t is at least open to the
Atheist to retort that we have to thank this circumstance that religious
beliefs have not been more injurious than has been actually the case.
If, for example, the ascetic epidemic of the early Christian centuries
had increased in force and had continued operative, European society
would have disappeared. That this was not the case was due to the
strength of the sexual and social instincts, against which religion was
unable to maintain its hold. In the change of opinion over the better
way to spend Sunday, or in the decay of the doctrine of eternal
damnation, we have the same point illustrated. Right through history it
has been the social instincts that have acted as a corrective to
religious extravagance. And it is worth noting that with the exception
of a little gain from the practice of casuistry, religions have
contributed nothing towards the building up of a science of ethics. On
the contrary it has been a very potent cause of confusion and
obstruction. Fictitious vices and virtues have been created and the real
moral problem lost sight of. It gave the world the morality of the
prison cell, instead of the tonic of the rational life. And it was
indeed fortunate for the race that conduct was not ultimately dependent
upon a mass of teachings that had their origin in the brains of savages,
and were brought to maturity during the darkest period of European
civilisation.

In dealing with the two first propositions I have, by implication,
answered the third--namely, that a wholly secular authentic code of
morals would be inadequate to form the highest type of character; it
might supply a "must," but it could not supply an "ought."

The first and obvious reply to an objection of this kind is that our
working code of morals is secular already. In life, if we observe
without prejudice, it is not difficult to see that one's neighbours,
friends, social class, etc., have far more force in shaping conduct than
speculative theories. In its widest sense natural selection determines
what actions shall be declared to be moral. Of this we may take the
universal feeling against homicide. This is but an expression of the
truth that social life would be impossible were it otherwise. And when
we pass from the general to the special we meet with much the same
principle operating in society. The average burglar pursues his calling
with no special sense of its wrongness, although he may have a keen
sense of its d