of Religions, pg. 14.) This author then quotes from "Fetishism in West Africa," by Dr. R. H. Nassau, pg. 23. Here is the quotation:

"All religions had but one source and that a pure one. From it have grown perversions varying in their propor­tions of truth and error."

We shall next listen to Dr. William A. P. Martin, of the Peking University. Dr. Martin discusses the evolutionary theory of the origin and development of religion, and then adds this signifi­cant statement:

"This theory has the merit of verisimilitude. It indi­cates what might be the process if man were left to make his own religion; but it has the misfortune to be at variance with the facts. A wide survey of the history of civilized nations (and the history of others is beyond reach) shows that the actual process undergone by the human mind in its religious development is precisely opposite to that which this theory supposes; in a word, that man was not left to construct his own creed, but that his blundering logic has always been active in its attempts to corrupt and obscure a divine original." (The Chinese, pg. 163, 164.) This author continues at length in his discus­sion of the question. He shows that the religious rites of the various countries bear "unmistakable resemblance, suggestive of a common source."

Professor Max Muller, famous Oxford profes­sor, discusses in a similar way the lapse of mankind from earlier and simpler types of belief to low and manifold superstitions. He says:

"Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first beginning we find it free from many of the blemishes that offend us in its later phases." (Chips from a German Workshop, Vol. 1, pg. 23.)

We might continue almost indefinitely such quotations regarding religions, generally. An ex­amination of the religions of specific nations fur­ther confirms our position that all religions are degenerate forms of an original pure monotheism. Let us look at the religions of some of the nations.

Egypt

Dr. Budge, keeper of the Egyptian and Assy­rian antiquities in the British Museum, tells us that as late as the Fourth Dynasty the number of gods worshipped in all Egypt was about two hun­dred. In the Nineteenth Dynasty, Thebes alone had about twelve hundred, and there were hundreds of other local gods in other religious centers. He adds:

"The sublimer portions are demonstrably ancient; and the last state of the Egyptian religion, that which was known to the Greek or Latin writers, heathen or Christian, was by far the grossest and most corrupt." (Renouf, "Hib­bard Lectures,’ pg. 91. Quoted by Dr. John L. Campbell, in "The Bible Under Fire," pg. 89.) An Egyptian inscription which supposedly be­longs to a period fifteen hundred years before Moses says regarding God:

"He has made all that is; thou alone art, the millions owe their being to thee; he is Lord of all that which is, and of that which is not." (Quoted by Dr. F. F. Ellinwood, "Oriental Religions and Christianity," pg. 250.)

India The Rig-Veda contains the most ancient hymns of India. In the 129th hymn of the tenth book there is a very clear expression of monotheism. It reads:

"In the beginning there was neither naught nor aught Then there was neither atmosphere or sky above, There was neither death or immortality,

There was neither day nor night, nor light, nor darkness, Only the EXISTENT ONE breathed calmly self-contained. Naught else but he was there, naught else above, beyond."

Greece The religion of Greece was originally mono­theistic. Says Dr. Martin.

"The Orphic hymns, long before the advent of the popular divinities, celebrated the Pantheos, the Universal God." (Quoted by Dr. Ellinwood, "Oriental Religions and Christianity," pg. 228.)

Babylon Do we find traces of monotheism in Babylon? Hear Winkler:

"There are many, nay numberless gods; but they are only revelation forms of the one great divine might." (Quoted by Orr, "Problems of Old Testament," pg. 409.)

China

Professor Legge, of Oxford, contends that at a still earlier period than the dynasty of Yao and Shun the worship of one God existed in China. He says:

"Five thousand years ago the Chinese were monothe­ists—not henotheists, but monotheists." (The Religions of China, pg. 16.)

I have here the statements of men who are authorities in this field showing that the same is true of Arabia, Persia, Africa, and other nations. But time will not permit me to introduce these. However, I want before closing this line of evi­dence to show you that our position holds good with what is probably the lowest of any of the races extant:

Aborigines of Australia Our earliest account of these people is from Dampier, who visited the country in 1688. He de­scribes the natives as the "miserablest people in the world." They had no metals, bows, pottery, sheep, poultry, etc. They had no houses; their only dwell­ing-place was a fire with a few boughs before it. Yet even these people "believe in a Supreme Being whose abode is in the heavens, and who observes and rewards conduct." ("The Making of Religion," by Andrew Lang, M.A., LL.D., pg. 189, 194.)

I think every reasonable person here will say that I have shown conclusively that all over the earth, wherever human beings are found, they are religious; that regardless of how low in the scale of civilization they may have fallen, there is still to be found a trace of the worship of one God; that the earliest stages of all religions are the purest stages. There are many points of similarity between these various religions and the further back we go the more alike do we find them. Listen to this quotation from a man who was selected by some thirty of the best scholars in America, to lec­ture on the History of Religions:

"Look in what continent we please, we shall find the myth of a Creation or of a primeval construction, of a Del­uge or a destruction, and of an expected Restoration." (Daniel G. Brinton, A.M., M.D., LL.D., Sc.D., Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, in "Religions of Primitive Peoples," pg. 122.)

It seems to me that all these facts can point to but one conclusion: In the beginning of the human race the Supreme Being gave to his crea­ture, man, a revelation of Himself. All the religions of earth are but corruptions of this original revela­tion. I challenge Mr. Smith to account for the facts we have shown in any other manner. If he cannot, then I urge upon him the inevitable con­clusion that there is a Supreme Being, as is evi­denced by the fact that each nation of the world bears testimony of His having spoken to man. I insist that we can account for these facts only in the language of the ancient Preacher:

"God hath made man uprght, but they have sought out many inventions." (Ecclesiastes 7:9). Or in the language of the great Apostle:

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; Who change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever." (Romans 1:21-25.)

DEDUCTIVE PROOF In the process of deduction we reason from the general to the particular, from the universal to the individual. This method of reasoning is used ex­tensively in the mathematical sciences—algebra, geometry, trigonometry, analytics, calculus, etc. We have certain ideas of time, space, motion, num­ber etc. These ideas are perfectly clear in the sense in which we use them, and concerning them we are able to affirm some universal principles. Starting with these principles which we consider axiomatic, we travel far and wide, building up a great system of truth. "Things which are equal to each other are equal to the same thing" is an axiom accepted by all mathematicians. Another mathematical axiom is that "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points." Another is that "the whole is equal to the sum of all the parts." We accept these statements as being self-evident; they do not require any proof. Who can prove these axioms by formal logic? The human mind is so constructed that it does not require proof of the self-evident. Some things must be taken for granted in all sound systems of final research. Most of our conclusions in mathematics relate back to the self-evident—that for which the mind asked no proof.

