Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Presented by
PRINCETON,
N.J.
&
5-V(7.n\eU (7ib\DoV
BL 200
.A32 1888
''l8?6:i9Sr'^
Ellingwood,
Scientific theism
SCIENTIFIC THEISM
SCIENCE.
E
se
'1
mondo
laggiii
ponesse mente
DANTE:
And if On
fix its
mind
laid
by Nature,
THEISM.
La
gloria di Colui che tutto
muove
risi)]ende altrove.
meno
DANTE:
The
ParaDISO,
I.
1-8.
glory of Him who moveth everything Doth penetrate the universe, and shine Iji one part more and in another less.
Longfellow's Translation.
NOV 7
SCIENTIFIC THEISM
BY
Ph.D.
THIRD EDITION.
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN,
AND COMPANY
1888
Copyright, 1885,
University Press:
Cfte
allotoeD
iMemorp
bjit!j
E\]ou
IHore tban
^nti
2rf)S
eartfj's
tfje
golU
tJje
golO of
oD
nob
jog for
tfje
fji's
Hags
toon
un^reUctr,
on
t!)jj
grabe.
I DESIRE to express
public, both at
my
acknowledgments
to the
home and
which
it
and
by
a third edition had not been so sudden and unexpected, I should have added
an appendix, contain-
such
as those of Dr. J. F.
" of
Unitarian Keview
P. Torrey, in the "
March, 1886
Professor H. A.
of
Andover Eeview
"
May, 1886
"New
"La
M. Ludovic
La Phi-
1888).
But perhaps
treatise,
it is
better as
it is.
A larger
and
fuller
if
viii
PREFACE,
my own
mind,
that of a constructive
by the
science.
which
is
lies latent in
which
strikingly illustrated
work-
ing of Darwinism in
modern
That nothing
modern phenomenism,
my
strongest con-
a conviction
of
of so
many
my
critics to
were trying to
criticise.
For instance.
April
9,
main purport
of this
book
to be
so
which we
all
know
No
to a like
"A
me
the
much
as
though some
having
one
or heard of geometry,
were to
is
say,
on being asked
'The book
a systematic guide
"
PREFACE.
to
j^
drawing; the author uses a peculiar language, in order to give dark, incomprehensible directions, which
in the
can
end teach nothing more than what every one effect by a fair natural accuracy of
eye, etc'
Until a
new and
present one
it is
may
more
for
what
really worth.
F.
K A.
Cambridge, March
1,
1888.
PREFACE,
occasion of this
is
book,
whose
size,
trust,
no necessary
measure
of its usefulness,
was
the Concord
Summer
symposium" on the question " Is Pantheism the Legitimate Outcome of Modern Science?" The other lecturers on this subject were Mr. John
1885, in a "
Fiske, Prof. William T. Harris, Eev. Dr.
Andrew
P.
Montgomery.
the lectures
lecture,
of the last
two gentle-
men
the
is
being read by
The
contents of
first
my own
what
here printed.
The
real
was two
articles published in
lievievj,
while
it
was
and joint
Paissell
editorial
management
Charles
''
James
Lowell and
Eliot
Norton,
one
in the
July number on
The Philosophy
of Space
xii
PRE FA CE.
and Time," and the other in the October number on " The Conditioned and the Unconditioned."
Some
much
which
have the
now
discontinued
;
Examiner
in Boston,
March, 1866
of
and in
his Principles of
Biology, published
for October, 1868,
the
Biology."
To both
these
articles
Mr. Spencer
in-
made
replies,
which to
my mind
were eminently
adequate and
Prof. E. L.
unsuccessful,
Youmans,
in 1870.
make
more
that those
fully.
investigate
the subject
The theory
of
Phenomenism
of
versus
the
theory
Noumenism
and the
Mechanical theory
of Realistic
these
are
of the
religious
Pantheism.
The
PREFACE.
stitutes
xiii
and I must
express
my
belief
(not, I
trust,
without becoming
belief unreservedly
my own
man-
kind) that
since
it
it
method
In the
for the
now
"
above men-
by the
influence of
(I
modern
science
upon modern
only),
philosophy"
but did
it
To show what
book.
and
to
what
it
belief, is
my
of
For a quarter
conviction
century
it
has been
all
my
growing
that the
solution
the
correlative
of the
Per''
ceptive Understanding.
Philosophy of
my
article
on
The
(as
Space
and
Time,"
published
already stated) in the North American Review for July, 1864, occurs the following passage, which not
Now
among the
limits of ex-
tension
xiv
PRE FA CE.
follows that extension alone, and
is
not
its
modifications,
immediately cognized by
sense.
Whether these
is
relations can in
any way be
suffice
it
to say that,
we
really
know the
objective relations
of
of things, there
pure and
The novelty
method,
of this
acceptance, on
scientific
the warrant of
we
relations of things,"
and
quences of this
philosophy
fact,
steadily
From
1864
to
the
true,
must
This
it
took
five
out.
It is a
mere resume
many
years
and
my
work.
word
hope
to say
on
PREFACE.
philosophy,
if
XV
;
this
word
is
kindly welcomed
but
the time
is
growing
short.
Hegel argues
would seem
must
start
own
two
cases.
He
position
or
immediate standpoint,"
this
immediate standpoint
manner philosophy
or
" self-returnins:
the
{ein
form
of
a closed
by
of
"
The only
end, act,
and aim
its
philosophy
notion,
is
to
attain to the
to its
notion of
own
self-
and thus
1
own
that,
self-return
and
satisfaction."
may
is
true philosophy, notwithstanding Hegel's other canon that " every true philosophy
Idealism."
For the
method
1
2
(
"Jede
wahrhafte
Philosophie
ist
deswegen
Idealism us."
xvi
as a
PREFACE.
mere
postulate,
as
my own
scientific
initial
position
is
on the warrant
the
method,
lative
"
at the
end
in
final
result
'
the
'
Eternal
Creative Act:
,
The absolute full-filling of Thought-in-itself therefore, or the embodiment of the Ideal in the Eeal, is
Though t-in-Being
tem
Universe."
In thus
" attaining to
the notion of
its
own
notion,"
my
philosophy
may
be justly said to
But
method
of the
the
is
apparent
postulate
of
the
scientific
tion," at all.
On
method are formulated objective perceptions they are made on the authority of the perceptive understanding ( 50), which is every whit
scientific
;
is
itself
presupposed
"
by the
and
latter,
tion than
itself,
at last, as the
supreme organon
it-
of Verification,
self to its
summons
Here
own
between
scientific
"Hegel subindeed
limely
disregards
the
distinction
between Finite
latter
object.
it
Thought and
creates,
Infinite
Thought: the
its
And,
follows
since
human
philosophy
is
only
finite,
PREFACE.
that no true philosophy
finite
is
Xvii
call
points
here, that
the
may
not
any
of
my
readers,
when they
of
down my book
to read
it
in
disgust.
them
through
to
there
may
all,
in results
which
my
critics
"
May
you be
fair
to under-
And,
in
that
there
are
lost
innumerable minds
faith
which have
in
my
may
"May
my
it
little
F. E. A.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, September 15, 1885.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
PART
I.
....
...
Presupposed
59
2.
3.
Scientific
Method
its
60
The
Scientific
Method
rests
on
Realism
4.
5.
62
64
Common
65
.
Sense"
6.
Scientific
Scientific
67 70
7.
8.
71
XX
CONTENTS,
CHAPTER
II.
74
....
76
11.
Its
Method
the "
Immanent Method,"
or Analysis
of Subjective Representation
12.
11 79
Criticisms of
Phenomenism
:
13. 14.
Pirst Objection
79
Reply
of
Phenomenism: Science
Knowledge
of
Phenomena Alone
15.
16.
79
...
80
Phenomenism
Science
is
82
itself
17. 18.
84 84
85
Noumenon-Universe
Noumenon-Representation
19. 20.
It gives a
It gives
mere Hypostasis
of Thought-Pmictions
86
21.
87
CHAPTER
III.
Kant's
Two
Oppositions
89
89
23.
24. 25.
Noumenon "
90
93
Greek Objectivism
CONTENTS.
XXI
PAGE
97
.
26.
27.
99
101
28.
The
29.
30.
True Meanuig
Noumenon/*
102
31.
32.
The Noumenon no
105
But the
Intelligible
.... ....
108
3tt. 35.
109
Two
Oppositions
Table Table
Table
I.
Kant's
113 114
115
II.
Phenomenism
III.
Noumenism
PART
n.
36.
of the Scientific
Method
.
119
37.
of the Universe
.
120 121
38. 39.
123
40.
125
xxii
CONTENTS.
PAGE
....
125
Whatislutelligibility?
Nothing
is
Intelligible
but Relations
its
44.
The
Thing-in-itself,
and
Principle of Individuation
130
46.
Infinite
Intelligibility
System of Nature
132
?
47.
What
is
Intelligence
133 133
.
.
48.
How
to
Answer
this
Question
the Faculty of Relations
The Understanding
is
134
135
138
143
of Relational Systems
144
all
54.
Identity of Intelligence in
147 150
55..
The Universe
Infinitely Intelligent
56.
The Universe an
155
CHAPTER
V.
57.
Scientific
is
157
157
58.
59.
as
an
158
60. 61,
....
160
Man
creates
Machines
the
ganisms
161
CONTENTS.
62. The Organism
xxiii
Finite and
Come
Infinite
PAGE 163
165
63.
64.
The Fact
of Evolution to Consciousness in
God God
Man "
166
168
65.
66. 67.
Idealistic Evolution
169
Soliloquy of the
''
....
Verified
171
68. 69.
Inconsistent Idealism
177
Science
Rejects
Idealism,
and
is
itself
Realism
178
:
70. 71.
Realistic Evolution
Mechanical or Organic
Partial, the
180
Organic Theory
181
and
tlieir
Divergence
....
181 182
1S5
73.
74.
75.
1S6
76.
187
itself
77.
by Denying
.
189 19q
79.
80.
The Organic Theory finds the One in the Many The Mechanical Theory only Exists by Begging
.
193
Teleology
I94
Herbert Spencer
81.
Illustration in
I94
196
82.
Illustration in Ernst
Haeckel
83.
Inevitable Decadence of the Mechanical Tlieory, and Inevitable Rise of the Organic Theory
....
199
xxiv
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
VI.
The
His
His
God
Will
202 203
.
.
Wisdom and
Infinite
Infinite Beatitude
and
Infinite
Love
204
205
His
Infinite
The Problem
207
208
The
Is
it
Scientific
Idea of God
?
209
91.
Pantheism
210
211
of
92.
Personality of
God
93.
God
213
94. "Head "and "Heart "in Religion 95. The Lament of Ralph Waldo Emerson
214
215
96.
Scientific
Theism
216
GENERAL SYNOPSIS
ARGUMENT FOR
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
I.
The roundation
Scientific
of Scientific Theism
is
the Philosophized
Method.
II.
The
Ground-Principle
is
of
the
Philosophized
of
the
Scientific
Method
per
se.
the Infinite
Intelligibility
Universe
1.
What
Ans.
is Intelligibility ?
Intelligibility is the
Possession of an
Imma-
What
is
Intelligence ?
is
Ans. Intelligence
(1)
(2)
of
Immanent
Relational
(3)
Identical
logical.
in
all
Forms, and in
all
Teleo-
xxvi
III.
SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENT,
The
Infinite
Intelligibility
of the
Universe proves
its
an Infinite
Intelli-
Infinite Intelligibility
and
it
Infinite Intelis
an
Infinite
must be an Abso-
System of Nature
therefore
all.
be no System at
Not
would be an Imper-
fect
4.
System.
is
the
only
VI. The
Infinitely IntelHgible
or
Self-Fulfilment
of
Creative
Created
se.
Being
the
Universe per
VII. The
Infinite
se
per
proves that
is
Infinite
Wisdom and
Love
Infinite
Infinite
Will
Infinite Beatitude,
and
Infinite
Infinite
Wisdom,
SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENT.
Goodness, and Power
the Living
xxvii
Person
Infinite
Spiritual
Things Proceed.
VIII.
Metl",od creates
at
INTRODUCTION.'
In the Preface to the Second Edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant has this remarkable passage "It has hitherto been assumed that our cognition must conform to the objects but all attempts to ascertain anything about these a priori, by means of conceptions, and thus to extend the range of our knowledge, have been rendered abortive by this assumption. Let us, then, make the experiment whether
:
not be more successful in metaphysics, if we assume that the objects must conform to our cognition. We here propose to do just what Copernicus
we may
.
.
did in attempting to explain the celestial movements. When he found that he could make no progress by
assuming that
all
experiment of assuming that the spectator revolved, while the stars remained at rest. We may make the same experiment with regard to the intuition of objects. If the intuition must conform to the nature of the
1
it
Mind
where Theory of
Human
I^owledge."
1
2
objects, I
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
do not see how we can know anything of them a priori. If, on the other hand, the object conforms to the nature of our faculty of intuition, I can then easily conceive the possibility of such an a priori
knowledge.
.
revolution in the procedure of metaphysics, after the example of the geometricians and natural philosophers, constitutes the
Speculative Keason."
