pascal remarked that, whether christianity were true or false, the christian was on the safe side; and diderot replied that the priests and apologists of mohammedanism, or any other creed, could say the very same thing with equal force. the argument, if it be an argument, implies the possibility of error, and what applies to one religion applies to all. the votaries of every creed may be mistaken if there is no absolute certitude; or, if there should be one true religion among the multitude, and but one, only the devotees of that single faith can be on the safe side. but as no one knows which is the only true religion, it follows, according to the law of probabilities, that the odds are greatly against any particular religion being the right one. the christian therefore would have one chance of being right, and nine hundred and ninety-nine chances of being wrong. he has thus one chance in a thousand above the atheist.
but, on the other hand, if all religions but one are certainly wrong, what is the chance of a single one being certainly right? does not the christian's slight percentage of safety fade into something quite inappreciable in the light of this question? and is what is left—if anything is left—an adequate price for the abnegation of manhood? would it tempt an honest man, with a sense of human dignity, to play fast and loose with his intellect, and accept a creed because it appeals to his selfish hopes and fears? could such a slender chance of profit in the next life compensate for slavery in this life?
if belief is the safe side, the proper course is to believe everything. and it is useless to cry that this is impossible. faith enables men to believe against reason, and one act of credulity is little easier than a thousand. he whose creed is determined by his fears should give free scope to such emotions. if they are his guides let him follow them. why should he argue when argument may mislead? why should he stumble at trifles when he has surmounted the first great obstacle to credulity? let him believe all the religions of the world at once. he can do this as easily as he can believe in the trinity. and having embraced all, he may rest satisfied that if there be a true religion he undoubtedly possesses it.
we do not suppose, however, that this reasoning will have any effect on christians, buddhists, brahmins, mohammedans, or jews. but that very fact shows the hollow character of the argument from which we started. when the christian talks about the safe side he is only displaying the weakness of his faith, and appealing to timidity when he has no further appeal to reason.
the argument of "the safe side" would have no pertinency, even with the imbecile, if man were immortal. it seeks advantage from the fact that every man must die. it tries to paralyse reason with the clutch of fear.
how frequent is the superstitionist's remark, "wait till you come to die!" he does not always use these very words, but this is the meaning of all his verbiage. he forgets, or does not know, that philosophy destroys the terror of death. a rational man is aware of the truth expressed by mill, that death is but one incident in life, and often the least important. he recognises with bacon that we die daily. he knows that every hour is a step towards death. he does not play, like an ostrich, with the universal law of mortality; nor, on the other hand, does he allow the tomb to cast its chill obscurity over the business and pleasure of life. he lives without hypocrisy, and when the time comes he will die without fear. as hamlet says, "the readiness is all." another word also comes from the wisest of men—"cowards do often taste of death; the valiant die but once."
a belief that will do for life will do for death. the religionists prove this themselves. whatever a man is confident of is sustaining. the christian dies a christian, and the mohammedan a mohammedan. the one has dying visions of angels—or may be of devils; the other sees heaven burst open, and the black-eyed houris of paradise beckon him with rosy fingers. what they leaned on in life supports them in death. its truth or falsity makes no difference at that moment.
freethinkers are sustained by convictions. intellect and emotion concur in their case. they have no visions of angels or devils, but dear loved faces are better than phantoms, and he who has done a little good in the world, however humbly and obscurely, may dream of the happier and nobler days to come, when true words and good deeds will have brought forth the glorious fruit of happiness for the children of men.
we do not mean to assert that no freethinker, at any time, ever relapsed on his death-bed. such cases have apparently occurred during life, and while one particular religion is in the ascendant it is not difficult to understand them. the relapses are always to the creed a man finds about him, or to the creed of his childhood. they simply prove the power of environment and early training, and that a man needs all his strength to stand against big majorities. at best they are cases of mental pathology.
great historic freethinkers have always died true to their convictions. they were used to standing alone. for ample proof of this the reader is referred to my infidel death beds. and when smaller freethinkers are numerous enough they avoid the greatest danger of physical weakness. it is easy for christian relatives or friends to pester a dying freethinker; it is easy even, in the worst moments of weakness, to put words in his mouth. but if freethought friends visit him, he feels strengthened and relieved. allies may well be needed, sometimes, in such a battle with bigotry.
after all, "wait till you die!" is an argument of folly and cowardice. what can we conjecture of any other life except from our experience of this? on this earth reason is the safe side, honesty is the safe side, humanity is the safe side; and what is the safe side here is likely to be the safe side elsewhere.