Now I wish to apply these principles of deduc­tive reasoning to the proof of the existence of God. I maintain that in this field there are truths that are as self-evident as the axioms of mathematics. One of these axioms I ask my opponent to consider is this "Something cannot come from nothing."

Such a truth as this needs no proof, the intelli­gent man accepts it as prima fade. Now let us consider another:

"Something is (exists)." This too, is self-evident. Now I ask you to consider this syllogism "Something cannot come from nothing; but some­thing is; therefore something always was."

Let us change the wording, but not the meaning:

"Something cannot create itself, but something is created; therefore, something was always created, or was self-existent."

Now I ask my opponent to name that "some­thing" that always was. What is it that is self-existent, eternal? The Christian says that some­thing is God. If that something is not God, let Mr. Smith tell us what it is.

Let us continue this line of reasoning a little farther "A like cause must produce a like effect."

If a cause produced an effect greater than itself, this would be equivalent to something coming from nothing. Now notice our minor premise:

"Rational (thinking) being exists." This is self-evident. Descartes, one of the fa­thers of modern philosophy, tried to doubt every­thing, but was finally forced to a belief in his own existence. From this he formed his famous axiom:

"I think, therefore I am."

We cannot reasonably question the existence of thinking beings. But, rational being cannot come from irrational being; the unthinking cannot pro­duce the thinking. If this were possible, we would again have something produced by nothing. With these truths established, let us consider their appli­cation.

"Thinking being exists, but thinking being could not come from unthinking being; therefore, thinking being has always existed."

Now I ask my opponent to tell us what this eternal, rational, or thinking being is. We say it is God. What alternative has my opponent to offer?

INDUCTIVE PROOF In the process of inductive reasoning the mind begins with the particular and proceeds to the gen­eral. This is the method of the scientist. The greater part of our knowledge is gained through this method of mental activity. Inductively, we argue the existence of God from the things about which we know. Paul reasons in this way in Romans 1:19-20 :

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invis­ible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are with­out excuse."

It has been said that,

"If the word ’God’ were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock; the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is. When the human intellect thinks in terms of finality with the world as. its premise, the therefore of every syllogism is God. The universe is a big advertising poster that spells ’God.’" (E. A. Maness, B.L., M.A., Ph.D., in "Evidence of Divine Being." pg. 27.)

GRAVITATION

It has been estimated that if all the men who have lived on the earth during the past six thou­sand years were to put their combined strength against the earth, they could perhaps move it about a foot in a thousand years. Yet there is a force which moves this earth at the rate of more than a thousand miles a minute. What is this force? We call it gravitation. It is one of those things about which we talk much, and know little. This force moves our earth systematically and orderly, so that the seasons, as well as day and night, follow each other in regular order. Is this the result of blind chance? Can you see no intelligence in this opera­tion? I am tempted to say that the man who can see no intelligence in this orderly, systematic pro­gram simply does not have intelligence enough to see it! Perhaps that is the trouble with the athe­ist. This same force, which we call gravitation, is working constantly in the great domain of space about us. The planets do not move across the heavens in a haphazard, hit-or-miss manner; each planet moves in its particular orbit, and with almost clock-like precision. Because of this orderly pro­cedure, astronomers are able to predict the exact date of an eclipse, or other planetary action. Be­cause we have observed the systematic way in which gravity operates, we speak of the "law of gravita­tion." What is this law? Can there be a law with­out a law-maker? Who made the law of gravita­tion?

ASTRONOMY The sweet Singer of Israel exclaimed "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma­ment showeth his handiwork." (Psalms 19:2.)

If you were to look into the skies on a clear night, under the most favorable circumstances, you should be able to see six or seven thousand stars. With the aid of the high-powered telescope we are able to count something like one hundred millions; photographic plates reveal hundreds of millions more than the telescope; and we have evidence that beyond these are countless myriads of planets and stars that we have never been able to discover. Our closest fixed star is probably Alpha, of the constella­tion of Centauri; yet, when we look at Alpha we are not seeing Alpha as she is today, but as she was almost five years ago, for it takes light—travelling at the tremendous speed of one hundred eighty-six thousand miles a second, nearly five years to come from Alpha to us. Thus we see that our nearest neighbor among the starry hosts is some twenty-five trillion miles away.

Pollus, the brighter star of the "Twins," is some twenty-four light-years distant from the earth. The term, "light-year" is used in astronomy as we use the expressions "a ten-minute walk" or a "two-hour drive." We use the time required in walking or driving as a unit of measurement. In actual miles, Pollux is approximately 145,000,000,000,000 miles away! Castor, the other "twin" is some twen­ty light-years farther than Pollux. We are now receiving its light-message of some fifty years ago. For a long time astronomers, depending upon the method of surveying by triangulation, could not cal­culate the distance to stars that are more than about three hundred light-years from us; the diameter of the earth was not sufficient for the imaginary tri­angle base. But now, through ingenious methods first developed at the Mount Wilson Observatory, they are able to calculate the distaike to any star or swarm of stars whose light can be caught by the most high-powered telescope. The latest measurements of the universe, the work of Dr. Allen Douglas Maxwell, of the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton, have reached as far as fifteen thousand light years—one hundred quadrillion miles. In other words, the light that entered Dr. Maxwell’s telescope and blackened the photographic plate, left the star fifteen thousand years before. And still the immensity of space goes on and on—how far, we cannot now know. What power must have been required to bring into exist­ence such an immense universe! Certainly "the heavens declare the glory of God!" The order in which these countless planets are found and the precision and harmony with which they move, are no less wonderful than the immense space which they occupy. Astronomers find that the stars are not sprinkled at random in space, but are grotiped together in countless universes. Some plan has been followed in their grouping; some in­telligence has designed them. We contend that God designed and grouped them. What is the athe­ist’s solution to the problem?

Dr. Charles Young, Professor of Astronomy, Princeton College, in his larger text book on astron­omy, pg. 515, has this to say:

"We see that our planetary system is not a mere acci­dental aggregation of bodies. Masses of matter coming haphazard towards the sun would move, as comets do, in orbits, always conic sections, to be sure, but of every degree of accentricity of inclination. There are a multi­tude of relations actually observed in the planetary system which are wholly independent of gravitation and demand explanation."

