Inconsistency of Agnostics

INCONSISTENCY OF AGNOSTICS. BY EDWIN F. PARRY. In number two of the present volume of the Era appeared an article entitled "What Agnosticism is," contributed by Mr. W. H. Lamaster. In the following issue of the Era the editor reviewed the article mentioned, and gave a sufficient answer to the claims made therein. My object in referring to Mr. Lamaster's article is merely to call attention to one statement which he makes. He says : "The Christian relies on faith for his belief in the existence of an infinite God. * * * This may meet all the requirements of theology, but philosophy demands something more logical and reasonable in order to satisfy it of the existence of any being either finite or infinite." Statements similar to the above are frequently made by agnostics and infidels, and they are misleading because they do not set forth the whole truth respecting the Christian's position. It may be true that "the Christian relies on faith for his belief in the existence of an infinite God;" but he does not rest satisfied with belief alone. In his search for knowledge he recognizes the great truth that faith is necessary to the attainment of knowledge —that faith leads to knowledge, and that the only way to acquire the latter is through the exercise of faith. All knowledge is the result of action or experience, and faith is the "moving cause of all action;" hence knowledge is the result of faith. True Christianity teaches that the way to know God is to keep his commandments. St. John says, "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." (I John 2 : 3.) This is true philosophy. All our knowledge is the result of obedience

to certain principles or laws, and intelligent obedience is always preceded by faith. It is therefore folly to reject faith as a means of gaining knowledge. The remark of Mr. Lamaster, that "philosphy demands something more logical and reasonable in order to satisfy it of the existence of any being either finite or infinite," is most absurd to the intelligent Christian believer. There can be nothing more logical and reasonable than the Christian method of satisfying the mind of the existence of an Infinite Being. The true Christian who has a knowledge of the existence of God has gained that knowledge in the only logical and reasonable way there is to arrive at facts. He is informed that there is a God. The scriptures tell him how he may know there is a God. He has faith sufficient to test the promises of the scriptures; and after having complied with the requirements therein set forth he obtains the knowledge sought after, thus verifying the truth of those scriptures. This is precisely the same way in which all facts sought for are gained. Philosophy cannot demand a more logical way of arriving at truths. The mathematician claims to be able to measre the distance between the earth and the sun. To prove his claim philosophy demands that the principles employed by the mathematician in reaching his conclusions be learned and put into operation. To do this some faith in his claims must be exercised, or no effort would be made towards a demonstration. This is the only reasonable method of testing his statements. The claims of true theology will bear the same test. But, strange to say, the agnostic or the infidel is not willing to submit to this process of learning religious truths. He refuses to test them in the same way as he would secular truths. He refuses to entertain belief in the supernatural because he considers it too wonderful or strange to accept. Thus he rejects the only method whereby he can make a philosophical test of religion. With equal consistency a man ignorant of mathematics might refuse to investigate the principles by which the mathematician measures the distance between the earth and the sun, and declare that such a thing is impossible because it is such a remarkable or wonderful feat. No one is justified in rejecting the Christian's testimony that there is a Supreme Being without having exercised faith in, and rendered

obedience to, the requirements necessary to the attainment of a knowledge of the existence of God. No investigation short of this is sufficient to be called a fair test of the Christian's claims. THE LAWS OF RELIGION. MONTESQUE. The laws of religion should never inspire an aversion to anything but vice, and above all they should never estrange man from a love and tenderness for his own species. The Mohammedan and Indian (Hindu) religions embrace an infinite number of people, the Indians hate the Mohammmedans, because they eat cows; the Mohammedans detest the Indians because they eat hogs.