e of existence. And this in spite of continuous
disclaimers that all search for a "first cause," or for a "cause of
existence" is midsummer madness. The fault here, we suspect, is that
both writers took their statement of Atheism, not from Atheistic writers
but from their opponents. But it is none the less surprising that it was
not recognised that both "a first cause" and an "ultimate cause of
existence," are, strictly speaking, theistic questions. I do not mean
that these questions may not suggest themselves to non-theists, but that
when they are raised clearly and definitely they are seen to belong to a
class of questions to which no rational answer is possible. To the
Theist, however, the questions arise from his primary assumptions. His
theory is one of final causes; his deity is postulated as the cause of
existence, and he cannot give up the questions as hopeless without
admitting his position to be indefensible. It is quite usual for the
theist to propound problems which only arise on his own assumptions, and
then call upon his opponents for answers to them, but there is no
justification whatever for non-theists playing the same game. Atheism
has nothing to do with final causes, and therefore is not concerned with
defending its illogicalities. Theism is a doctrine of final causes, and
in arguing that it is absurd to express an opinion upon the subject
Professor Huxley was adding a good reason in support of the position he
believed himself to be destroying.

Huxley's other objection to Atheism is that it perpetuates the absurdity
of trying to prove there is no God. How far is that true? Or in what
sense is it true? The danger in all discussion on this point lies in our
taking it for granted that "God" conveys a definite and identical
meaning to all people. But this is very far from being the case. What
anyone means by "God" it is impossible to say until some further
description has been given. When this has been done, and not until then,
"God" may become the subject of affirmation or denial. Until then we are
playing with empty words. By itself "God" means nothing. It offers the
possibility of neither negation nor affirmation.

Now Professor Huxley would have readily admitted that the truth of a
proposition may be denied whenever its terms involve a contradiction.
And the ground of this is the sheer impossibility of bringing the terms
together in thought. That a circle may be square, or that parallel lines
may en