Dr. Young then enumerates eight of these "relations," which he says are independent of grav­itation and demand explanation. If the atheist could explain gravitation—which he cannot, he would still have a "multitude of actually observed relations" to explain. I challenge Mr. Smith to offer any plausible explanation of these matters, without admitting a Supreme Intelligence! The evidence of design is not limited to the big things of the universe. The most minute things bear evidence of having been designed. Do you know that every snowflake that falls upon the earth has an angle of sixty, or one hundred and twenty degrees? A great mathematician has said that "the heavens are but crystalized mathematics." I ask you who set the angles of the snowflake? With whose square and compasses were they designed? The atheist cannot explain so small a thing as a snowflake. The Christian can explain it in the one word, "God." My friend cannot explain it in a million words, without God. In fact, I challenge my opponent to explain anything, without God! THE LAW OF PROBABILITIES

Mathematics deal with what is known as the Law of Probabilities. It has been calculated that if the twenty-six letters of the alphabet were tossed promiscuously into the air by chance force, they might fall together in the present order of the alphabet—A-B-C-etc., once in five hundred million, million, million times that they were thus tossed up and allowed to fall without guidance. I ask, on this basis, what would be the probability of the in­numerable combinations of nature coming together in the wonderful order of the universe, iflhey were tossed about by blind chance? It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the letters of the alpha­bet, tossed about unintelligently, would form them­selves into a learned treatise on science or philoso­phy. Certainly it is no more unreasonable to think that a book about the heavens could be formed by chance than to think that the heavens themselves are the result of chance.

I have heard that Kircher, the great astrono­mer, made a globe upon which he pictured the loca­tion of the planets. An atheistic friend noticed the globe, and exclaimed: "What a remarkable of workmanship! Who made it?" Keicher replied: "I do not know to whom it belongs, nor where it came from; but one thing I know, nobody made it." "What? That is impossi­ble," contended the atheist, "Someone must have made it. Such a perfectly arranged globe could not have made itself." To which Kircher replied: "Nor could such a perfectly arranged universe--of which this is but a small representation—have made itself."

ENERGY The same energy we find asserting itself in the operation of planets is also found to be working in the most minute things in the world. A microbe so small you cannot see it without the aid of a microscope, will produce in three or four hours something like a million more just like itself.

Speaking of energy, science tells us there is enough energy in every ounce of coal brought out, if properly used, to pull two tons a mile; and there are substances containing energy in a much more compressed form than it is in coal. Take radium; Dr. Millikan tells us that a gram of radium shoots off each second 145,000 billion particles (known as alpha particles), and that these particles reach the speed of twelve thousand miles a second. The beta rays travel more than ten times as fast as the alpha particles. The gamma rays are sent off at the rate of thirty billion billions per second. The helium atoms sent forth by radium shoot right through solids, as though nothing stood in the way. Radium contains 300,000 times more energy per gram than coal contains. ("Science and Life," by Dr. Robert A. Milliken). The air is charged with waves in the ether; sounds travelling throughout the universe are now heard by means of the radio. Who can, without God, account for these remarkable energies all ceaselessly engaged in a most harmonious and systematic work?

LIFE

We have been accustomed to think of inorganic matter as dead; but it is now believed that gases, liquids and even solids are subject to radio-activity, in a state of constant change, electrons eternally jostling, moving and disturbing. The universe is alive; life is expressing itself from every source. Can the atheist account for the origin of life? Is there any way to account for it, without a Supreme Life? I challenge Mr. Smith to offer us an account of life’s beginning.

Science cannot solve the problem. Huxley says:

"Of the causes which lead to the origin of living mat­ter, it may be said that we know absolutely nothing." (Article on Biology in Encyclopedia Britannica.) Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History, says:

"The mode of the origin of life is a matter of pure speculation in which we have as yet little observation or uniformitarian reasoning to guide us, for all the experi­ments of Butschli and others, to imitate the original life process, have proved fruitless." (The Origin and Evolution of Life, pg. 67.)

Darwin said:

"The inquiry as to how life first originated is hope­less."

Professor Tyndall, after nearly a thousand experiments with organic infusions, concluded that, "Living things come only from the living."

Professor Dana, renowned geologist, gives this testimony:

"Science has no explanation of the origin of life." (Manual of Geology.) Jordan and Kellogg, in their book, "Evolution and Animal Life," page 41, make this statement:

"Finally, we may refer briefly to the ’grand problem’ of the origin of life itself. Any treatment of this question is bound to be wholly theoretical. We do not know a single thing about it.—All life comes from life. The biologist cannot admit spontaneous generation in the face of the scientific evidence he has."

We might continue indefinitely with such quota­tions from scientists. All agree that science does not solve the problem of life’s origin. However, let us hear one more scholar. This man, Prof. H. W. Conn, of Wesleyan University, gives us no hope that science can ever answer the question. Listen to his testimony:

"Upon this subject it must be confessed we are in as deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the dis­closures of the modern microscope have placed the solution of this problem even further from our grasp." (Method of Evolution.)

Science cannot tell us of the beginning of life, but it does give us the rule that "life comes only from life." In view of this truth, how can we account for life without a self-existent First Life? Let our atheist friend come forward with an answer to the question of life’s origin—an answer that harmonizes with his Godless theory.

ATHEISM ACCOUNTS FOR NOTHING

Atheism cannot account for the origin of con­sciousness. If the beginning of life could be ex­plained on a purely materialistic basis, there would still be the necessity of explaining the cause of conscious life.

Man has a moral nature not possessed by the beast. An animal shows no signs of compunction of conscience after having killed a fellow member of his species. Certain animals have been known to kill and eat their own offspring. Man has con­science. From whence did it come?

How do atheists explain the esthetic nature of man—the taste for music, the love of the beautiful? How could any "struggle for existence" have pro­duced this? Even Huxley, though he claimed to be an agnostic, said:

"One thing which weighs with me against pessimism and tells for a benevolent author of the universe, is my enjoyment of scenery and music. I do not see how they can have helped in the struggle for existence. They are gratuitous gifts." (Darwinism, pg. 478.) In fact, atheism cannot account for anything. If there be no God, then, as someone has said:

"Life is certainly a useless package, handed to us by some ruthless enemy."

Mr. Smith reminds me of the story of a dog on an express car (I am not comparing him to a dog, except as far as this story goes). Someone asked the man in charge of the express: "Where does this dog go?" ’The expressman answered: "I don’t know, he don’t know, nobody don’t know; because he’s gone and chewed up his tag." According to atheism, nobody knows where we came from, why we are here, or where we are going. We refuse to let the atheist "chew up the tag!"

I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Smith’s First Reply Mr. Chairman, Respected Opponent, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Inasmuch as the other side has specially asked that there be no applause, I make the same request. In speaking with my opponent this afternoon about the matter, I suggested that the audience be given no instructions. In Atheist meetings the audience takes part. You don’t sit as dumb bells; you can express your opinion: when you go to a church you don’t express your opinion; or if you do, they tell the police.