Lange, in his History of Ifaterialism (II. 156), thus alludes to the foregoing passage, and correctly states the conclusions logically deducible from it "Kant himself was very far from comparing him:
self
that
with Kepler; but he made another comparison He comis more significant and appropriate.
pared his achievement with that of Copernicus. But this achievement consisted in this, that he reversed the previous standpoint of metaphysics. Copernicus dared, 'by a paradoxical but yet true method,' to
seek the observed motions, not in the heavenly bodies, but in their observers. Not less 'paradoxical' must
lightly
appear to the sluggish mind of man, when Kant and certainly over^turns our collective experience, with all the historical and exact sciences,'^ by the simple
it
assumption that our notions do not regulate themselves according to things, but things according to our notions. It follows immediately from this that the objects of experience altogether are only our objects; that the whole objective world is, in a word, not absolute objectivity,
but only objectivity for man and any simibehind the phenomenal
veiled in impenetrable darkness."
1
The
italics
are ours.
INTRODUCTION.
Now when the great Kant, whose towering and consummate genius there is no one to dispute, founded the Critical Philosophy on this cardinal doctrine that
" things conform to cognition, not cognition to things," and when he claimed thereby to have created a mighty
new
new
philosophical method
No.
ized,
On the contrary, he merely completed, organand formulated the veritable revolution which
was
tury
which was by Eoscellinus the Nominalist, condemned in his person by the Kealist Council of Soissons, revived in the fourteenth century by William of Occam, and finally made triumphant in philosophy
towards the end of the fifteenth century, not so much by the inherent strength of Nominalism as by the weakness of its expiring rival, Scholastic Kealism.
The essence
universals,
Nominalism was the doctrine that or terms denoting genera and species,
of
mind, but are either mere empty names (Extreme Nominalism) or names denoting mere subjective concepts (Moderate Nominalism or Conceptualism). Nominalism distinctly anticipated the Critical Philosophy in referring the source of
tions (and thereby of all
all
general concep-
human knowledge),
not to
the object alone or to the object and subject together, but to the subject alone it distinctly anticipated the
;
classifi-
and
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
genera and species is the denial of all objective realof ity to the supposed resemblances and differences
things themselves
;
the denial of
all
knowledge of the
relations of objects is the denial of all knowledge of the objects related; and this denial is tantamount
to the assertion that things-in-themselves are utterly
unknown.
Wrapped up
nalism,
in the
essential
doctrine of
Komi-
therefore,
was the
doctrine that
;
things-in-
themselves are utterly unknown that the knowledge of their supposed resemblances and differences is dethat "things rived only from the supposing mind
;
conform to cognition, not cognition to things;'^ in short, that the only knowledge possible to man is the
knowledge of the a priori constitution of his own mind, and the relations which it imposes upon things (if they exist), totally irrespective of what things
really are.
than that the Critical Philosophy did but logically develop the prime tenet of Nominalism, formulate it successfully, and expand
Nothing can be
plainer, then,
it
This, a self-consistent philosophical system. The Kant. of merit true the and this alone, was
to
^'
made
to trans-
fundamental standpoint from the world of things to the world of thought, and in consequence of which modern philosophy in both its great schools has inherited an irresistible tendency towards Idealism, had been substantially effected and definitely
fer
established
some four hundred years before. Kant did but bring to flower and fruitage the seed sown by Roscellinus,
Nominalism.
and his
Critical
Philosophy
was
INTRODUCTION.
By
into a great
upon subsequent speculation a constantly increasing In truth, all modern philosophy, by tacit agreement, rests upon the Nominalistic theory of uniHence alone can be explained the fact, so versals. patent and so striking, yet so little understood or even inquired into, that both the great schools of modern philosophy, the Transcendental and the Assopower.
ciational, equally exhibit in its full force the
mere subjective
and
know
itself as
a nou-
menon. The historical development of the Critical Philosophy into the subjective idealism of Eichte, the objective idealism of Schelling, and the absolute idealism of Hegel, only shows how impossible it is for that philosophy to overstep the magic circle of Egoism with which Nominalism logically environed itself. No less striking is the inability of the English school to escape from the idealistic tendencies inherent in
its
Hume,
Hartley, the
and
ism as steadily as Kant and his successors. It is, in fact, logically impossible to draw any but idealistic conclusions from the premises of Nominalism and those, too, idealistic conclusions which cannot stop
in
both
its
great branches
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Dr. Krauth, in his admirable
scarcely be disputed.
of Human Knowledge of this general grounds the sums up thus (p. 122), and admitted tendency, while yet not perceiving that in the last analysis they are all reducible to the
edition of Berkeley's Pidncix^les
almost universal acceptance of the Nominalistic view of genera and species, with its implied negation of
the objectivity of relations
:
"It [Idealism] rests on generally recognized principles in regard to consciousness. Its definition of
:
consciousness
is
the
mind's recognition of
lute
own
conditions.
It main-
and that nothing but these is, in In all these postulates the The great mass of thinkers agree with Idealism.
infallible,
is the common foundation developed philosophical thinking Idealism declares that, while con-
and
foundation of Idealism
of nearly all the of all schools.
sciousness
is
infallible,
our
interpretations
of
it,
on which we base
nearly
here.
all
inferences,
all
may
be incorrect; and
thinkers of
No
which
a mistake ever occurs is a basis of positive knowledge. Hence, says Idealism, only that which is directly in consciousness is positively known, and nothing
is
directly
in
consciousness
general
but
the
mind's
own
states.
Therefore
has
this
So composses-
pletely
taken
sion of the philosophical mind, that even antagonists of Idealism, who would cut it up by the roots
if
they
it
could
cut
this
up,
that
could be
done."
Krauth's.)
INTRODUCTION.
The
no
the strength of Nominalism
no more, and special relations of things, conceived by the mind and expressed by
Krauthj
less.
mind
;
alone, nothing
is
knowledge of things Nominalism, thereis knowledge of their relations. fore, is the original source of the definition of knowledge adopted by Idealism, as shown above that is, the contents of consciousness alone. Inasmuch, more-
known
of things themselves
for
common consciousness
is itself
Beginning
with ISTominalism, therefore. Idealism must end in Solipsism, on penalty of stultifying itself by arbitrary self-contradiction. This was the path marked out for
the Critical Philosophy by inexorable logic, and Fichte was more Kantian than Kant himself when he resolutely pursued it. Solipsism is the very reductio ad absurdum of Idealism, yet it is the rigorously logical consequence of its own definition of knowledge, which
again
is
On
this
point,
pertinent
Krauth
will be extremely
speculative strength,
it
is
not without
for its
its
w^eakness, even at
history
shows that it is ra.rely willing to stand unreservedly by the results of its own principle as regards consciousness. If it accept only the direct and infallible knowledge supplied in consciousness, it has no common ground left but this that there is the one train
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
of ideas, which passes in the consciousness of a parA consistent Idealist can claim to ticular individual.
this
He
cannot
any other
as
And
many
we
do not know that there is an external world, but go further, and declare that we know that there is not an external world, they must for consistency's sake hold that an Idealist knows that there is nothing, thing or
person, beside himself.
Solipsism, or absolute Egoism,
is
the logic
But
if
any degree whatever, be allowed, not only would the natural logic and natural inference of most men sweep away Idealism, but its own principle of knowledge is subverted by the terms of the suppoIdealism stands or falls by the principle that sition.
no inference is knowledge. We may reach inferences by knowledge, but we can never reach knowledge by
inference"
(p.
123).
Against both schools of modern philosophy, therefore, committed as thej^ both are to the definition of knowledge drawn from Nominalism and ending in
Solipsism,
the charge of
logical
inconsistency and
self-contradiction
may
they hesitate to follow up the path to cloudland which definition. But any philosophy
which hesitates to be
by which Nominalism was made to supplant Scholastic Realism, and philosophy to transfer its fundamental
INTRODUCTION.
human knowledge
''
renders
it
valueless as to
cl
own mind
and
priori
in.
a grand hallucination. Like the French Eevolution, the Nominalistic revolution can live only by the guillotine, and decapitates every perception which
solipsist,
pretends to
shut up in the prison of his own consciousness, the slightest information as to the great outside world. Defining knowledge as the mere contents of
consciousness, it relegates to non-entity, as pseudoknowledge, whatever claims to be more than that. Under its sway, philosophy is blind to the race, and
What wonder that, in on their right to reduce theory to practice, philosophy is so often found pandering to the moral lawlessness of an Individualism that sets mere personal opinion above the supreme In human soethical sanctities of the universe ? for ciety, individual autonomy is universal antinomy with Yet, the law that binds only one binds none. Nominalism for its root. Idealism for its flower, and
beholds the individual alone. the hands of those
who
insist
Solipsism for
its fruit,
philosophy,
teaching in both its great schools that the individual mind knows nothing except the states of its own consciousness,, discover
shall
consciousnesses ?
discovery
it is
hopelessly incompetent.
philosophical
become simply
intolerable.
10
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
principle of cognition
Fortunately for the future of society, however, the embodied in the Nominalistic definition of knowledge has never obtained general
assent outside of the circle of purely speculative The protest of " common sense " against it was even taken up by the Scotch school in the name
thought.
of philosophy itself
paralyzes
school,
tongue.
Without
in-
any
conscious protest,
and
to the phi-
losophy which
it
confounds
physical science has immovably planted itself on a new definition of knowledge, and fortified it impreg-
nably against
all
it
establishes, universal science, carrying up the physical and the mental into the higher unity of the cosmical, is even now beginning to build
cognition which
human
1.
race.
Modern Philosophy defines knowledge as the recognition by the Ego of its own conscious states. 2. Modern Science defines knowledge as twofold,
its
its
cognition of the
Cosmos
which
sum
of all
human
Cosmos which
have been substantiated by verification and certified by the unanimous consensus of the competent. This latter definition may never have been formulated before, but
it
is
tacitly
assumed
in all investiga-
INTRODUCTION.
tially erroneous.
11
its
truths
upon all sane minds. The principle of cognition on which it proceeds is utterly antagonistic to the ISTominalism which denies all objectivity to genera and it is drawn from Realism alone, not the species Scholastic Eealism of the Middle Ages, but the Scientihc Realism or Relationism which will be explained below. Nominalism teaches that things conform to Scientific Realism cognition, not cognition to things
:
teaches that cognition conforms to things, not things It is futile to seek a reconciliation of to cognition.
these positions
insoluble.
''
;
the contradiction
is
absolute
and
as
Modern
which
;
philosoj^hy counts
nothing
known
"
is
sciousness
modern
which only an insignificant within the narrow comprised to-day be can fraction
vast mass of truths, of
limits of a single consciousness,
mind Under the influence of the all-prevailing Nominalism of the present day, philosophy has, and must have, its beginning-point in the individual Ego
of man.
;
under the influence of its own unsuspected Realism, science begins with a Cosmos of which the individual Ego is merely a part. The one is exclusively and
narrowly subjective, just so far as it is logically faithful to its own clearly proclaimed principle of cognition the other is objective, in a sense so broad as to include the subjective within itself. In truth, so far was the old battle of Nominalism and Realism from
;
being fought out by the end of the fifteenth century, that it is to-day the deep, underlying problem of
12
SCIENTIFIC THEISM,
life of
it
problems, on the right solution of which depends the philosophy itself in the ages to come. But let
not be forgotten that the old Eealism of Scholasticism is by no means the new Realism of Science the former perished as rightfully before Nominalism as
;
'
Nominalism itself will perish before the latter. That the scientific point of view is a thoroughly objective one, and that the cosmical facts discovered by science can by no means be made to vanish in the
universal solvent of Nominalistic subjectivism, easily
appears.
One
or
two
pp.
A mathematician certainly does treat of symbols, but only as the instruments whereby to facilitate his reasoning concerning quantities and as the axioms
"
;
verified in
validity or utility,
it
follows
Signs, thoughts,
and ex-
may
is
other series."
Prof. Tyndall, in his Light and Electricity (pp. 60, thus illustrates the unhesitating and uncondi-
61),
presents
its
truths, as facts
:
of a veritably existent
justification of a theory consists in its exclucompetence to account for phenomena. On such a basis the Wave Theory, or the Undulatory Theory
The
sive
INTRODUCTION.
of Light,
13
now
makes
stance
it
its
is
It fills space
surrounds the atoms of bodies it extends, without solution of continuity, through the humors of the
of vibration.
eye.
The molecules of luminous bodies are in a state The vibrations are taken up by the
These ether, and transmitted through it in waves. waves impinging on the retina excite the sensation."
same point
Prof. Cooke, in his Neiv Chemistry^ illustrates the still more strikingly and emphatically,
:
with reference to the atomic theory "The new chemistry assumes as its fundamental postulate that the magnitudes we call molecules are but this is the only postulate. Grant the realities
;
postulate,
all
it,
and the 'New Chemistry' can have no meaning for you, and it is not worth your while to pursue the subject further. If, therefore, we would become imbued with the spirit
as a necessary deduction.
Deny
of the
new philosophy
of chemistry,
;
we must
begin
by believing
in molecules
arid,
if
I have succeeded
in setting forth in a clear light the fundamental truth that the molecules of chemistry are definite masses of
our time has been well spent." Kem ember ing that the weight of the hydrogen-
atom
is
taken as
the,
on the figures of Sir William Thomson, this atom weighs approximately, in decimals of a gramme,
0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,109,312,
tillionths of a
or
109,312 oc-
14
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
quantity under any terms expressive of human conTo consciousness it is equivalent to absosciousness. but the " New Chemistry " demands belief lute zero
;
an actual quantity in Nature, an objectively existent reality in a Cosmos not resolvable into consciousness by any Nominalistic legerdemain. It would be superfluous to cite further passages in order to illustrate the thoroughly objective spirit,
in
it
as
method, and results of modern science, as contrasted with those of modern philosophy. All scientific investigations are founded on a theory diametrically namely, that things can opposed to that of Kant be known, though incompletely known, as they are in themselves, and that cognition must conform itself to
:
it.
