OCR Text |
Show FIRST QUESHON OF ! . .. CATHOLIC CAIECHISM i - . who Made the World ? Child and Atheist j Present Their Claims Triumph '1 j of the Child. i . ! - : ' j (Written for the Inter-Mountain Catholic.) I Tlic first simple question asked in the little cat- 1 e-hism, "Who made the world:" is one that "has I -puzzled the greatest minds and most profound I philosophers jn every age. The answer, instinctively instinctive-ly almost, given by the child, solves what is the great problem of life to thinking and learned minds. ( The answer of the former has descended from father to child since time began. He is in posses-M"ii, posses-M"ii, and before he can be dispossessed, when lie -answers, "God," they who deny or doubt the. truthfulness truthful-ness of the answer must do so on rational or scientific scien-tific principles. In examining this primitive and fundamental question, ''Who made the world's", we 'receive three answers. The child will answer, "God made the world." The atheist's answer is, '"Nature made the world," whilst the agnostic's reply is, "I do-not know."' This last, being neither positive nor nega- -tive, could not be classed as an answer at all.'," We have, then, only two answers to the question. ques-tion. "Who made the world P First, "God made the world." Second, "God did not make the world." The child, when pressed for a reason for his answer, will say that his parents told him so. The parents, when questioned about their reasons for teaching iheir child that "God made the -world" will only bring us back a step farther in the tree of life by giving the child's answer, and so we are led back, j step by step, to the root of the tree of life. He has . a prescriptive right to the answer, "God made the ; world," and before he can be legally dispossessed, a mere negative, ''God did not make the' world," is not sufficient. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. A child, corning into possession of an estate which has descended for twenty or fifty generations from i father to son, if -asked, "Who owns that mansion i d est ate?" will answer. "I do." When pressed as to his kgal and valid title, he will answer, "I own i l v the right of inheritance from my parents!" But pfho gave to your father" will bring forth the curt vfjy, "Why, grandfather." So the title is traced' tack to the original possession. The claim of the j child eannot.be nullified by a mere denial" of InV I right to inherit the estate. Till the contrary is i rroven his answer, "I own it," will stand. How much stronger is not the title and right to 1V.0 answer given to the question, "Who made the world r when the child answers, "God made the w,d,." The title and right to this answer are not routined to twenty, fifty or a thousand generations. inn have come down from the beginning of time. J "r its validity, priority of time is claimed. Its' denial being subsequent to the affirmation, on the nheist who asserts that "Go"d did not make the world.'V rests the burden of proof. Before the bar public opinion, whose judgment is based on com-' ni.-n sense, comes the little child with his simple vet innocent answer, "God made the world," and the learned and wise atheist with his reply, "God did not make the world.'' The former rests" on his title claims and will simply refer to his forefathers. He is the defendant. He has no pica to make. Standing Stand-ing on his legal rights, the atheist, who contests his claim, and says, God did not make the world," must make his defense', i. e., prove that God did not make tli- world. The case has been before the bar of public pub-lic opinion and common sense since "the fool said in his heart there was no God," and up to the present pres-ent neither reason nor science has shown logically that "God did not make the world." The greatest Minds and most profound philosophers' h ive si rug-d-d hard to arirue.with the child that "God did not , make the world," but as yet have not succeeded. ' j Herbert Spencer, Tyndall and Iluxlev are the ! lmv,,v, .1. ...... 1 4. Jill.. ,1. . ' . A, .......... mi-vi-u ni iini. ine case agamsr lorn, lack and Will Jones, three tots .whose -aires respec-'iv.1v respec-'iv.1v are ;, s and 10 years. The Judge nr.. pounds the all-import an! question: "Who made 'j"' Instinctively up go the hands of the "!:;(( little Joneses. 1!nd simultaneously answer, "'iod made the world." -There i-. no hesitation nor ;!-ubt as to the answer and its truthfulness. Herbert Her-bert Spencer. Tynda! and Huxley subnet their hnefs. Their deep thought, scientific knowledge rnd long study of llm simple question will.' we w.iukl naturally supprse. pulverize the three little I The public listen U the brief.4. It shows a V I ''"'V tudyf' nature, huw tli?se trul .- learned have ", I 'l-send?d into the bowels of the erth and wared ' the lieavens, to enlighten the enlightened. The '''.nrl ex)anse of their knowledge shoows a deep rc-se-irch. "even into the invisible world never dreamed - f before. But when it comes to ihe issue between h( :u and the Joneses thev are as dun.b' as an oyster :.tid the final result of all their scientific inveitiga-and inveitiga-and reasoning faculties is "I do not know who i1 n le the world." Our scientific knowledge does " disprove., that "God made the world." All our I 7 ' -oil i utr faculties, ha eked, by years of study in f. l h.ovopllv ,1 Jielp us in this vexed question. It' f ,Ji w have delved into all the secrets of nature; I ro door, however sacred, has stopped our rigid rx--imiiation, but we must confess that we haw dis-rovered dis-rovered nothing in -nature, or in the principles cf "H-V,hil,,so)hy, ujion which we could construct n i positive argument, clearly demonstrating that "God did not make the world." r 1 he J udge addresses the jury : "Gentlemen, you have hoard the charge made against Tom, Jack and n lib,. Jones. They are accused of stating that made the world." The public is deeply inter- ; ''d in this question. You have listened to the j If'aiT';d pla-of Messrs. Spencer, Huxley and Tyn-I Tyn-I n(-.V have shown the effects of superstition' on j? human mind. How it enslaves the free, inde- v rendeiit yearnings of. that inner V.ixb.t of the r--"rli wnk-h dominates tfce body. You must carefully Jngh the evidence, and if you find from the learned I desert at ions of the distinguished counsel that these i tiiroc l,nys who have answered in open court that I (,"d made ihe world" are beginning life wrong by j I f S"i '"J'K'vn,ff, your verdict will be, guilty. If on the V 1 f "'her hand, you find from the admissions of these I Mire,, learned men, who have made this subject one 1 01 the ciuci studies ol tiieir lives, that they are unable to upset the belief of the defendants, and that this belief is consecrated by time, which gives it a prescriptive right, your verdict will be, not guilty." That -jury, supposed to be guiddod by common sense, without leaving the box would write their verdict "not guilty," and Tom, Jack and Willie Jones in answering the first question of the catechism, catech-ism, "Who made the world :" "God," made - the world." would have legally, because prescriptively ; scientifically, because scicnepdoes not disprove the belief; and reasonably, because reason admits its inability to disprove that God anade ' the world, have confounded and defeated the greatest lights and intellectual giants of the age in which they lived. (To be Continued.) : |