I want to say a word complimentary to my opponent and the pastor of this church. I have very little respect for their judgment, but a great deal for their courage. Unlike other ministers in this town they believe their doctrines can be de­fended in the open. Their fellow clergymen know better; they know that the Christian religion will not stand criticism and open debate.

Let me tell you something of how I came to be an Atheist. I used to live in Maud, Oklahoma—was there before the town was built; and have lived in Shawnee. I was in this town some twenty years ago, working for the Farmers’ Union. I joined the First Methodist Church. A few years later, I went to a Methodist school, Epworth University, in Okla­homa City. The following Summer I worked for the State Code Commission in Guthrie. One Saturday after­noon I found in the library a book entitled: "Jeffer­son’s Bible." Being a Democrat, I greatly admired Jefferson. The book interested me. I found from reading the introduction to that book that Thomas Jefferson was an infidel. He did not believe that Jesus was the son of God; he thus ridiculed the virgin birth:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (Works v. 4, p. 365.) That day has come. The preachers did not tell me that. Have they told you? They conceal such facts, and a great deal more. If you will investi­gate, you will find that the great men of this coun­try, and our greatest Presidents, have not been Christians. The next season I went to the State University at Norman. I tried to continue to believe the Chris­tian religion, but began to investigate its doctrines. One day when watching a football game with my pastor, I asked him if he believed the virgin birth story, and the Adam and Eve story. He said, "Why, of course not." I demanded: "Why do you not tell your congregation that?" He replied: "That would do a great deal of harm, and no good."

I expect that in Shawnee you have such men among the ministers who oppose this debate. They will admit privately that they believe in evolution; yet, they preach a Savior, and that is why they endeavored to suppress this debate. The descend­ants of apes don’t need a Savior. An evolutionist preaching Jesus crucified is in no position to appear in a public discussion.

I continued investigating, but still retained my faith and prayed daily. The time came when I realized there was nobody above listening to my words. I ceased to pray.

I found no stopping place short of atheism. I went East, and after years of study, with others in New York City, in 1925, launched the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. We received a charter, and we are now duly incorpo­rated under the Laws of the State of New York. Our headquarters are at 119 East Fourteenth Street. You can look us up. You will find our charter in the State Capitol at Albany.

There is a great deal of prejudice against athe­ism. Thomas Jefferson said:

"It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket."

How many Christians have that attitude? A Roman emperor said:

"Injuries to the gods, should be the concern of the gods."

Why don’t we have that spirit of tolerance to­day? No, every little two-by-four preacher takes it upon himself to defend the ruler of the universe.

Last evening I made application to the town council in Maud to be granted equal privileges with a representative of the American Bible Society, who was selling religious literature on the streets. The mayor spoke feelingly of "The Holy Bible" and "Mother’s religion." I lost out.

I noticed as I came in the door a motto, reading in part:

"It is better to work with a construction gang than with the wrecking crew."

You are, in this city, tearing down and building all the time. Do you mean to say that men who do the wrecking are baser than the ones who build? The one is as necessary as the other. If you will look in the New York City directory under "Wrecking Companies," you will find some forty concerns listed. No one prosecutes them. The men who tear down condemned buildings are just as necessary as the men who build skyscrapers. The Christian religion has been condemned by the civil­ized conscience of the world, and our business is to wreck it. The question is often asked, "What will you put in its place?" We don’t put anything in its place. When a physician cures you of a, disease he does not give you another disease; he merely re­stores you to health. We seek to restore you to reason. In the short time left, I shall give you briefly the arguments for atheism, refute some of the argu­ments for theism, and then introduce Dr. Sparkes Gladman, the great theologian of the atheistic move­ment.

Let us consider the origin of religion. My opponent is all mixed up when he says that mono­theism degenerated into polytheism. It is not so taught even in the theological schools. The Fun­damentalists of this country have lost control of almost every theological seminary. They will soon lose control of the Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Ky. They lost their last major school in the North this year when they lost Princeton Seminary.

No! Religion arose through error. Primitive man was unable to explain what he saw about him. I have not the time to give in detail the various fac­tors in the evolution of religion. Primitive man, when he ate too much, had dreams and on awaking he recalled the dream and decided that he had been somewhere; and in this way he came to the idea that he had a spirit, had a soul that could leave his body. The beliefs in magic, animism, ghosts, and ancestor worship contributed to the growth of re­ligion. In my judgment ancestor worship was the principal factor. As Grant Allen has well said:

"Corpse worship is the protoplasm of religion."

You cannot refine falsehood into truth.

Let us consider the five fundamentals of atheism. The first is Materialism, the doctrine that Matter, with its indwelling property, Force, constitutes the reality of the universe. In other words, there is no spirit, soul or supreme being. If I were to strike a match you would see a flame burst forth. If, I move the match suddenly or hold it long enough, the flame is said to go out. Where does it go? It does not go anywhere, because it never existed, except as matter in motion. The same is true of us.

There is no soul or free-will. Voltaire defined free-will as the faculty bestowed by the grace of God upon man whereby he may get himself damned. The second fundamental of atheism is that which, for lack of a better word, we call Empiricism, or Sensationalism. It is the doctrine that all our knowledge is derived from experience. You have had no experience with God. You have no idea with which to form a conception of God. I know my opponent has contended—it has always been the contention of priests and preachers—that man has born within him a religious sense. The idea of God is innate, says the priest, and my opponent tells us tonight men everywhere believe in God. Yet, you find that the clergy are trying to inculcate the idea of God into every child. They are bootlegging their religion into our public schools. They know that every child is born an atheist. Our third basic doctrine is that of Evolution, which will be debated tomorrow night. Our fourth fundamental is Hedonism, the doctrine that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct. That will come up tomorrow afternoon when we consider whether or not Chris­tianity benefited mankind. The last fundamental of atheism is the Exist­ence of Evil. More than two thousand years ago, Epicurus bottled up God with logic forever in these words:

"Either God wishes to destroy evil and cannot; or he can but will not; or neither wishes nor has the power; or he both desires and is able. If he wishes and cannot, he is impotent; if he can but will not, he is wicked; if he neither wishes nor can, he is impotent as well as wicked; if he can and will, why does evil exist?" For two thousand years the priests have been unable to refute the Greek atheist. That which rules the universe knows no right or wrong. If a man gets cold and wet helping a friend in dis­tress, the consequences to his health are the same as if he were committing murder. Perhaps in a thoughtless moment you have sung the Doxology, "P^-raise God from whom all blessings flow." It is as unreasonable as the New Doxology which we atheists sometimes sing, "Praise God from whom all cyclones blow." The Almighty God could, and a Heavenly Father would, prevent evil. There is something wrong. If there be a good God, why did he not arrange another way to perpetuate life than by having one animal eat another? Huxley says:

"If our hearing were sufficiently acute to catch every note of pain, we would be deafened by one continuous scream."

