Page 82

“ Woman ” is never d u ll; it is, on the contrary, so sparkling and versatile as to throw a charm even over the most plain-spoken passages where English impurity is brought to light. But let no reader o f a pharisaical or fastidious turn o f mind peruse his work. Saladin is a pure-minded and high-souled writer, but he stops at no revelation when he intends to prove his case. T h e annals o f vice are deliberately sifted— from the support and legalization o f prostitution by the English Christian Governm ent in the East down to the revolting secrets of “ modern Babylon ” at home. T h e exposure is not pleasant reading, it reads far worse than anything penned by Tacitus regarding Rom an vice under the emperors, but it is unfortunately true. “ A n d yet,” writes the author, after unveiling one hideous sore, “ the pulpit and the religious press are possessed of sufficient ignorance (?) and effrontery to declare that Christianity has exalted the status of woman and sweetened and purified the atmosphere of social and domestic life. T o writers o f this sort “ W oman ” will prove a very efficient eye-opener.

[We copy this extract from a review o f “ Agnosticism and Christianity,” by “ Julian ” ( Secular Review, June 2nd, 1888), as embodying remarkably logical and philosophical arguments against some so-called axioms which can never be accepted as such— E d .] “ Mr. Samuel Laing, in his new booklet, ‘ Agnosticism and Christianity,’ begins with stating Professor H uxley’s definition o f knowledge. T he Professor is made to say : ‘ A man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.’ A s an axiom this is most faulty. A s a universal truth it is, me judice, wholly untenable. It may be in part true, so far as phenomenal ‘ knowledge ’ is concerned, but certainly is not at all true of ‘ belief.’ B elief is based solely on man’s faith in the com petency and credibility o f the person who professes to instruct, and not ‘ on scientific grounds,’ as the Professor states. Children do not believe on scientific grounds, but solely because they think the person who tells them is competent to know and honest to state what he knows. A ll our belief in history is based entirely on our faith in the historian. Nine-tenths o f our knowledge is that o f faith ; the remaining tenth is o f a very mixed character indeed, and very often inferential and most erroneous. Experim ent is by no means in fallible; data are by no means always to be trusted. H asty inferences from experiment and data have led to a legion o f errors, and new experiments with new data often re-write the ‘ knowledge ’ thus obtained. “ Then, again, not one in a million has any ‘ scientific grounds for his knowledge or b elief’ even in phenomena. H e is taught by a master, that master by other masters or by books, and those masters or books were most o f them only second-hand. Phenom enal knowledge, no doubt, must be originally based on personal observation, data, or experim ent; but such science forms only an infinitesimal part o f our ‘ knowledge or belief.’ “ Then, in regard to the other dictum o f Professor H uxley, quoted by M r. Laing— ‘ W e know nothing beyond phenomena ’— it is by no means clear w hat the Professor means. W e know scores and scores o f things besides phenom ena ; but o f phenomena themselves we only know what our senses inform us of, or

13H.P. Blavatsky & M. Collins, editors - Lucifer Vol. III, No. 13 September, 1888  

Source : The International Association for the Preservation of Spiritualist and Occult Periodicals (IAPSOP, www.iapsop.com), digitized by Go...

13H.P. Blavatsky & M. Collins, editors - Lucifer Vol. III, No. 13 September, 1888  

Source : The International Association for the Preservation of Spiritualist and Occult Periodicals (IAPSOP, www.iapsop.com), digitized by Go...

Advertisement