This
is
The Nomi-
nalism that inculcates the contrary doctrine is an excrescence upon modern philosophy, a cancerous
Science has achieved all its life. marvellous triumphs by practically denying the fundamental principle laid down by Kant, and by
practically proceeding
it
upon
its
exact opposite
and
is
by
its
incontrovertible results.
The
time has come for philosophy to reverse the Koscellino-Kantian revolution, and give to science a theory of knowledge which shall render the scientific method,
not practically successful (for that
theoretically impregnable
it
already
is),
but
The present
article is the
glance
which philosophy
has
now
to solve.
INTRODUCTION,
II.
15
pre-Socratic philosophy of Greece was unqualiKealism, of a naive and primitive type. The earlier Ionic philosophers, Thales, Anaximander, and
fied
The
chaotic matter
(ro
airupov),
its
air,
but
they never
dreamed of doubting
objective
existence.
The
Pythagoreans sought the causal unity of the universe in its most general relations, as number, proportion, harmony, order, law, which they conceived as at once
the abstract and concrete directive force of nature
their cosmology their
was no
less
predecessors.
The
Elea,
Eleatics,
menides,
illimitable
Zeno of
Melissus,
;
principle of objective
Monism
their
kol
Trai/
was
every positive attribute save that of thought, while the manifold appearances under which it presents itself
to man were only mere seeming and delusion. But there was no element of subjectivism in their cosmology ; they attributed to the Cosmos permanence
its
objective
principle.
Heraclitus
fire,
oppobut his cosmology was none the less objective because he discovered in it only change without permanence, multiplicity without
(TrdvTa x^pet), in
unity.
Eleatic
less
Empedocles sought to mediate between the and Heraclitean views by positing four changeelements, air, earth, fire, and water, with two con-
15
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
stant forces, love and hate, and by conceding endless chano-e in the combinations and mutual relations of but he was these permanent factors of creation
;
wholly as realistic and objective as his predecessors. The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, offered a strictly mechanical ex^^lanation of Nature, attributing independent objective reality to the atoms which
alone remained changeless in the midst of eternal change. Anaxagoras in a certain sense summed up
all
of his theory of ojaoto^epctat or semina rerum, while he introduced a new principle in the assumption of an
immaterial vov^ as the moving and guiding cause of the universe and he, too, was unreservedly objective
;
in his cosmology.
With the Sophists, however, appeared the first symptoms of true subjectivism and they may be
;
regarded as the forerunners of Nominalism, though only in a feeble, crude, and undeveloped sense. The Sophists had no system, no school, no determinate
principle save that of scepticism as to objective truth
heats of logomachy and interminable word-quibbling. They had nothing in common save a certain unity of
spirit
and method a spirit of universal scepticism, and a method of adroit disputation by the employment of double meanings and ambiguous middle
Sceptics in philosophy, anarchists in ethics, their greatest historical merit is that of having polarized and called into activity the noble intellect of
terms.
Socrates.
ism at
all
They held no definite theory of subjectivbut the manner in which they evacuated
INTRODUCTION.
17
challenged and
arrested
the
attention of
and
It
was
fixed and determined the direction taken by this mighty genius. The Sophists practically, though not
theoretically, anticipated the Nominalists in conced-
edge
ulterior conse-
quences of this procedure in the dissolution of all intellectual verity and all moral obligation, rose, like
his time
a giant in his strength, to combat a great tendency of which threatened to cause the fatty degener-
life.
The astounding
struggle
is
monument
to the
power
re-
can show.
versed the Nominalistic revolution already far advanced, annihilated the Sophists as a practical power
in philosophy,
and determined the course of speculaother victory such as this was ever
Eealism.
No
won
in the annals of
human thought
histo-
much
less celebrated
dominant Nominalism of modern philosophy has given place to the dawning New Eealism of modern science a day
?
now
appears.
What
gave
18
as
SCIENTIFIC THEISM,
opposed to their purely subjective import and Even Schwegler, blind as he is to the enorvalue. mous importance of the struggle between ]^ominalism
and Kealism
he devotes
thought "
are his).
which in his History of Philoso2^hy than one page !), says of Socrates that " there begins with him the philosojohy of objective
(to
less
(p.
38,
Stirling's
translation
the
italics
explicitly declares in the Metafhysics (XII. 4) that " Socrates was engaged in form-
Aristotle
ing systems in regard to the ethical or moral virtues, and was the first to institute an investigation in
ment
universal.
it is
true, constitute
universals a thing involving a separate subsistence, nor did he regard the definitions as such the other
;
universal
objective
authority to
he
refuted the Sophistic construction of them as merely subjective he repudiated the Sophistic notion that
;
nothing
good or bad by nature (<j!)uorci), but only by statute (vo>a)), and vindicated the objectivity of general terms in some sense, without reaching that
is
luminous
doctrine
of
the
it
objectivity
of
relations
clearly.
ceived of universals as objective realities, without arriving at any definite conclusions as to the mode of
this reality, sufficiently appears
course of Plato and Aristotle, both of whom inherited from Socrates the undefined objectivity of universals,
and each of
whom
proceeded to define
it
in his
own
INTRODUCTION.
way.
nalism
feat
19
The point
let loose
tively valid
by means of the definition of universals as objecand real, and stamped the thought of fifteen hundred years with the impress of his own
Eealism.
The impending Nominalistic revolution having been the great questhus definitely arrested by Socrates, by him to bequeathed been tion of universals having
succeeding generations for a full and final solution, the existence of an objective outer world was a com-
undisputed premise among his followers. In particular, the assumption of the objective reality
mon and
of genera and species, as necessarily involved in that of a cognizable outer world, and as constituting the
objective ground of all general terms, became a common point of departure to Plato and Aristotle. But,
while Plato erected on this assumption his theory of Ideas, Aristotle erected on it his opposing theory of
Essences or Forms
particularly
be more
made
Both
Aristotelian points of view were fundamentally and equally objective, and equally alien to the point
occupied by modern philosophy since the triumph of Nominalism over Realism, when the tides of thought began to set irresistibly in the direction of
subjectivism.
some extent the influence of the Sophists in their theory of universals. They discarded alike the Platonic theory of Ideas and the Aristotelian theory of Forms, and were apparently the first
The
Stoics betrayed to
This doctrine,
20
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
however, did not attain in their hands a full logical development into the theory of Nominalism in fact,
;
it
did not at
all
the construction of a positively objective cosmology and theology of their own; and, although with a
serious logical inconsistency, they maintained on the whole an objective point of view. The Epicureans, with their doctrine of the atoms
all
perceptions of matter,
may
be
considered quite free from the tendency to subjectivism, so far as the present discussion
is
concerned.
The
Sceptics
the
earlier
did not so and the later with their ^' Five Tropes " much deny the existence of an outer world as the trustworthiness of human knowledge of it, and advanced no definite doctrine respecting universals. They occupied mainly negative and critical ground, and exerted no great influence in that controversy. Their arguments mostly rest on the assumption of
Eealisra.
the
Neo-Pythagorean,
and the Neo-Platonic schools, the predominant tendency was pre-eminently objective, since the mystical
or theosophical contemplation of a Divine Transcendent Object by means of the '^ ecstatic intuition " is
Theoso-
pure passivity, and to absorb him completely in contemplation of the Object of worship.
much
force or headIts
way
after
it
INTRODUCTION.
Passing now to
tlie
21
it
Christian Era,
may
be said
that the Patristic period was devoted to the development of systematic or dogmatic theology, without
interference from pagan philosophy after the closing
of the School at Athens, in a.d. 529,
by edict of the emperor Justinian. Since dogmatic theology, by the very nature of its conceptions, is unqualifiedly objective, the Patristic and in main the Scholastic periods are chiefly noticeable here as having carried the principle of objectivity to so abnormal and oppressive a degree of development as to cause speculation to rebound to the opposite extreme. The creation of a great body of doctrine held by the Catholic Church to be the absolute and unmixed truth of God, and the terrible intolerance with which the Church stamped out all dissent from this fixed standard of belief, inevitably tended to excite a reaction against it, in proportion to the mental activity of the age. Moreover, the Church had planted itself in philosophy upon the
was equally no Church. There of the theology less than against the is no room for wonder, then, at the fact that the cause of Nominalism came to be identified with the cause of intellectual and religious freedom, and the triumph of the one with the triumph of the other. Consequently it is to the Scholastic period, and to the rise of the great controversy between Eealism and Nominalism the former representing Catholic orthodoxy and the that must be traced the beginlatter heterodoxy, ning of the general subjective movement of modern philosophy, although this movement did not gain full headway till after the downfall of Scholasticism, when victorious Nominalism had time to deEealism of Plato and Aristotle
;
and
it
22
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
all
velop unrestrained
it
involved.
Tennemann has significantly and truly said that this momentous controversy was " never definitely settled." The reason is that both sides were right, yet neither
wholly so; they did but bequeath to later times a problem they could not solve. Disguised as it is by new forms and new names, the immeasurably important issue between objectivism and subjectivism involved in that ancient controversy survives to-day.
Nominalism, by virtue of the truth it contained and the freedom it represented, conquered Realism in philosophy, and culminated in the splendid genius of Kant Eealism, by virtue of the truth it too contained, conquered Nominalism in science, created an army of experimental investigators of Nature, and culminated in the establishment of the scientific method, which, though as yet purely practical and empirical, demands with increasing emphasis from philosophy a theory of knowledge that shall justify Here is the explanation of the wide it in all eyes. divergence, the virtual divorce and even antagonism, which is so patent a fact to all who look beneath the surface of things, between science and philosophy. All the intellectual interests of mankind must suffer greatly, until the breach is effectually healed and the first step to the reconciliation so much to be desired must be a clear comprehension of the causes which have created the division. Hence the
;
necessity of
Scholasticism.
surveying
the
ancient
battle-field
of
The proximate
over the nature of universals seems to have been a passage at the commencement of Porphyry's Introduction
to Aristotle's treatise
on the
Categories,
known
at the
INTRODUCTION.
23
time only through the Latin translation of Boethius, in which these three problems were stated, but not elucidated, with respect to genera and species:
"1.
existence, or re-
naked mental conceptions. 2. Whether, assuming them to have substantive existence, they are bodies or incorporeals. 3. AVhether their substantive existence is in and along with the objects of sense, or apart and separable." Neglecting minor distinctions, refinements and subtilties, and without following the
side merely in
long and tedious course of the dispute, it will amply suffice for present purposes to state concisely the five leading positions maintained by different philosophers
of the Scholastic period, as follows 1, Extreme Kealism {Universalia ante rem) taught
:
that universals were substances or things, existing independently of and separable from particulars or individuals.
Ideas,
This was the essence of Plato's Theory of and Plato was the father of Extreme Eealism
Scotus Erigena,
who
first to
the
Schools,
Areopagita.
2.
Moderate Eealism
in
re)
also
taught that universals were substances, but only as dependent upon and inseparable from individuals, in
is,
This in each of the particulars ranged under it. the theory of Aristotle, who held that the To8e
was
or
individual thing was the First Essence, while universals were only Second Essences, real in a less complete sense
than Eirst Essences. He thus reversed the Platonic doctrine, which attributed the fullest reality to universals only, and a merely " participative " reality to
24
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Until Scotus Erigena resuscitated the individuals. Platonic theory, Aristotle's was the received doctrine and the warfare was simply between in the Schools
;
Extreme Nominalism
(Universalla
j^ost
retii)
taught that universals had no substantive or objective existence at all, but were merely empty names or words (nomi?ia, voces, flatus vocis). Though probably not the
absolute originator of this sententia vocum, as the doctrine came to be called, Eoscellinus, Canon of Compiegne,
was the first to give it currency and notoriety, and the Council of Soissons, under the influence of
the Eealist
Anselm of Canterbury, his chief oppohim in the year 1092 to recant the tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity, which he had The theory consistently and courageously avowed. of Extreme Nominalism was thus put under the
nent, forced
ecclesiastical ban.
4.
Moderate
Nominalism
or
Coxceptualism
{Universalla post rem) taught that universals have no substantive existence at all, but yet are more than
really,
mere names signifying nothing; and that they exist though only subjectively, as concepts in the mind, of which names are the vocal symbols. Abailard is claimed by some, but probably incorrectly, as the author of this modification of the Nominalistic view William of Occam, who died in 1347, seems to have
been the
it.
representative of
The Encyclopcedia Britan7iica (XVI. 284, 8th ed.) " The theory termed Conceptualism, or concepsays
:
tual Nominalism,
was really the one maintained by all succeeding Nominalists, and is the doctrine of ideas
generally believed in at the present day."
INTRODUCTION.
5.
25
Albertus
(died 1274),
all
Magnus (died 1280), Thomas Aquinas Duns Scotus (died 1308), and others, fused
:
exist in a three-fold
these views into one, and taught that universal manner Universalia ante rem, as
God
Universalia in
re,
as the
;
essence (quiddity) of things, according to Aristotle and Universalia post rem, as concepts in the sense of
Moderate Nominalism. This is to-day the orthodox philosophy of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the prevailingly exclusive Conceptualism of the Protestant world.
Thus both Extreme Eealism and Moderate Eealism maintained the objective reality of genera and species while both Extreme Nominalism and Moderate Nominalism maintained that genera and species possess no
;
objective reality at
all.