If there be a God who knows everything, he knows that life feeds upon life.

Sixty parasites prey upon man. Did God make them? If so, what do you think of him for having made them? Some of those parasites live only upon the body of man; and if they did not evolve, they were created in the beginning, and must have lived on Adam and Eve. They must have been the two most diseased persons that ever lived.

I believe prayer and providence are being given up except in the more backwoods sections of the country. Which portions of the world are most re­ligious? You know it is the South—my own home land. But the South has always led the North in the commission of murder. Memphis, Tennessee, where there are no atheist societies and where evo­lution is outlawed, has led this country in murder for the last twenty years, with one or two excep­tions, when pious Jacksonville, Florida, took the lead. A Fundamentalist in New-York recently de­clared that it is easier to convert negroes in the Congo to Christianity than to convert the professors at Columbia University. Of course, he was right. If you want to get people to believe in God, don’t go to educated people; go to the hillbillies of Ar­kansas and the Hottentots in Africa. In the old days, they prayed for rain. Why don’t you have the Governor of this state set aside a day to pray that the drought may end? Crops are burning up; the cotton will soon suffer; and the corn that was not made some ten days ago is ruined. Formerly Christians prayed when they were sick. In St. James, last chapter, it says:

"Is any sick among you? Send for a physician."

No, that is what the atheist does. The Bible says:

"Call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick." Who of you do that? Last night in Maud I heard an old woman, a true Christian, lament that many who call themselves Christians, the moment they get sick, send for a physician.

If there is a being who controls the universe, what do you think of his system of raising fruit in Oklahoma? When I was a boy living at Maud, every Spring I saw with joy, the fruit trees in bloom, expecting to have lots of apples and peaches to eat; but four times out of five, frost came so late that the fruit was killed. Four times out of five that happens in Oklahoma. Is that good manage­ment?

You have a theologian in this city by the name of Vanderpool. I read one of his sermons. He says that when a great man is needed God always sends him. In the middle ages for a thousand years schools were almost blotted from the face of the earth. Humanity was in darkness, because reli­gion stopped the development of science. Instead of following the Greeks in treating disease, the Christians followed Jesus and Paul who believed the insane were possessed by demons. Christianity caused the Dark Ages. Why did not God send some­one during that period? Andrew Carnegie, who has done more to disseminate knowledge than any other American, through establishing libraries (he built one in this city) said:

"I have not bothered Providence with my petitions for about forty years."

Only the other day I read a significant item in a magazine called "Liberty," which has a circula­tion of over two million copies (I give this as an illustration of the trend of the times—as showing that belief in prayer and providence is being aban­doned in the enlightened centers). Liberty is pub­lished in Chicago by the same concern publishing The Chicago Tribune. They are giving $5.00 for every bright saying of a child which they accept. One mother sent in this saying, which was printed.

You will see that her child asked a question that my friend here cannot answer. A preacher discoursing concerning a certain disaster at sea, said five thou­sand passengers were providentially saved. The girl asked the preacher how many were providen­tially drowned.

There was a 17th Century bishop in England by the name of Hall who preached providence. This bishop endeavored to prove the existence of a watchful Heavenly Father by citing a certain inci­dent in his life. He started on a trip overseas, when, by the interposition of providence, he was just prevented from boarding the ship which later sank with all on board. How about the others? To be religious, you must practice the art of ignor­ing.

If prayer ever accomplished anything, why did the World War continue? This Dr. Gladman, of whom I spoke in the beginning, says prayer is answered when God is awake, but that he some­times sleeps. During the War all preachers prayed for peace, and I dare say my opponent in his church in Dallas prayed for peace. Dr. Gladman says that the moment God woke up the war ended.

It may be that as children in school, you read the poem by Bryant entitled, "To a Water Fowl."

"He who from zone to zone guides thy boundless flight, In the long way that I must tread alone, Will guide my steps aright." That poet may have eaten that very bird for dinner that evening, after writing that poem. My opponent has discoursed to you very elo­quently about snowflakes, about their angles, and how God must have squared them off. If God made everything, including snowflakes, he must have made disease germs, the germs of small pox and syphilis, and of diptheria that kills children. Why did not my opponent speak of that? The clergy like to talk about the human eye, and how it could not have happened by chance. If God made good eyes, who made cross eyes, blear eyes, and squint eyes? Why not talk of the fangs of the rattlesnake? Don’t they fulfill their functions? You cannot be­lieve in a good God, unless you have a double stand­ard of morals, one for man and another for God. If you have the same standard of morals for both, God stands condemned before the bar of human reason. A few years ago in Arizona a mother and child were left alone on a ranch. The father had gone away. A rattlesnake bit the mother. She tried to get help, but was far distant from the nearest human being. What could she do? She saw she was going to die and that the children would starve, as the father would not return for a week. She killed her babies and herself. How can you explain such an event if God exists? If you could have helped that woman, would you not have helped her? Maybe you Christians will say that she for­got to pray. If God must be begged before he will help, is he worthy of worship?

Here is another question. You who believe in God, if you don’t like this answer, give us a better one: "Why does not God reveal a cure for can­cer?" The answer: "He will, when scientists dis­cover it. That is his method. He prefers to share the credit with others rather than hog all the glory himself." Voltaire, who did more to liberate the human race than any other man, said that prayer and arsenic will kill a cow. A man asked this question: "I long for the consolations of religion, but my reason forbids. Would you suggest a surgical operation to weaken my mind?" Dr. Gladman counseled: "No, that is not necessary, go to church regularly, cease to reason, and exercise the faculty of faith; and you will probably get relief. If these means are unsuc­cessful, time will help you out. As you grow old, you will become sufficiently feebleminded to accept religion."

One man says he has found a pocket book con­taining a considerable sum of money and wants to know whether or not he should give thanks to God. The answer is that he should, especially as God will probably receive no thanks from the person who lost the pocketbook. In conclusion, let me introduce you to Dr. Sparkes Gladman, the most eminent theologian of the United States, the present company, Rev. Oli­phant, and Rev. Cullum, excepted. This is the way he answers the questions, and if these are not correct, I ask my opponent to give the right an­swer. "Who made God?" The answer is, "Like most persons who have amounted to anything, God is self-made. He made himself out of nothing just prior to the beginning. The act of self-creation—­the greatest miracle of all time—ought to convince even an atheist."

