neralizations
which have been massed by non-Christian anthropologists and sociologists
are often gleaned and culled under the strongest subserviency to some
favorite hypothesis, and that on the most superficial observation and
from the most unreliable authorities. De Quatrefages, an anthropologist
of profound learning, and certainly with no predilections for Christian
theism, in speaking of the alleged evidences given by Sir John Lubbock
and Saint-Hilaire to show that many races of men have been found
destitute of any conception of Deity, says: "When the writers against
whom I am now arguing have to choose between two evidences, the one
attesting, and the other denying, the existence of religious belief in a
population, it is always the latter which they seem to think should be
accepted. More often than not, they do not even mention the contrary
evidences, however definite, however authentic they may be. Now, it is
evidently much _easier not to see_ than to _discover_ that which may be
in so many ways rendered inappreciable to our eyes. When a traveller
states that he has proved the existence of religious sentiments in a
population which by others has been declared destitute of them, when he
gives precise details upon such a delicate question, he has
unquestionably at least probability in his favor. I see nothing to
authorize this rejection of _positive evidence_ and unconditional
acceptance of _negative evidence_. This, however, is too often the case.
I might justify this imputation by taking one by one almost all the
examples of so-called atheist populations pointed out by different
authors."[193] De Quatrefages then proceeds to show how, with respect to
American tribes, Robertson is quoted while D'Orbigny is passed in
silence, even though he has by the testimony of many authors disproved
the statements of Robertson; how Baegert's negative and sweeping
statements in regard to the California tribes are accepted, while the
very specific testimony of De Mofras in regard both to the fact and to
the nature of their worship is rejected. In relation to the Mincopies,
Mouat (negative) is adopted against Symes and Day. The Hottentots are
adjudged atheistic on the testimony of Le Vaillant, in spite of the
united witness of Kolben, Saar, Tachard, Boeving, and Campbell. The
Kaffirs are declared to be destitute of religion on the statements of
Burchel, while Livingstone and Cazalis have given clear accounts of the
religion of the d