In contrast with
as a
all
now be stated, which, taken whole and with reference to the vitally important consequences it involves, is believed to be both novel
other and sixth view will
and
6.
true.
Eelationism or Scientific Eealism (of which may be adopted as an apt formula) teaches that universals, or genera and species, are, first,
universalia inter res
objective relations of resemblance
among
objectively
themselves
of the
alike
in
all
determined in the mind by the relations and, thirdly, names representative both
;
relations
to
both.
and the concepts, and applicable This is the view logically implied
classifications
scientific
of
natural
objects,
regarded
But,
success
in
as
objects
of
real
scientific
knowledge.
although
empirically employed
26
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
its justification
upon a broader
principle; namely, that of the OhjectiuiUj of Relations, as opposed to the principle of the Suhjectivlty of Relations,
which
is
of universals inculcated
distinctly
four forms
^.e.,
the a 2yriori
forms of thought, totally independent of "things-inthemselves/' and applicable to them only so far as they are objects of a possible "experience," which,
however, reveals nothing of their real nature. This doctrine that relations do not inhere at all in " thingsin-themselves," but are simply imposed
the
upon them by form of phenomena, is strictly deducible from the ISTominalistic doctrine that general terms, by which rela-
mind
and Kant's master-mind is nowhere more clearly apparent than in the subtilty and profundity with which he thus seized the prevalent but undeveloped
;
Nominalism of the modern period, and erected it into the most imposing philosophical system of the
world.
tions,
By
Kant reduced the outer world to utterly unknown Dinge-an-sich, and paved the way for his still
more thorough-going
disciple,
Fichte, to
deny their
very existence, and thereby to take a great stride in conducting Nominalism to its only logical terminus,
Solipsism.
The
principle
of
INTRODUCTION.
1.
27
terms.
2.
The
relations of things
are
absolutely insepa-
rable from the things themselves. 3. The relations of things must exist where the
whether
objectively in the
Cosmos or subjectively
4.
in the mind.
must
exist
objectively;
but
if
their
subjective,
the things
subjective.
5.
There
is
ing the
objectivity
and denying the objectivity of things in and with that of relations. For instance, a triangle consists of six elements, three sides and three angles. The sides are things;
of things,
relations of greater or less the angles are relations divergence between the sides. If the sides exist obbut jectively, the, angles must exist objectively also
;
the angles are merely subjective, so must the sides be also. To affirm that the sides are objective realities, even as incognizable things-in-themselves, while
if
yet the angles, as relations, have only a subjective existence, is the ne plus ultra of logical absurdity. Yet Kantianism, Nominalism, and all Nominalistic
philosophy
bility of
(if
driven irresistibly to that very conclusion. In short, it is because modern philosophy rests exclusively on the basis of Nominalism, of which the
only logical terminus
is
excluaffirm
we
28
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
unqualifiedly an irreconcilable antagonism between the two just so long as their respective bases remain
unchanged.
It
may
be neverthe-
carefully shuns the great error of Scholastic Eealism, i.e., the hypostatization of universals as substances,
it teaches that genera and species only as relations, and that things but exist objectively,
entities, or things
and
relations constitute
two
guishable in thought.
is
strikingly
illustrated
it
the
ease
with
signification
the
ancient
unfinished
controversy
between Eealism
and and
It
upholding the objectivity of universals, but wrong in making them inherent in individuals as individuals (in re) rather than in individuals as groups
(inter res).
Eelations do not
inhere in either of
all
in
It shows that Extreme Nominalism was right denying the objectivity of universals as sub-
stances or things
and right in affirming the existence of universals as names but wrong in denying their objectivity as relations and their subjectivity as concepts.
;
INTRODUCTION.
4. It
29
substances,
and
also
;
right
in
affirming
subjectivity as concepts
ing their objectivity as relations. Thus every element of truth is gathered up, and
is
of Eelationism.
siveness,
Its
and adequacy to account for all the facts, will become so evident to any one patient enough to
master it fully in all its bearings, as to warrant the indulgence of a hope that it may permanently solve the great problem declared by Tennemann to have
never been
'^
definitely settled."
III.
Scholasticism fell, the theory of Eelationism Each of the competing to no one. occurred had theories discerned the weakness of its rivals, yet could not discern its own, and was therefore unable
to
arrive at the real truth respecting universals. Consequently, as has just been pointed out, the truth was divided among them. Nominalism gradually won the ascendency among philosophers in the form of Conceptualism while Eelationism became, not indeed
;
When
a received theory, since as a theory it did not yet exist, but yet the unformulated and empirical principle of the actual practice of scientific observers, ex-
divorced
itself
from a true
objectivity,
30
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
dered itself to subjectivism in the form of Moderate Nominalism; while science, ceasing to philosophize, turned its back upon the barren metaphysics of the schools, because they could yield no objective knowledge, and learned the sad lesson of contempt for
philosophy
itself.
period of transition followed the downfall of Scholasticism, full of confusion and conflicting tendencies.
philosophies
known
cureanism, &c.
The
true origin
of
philosophy, and
therefore the true secret of the increasing repugnance of science for philosophy itself, lay in the triumph
of
relatively inferior
Eealism of
edge save of particulars as isolated and unrelated^ and in its claim of a strictly subjective genesis for universals as concepts or names alone. Philosophy in
this
genera,
species,
all phi-
common
all
on no stronger foundation he merely headed an unreasoning revolt against Nominalism, hardly knowing what he did, yet practically rendering an immense service by rallying the enterprising and curious spirits
INTRODUCTION.
31
" induction." He of the time about the standard of too joined in the wide-spread outcry against Aristotle and his followers, mistakenly believing that Aristotle
was really responsible for the Nominalism of the age which he vaguely felt to be the chief obstacle to The results of this open feud between sciscience.
ence and philosophy were disastrous to both in the end; for, while the latter tended steadily towards Idealism and Solipsism, the former as steadily tended towards Materialism. For the time being, however,
the revolt of science against philosophy was most
salutary.
While science adopted a purely empirical objective method, took Nature for granted, investigated things and their relations by observation and experiment on the hypothesis of their equal objectivity, and entered
on a career of dazzling conquest, without troubling itself to invent any philosophical justification for a
method
so
prolific
of
discoveries
as
to
silence
all
by the brilliancy of its achievecriticism ments, philosophy had already entered upon a path wdiich led indeed to the construction of numerous
or
cavil
The history
of philosophy has
been for three centuries only a succession of gaylycolored pictures, each more startlingly beautiful than the last, yet each doomed to disappear at the next turn of the kaleidoscope. While science can proudly point to a vast store of verified and established truths, which it is a liberal education to have learned and the merest lunacy to impugn, philosojjhy has achieved
nothing that
in method.
is
permanently established.
is
The cause
'62
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
the glory
of
created
science;
subjectivism,
albeit
And
redeem
until
it
itself
from this shame of utter barrenness rei)udiates subjectivism with Nominalism, its
of Scholasticism
is
cause.
The epoch
undisputed sway.
Now
been, as
Tennemann
well expresses
to
"draw
all
knowledge from conceptions.'^ So long as Eealism flourished, and universals, as entities, were held to
possess substantial objective
existence, the analysis
was held
to yield real
tive
correlates
New
Eealism or Eelationism.
destroyed the objectivity
dilemma thus arose either it must be attained otherwise than by the mere analysis of concepts as such. But how ? In this manner was developed a new and momentous problem, that of the Origin of Knowledge, which now displaced the old and still unsolved problem of the Nature of Universals not at all fortuitously, but logically and inevitably as a direct result of the triumph of Nominalism. Nominalism had answered the old question after its own manner by resolving universals into merely subjective notions and this answer, false as it was, was accepted as satisfactory.
objective
knowledge
is
unattainable, or
INTRODUCTION.
But the acceptance of
sequences.
it
33
involved some
awkward
con-
knowledge cannot be derived from concepts, whence can it be derived ? Or is there no such thing as objective knoAvledge ? Science met these questions by boldly adopting the
If objective
principle
de-
pending absolutely for its philosophical justification on the theory of Kelationism, but adopted by Bacon
method, in utter indifference to such justification. From that time forward, scientific men have quietly
relations,
and steadily
pursued the path of discovery in total disregard of the disputes of metaphysicians not, however, with-
out a serious loss to science itself, in the growth and spread of the false belief that science can legitimately
deal only with physical investigations,
scientific
sciences.'^
method has no
into
But philosophy met the same questions by dividing two hostile camps. The sufficiency of the ISTomianswer to the question of universals
nalistic
was
that
taken
of all
by both parties genera, species, relations kinds, were unanimously conceded to possess
Logically, this
;
is
the
objective knowledge
and in
shown by the almost entire unanimity modern philosophers in the opinion that thingsin-them selves, or noumena, are utterly incognoscible. But it is impossible to maintain this opinion in logical consistency, and on this point not a single logically
of
consistent philosopher can be pointed out
3
;
if
he can
"
34
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
be found, he will prove to be an inexorably rigorous Solipsist, not afraid to deny the existence of all minds save his own, no less than that of the material world.
would be refreshing to meet with a subjectivist possessed of the courage of his opinion but he would
It
;
be the terror of
perhaps a
The division that now arose and separated modern philosophy into two great contending parties did not concern the question whether knowledge originated in for both parties agreed the object or in the subject,
this
question,
it
but
itself,
originated in
That was the great new question started at the recognized dawn of modern philosophy by Descartes and Locke and both parties to the controversy, both the a jyriori and the a lyosterlori schools, were equally switched off upon the false track of Nominalism that conducts to Egoism or to nothings Descartes' theory of " innate ideas " encountered a
;
experience as
reflection
;
and
warfare that
and thus the two armies took position for the long is resultless still. There is not the
slightest occasion, for the purposes of this paper, to
argumentation and counter-argumentation by which it The point of view here taken is that both these famous schools have logically immured themselves in the dungeon of subjectivism, and
are utterly powerless to release themselves
;
that the
one
just as incompetent as the other to explain the " origin of knowledge " about which they have been
is
;
contending so long
and
that, like
INTRODUCTION.
35
suspended in Vulcan's cage to provoke the " inextinguishable laughter" of the Odyssean gods, they do but enact a farce at which philosophy hangs her head.
Travelling round the same circle of subjectivism in
opposite directions, these two schools are fated to
re-unite
is the only possible terminus of a subjectivism that, beginning with the definition of knowledge as only
the logic of
is
its
states, dares to
principle
No
Ego as sole starting-point will fail to end with the Ego as sole terminus, unless he stoops to unworthy tricks or
sequent thinker
begins with the
evasions; and that
is
who
The triumph of Nominalism did indeed force upon thought a new problem in the question of the " origin
of knowledge
;
is
The a
ergo
that is, with an original positing of the Ego The a posteriori an individual thinking being. school started with Locke's " sensation " that is, with an original positing of the Ego as an individual feeling being. That is essentially the only difference the difference between beginning with individual thought or individual feeling as the prior element
sum ;
as
of individual consciousness,
trivial difference indeed,
both
beginnings being
But this is a compared with the abysmal difference between both these egoistic schools, on the one hand, and modern science, on the other for here
equally and incontrovertibly egoistic.
;
36
the issue
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
namely, is a broad, deep, fundamental one whether the real "origin of knowledge " is in the Ego Knowledge itself, in or in the Non-Ego, or in both. the conception of both these Nominalistic schools, is confined to the series of changes that go on in consciousness and all their mutual discussions are mere child's-play, compared with the discussions that await philosophy the moment she comes abreast of the
;
time.
Science is to-day challenging emphatically the very foundation of both a j^riorl and a posteinori philosophies and the challenge is none the less menacing or deep-toned, because it has been hitherto uttered in deed rather than word. She denies, not by a theory
;
as yet, but
and species are devoid of objective reality, or that general terms are destitute of objective correlates;
she denies that Nominalism has rightly solved the
problem of universals, when that solution would in an instant, if conceded, sweep away all that she has won from Nature by the sweat of her brow. Her very existence is the abundant vindication of Relationism, knowledge as the stable and solid foundation of real
stands, of an objective universe. As the case now on philosophy has two great schools, equally founded
possibility of a reasoned subjectivism which denies the cosmos existent knowing, in any degree, an objectively on the immovably rests as it really is while science proves and cosmos, a such fact that she actually knoivs
;
which by verification the reality of that knowledge Science denies. emphatically and loudly philosophy must be all a huge illusion, if philosophy is right
philosophy
is
if
science
is
right.
INTRODUCTION.
One
or the other
;
37
must speedily effect a total change of and it is safe to predict that the change will not be made by science. Three answers are given, therefore, to the question as to the Origin of Knowledge two by Nominalism, with its two schools of modern philosophy, and one by Eelationism, interpreting the silent method of
base
;
science.
1.
They
The
two ultimate
ing
its
and
"
that
noumenal
causes,
i.e.,
of
" things-in-
themselves."
which
is
In other words, things (if they exist at least dubious) conform themselves to
knows only
its
own
subjective
arranged in a certain order according to a priori laws of knowledge which are only subjectively valid. This is Nominalistic Subjectivism of the a priori type.
2.