Oliphant’s Second Affirmative (Duration, 20 minutes) Brother Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Respected Opponent:

I am wondering if I have been misinformed about the rules of controversy. I have been taught that it is the duty of a speaker on the negative side of a proposition to consider and attempt to refute the arguments made by the, affirmative. But I must confess that if the speech to which you have just listened is to be considered the standard, I have had the wrong idea. Mr. Smith scarcely referred, directly or indirectly, to my speech. In my opening speech I made a number of arguments which I con­sider germane to the issue. It seems to me that my opponent should have made an effort to refute these arguments, or attempted to show that they are foreign to the question under consideration. How many of my arguments did he attempt to answer? (Here the speaker was interrupted by an atheist in the audience who said: "I can answer three of your arguments.") Mr. Oliphant: I thank the gentleman for his admission that he can answer only three of the many arguments I pre­sented. What about the others? Sir, are you dis­satisfied with the work of the president of your association? I do not blame you. If I were in your place I should be dissatisfied, too. However, if when this debate is over, you think Mr. Smith has not done justice to your cause, I shall be glad to give you a chance to see if you can do a better job.

Now to continue my speech. It is not primarily my duty to answer the arguments of the negative. However, I shall consider everything the gentleman says, that is at all worthy of notice. Some of his statements are so childish that my ten-year-old daughter could answer them.

What Mr. Smith says about Modernist preach­ers knowing that their doctrine will not bear the test of public discussion, may be true. I have no desire to defend them. I am content to present the truth of God’s word, and leave those who hear to decide whether it stands the test. My opponent tells us "how he came to be an atheist." I am not particularly interested in that. His faith was shaken by a preacher who did not believe the Bible. For a man who does not believe God’s word to pretend to preach it is a travesty on common decency. Mr. Smith should not be in­fluenced so easily by preachers. He should think for himself. However, if an unbelieving preacher could lead him away from faith in God, possibly I can lead him back.

Mr. Smith intimates that Thomas Jefferson had a part in making him an atheist. Jefferson was not an atheist. Hear him:

"The rights of conscience we never submitted we could not submit. We are answerable to them to our God." (Notes on Virginia, 1782, F. 111, 264.) In his bill for establishing religious freedom, Mr. Jefferson said:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free and man­ifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint—" (1779, F. 11, 238. ) Hear him once more as he plainly declares:

"An atheist I can never be." (Letter to John Adams. Quoted by Wm. E. Curtis, in "The True Thomas Jefferson," pg. 309.) Mr. Jefferson referred to the so-called "Jeffer­son Bible," of which Mr. Smith spoke, as:

"The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, extracted from the account of his life and doctrines, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; being an abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians, unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their com­prehension." (Preface, "Jefferson’s Bible," published by N. D. Thompson Publishing Company.) The fact that a certain city leads in the com­mission of crime does not prove that religion causes crime, unless it can be shown that the difference between this and other cities consists solely in a difference in degree of religiousness. Hundreds of other elements of difference may enter into the question. Our friend tells us that the greatest presidents of the United States have been disbelievers. His statement is not true. All of our presidents (with two exceptions) have been members of some church. The exceptions are Lincoln and Jefferson. Lincoln was a very religious man and Jefferson was far from being an atheist. The assertion that the most educated people of this country are disbelievers is about as near the truth as the statement about our presidents. A document expressing belief in God was, published in 1923. The following scientists signed the state­ment:

Charles D. Walcott, Geologist, President of the Na­tional Academy of Sciences, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Head of the Smithsonian Institute of Washington.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, Paleontologist, President of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Edwin Grant Conklin, Zoologist, Head of the Depart­ment of Zoology, Princeton University.

James Rowland Angell, Psychologist, President of Yale University.

John Merle Coulter, Botanist, Head of the Department of Botany, University of Chicago.

Michael I. Pugin, Physcist and Engineer, Professor of Electromechanics and Director of Phoenix Research Lab­oratory, Columbia University.

William James Mayo, Surgeon, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Rochester, Minnesota.

George David Berkhoff, Mathematician, Head of the Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cam­bridge, Massachusetts.

Arthur A. Noyes, Chemist, Director of the Gates Chemical Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.

William Wallace Campbell, Astronomer’ Director of Lick Observatory and President-elect of the University of California.

John J. Carthy, Engineer, Vice-President in Charge of Research, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, New York.

Robert A. Milliken, Physicist, Director of Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics, Pasadena, California.

William Henry Welch, Pathologist, Director of the School of Hygiene and Public Health, John Hopkins Univer­sity, Baltimore.

John G. Merriam, Paleontologist, President of the Car­negie Institution of Washington.

Gano Dunn, Engineer, Chairman of the National Re­search Council, Washington, D. C. The statement was also signed by a number of the leading business men of America, including Hon. Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Smith says these men are ignorant! As a further refutation of the charge that reli­gion and education do not go together, I ask you to examine the history of the great educational in­stitutions of Europe and America. The University of Leyden was founded by a group of Christian Hollanders more than three hundred years ago. An examination of a list of twenty universities which were established in Europe between 1550 A.D. and 1700 A.D. shows that they were all found­ed and maintained by religious organizations. The great universities of America were built by religious men. Harvard University was found­ed by the Puritans. Its first private benefactor was a preacher—John Harvard, from whom the insti­tution received its name. Dr. James Blair (another preacher) was active in founding William and Mary College, and was first president of the school. Where are the schools that atheists have built? I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that every educational institution in the world is—directly or indirectly—the fruit of religion. Let Mr. Smith name an exception. Atheists have never built a school or a hospital. Atheism offers noth­ing constructive. It has no standard. What do you have to believe to be an atheist? Nothing. What do you have to do to be an atheist? Nothing. What do you have to be to be an atheist? Nothing. Atheism sets no standard for belief, action or character.

Mr. Smith admits that he offers nothing con­structive; he says he belongs to the "wrecking crew." He then compares atheism to the wrecking companies that wreck condemned buildings. Let me remind him that these companies wreck only buildings that have been condemned by proper authorities, or whose owners want them wrecked. Sir, Christians have not asked you to wreck their building, nor has the building been condemned by any legitimate authority. By whose authority are you making your feeble effort to wreck the building of God? If a wrecking company should wreck your home without proper authority, you would have them arrested. That’s what they did to you over in Arkansas. My friends, it is not difficult to understand why he has such dislike for Arkansas. He was put in jail for his blasphemous attack on Christianity in that State.

Mr. Smith admits that atheism has nothing to offer in the place of Christianity. In an attempt to justify his wholly destructive doctrine, he says that when the doctor has removed disease, he does not give you anything to take its place. But the doctor does not attempt to remove anything that is beneficial to man. The atheist must first show us that religion is a disease. I have never seen a doc­tor out trying to convince healthy, happy people that they are sick, and should have disease removed. If the atheist is a doctor he is visiting well patients, and that without an invitation! The wise doctor gives God credit for the healing of disease, through the wonderful curative powers of nature. I recently saw, over the office door of a Dallas physician, these words:

"We dress the wound, God heals it."

