e.

It may also be pointed out that, just as it is not true that Atheism
attempts to explain the origin of the universe, so it is unfair to tie
the Atheist down to any particular theory of cosmic evolution. As a
mental attitude Atheism is quite independent of any theory of cosmic
working, so long as that theory does not involve an appeal to deity. As
we shall see, Atheism, from the point of view both of history and
etymology, stands for the negation of theism, and its final
justification must be found in the untenability of the theistic
position.

Rightly enough it may be argued that the acceptance of Atheism implies a
certain general mental attitude towards both cosmic and social
questions, but the Atheist, as such, is no more committed to a special
scientific theory than he is committed to a special theory of
government. Of course, it is convenient for the Theist to first of all
saddle his opponent with a set of social or scientific beliefs, and then
to assume that in attacking those beliefs he is demolishing Atheism, but
it is none the less fighting on a false issue. All that Atheism
necessarily involves is that all forms of Theism are logically
untenable, and consequently the only effective method of destroying
Atheism is to establish its opposite.

Professor Huxley's treatment of Atheism proceeds on similar lines to
that already dealt with, but is more elaborate in character. Discussing
the nature of his own opinions he repudiates all sympathy with Atheism,
because:

"the problem of the ultimate cause of existence is one which seems
to me to be hopelessly out of reach of my poor powers. Of all the
senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the
demonstrations of those philosophers who undertake to tell us about
the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by
the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove
there is no God." (_On the Hypothesis the Animals are Automata._)

And on another occasion, replying to a correspondent, he expresses the
opinion that "Atheism is, on philosophical grounds, untenable, that
there is no evidence of the god of the theologians is true enough, but
strictly scientific reasoning can take us no further. When we know
nothing we can neither affirm nor deny with propriety." (_Life and
Letters_, p. 162.)

Here, again, we have the common error that Atheism seeks in some way to
explain the ultimate caus