The a
;
knowledge
has only one ultimate origin, the experience of the senses that the intellect is indeed the source of
certain universal
edge,
'
38
solidated,
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
by the law
of the "association of ideas,"
"forms"
of experience;
that there is no such thing as " pure a priori cognition/' independent of experience; that experience
consists solely of sense-phenomena, that the intellect
itself
has been slowly evolved out of it, and that sense-phenomena give no knowledge of their merely hypothetical noumenal causes. In other words, thingsin-themselves
(if
by
this theory)
subject
knows only
its
own
subjective modifications,
arranged in a certain order according to a posteriori laws of knowledge, which are only subjectively valid. This is Nominalistic Subjectivism of the a posteriori
type.
Thus both
agree in planting themselves upon the foundation of Moderate Nominalism or Conceptualism they agree
;
intelligible
order,
They agree
that
things-in-thera selves
are
unknown and unknowable, and its own conscious states alone. unknown
or
knows
either
re-
By
both schools,
is is
ignored;
relation itself
hj both
duced to a merely subjective category, valid only as the subjective order imposed on subjective sensephenomena, and utterly meaningless as applied to intelligible objective realinoumena; and noumena are totally ties, as presented by the various sciences
incognoscible. But when the vitally pertinent question " Why should the series of sense-phenomena, is put
:
what
INTRODUCTION.
it is ?
39
Why
conspire to give a coherent appearance of objective knowledge, when no objective knowledge is possible ?" neither school has any reply to make. The only reply consistent with their common premises would be Fichte's reply, that the apparent objects of knowledge
are given by the subject to
itself,
according to some
This reply has at least the merit of consistency itself. with the ground-principles of subjectivism, and does not flinch from landing philosophy in Solipsism undisguised. But few subjectivists possess sufficient hardihood to make this consistent reply; they prefer to
"have their cake and eat it too." 3. The theory of Scientific Philosophy (by which is meant simply the philosophy that founds itself theoretically upon the practical basis of the scientific method) teaches that knowledge is a dynamic correlation of object and subject, and has two ultimate that these origins origins, the cosmos and the mind
;
understood,
is
and that these two sides are mutually dependent and equally necessary that the objective side of experience depends on the real existence of a known universe, and its subjective side on the real existence of a knowing mind that experience includes all mutual interaction of these, whether sensitive or cognitive, and is utterly inexplicable even as subjective sensation, unless its sensitive and cognitive elements are
side,
; ;
40
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
;
that this extended conception equally recognized the distinction of noumena destroys of experience
real
that
known and partly things are known in as far so just that, unknown; phenomenally both known are they relations, their
and noumenally, and that the possibility of experimentally verifying at any time their discovered relations is the practical proof of a known noumenal
cosmos, meeting every
demand
of scientific certitude
and furnishing the true criterion and definition of In other words, science proobjective knowledge. ceeds upon a principle diametrically opposite to that of Nominalism, already explained under the name of Eelationism. It assumes that cognition conforms
itself
to
things,
not
things
to
cognition,
that
being determines
being,
that
human
thought, not
the subject
and relations which these modifications reveal. Kant did but " assume " the counter-principle and if he
;
''
demonstrated "
exist-
by
its
ence of
as a
body
of objective knowledge.
of
These three answers to the question as to the origin knowledge show how vast is the divergence between
science.
Philosophy
has never yet entirely shaken off the blighting influence of Scholasticism, even while fancying itself
wholly emancipated from it for Nominalism, no less than the old Eealism, was the legitimate offspring of Scholasticism. It was only one of the two great
;
INTRODUCTION.
41
answers, both one-sided and both wrong, which SchoPhilasticism gave to the question of universals. losophy is still Scholastic to-day; it has never yet
modernized
itself in
any true
sense,
and
it
never will
do so until it sits modestly at the feet of science, imbues itself thoroughly with the spirit of the scien-
method, and applies the principle of Eelationisni to the reconstitution of the moral sciences and the total reorganization of human knowledge. This, though a vast revolution for x)hilosophy herself, will be simply giving in her adhesion to the revolution which science made long ago, and has rendered irretific
But it will also be x^utting herself at the head of that revolution, and conducting it to conquests in regions of the highest truth of which science herversible.
self
IV.
Aristotle taught, with truth, that the proper object
of science
is
lar or individual.
the universal rather than the particuAlthough it was his doctrine that
individuals are First Essences, while species are Second Essences, and genera Third Essences, real only in
a lower sense than the former, nevertheless it was also his doctrine that the universal inheres in each
individual substance and constitutes its conceptual or Kara rov Xoyov ovo-ta). The uniintelligible essence
(J]
versal
known together yet the universal, being the essence of the individual, was itself the only
therefore be
42
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
making the
(m
is
re)
{^inter 7'es),
is
that science
concerned with the general relations of things rather with general laws than with the things themselves
rather than
individual objects.
Modern
incontestable principle. Says Prof. Jevons " There is no such process as that of inferring from
particulars to particulars.
conditions under which such an inference appears to be made shows that the process is really a general one,
inferred of a particular case might be inferred of all similar cases. All reasoning is essentially general, and all science implies generalization.
and what
is
In the very birth-time of philosophy this was held to Kulla scientia est de individuis, sed de solis be so universalibus/ was the doctrine of Plato, delivered
:
by Porphyry.
And
Aristotle
to Sk KaO'
No
and cannot be
one who holds the doctrine that reasoning may be from particulars to particulars can be supposed to have the most rudimentary notion of what
known.'
No
constitutes reasoning
It
is,
and science."
;
even a particular knowledge consists in the seizure of the relations of things, and every name
in truth, impossible to study
all
of a relation
is
Prof.
Jevons correctly quotes both Plato and Aristotle as concurring in this fundamental principle, since both
INTROD U TION.
,
43
;
of
of objectivism
and
Prof. Jevons himself, as a scientific man, can occupy no other, although, as a thinker more or less infected
with the subjectivism of modern philosophy, he has not succeeded in occupying it always or with entire
consistency.
Now subjectivism reduces all science to the knowlwhich, as just edge of one individual, the Ego, shown, is no science at all. If its fundamental definition of knowledge means anything, or is faithfully
subjectivism teaches that the intelligent has no subject has no intelligence save of itself anything of existence the in believing warrant for
adhered
to,
save
itself
its
knows
own
nothing
but the
inexplicable
It reduces
order of
all
lated
One no
is
science
is
possible.
In a word, subjec-
no logical escape from this inference, from the subjectivist definition of knowledge. Subjectivism cannot concede the knowledge of any existence except that of the subject it cannot concede any knowledge of the subitself
There
drawn
directly
ject,
except that of
its
it
cannot concede any knowledge of these conscious states as a series, but only as single and unrelated
and
of
it
Hume.
For to generalize a
series of thoughts as
tJiought,
the gen-
on the
thoughts,
sensations,
or
44
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Apply the very same principle to the generalizing. knowledge of the subject itself which subjectivism refuse applies to the knowledge of the outer world,
is
refused to general
shown irresistibly that subjectivism does not permit "knowledge" even of the subject's
it is
and
;
own
eral
term
" Consciousness " is a gen" conscious states." " state " is a general term every such
;
term denotes a relation among certain related objects and if this relation must be separated from the related objects w^hen they are outside of the subject, why must it not be separated from the related objects when they are within? Subjectivism necessarily destroys it cannot itself by its own definition of knowledge exist an instant except by denying the very principle it escapes self-annihilation only on the it asserts
;
hard and humiliating condition that it shall perpetually contradict itself. The sword with which it slays
science pierces its
own
heart.
indifself-
Nothing
is
own innumerable
self-contradic-
more amusing
in
reasoned.
Berkeley's idealism (a direct product of the Nominalistic revolution) is usually praised to the skies as
ence of other
human minds
of
him
no
INTRODUCTION.
45
proof except sight, hearing, and touch of the material bodies by which these minds manifest themselves.
Berkeley's great paralogism on this point
is
pointed
400), as
own
editor, Dr.
Krauth
(p.
"Berkeley
conceding
it
is
realistic inference is
as
regards mind.
He
holds
to
too,
real
substantial spirits,
Hence,
his
monism
genus,
of species,
finite
to
is
is
only generic.
spirit alone
;
He
holds to a
monism
of
infinite
Spirit, the
spirits,
strength
successors
secured at
its
the expense of
consistency."
its
development and of
logical
is
always
meant consciousness as existing in an individual conscious being and proofs drawn from such a con;
and pheif
nomena
true,
of
their
own
consciousness.
Doctrines,
will
all
individuals
whose consciousness is formed on the same type, that is, by all human beings." Here is luminously presented the cardinal and
universal contradiction in all
of subjectivism
:
non-solipsistic
forms
The assumption that the Ego knows only the changes of its own consciousness and (2) the assumption that the Ego knows other Egos to
(1)
;
46
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
formed on the same type."
One
of
these assumptions necessarily destroys the other. There are countless similar self-contradictions scattered all through the writings of subjectivists, some amusing by their naivete, some ingenious in their
subtilty,
some amazing by
all sufficiently
ness, but
to those
self
who would fain see philosophy comport herwith the dignity of science rather than with the
of a circus-clown.
agility
One
further illustration
will suffice.
and Essays (II. 71), subjecuncompromising takes the ground of the most break to proceeds coolly tivism at the outset, and then yet style, illogical violently loose from it in the most
Prof. Clifford, in his Lectures
apparently without the least suspicion of the exhibition he thereby makes of himself as a philosopher
:
"The objective order, qua order, is treated by physical science, which investigates the uniform relaHere the word tions of objects in time and space.
object
(or
phenomenon)
is
group of
my
feelings,
which
a certain manner; for I am at present considering only the objective order of my feelings. The object,
then,
is
a set of changes in
. . .
my
consciousness, and
The not anything out of it. cal science are all inferences of my real or possible feelings; inferences of something actually or poteninferences of physitially in
my
of
it."
passage,
the egoism of this and it is quite possible to build up on this basis an idealistic Solipsism which shall at least tolerably cohere with itself. But
is
is
entirely
clear;
INTRODUCTION.
Prof.
Clifford
47
of physical science,
changes in
my
known
changes.
But the
feelings,
among them
own,
similar to those
in
among my
my
many
respects analogous
as not being a part of me. I propose, accordingly, to call these inferred existences ejects, things thrown out of my consciousness, to disnized as outside of
tinguish
them from
objects,
.
things presented in
.
.
my
consciousness, phenomena.
is justified,
How
this
inference
how
itself, I do not pretend need not untie a knot which the world has
cut for
me long ago. It may very well be that I am myself the only existence, but it is simply ridiculous
anybody
else
is.
to suppose that
The
position of ab-
may
which Prof.
Clifford, in
common with
all
sub-
jectivists
from Solipsism, falls. Ejects, as he proceeds to define them, are simply *' other men's minds " but other men's minds are only known through their bodies, and their bodies while trees and are " objects " like trees or stones stones are just as truly "ejects" from consciousness
shrink
who
back
48
as
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
are
In a word, ejects are and objects are ejects there is absolutely no distinction between them, on Prof. Clifford's own showing objects and ejects must be both objective Yet Prof. Clifford arbitrarily (it or both subjective.
other men's minds.
objects,
; ;
objectifies
ejects
and
objects!
He
flatly refuses
to "untie a
knot" which contains the whole point in disi^ute, and which the "world" has "cut" just as effectively he coolly begs the whole for objects as for ejects question, and repudiates tlie Solipsism from which his
;
own
These
jectivism
are
is
tyijical,
how
deep-seated
modern
philo-
sophy
tio
is
suffering.
Whenever
(if
ever) subjectivism
it
ad ahsurdum of Nominalism, and compel philosophy to adopt Eelationism and the scientific method in general.
All science
is
of the universal
all
sequent sub-
solitary,
unrelated,
incomprehensible
true
Ego.
It avails
true science,
Diogenes commanded
his
having fastened to
to his back,
am
in this tub," he
lived in
storm of
pitiless gibes
INTRODUCTION.
49
And when
tivism to
"ejects,"
back, lives and lectures in a world of and expounds to them a science of the objective relations they bear to each other and to an intelligible cosmos, human nature must have radically changed if philosophy fares any better.
It all
comes to
one
this
a pure illusion.
The
possi-
The conclusion
abundant corroboSubjectivism in
philosophy has created a new type of scepticism in Urged as it were by a consciousness that science.
it
its
own
Hence
it
name
unable to
Solipsism,
Unable to shake the conviction of the objective universe, and therefore take the field in its only logical form of
known
subjectivism
nevertheless
covertly
its
saps
own
knowledge
and it adroitly were unreality. A quotation from Mr. Frederic Harrison's essay on "The Subjective Synthesis" will well illustrate the
pushes this principle as
if relativity
mode of its attack "The truly relative conception of knowledge should make us habitually feel that our physical science, our
:
all
imaginative
50
us,
SCIENTIFIC THEISM,
but whicli
We
which we
of the
For
all
that
we know
to the contrary,
man
is
harmony
it
remembered,
root
in
in
prevails
men who,
being more
;
and shows exactly where science must seek aid from a renovated philosophy, if it is to escape suffocation by the fire-damp of scepticism engendered by its own operations. "If every genus is only a mere word,"
felt their
influence
"it
knowledge.
And
bottom the only sources of not only so, but on this theory no
is
possible, for
which ex hypothesi
is
is
Mr.
an illustration of the
accuracy of
this statement.
But the case is not bettered if the " only a mere " concept, instead of " only a
;
for
INTRODUCTION.
51
The doctrine of the ^^ relativity of knowledge," under cover of which subjectivism makes its attack on the objective truth of science, undoubtedly rests on a truism namely, that knowledge is itself a relation between the knowing and the known, and that nothing can be known except as it is known by the
:
This, surely, is a very innocent simply means that man cannot know everything it does not at all mean that he does not know what he knows. That human knowledge of the
faculties.
knowing
proposition.
