Is Conan Doyle a Rationalist?
Is Conan Doyle a Rationalist? is an article written by Frederick Ryan published in The Freethinker on 30 december 1894.
Is Conan Doyle a Rationalist?
Dr. A. Conan Doyle, the historian of the famous Sherlock Holmes, and the author of some of the most popular books of the day, is, it would seem, a Freethinker. At any rate, in his new story, "The Stark-Munro Letters," now running in the Idler, he makes one of the characters give expression in most convincing language to propositions which are very familiar to readers of the Freethinker. And when an author puts heterodox talk into the mouth of his characters, in such a way as to betray that his heart was in the writing of it, the orthodox would certainly say there was a screw loose somewhere.
The story consists of letters from Dr. Stark-Munro to his friend, Herbert Swanborough. And in one of the letters this passage occurs: it is lengthy, but the points are admirably put:—
"Yesterday was my birthday, and I was two-and-twenty years of age. For two-and-twenty years have I adhered by the soles of my feet, and swung round the sun. And in all seriousness, without a touch of levity, and from the bottom of my soul, I assure you that I have at the present moment the very vaguest idea as to whence I have come from, or whither I am going, or what I am here for. It is not from want of inquiry, or from indifference. I have mastered the principles of several religions. They have all shocked me by the violence I should have to do my reason to accept any one of them. Their ethics are usually excellent. So are the ethics of the Common Law of England. But the scheme of creation upon which those ethics are built! Well, it really is to me the most astonishing thing that I have seen in my short earthly pilgrimage, that so many able men, deep philosophers, astute lawyers, and clear-headed men-of-the-world should accept such an explanation of the facts of life. In the face of their concurrence my own poor little opinion would not dare to do more than lurk at the back of my soul, wore it not that I take courage when I reflect that the equally eminent lawyers and philosophers of Rome and Greece were all agreed that Jupiter had numerous wives, and was fond of a glass of good wine.
"Mind, my dear Bertie, I do not wish to run down your view, or that of any other man. We who claim toleration should be the first to extend it to others. I am only indicating my own position, as I have often done before. And I know your reply so well. Can't I hear your grave voice saying, 'Have faith'? Your conscience allows you to. Well, mine won't allow me; I see so clearly that faith is not a virtue, but a vice. It is a goat which has been herded with the sheep. If a man deliberately shut his eyes and refused to use them, you would be as quick as anyone in seeing that it was immoral and a treason to Nature. And yet you would counsel a man to shut that far more precious gift, the reason, and to refuse to use it in the most intimate question of life.
"'The reason cannot help in such a matter,' you reply. I answer that to say so is to give up a battle before it is fought. My reason shall help me, and when it can help no longer I shall do without help."
Is not this clear and forcible language? And can one conceive a Christian even inventing such talk for one of his characters? When a real Christian writes a book into which a sceptic is introduced it is generally for the purpose of fathering upon him some nonsense which sceptics never utter in real life. And usually, in the end, the flabby Freethinker of the Christian novel is "converted" by an argument or by a catastrophe — generally by a catastrophe, since a good miraculous, hair-breadth escape avoids the necessity of logic. We venture, however, to say that it would be impossible for any real Christian to put such pungent, convincing arguments as Conan Doyle here puts through the medium of Dr. Stark Munro. Therefore it is we ask, Is Conan Doyle also of the elect?
Frederick Ryan.