It is charged that religion arose through super­stition, fetishism, animism, magic, etc. What proof does he offer? Merely his assertion. A man who will not accept the statements of Almighty God should not ask an intelligent audience to accept his bare assertions. In my first speech, I offered con­clusive proof that all religions are but corrupted forms of the pure religion that God gave in the beginning. Mr. Smith answers this proof with an unsupported assertion! The match and flame illustration means noth­ing for atheism until we are shown how a match can make and strike itself. The question of whether man is a machine, without free will, belongs in tomorrow afternoon’s discussion. It will be considered then.

Mr. Smith defines Empiricism (the second fundamental of atheism): "the doctrine that all our knowledge is derived from experience." He then argues that man has had no experience with God, and therefore, can have no conception of God. Well, let’s try his own logic. Man can have no conception of God without experience with Him. But man, everywhere, has a conception of God. Therefore, man has had experience with God. It seems to me that our friend’s premises (if true) point to the wrong conclusion for him. If man must have mate­rial with which to form a conception of anything, and he has formed a conception of God; does that not prove that man has such material as is neces­sary for such conception?

We all admit that there is evil in the world; but we cannot consistently blame God for it. Man has brought evil upon himself. Disease was brought into the world by sin. Had man lived in harmony with the law of God, there would have been no disease.

We are asked: "Why does God allow man to sin?" God has given man the power to think and act upon his own volition. If man chooses to act contrary to the laws of God, as revealed in His word and nature, God should not be considered re­sponsible for the results. There could be but one way to be assured that man will not ^-sin; that is, make him a machine—with no power to govern his own actions. This would not be good for man. A mechanically perfect world would be very imperfect for man. Despite the terrible results of sin, who wants to give up his freedom of thought and action, to avoid the possibility of wrong-doing? I know that eating certain things will make me sick, but I do not want to give up my freedom of choice to avoid the possibility of illness. God has given cer­tain laws governing man’s health. Disobedience of these laws brings suffering. A law is of no value unless it provides a penalty for its violation.

Man could never be safe were it not for the fact that God governs the elements of nature by specific laws. What a terrible thing electricity would be, if not controlled by law! Man would indeed, be helpless, were it not that he can learn the laws of nature, and use them in furthering the interests of mankind. God has given certain laws in nature; and has given man intelligence, to be used in learning and using these laws. Man, living among the elements of a lawless nature, would have no use for intelligence. The improper use of beneficial things may make them injurious. It is God’s law in nature that fire will burn. If I put my hand in the fire, I must suffer the consequences; but God is not re­sponsible for my suffering.

Evil is often the result of man’s shutting out the good. The French Naturalist, Fabre, performed an experiment for the enlightenment of some boys. He put, a bird under a bell-glass from which the oxygen had been exhausted. Of course, the little creature was soon dead. The boys asked what was in the glass, and were told "nitrogen only." "What a terrible poison this nitrogen must be!" they exclaimed. "Not at all," said Fabre, "nitrogen is in the air we all breathe, and it does us no harm."

He then explained that it was not the presence of the nitrogen—but the absence of the oxygen that killed the bird. In the same way, evil may be the absence of God, hence, not "created" by Him. Then, that which we conceive to be evil may not, in its final analysis, be evil at all. Because of our limited vision, there are many things we cannot explain. A man who is inside a house (and has never been outside) cannot describe the house. We should not expect to describe the world and explain all its phenomena—being on the "inside," and having never been "outside." The trouble with the atheist is that he con­siders himself the supreme judge of good and evil. How can man, with his circumscribed view of life, know what is good for a universe throughout eter­nity? Man’s view of both time and space is very much limited. He should not attempt to sit in judgment on the word of God—at least not until he knows all the facts in the case!

We do not contend that God made all things just as they now exist. Two harmless medicines may, when mixed, become a deadly poison. Who knows but that disease germs may be the result of man’s improper mixing of things, which as they were created, are good?

I was amused at Mr. Smith’s remarks about this being a "backwoods" section of the country. He used to live here; but of course all the country’s intelligence left with him! My only answer to this charge is that some boys can go to town and keep their equilibrium, while others cannot—and he seems to be one of the "others."

I am under no obligation to defend the foolish assertions attributed to this atheist dummy. Mr. Smith finds it easier to debate with a straw man of his own making than with a living opponent. In­stead of resorting to "Dr. Gladman’s" silly answer to the question; "Who made God?"—why did not Mr. Smith notice the arguments in my first speech which prove that God is an eternal, self-existent Being? The atheist assumes that something is eternal—why not God?

We are asked why God does not cure cancer. Perhaps God has given a remedy. Man is able to cure disease just to the extent that he discovers and uses God’s remedies. God works through human instrumentality. A pessimist said: "I could make a better world than this." An optimist replied: "Well, let’s go to work and do it." Man is given the power to either improve or degrade the world. But we are told that man must do all the work and give God the credit. Man cannot accomplish anything without the help of God. In whatever man undertake; he must have God’s materials with which to work. What could man do without sun­light, or without air? Man is a very dependent creature; there is nothing he can do without the aid of elements which he cannot make for himself. Man certainly owes thanks to some one; and until Mr. Smith shows us that the blessings of nature are not the gift of God, we shall continue to thank God for them.

It is the rankest sort of egotism—the most contemptible type of self-exaltation, to set one’s self up as being independent of the assistance of Divinity. Atheism begets egotism. Mr. Smith says in one of his tracts (describing this and another of his leaflets):

"The greatest anti-religious tracts ever written." Of course he considers anti-religionists more intelligent than others; and now he just breaks down and confesses that he is the smartest disbe­liever of all time! Such an attitude is to be expect­ed of one who KNOWS there is no God! In regard to "Dr. Gladman’s" advice to his inquirer, that he go to church to weaken his mind: May I suggest that this is not the atheist’s trouble.

What he needs is a religion weak enough for his feeble mind. I realize this is foolishness, but I am following my opponent—even when he introduces things which cannot be seriously considered. My time has expired. I thank you for your attention.

Smith’s Second Reply Mr. Chairman, Respected Opponent, Ladies and Gentlemen: My opponent accuses me of not having an­swered a single argument. Those of you who ap­plauded must be deaf. He spoke of the wonderful design in the snowflake, and I asked you and him whether God designed the fangs of the rattlesnake; J could stand here all night and name things harm­ful to man. Did God make them? The Rev. Oliphant would give you the impres­sion that I said Jefferson was an atheist. I did not say it. I said he was "an infidel." Whoever says that he was a Christian says that which is not so. Jefferson called himself a materialist. He did not believe in the supernatural. He did not pray. They asked him to set aside a day for prayer. He refused to do it. He spoke of the doctrine of the Trinity as "The incomprehensible jargon of Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one and one is three."