It
cosmos
is
whom
simply the sum of his own sensations or consciousness, which, again, exist only as they are
the cosmos
is
known.
the
and profound significance to the object! vist, since it states the fact on which the total activity of science rests
fact that
human knowledge
is
be increased.
There
impugn the
solid char-
From
possible.
of man's
cognitive
:
faculties till his science becomes omniscience his knowledge will still be relative, being the relation of knowing and known, and that unconditionally. In fact, " non-relative knowledge " is a contradiction in adjecto. As Prof. Terrier puts it in his Remains: " To know a thing per se, or siyie me, is as impossible and contradictory as it is to know two straight lines enclosing space; because mind by its very law and nature must know the thing cum alio, i.e., along with itself knowing it." The doctrine of the relativity of
52
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
is
knowledge, therefore,
a truism so far as
it
asserts
and object to the relaand absurdity so far falsity is a it knowledge tion of of the object by the non-knowableness the asserts it as
the co-essentiality of subject
;
subject in that very relation of knowledge. And the blade of subjectivism is shivered in its very grasp by the adamantine shield of science. Nevertheless it remains true that the progress of
science
is
lence of a philosophy which secretly undermines its results, controverts its fundamental postulate of the
knowableness of the objective universe, and dooms it to an imperfect comprehension of the principles which
alone justify
its
practical procedure.
A philosophical
vindication of those principles which should establish the scientific method, so resplendently successful in its
upon an impregnable rational ways to promote the advancement of knowledge, and dissipate that cloud which hangs over the deeper thought of
empirical employment,
theory, could not fail in ten thousand
an intellectual consciousEvery attempt in this direction should be greeted with a hearty welcome. Let us review the situation, and state the problem distinctly which philosophy has now to solve.
our
ness
at
own age
the cloud of
itself.
war with
its
damental principle is the law, accepted by both the Transcendental and Associational schools, that things conform themselves to cognition, not cognition to things. The necessary corollary of this law is the seimrability of phenomena and noumena, phenomena
having their existence solely as modifications of the individual consciousness, and noumena either having
INTRODUCTION.
no existence at
all
53
the
or else
existing solely as
causes of phenomena.
is
Of
logically
"cause"
is
nalism denies
is
a term patently inapplicable to anything beyond the sphere of subjective consciousness. Hence the final
all thoroughgoing subjectivism is absolute Idealism or Solipsism a mere cosmos of objectively causeless dreams.
outcome of
egoistic
its
stand, consciously
Its
or unconsciously, on Eelationism.
fundamental
that
The necessary corollary of this law is the noumena and phenomena, phenomena being the "appearances" of noumena, and noumena being that which "appears" and is partially understood in phenomena and they have their inseparable
cognition.
inseparability of
;
cosmos
between complete and incomplete knowledge noumena being taken to denote things-in-themselves as they exist in all the complexity of their objective attributes and relations, and phenomena being taken to denote these same things-in-themselves so far only as they are known in their objective attributes and relations. The final outcome of scientific objectivism is a constantly growing knowledge of the real cosmos as it is, in which the human mind has its proper place and activity in entire harmony with cosmical
laws.
"
54
This
is
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
the unequivocal issue between the two modes
modern
mind.
Philosophy
is
restiveness
wholly so; there are occasional symptoms of secret among philosophers under the iron yoke
such as the appeal of the Scotch
School to
of JSTominalism,
Sense/^ the "Natural Kealism" of Hamilton, the " Reasoned Kealism " of G. H. Lewes, the " Transfigured Eealism " of Mr. Herbert Spencer^ the " Inferential Eealism " of Rev. J. E. Walter and
"Common
many
others, the
of the historian
Ueberweg
who
explicitly declares
with at least as much reason as it can be disputed {Hist. Phil. I. 374), and that "the demonstrative reasoning by which we go beygnd the results of isolated experience, and arrive at a knowledge of the
necessary,
is
all experi-
periences according to the inductive and deductive methods on the basis of the order immanent in things
themselves"
even among
{Ihid.
II.
162),
as well
as of others
that might be
named
in this connection.
But no
one,
who the tyrant is no one of them seems to have traced back the origin of
;
as
and no one seems to comprehend precisely what will free him from fetters that
are invisible, yet strong as steel.
INTRODUCTION.
55
which rivet them continually falls into concessions The hoslimbs. his about the fetters more closely the subbetween working tility secretly existing and and the one in even methods, jectivist and objectivist features striking and curious the of same mind, is one and will not fail to arrest of contemporaneous thought,
of philosophy. the attention of the future historians philosophy and between science
Yet
is
antagonism and injurious in the last degree, and alhes of for they are the natural complements orderintellectual the Science needs each other. alone philosophy which unity liness and systematic and basis verified the needs philosophy can create age our Hence science. of spirit thoroughly objective or nature, its in profound more problem presents no
this
really unnatural
more wide-reaching
lectual interests of
in its
mankind, than this How to identify science and ;philosophy, hy making science philothe foundation, method, and system of system of and sophic, and the foundation, method,
philosophy scientific. The theory of knowledge which is predominant in both the Transcendental and Associational schools
of
the
traced
to
source in
the
wrong answer given by mediseval Nominalism to the questions of universals, and shown to impart even to so-called modern philosophy a thoroughly SchoThe theory of knowledge which lastic character.
underlies the practical procedure of
modern science
the
the of Scientific Realism or Eelationism, creation the involve will which of full development
name
56
of a
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
new and comprehensive
philosophical system.
The
two
theories,
both to philosothe disastrous consequences of of a profound necessity phy and science, and the
revolution in the
bring it into tablished scientific method, have likewise been shown, together with the precise nature of the problem which
to
es-
philosophy has
now
All that is here possible is simply to state the problem and the general principle on which alone it can be solved a full solution of it is the great desideratum of science and philosoi^hy alike. For a full solution of it will permanently heal the breach which now disastrously divides them, and for the first time render possible the harmonious co-operation and con;
human mind
for
the discovery, establishment, and application of cosmical truth. What has been here done is to show that this greatest of modern problems is only, under a new form, that ancient and never satisfactorily answered question of Universals which, for hundreds
of years, absorbed the brightest intellects of Europe, to submit to the bright intellects of our own time,
known as the theories of Nominalism and Realism, a third, new, and full answer in the theory of Eelationism, and to inquire whether this theory
will not
suffice
to
identification of Science
and Philosophy.
PART
I.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE.
PART
I.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE.
CHAPTEK
I.
1.
Modern
science consists of
a mass of Proorder,
positions'^
respecting
the
facts,
laws,
and
It is a pro-
human
its
race,
which
expe-
These propositions
incorporate
the results of
universal
all
human
which
elements of pererror
sonal eccentricity,
ignorance,
or
have been
1 "The answer to every question which it is possible to frame must be contained in a Proposition, or Assertion. Whatever can be an object of belief, or even of disbelief, must, when put into words, assume the form of a proposition. All truth and all error lie in propositions. What, by a convenient misapplication of an abstract term, we call a Truth, means simply a True Proposition The objects of all Belief and and errors are false propositions.
.
all
(John Stuart
Mill,
System of Logic
I.
60
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
;
they are
winnowed
blown away by
by man
in
physical or psychical
which
at last
command
which they
Truths
relate,
Scientific
not necesof
and re-establishment
them
as
still
larger
truths.
no more
is
man's
itself,
unanimous consensus
2.
of the competent.
Now
all
won by
(1) observation
(3) verification
Observation
covery,
and experiment
the
dis-
by actual perception,
of things
and
relations
; ;
61
and constitute
the universe in
which
human knowledge
is
begins.
Hypothesis, or the
and experiment,
legitimate
scientific
use, it
is
the work of
relations
other
uni-
exist in the
and which,
may
is
be experientially
the conversion of
discovered there.
Verification
by means what
is
of
fresh
verified is hypothesis,
discovered
by actual experience
to
the essence of
human mind
is
Experience, therefore,
the
the
scientific
method,
and
reaction, of
the
This
is
cum
Ax.
6.)
62
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
its
cosmical environment.
is
The
method, therefore,
of truth
3.
Now
takes
for
every step.
In the course
it
many
generations of
individual investigators,
said, a vast
tific
mass
and laws
not
at all
and physics
make known
relations
among
real
physics
and
chemistry
real
make known
molecules and
space
;
various
real
relations
among
in
real
atoms,
likewise
moving
various
real
biology
real
makes
known
relations
among
but
living organisms;
physiological
itself
psychology (which
is
sometimes mistakes
fact
for philosophy,
in
one of
many
special sciences)
makes known
organism
ethics,
and psychical
sociology,
political
economy, jurisprudence,
make known
individuals
among human
of
co-existing
state
society.
In
63
among
ohjectivehj
real
things
things
that,
and
relations
which, although
alone,
undeniably
all
known by
depend
consciousness
do not, for
upon
as
it
inasmuch
mill-
many
them
An
"objective," or
as a relation
itself,
which
subsists
and
is
human
it
is
mind.
tively,
relation
may
the
be
known
true.
to exist objec-
whenever
proposition
asserting
proved by experience to be
"
For instance,
moon
"
mon
centre of gravity
that such
is
that
the proposition
But the
relation
must not
be misconceived as a
"
the relation
relates.
Tlie
is
it
known
of a relation
is
simply
the
it.
known
objective truth
But the
relation itself
was objectively
it
real before
;
was conceived
it
de-
it.
64
4. It is
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
evident, therefore, that the validity of
won by
its
use,
depend unconditionally on
in
any
must
if
is
to stand at all,
and be-
Presupposition
per
se,
I.
that
is
An
its
external
universe exists
is,
in complete independence of
human
consciousness so far as
existence
it,
is
concerned;
and man
merely a part
of
Presupposition
II.
The universe
i^er
se
is
in part,
though
Presupposition
the universe per
things
III.
The "what
the
is
known"
of
of
se is
formulated
;
in
which
science consists
tively
exist
is
in
as that in
it
which
I repeat
won by
its use,
and the
valid-
aU stand
nothing
lies logi-
or fall together
65
and
at the
same time
in
brief.
of a universe
its
it
independent of
human
consciousness,
actual intelHgibility,
of relations in
and
its
which
consists,
these,
I maintain,
consti-
Scientific Ontology,
scientific
method.
Taken together and systematically developed, these principles will found a philosophy of science, embracing not only a radically
edge, but also a radically
new
philosophy of science.
5.
It
criticism
which
should charge
me
"
the
Scotch
school,
known
Prof.
as
the
it
philosophy of
common
*'
sense."
Huxley,
is
common
and he
;
is
both
realistic
but,
to
ee
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
of
the
principle
or
God
in the
constitution of the
to it a strictly
thus assigned
But
not from
of the
by
fresh experience,
a strictly
a posteriori or
objective origin.
Further-
we
we
perceive
them
Hume
against the
principle,
tliis
we do not
images or ideas
own minds.
But
this is
mon
been taught it by philosophy." (Reid, Intellectual Pincers of Man, Essay VI. chap. V.) " In the order of nature, belief always precedes knowledge. Even the primary facts of intelligence,
. .
of, all
would not
knowl-
bfe
original,
W.
The
(Id.
p.
32,
Amer.
Ed.)
"
Common Sense
which we
ceive
distinctly perceive
to be."
is, That those things do really exist by our senses, aud are what we per-
them
(Reid,
I.
c.)
67
scientific
Lastly,
tions
human mind
an
and
innovation sufficient of
itself
to revolutionize
"
modern philosophy."
enough
and
of "
common
is
and
to
show that
scientific
realism
of
criticism
more shallow, however, would be the that scientific realism is a mere groundless
a naive taking for granted by
the whole point at issue
:
com-
mon
thinking
" of
namely,
"The
;
been em-
braced by Hobbes, Berkeley, Hume, Principal Campbell, and Mr. Stewart while Conceptualism has found favor with Locke, Reid,
and Brown.
p. 477.)
W.
eS
sciousness.
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
On
method by
the separate sciences, and points out that this incontrovertible success has settled the question experi-
it
grounds
itself
of the discoveries
;
which the
that
it
declares
the
demon-
the product of
consciousness alone, but must be the product of consciousness and an external universe endlessly acting
cannot
be the sole
co-activity
must be the
in
dynamic correlation
and
it
must be unreservedly conceded, or else the validity of the scientific method itself must be unreservedly, boldly, and frankly denied.
The sharp
exist,
issue
is
this
either
an external world
independent of
or else
logical subterfuge
discoveries
eries, if
made by
non-human
no assumption, no begging
of the question,
no taking
but the
most absolutely
j)roved truth
which the
intellect of
man
; ;
69
The claim
of science to be real
is
knowl-
the voice
and reason
of
mankind
sceptic
the sum.
when
eralized as I
only
when
the generalization
that
is
heard.
But,
if
he would success-
he must
first
overthrow
all
the parre.
ticular truths of
which
scientific realism is
a mere
Scientific realism is
no
is
science itself
the two
is
that
Veri-
is the
fication
and
Demonstration of
Scientific
Realism
by
overthrowing the
it is
scientific
method
itself;
and that
tremendous strength,
point of
and
to adopt it as its
departure.
Until
it
phy
of
will never
any deep
or
world-wide
human
mould the
faith
of the
it
is
to-day
"
70
few.
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
So long as
is
it
persists in
rience
of
human
so
long as
it persists
in
just
so long
will
mankind
inventing a
machine
when
impossible.
7.
" But,"
it
you seriously
mean
verse
known Noumenon ?
That
is
as a Thing-in-itself, a Ding-an-sich, a
But
deny that
it
the doctrine
exploded, and
its
I also
deny that
has
true light.
of
The realism
mine; and
no invention
whole
Monument
For the
last
two
or three centuries,
logi-
no small
agility
and
dexterity,
to
degree
the
advancement
cartes's
of
civilization.
famous
that
is,
human
conscious-
71
all
fact
and starting-point in
and assuming,
as regulative principle
of procedure, that
nothmg can be
if
certainly
known
human
it
conscious-
reasoned well,
individual
human
consciousness.
With such a
point
of departure
and such a
every form of
realism relies
on a logically worthless
tries
inference ( 67).
in a
futile, to esits
own
its
principles, to
withdraw
all attention
from this
laws of
first
logic,
and
to arrive at
some mode
it
of living
amicably
which
is
commendably amiable,
Now
in
its
theory of Phenomenism
the
is
the
can be
known
phenomena depend
on individual
this
human
phy,
consciousness
alone.
It
is
theory of
philoso-
phenomenism, the
life-principle of
modern
72
of
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Noumenism
(scientific realism or scientific ontol-
modern
science.
This pro-
at the
it is
bottom
all
philosophical controversies
it is
the imperfectly
turning-point,
self-
and vaguely
in
felt
or
strategical
centre,
all
the
movement and
marshalling of
tinctively
dis-
modern mind
it is
in a struggle
revolution,
modern science
philosois,
upon
so-called
phy
to
will
taught, that
exchange
Method of sterile subjectivism for the new Scientific Method so prolific of objective discoveries. For Phenomenism is the historical product of the
Scholastic
Kantian
"
Apriorismus
"
mus"
nalism
is
;
Nomi-
is
the historical
product,
plicable
polarization,
of
the
earlier
Aristotle,
by abusing
to the
oppressive
and
unintelligible
dogmas.^
it
and noumenism
is,
in
73
the present, and that all the interests of modern intellectual progress are involved in its right decision.
Consequently,
attention to
to do
it
is
it,
although
vast a subject.
74
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
CHAPTEE
11.
9.
Stripped
most phenomenism
positions
:
may
five
main
2.
phenomenon,
sentation,
deriving
the
is
of
Being
is
strictly
of
human
representa-
noumenal object
are
is
philosophically permissible.
and Being
the actual
itself,
mere forms
of relation wdthin
content of
human
representation,
it.
and
The
aim
75
immanent
relations of repre-
sentations as such,
and rigorously
to
exclude
all
Since
all
gory of Eelation, are themselves determined a priori by (and hence deducible from) the nature of the
human
understanding,^
all
possible
relations
are
and the transcendental imagination acting in In other words, no relations are possible
concert.
in
any
Hence, even
noumenal world
must
chaotic
constitution,
locr
se.
unintelligible
5.
The existence
even
if
of
how-
ever,
an abstract
groundless,
is
an utterly
assumption.
inconceivable,
and
useless
The noumenon
unity of the
1
" thing,"
is
nothing
dass" u. s. ID. (Krug, EncyHopadlsch-j.hilosophisches Lexilon, I. 730.) This "natural organization of the human understanding" is to phenomenism an ultimate and inexplicable fact. In this fundamental point, phenomenism imitates the ''naive realism" which for it rests at last, no less tlian the Scotch it professes to despise
;
school,
of the
knowing
faculty.
76
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
?
by hypostasis,
is
this
of
thought
or "thing-in-itself."
and can
non-
by which
tliis
entity
may be
cognized.
is the theory which phenomenon without
10.
In short, phenomenism
is
and while
it
repre-
and,
valid, that
true
only as explain-
whose
explanation
must be
formu-
sought only in
universe.
in a self-existent
In other
created
mind
universe independent of
istence in the
it,
human
The
lies in
1
"Materialism
builds
its
theories
intelligibility of
at
phenomena."
(Lange, His-
of Materialism,
II. 166,
Boston, 1880.)
11
and
exclusively as the
human
of
tmderstanding.
is
This ex-
the genetic
and
principle
distinctly laid
them to be the fundafor mental logical ground of phenomenism itself, schools all by inherited the reason that it has been
evidently not discerned by
of
phenomenism
of
and
its
philosophy; for
is
from which
all
phenomenism
have
advanced form which has been presented above, the theory of phenomenism is based and substantially, though with various modifications
Taken
in the
it
Even M.
Fr. Paulhan,
who
La
Eealite
des Rapports" in
La
has
:
stand on phenomenism to destroy his own argument by taking his " Nous nous pla^ons ici sur le terrain du phe'nome'nisrae qui voit I'ombre changeante les faits, quels qu'ils puissent etre, non pas
dans mais une realite vraie, et fuyante d'une substance inconnaissable, s'occuper." It is manila seule re'alite' dont on puisse, en somme, only the phenomenal fest enough that M. Paulhan is defending noumenal reality of relations in the representation, not their
reality
in the thing-in-itself.
78
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
the day.
that
Prof.
Windelband says
of
of
it:
''This
is
thought,
outside
representation
there
is
Kant's
thinkdis-
the gods to
man
is
although to
common
ing, to wdiich
nothing
tinction of representation
must
Mhilism."
of
common
is
And
again: "This
Immanent
Metliocl
the
theory of knowledge
now
ment."
manent method"
ject
of discarding both
noumenal submetaphysical
and noumenal
object
as
mere
and characterizes
as the Scientific
of the
it
as "completed scepticism."
rests
Just
Method
on the presupposition
Immanent
Method
tivity of Eelations
as.
rival theories of
1 See the valuable article by Prof. W. Windelband, of Zurich, " Ueher die veischiedenen Phasen der Kantischen Lehre vom Diiuj-
an-sich," in the
I.
79
What, then,
?
Phenomenism
Is it true
phenomenism
false,
root
and branch,
itself,
be-
contradicts itself in a
all
Omitting here
other
criticisms,
and reserving
case for the
if
my
overwhelmingly
objection to
The
is
first
phenomenism
that
science
actual knowledge of
its
a noumenal universe,
possibility of such
knowl-
on
old logical
maxim: "Ah
14.
ad posse
valet,
2^osse
ad
esse
non
valet, eonsequentia."
To break the
nomenism,
and
claims to be,
alone,
that
any knowledge
discovery of
noumena.
It denies that
"the
of
It
strenuously contends
Nature
80
ideas
:
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
"
that
is,
sensations
representation
by means
of the
schematism
all
of the
an
objective syn-
existence
on
human
consciousness.
It asserts
upon a
basis of
observation
the
immediate object
here
of
knowledge"
as evidently thing,
objectively existent
'substratum' or
'
thing-in-itself.'"
It
affirms
that
by the ordinary
idealist
is,
scientific realist
existing
his
perception,
existence"
{i.e.,
regards
them
as actually non-
existent,
them and
them
as actual existences,
which
j^^^^^ipi)-^
is,
of course, the
objects is
Now
if
sented,
it
1 The quotations in this paragraph are all taken from an ingenious article by Prof. G. S. Tullerton, entitled "The Argu-
81
and
if
it
broad burlesque.
Every one
of
the
propositions
body
of science,
valid at
is,
that
states
relations
among
objective
realities
which
have
indeed
yet
been
discovered
by human
perception,
no
their
more
on
is
depend
upon
human
motion.
perception
the
fable
for
existence
depended
the
for
its
what every
scientific
man
means by
nant,
if
his statements,
mean
it.^
By
means
permanent
relations
among permanent
itself.
it will,
discovery
covery,
if
dis-
it
has no right
to pervert facts
1
The
never understood
tific
men
refers to his
own
'*
Gcwohnlieit
der kdltesten Objrcflvitat." Prof. W. B. Taylor, in his masterly essay on " Kinetic Theories of Gravitation," published in the Sviithsonian Report for 1876, says:
"Our
beliefs should
always be based
Prof. L. E.
to,
who
fills
"The
which
is
based upon
it."
Volumes could
be
filled
82
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
human
representations,
when
it
relates in truth
to an objectively real
16. It is
and
self-existent universe.
solemn
trifling
or elegant pleasantry
of
its
this
sort
scieiitiaritm,
and
of
threatens
degrade
it
further
to
that
ignorantia scientiarum.
nomenism
form
phenomenism
the modernized
of
all
rravra
ipsum
in
of
quidem)
the
more
subtile
of
and
the
refined
form
modern doctrine
"
" unintelligibility
things-in-themselves
an-sich).
{Uncrkennharkeit
dcr
iJingc-
To both the ancient and modern scepticisms science makes one silent reply: she points to her undeniable discoveries and the method by
which they have been won,
proof that knowledge of
attainable
as
the unanswerable
is
by
experience.
is
that
phe-
modern
all scientific
knowledge
of
to
transmute
it
into
human
mind, devoid of
truth
or applicability
its
itself.
But
blows will
83
without
effect,
until
it
shall first
scientific
method.
phenomenism
method and
secretly
prefers to
of
tlie
and then
to under-
mine
it
by interpreting these
results
as
new
relations
between phenomena
In other words,
for their
moment they
denies,
cease to be perceived,
phenomenism covertly
can
effect
notwithstanding her
method
any discovery
of
any
begin
human
consciousness
Consequently,
when
per
se,
to
contradict,
them
as
only
sitb-
hu7nan mind.
Despite
all dis-
guises,
secret
phenomenism thus shows itself to be the and irreconcilable foe of science, and appears
calls
it,
as
what Fortlage
if
In short,
if
phenomenism
true,
science
is
phenomenism
The
first
false
and every
that
phenomenism
is
84
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
convinced
that science
is true-;
but
its full
be
felt
noumenism
positively
developed.
17. The second nomenism is that
suicidally
contradicts
itself,
inasmuch as
gether,
18. In
it
noumena
else.
alto-
phenomenon-universe
tion, deriving its
ing consciousness."
is
Now
nothing but the act of representing, just as a thought nothing but the act of thinking, or as a men-
is
tal
image
is
its
existence consists in
act,
Moreover, the
according
" representing
consciousness,"
rejects
likewise,
to
the supposition of
is
a noumenal subject
suppressed.
we
began,
we now
substitute in
it
"
The phenomenonits
act of representing."
Con-
thus reduced
its
whole
is
85
causa
to give
a causa sui
Phenome-
noumenon-universe
19.
after all
In the second
place, the
analyze the representation (^ (fyavTaa-ia) without denying the reality either of the representing consciousness
(o cj>avTa(Tiov/jL6vo<=:)
(fiavracTTov)}
both to the
representing
thing.2
since
it
noumenal
subject nor in a
in itself
object,
must
be,
exist really
in other words,
must
and be known
on nothing
der darauf sich
die Vorstellung
stiitzenden
und
sowol zu
dem Gegen(Erd-
dem
Subjecte, in
dem
sie entsteht."
mann, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, I. 164.) 2 "Die Beziehung unserer Vorstellungen auf ein vorstellendes Subject und auf ein vorzustellendes Object sind in dem reinen
bereits
Thatbestand des Vorstellungsin hakes nicht enthalten, sonderu Deutungsversuche zur Erklarung der Vorstellungen, die sine durch die Categoric der Causalitat, die andere durch diejenige
der Substantialitat vermittelt."
(W. Wiudelbaud,
1.
c,
p.
259.)
8Q
outside of
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
itself.
But that
is
a noumenon, iu the
Once more,
therefore,
phenome-
is
severe on
"The
priori
;
cler
Denkformen)
is
all representa-
And
he declares
is
"
The hypostasis
of
all
of the
thought-forms
the
essence
;
dogmatism."
The warning
the retort
hypostasis
is
salutary
and disregard
it.
For
if
tlie
of
inadmissible in
no
less inadmis-
in
phenomenism
itself.
The representation
and, by abstraction, to elevate this mere act or function into a self subsistent phenomeof representing
;
non-in-itself
bility of
is
to hypostatize
it,
beyond the
possi-
cavil or reply.
is
The
'
Hypostasirnng der
Denkformen"
at least
87
is
the phenomenon-iu-itself
thing-in-itself,
bad as the
in fact, it
distincif
becomes a
tion
is
no
the
possibility
separating
them
is
once conceded.
Self-existent representations, or
phenomena-in-them-
from noumena,
or things-in-themselves.
Not
phenomena
but also
it
alone,
its
metaphysic,
it
bates the
process of hypostasis
which way
it
may, phenomenism
proves
itself utterly
mena it abhors, and powerless to hold fast by "phenomena alone;" /or " i^hcnomeyia alone''' instantly
become noumena.
In vain
it
struggles
to
man knows
exists of itself,
sarily
fact
is
no
less neces-
known than
the other.
The
essential
and
phenomenon,
is,
there-
quixotic, impossible,
and self-contradictory to
It
more thoroughly
in that
scientific
by a passage
88
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Wonderland,
designed,
it
is
grmning
"
'
*'
I wish
you would
;
n't
ing so suddenly
"'AH
ished
tail,
right,' said
van-
had gone.
grin,'
's
"'Well!
thought Alice
cat
It
the
my
life.'"
When
philosophy becomes
fairyland,
in
which
may
for
it
is
an attempt
satisfied,
Being
phenomenism
is
to be
met
to
in the
whole
now
the
opposite
89
CHAPTER
III.