I will read something else by Jefferson. You will find this in his works, Vol. 4, page 325. He pronounces the Bible God "a being of terrific char­acter, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." I did not say that Jefferson made me an atheist but that he was the first to set me investigating. My friend says he cannot comprehend God nor explain him, but compares him to electricity. Elec­tricity is not a substance any more than heat is a substance. It does not exist by itself. He says you cannot feel electricity. If you get hold of a live wire you will feel it as much as you feel heat. Does he hold that heat exists by itself? He further says that hope cannot be seen, and motherly love cannot be seen, but that they exist. Is that not really childish? Is mother-love a substance? You know it does not exist apart from mothers. My opponent is like a man who loves woman but hates each particular woman. He confuses the categories of existence. Preachers do not think clearly.

Some twenty years ago I was in New Orleans. Wandering one evening on the outskirts of the city, I came across a negro revival meeting. Sometimes the preacher did not talk sense—just one stream of words, without subjects and predicates. That did not bother his hearers. They were religious. Whenever he would say "Jesus," "salvation," and "heaven," they would shout, "hallelujah," "Glory to God," and "amen." Every preacher does the same thing. The clergy use words for their emotional value. I could take every sermon preached in this city last Sunday, including the one preached here, and put in the word "not" in every sentence and preach it, and if I kept a pious face, the congrega­tion would not know the difference. They would come up and shake my hand and say, "Brother Smith, you certainly did preach a soul-searching sermon," and invite me home for a chicken dinner. The Rev. Oliphant says that he has patience with the agnostic but none with the atheist who says there is no God. It may be some of the agnos­tics with whom he has patience are present. Let me say to them: If your position is such that you cannot come out in the open, go ahead as you are. You have our sympathy. You say you don’t know whether or not there is a God. How do you know there are no witches? Almost invariably, if you ask an agnostic if there are witches, he will say no. Theological schools should have a "witchological" department. My opponent says man everywhere has believed in God. He quotes me as saying you cannot form an idea without experience, and he says all men have an idea of God, therefore they must have had experience with God. He has changed ideas and conceptions until you don’t know whom you are. I admit that the belief in God is widespread. It is not true, however, that there are no races without the belief. Some have had no conception of God. The belief in witches and evil spirits, however, is wider spread than the belief in God.’ John Wesley said:

"Giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible." (Journal, 1768.) The Bible God commands:

"Suffer not a witch to live."

Atheists came along and discredited the belief which caused hundreds of thousands of people to be put to death. During the period of witchcraft persecution, man came nearest to the God who cre­ated a hell where millions suffer throughout eter­nity. The preachers say that the teachings of the Bible were misinterpreted. God must be a poor inspirer if he so words his message that it is easily misunderstood. My opponent has strange views concerning the development of religion. It seems he has never studied comparative religion. Long before Jeho­vah was known, the Jews and other races believed in many gods. Long before Adam and Eve there were men in different parts of the world who wor­shipped the sun. If you must worship, worship the sun—it is the true source of life. My clerical opponent states that we cannot ex­plain anything in a million words without God, but that Christians explain everything in one word—God. I don’t know what your reaction is to that, but it sounds as absurd to me as would the advice of a fool who when you are trying to solve a problem comes along and says that all you have to do is put an X in the middle.

Holbach defined theology as "systematized ig­norance." Epicurus declared:

"God dwells in the inter-spaces of our knowledge of the world." The more you learn, the more God recedes. There was a time when God was in medicine, but they don’t resort to supernatural means now. God was in law. The priests ran the whole show. Priests are not holding their own in number or quality. There is a shortage of preachers. Empty churches are found all over the country. The Rev. Oliphant endeavors to refute the argument that the soul is to the body as the flame is to the match, by asking "Did the match strike itself? It is a question he should not have asked, because spontaneous combustion does occur. Hay and grain under certain conditions burst into flame. I believe life originated in the same manner.

Thomas H. Huxley declared:

"If the hypothesis of Evolution is true, living matter must have originated from non-living matter, for, by the hypothesis, the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."

Tyndall said:

"If it were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time, to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter."

Again:

"Evolution is a theory that not alone the lower forms of animal life—not alone the noble forms of the horse and the lion—not alone the wonderful mechanism of the human body, but the mind itself—emotion, intelligence, and will—were once latent in a fiery cloud. All our phil­osophy, science, and art were potential in the fires of the sun."

Synthetic chemistry has built up materials such as alcohol, which were once thought to be producible only by the vital activity of plants and animals. The creation of life by chemists in the laboratory would cause no great excitement. It is expected.

I believe in spontaneous generation. It is an essential of evolution. Prof. Alphonse Herrera of Mexico City, a member of our Association, has pro­duced in the laboratory substances that behave much as does that which we call life. Scientists have produced some of the lower forms of life without crossing the two sexes. They have combined the germ cells of one sex with a chemical and it has produced life without the aid of the other sex. My clerical friend is very oratorical about the wonders of the universe. He states that the plan­ets keep perfect time. That sounds all right, un­less you stop to think. Do the planets keep time? Yes, the sun always crosses the heavens in the day time and never at midnight. It is indeed remark­able. Don’t you see what my friend is doing? He is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t get anywhere by saying that each day is just twenty-four hours long. These are man-made measurements. Would I not be silly if I tried to prove to you there is a God because every foot contains twelve inches, never more nor less?

He said there were myriads of stars. Read the book called the Bible, and you will find that these innumerable stars, some of which are millions of times larger than this earth, are unimportant. We read:

"He made the stars also."

According to the scripture writer the stars were only an afterthought, and the earth was the big thing.

God’s word says that the moon was made to rule the night. Half the time it appears during the day. It must not obey orders, or there would be no moonless nights.
The Vote of the Audience

Mr. Smith insisted that the audience be asked to vote on this proposition. Mr. Oliphant objected. It was his contention that questions of truth are not determined by majority vote. After some dis­cussion, Mr. Oliphant consented to the questions being submitted to a vote. Mr. F. L. Paisley, chair­man of the meeting, said: "All who believe that the affirmative speaker (Brother Oliphant) WON this discussion will please stand." Almost everyone in the audience stood. Mr. Paisley said: "I will not attempt to count this vast number. You may be seated. All those who think the negative speaker (Mr. Smith) won the debate will now rise to their feet." Seven persons stood. The audience was dismissed with prayer, lead by Brother Will J. Cullum.