Kant
phenomenon
noumethe
Erscheinendc), but
far
more frequently
non
Now
;
first is
and the
reason
why he
lies
nay,
which
his sys-
tem
is simply the historical and logical culmination. This point must be at least briefly explained, for it
of
the
Critique
of
Pure Reason
of
and laws
pure a priori
reality of
which Kant
assumed, inasit,
much
as all
if
keenly
scrutinized, betray at once the presence of strictly Under the influence of the empirical elements.
traditional
and
still
possibility of
and
90
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
more particularly under the influence of the nominalistic Hume, whose incomplete subjectifying of
the
causal relation
stimulated
Kant's profounder
and
systematic
"
Apriorismus"
Kant
as of
purely subjective
and
to see in
judgment (Quantity,
determine the
twelve
"
standing."
of thought, as
sensuous intuition
run, and
thereby enabled to
All relato be
Kant
objects of experience.
far-
reaching principle of the Subjectivity of Belations, derived from the old nominalistic theory of universals
to a scientific form,
became incorporated as a
the Kantian system
;
and then,
Now
else
and
Nothing
; :
91
ment
ject
of
some determinate
its
relation between
sub-
and
predicate.
Consequently,
all relations
addendum
way
absolutely
;
stripped
of
which
is
intelligible
unrelated
either
human
but to
nothing remained
itself as
if
possible
an utterly inscrutaindeed
it
existed at
which
indeed,
affirmed, but
Now
how
came
the word
noumenon,^ which
signified " that
Greek philosophy,
to
which
intelligible,"
mean
in
namely,
which
is
unintelligible."
words
is
certainly a
fact
most
extraordinary, significant,
I venture to assert that
vo4ui,
and instructive
and
1
The Greek
of
even
the
in
Homer,
eyes.
intellectual perception,
and hence,
ble
more
corresponded
to the Latin
92
nation of
it
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
can be given except the revolution of
rise of
nominalism,
To
Plato, Aristotle,
Theory
of
Essential
koct/jlo^
Forms, whence
votjto^
and the
and the
in itself,
aLo-6r]T6<;,
the mundits
intelligihilis
mimdus
sensibilis
and the
It is
"
no
Skepsis
" for
even in the best histories of philosophy, yet easily detected behind their statements, lies in the fact
that ancient scepticism rested on the assumption of
phenomenism,
rests
of
relations.
To show
this
would require
purpose
;
for the
may
unmistakably indicate
93
Pyrrhon,
the
was the
of
total incomprehensibility or
(a/caraXTz-v/r/a).
un-
intelligibility
things
This tenet
the
observed conflict of
rrj^;
human
(jxovia^)
opinions
;
Bia-
and
this
observed conflict of
human
opin-
namely, as an actually
known by him
is
as a
ground
Pyrrhon, therefore, as
self-evident,
some mode
ticular
objective relations on
:
which he based
his
general conclusion
assumed
all this,
itself.
upset the
conclusion
What
bility of discovering
are,
what the
on account
of the absence of
;
any trustworthy
criterion of truth
nothing can be
known with
themselves
its
avrt-
Sextos Empeirikos,
94
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
" as it
appears to
me "
(w?
iixol
declared to
{^PX^ T^? cr/c67rTifcr]<;), It was, therefore, only on the naively conceded reality of actual and perceptible relations in the intelligible world, as objectively existent
aiKi really discoverable,
abstinence
of
from
all
assertion
(d(f)aoria)
and suspense
but,
in
order
to
allowed probabihty
in
(Trt^ai/or?;?) as
a practical guide
"
common
life.
Skepsis
it
"
by conceiving
not
The true
to maintain,
there
is
no
a
certainty,
that would be
dogma
ing at
investigates
all,
is
to maintain noth-
and
expressions
do
not decide,"
possible,"
"it
may
be or
may
which
is
and
95
is
characteristic of both,
and reveals
habit
of
in
phenomenism
as
that
diseased
mind which abhors nothing so heartily as fixed conclusions, stigmatizes them under all circumstances
as
''
mere hypothesis."
to
this
In
order to give
philosophic
form
tendency,
Ainesidemos
drew up
the
which were
after-
wards reduced
ticeable
to
five
by Agrippa.
fact
and paradoxical
about them
that
every one of them involves a distinct and unequivoevery cal recognition of the objectivity of relations
:
one of them
things
is
disagreements
in
ferent animals or
in
general,
human
of
customs,
laws,
and circumstances
Nay, the eighth
human
life itself,
ri),
and
so forth.
in fact
(o diro
rov Trpo?
which
must be both
the permanent
real
and perceived)
as a reason
why
themselves
And
Sextos declares in
noumena
96
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
:
tical investigation
conducts to
peace of
mind {drapa^ta).
plainer, therefore,
itself,
Nothing can be
and proved,
intelligibility
;
and the
or
of
noumena no
than of
phenomena
and that
this principle of
objectivism
noumenism is the profoundest distinction between Greek and modern philosophy, inasmuch as the
almost universally based on the principle
or
of
latter is
subjectivism
phenomenism.
Alike to tranall
realities,
indis-
itself,
which,
like
now
be
indistinguishable
unanimously followed in
Kant's footsteps,
of
scholastic
of relations,
modern
science
Greek ground
of realism,
97
an
We
are at
last, therefore,
in a position to
understand
how
it
came
to
phenomenon and the noumenon, on the other hand. In both the Greek and the German philosophies, the
phenomenon
apparent
is
is
the ISTon-
a true opposite
in the
Greek philosophy,
is
and
it
Intelligible,
while in the
German philosophy
tively Unrelated
and Unintelligible.
is
no fundamental opposition between the phenomenon and the noumenon, since the Apparent and the
Intelligible are quite compatible predicates of Beingin-itself
;
and insepa-
rable predicates of
inasmuch
as only the
Apparent
no
inasmuch,
German
furthermore, as there
is
But, in the
philosophy, the
noumenon havphenome-
and Unintelligible, or
''thing-in-itself," the
98
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
identified
non became naturally and inevitably the merely Subjectively Eelated and
"representation;"
in
with
Intelligible, or
other
words,
phenomena
be-
came wholly detached from the world of Intelligible BeincT and wholly transferred to the world of Ideal Thought. Nothing could be further from the truth,
as
modern
is
science
interprets
of
it;
theless,
the history
German
nutshell.
false In this manner an unavoidable opposition, from premises the drawn logically but in itself,
and
scholastic
has
established in
ance,
thing-in-itself
and phenomenon. Kant's second opposition between the phenomenon {Erscheinung) and the noumenon (Ding-an-sich) was, therefore, logical enough in his
own
use of
first
interchangeable,
the
with his
opposition between
phenomenon {Erscheiming)
and the non-phenomenal {NicM-Erscheinende). None the less unfortunate, hojvever, have been the consequences of the grave error originated by his creation of this false opposition
for it has
between modern philosophy and modern science, and prevented the incalculable good which would have
resulted from
their
cordial
co-operation.
For, in
99
scientific
conceptions of
both self-existent
itself
and
intelligible.
its
And
philosophy
can never
as the
cul-
recover
ancient
influence
and position
in civilization
and
until
it
has
thoroughly revolutionized
and
modernized
itself
menism
27.
of
modern
While phenomenism,
therefore,
cleaves
to
the
German
phenomenal only,
that
is,
as a purely subjective
nouand
menism
nal.
Here
is
and clearness the fundamental difference between phenomenism, or German subjectivism, and
menism, or ancient Greek and modern
objectivism.
nou-
scientific
utterly without
of the
resolves
and denies
all objective
to
the
noumenal universe
{Din(j-an-sich)\
scientific
method,
100
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
finds
noumenon, and
verse per
them
And
mental difference
subjectivity
and
the objectivity
of the
Theory
upon
Theory
Knowledge.
mundus
intelligibilis ;
the
sen-
phenomenon
sihilis;
com-
which
actually
known by
science.
Phenomenism, being
essentially
an affirmation
of the incompatibility of
Eeal Being and Ideal Appearance, is the victim of the false opposition between the two which the
Kantian philosophy derived from mediaeval Scholasticism; and philosophy can never become truly
modernized until
thereby ridding
it
discards
phenomenism
altogether,
itself of
Kestore the
true
non-phenomenal;
comprehended and
tivity of relations
;
add
discoveries achieved
by the
method
in con-
101
of
more
at
home
in a universe
ingly know.
28.
it is
For whatever
or
may
are,
unintel-
ligible,
because
must
be,
There
and can
:
no
"unintelligible things-inis
unquestionably
necessarily inas unquestionof
telligible
ably wrong.
Hegel
rational."
to the conis
"Unknowable"
is
the non-existent.
Human
intelligence
a light in
rays shoot
brightness
illu-
its its
and
Whoever presumes
or
may
shine, is guilty
of that
dogmatism,
ist,
or
In-
and
;
it
"
Was vernunftig
ist,
das
ist
wirklich
ist
vernunftig."
;;
102
infinite
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
darkness
is
:
why
the infinite
darkness
human
intelligence
that the
light is so small.
is
The existence
of the
Unknown
a legitimate in-
to affirm the
"
existence of
is
^er
se
the
it
Unknowable "
to affirm
in one
human
pedantry,
when it elevates this concept of a Known Unknowable into self -destructive a mock deity, and founds upon it a mock religion. Is
the dreariest,
it
*'
grand seriousness
and simplicity
29.
of
Greek objectivism?
From
phenomenism,
Noumenon and
and the
Phenomenon
is
founded on the
Inseparability of
which
is
"
that
which
is
knowable or known."
That which
that which
is
appar-
known
is
known
must be
they are
so far apparent.
Consequently, noumenon
that
103
absurdity .1
which has
been
The dream or
tion,
delusion, therefore, in
no wise
differs
from the picture created by the sane waking imaginaexcept that the dream-synthesis
is
not, as is the
by the
in;
false appearance
is
no
real appearance
ScJiein.
What
dis-
experience
there
no positive
test
of
knowledge or
hu-
man
experience,
final
appeal
of science itself.
Eeal
in experience
ideal appearance
is
the appearance of
noumenon and phenomenon are inseparable, and the phenomenon depends upon the noumenon, since every appearance must be of that which is
case,
1
"
Was
erscheinen
I.
soil,
muss
werden."
(Krug, Lexikon,
835.)
104
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
both existent and intelligible. If, as happens in misdelusions, ideal appearance in consciousness is is this (and taken for real appearance in experience
the whole fact covered
appearance
"),
what truly
in
subject, disordered
its
is
and disguised
from
itself
the mistake
a mistake of inference as
if
to causation, a
wrong
curable at
versal
all, is
to be cured
by the appeal
is
it,
to uni-
human
experience.
Consciousness
always
a part of experience, but only a part of phenomenism confounds with the whole.^
which
Experi-
ence itself, as conceived by noumenism, and as confirmed by science, is the joint product of two equally
important
factors,
object, the actual co-existence, union, and interpenetration of real appearance and ideal appearance,
as above defined.
ideal
as
in
it
thereby
irre-
first,
by
denying in
it
by denying even
in the ideal
philosophy date from these cravings of thought. departure from Experience; including under that
It
takes
its
105
se,
knowledge
is demonstration of the fact that real appearance of the noumenon-object and ideal appearance of the
noumenon-subject are actually welded or fused toExperience is the chemical gether in experience.
union, so to speak, of the noumenon-object and the
action
and
reaction, or
mutual
of
co-activity,
which
human
knowledge
the
and
object,
human knowledge
and that
falls to
experience
is
in all ex-
Thought the
of "
logical posterius
and the
"
Kantian assumption
the ground.
itself originates
originates
in
known upon that which can know but that which can know must exist before it can be influenced, and
is
so far truly
31.
d priori.
repudiates the fundamental
Noumenism thus
appearance, sub-
106
SCIENTIFIC THEISM,
are),
not),
and grounds
itself
Phenomenism
it
tures
noumenism, when
"
makes the
the
"
noumenon
as a mysterious
and incomprehensible
qualities can
;
substratum
and
it
straw antagonist,
is left of
the
when it triumphantly inquires what onion when the coats are all gone. The
phenomenism
itself,
it is
ground
it
is
them
to
reduces the
"
the
nouthe
menon and
stantial
phenomenon, characterizes
it
as
of all or
any one
The inherent changeableness of phenomena is a fact which militates against noumenism no more than for, on either theory, pheagainst phenomenism
;
107
All phenomena, hownomena constantly change. ever, must either inhere in noumenal Being as their ultimate origin and ground, or else must originate de nihilo and return in nihilum} To phenomenism,
therefore, their constant changes
plicable, because conceived
by
it
as utterly without
;
origin
that
is,
while
to
noumenism they
because conceived by
as effects or self-manifesta-
permais
Many
concerned, therefore,
the
One
is
concerned,
noumenism
philosophy
is
One
in the
Many.
32.
Noumenism,
same
It revives,
then,
conceives
the
universe
as, at the
time,
both.
though in a
of
nomenon, and
the noumenal or
character of the
universe per
to consist in its
Immatunt Relational Co7istitution. It beholds in the modern scientific method the perfection or culmination of actual
human
1
De
108
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
and
It
potency
"
" of
relations in the
when they
are
much
in the intervals
and
it
nomenism
'*
in
misrepresenting and
of
belittUng
this
objective
synthesis "
cosmical relations as a
mere
tions
" subjective
synthesis " of
human
representa-
policy
illumina-
Further,
noumenism argues
se,
that,
if
science
their
any sense
of the
word (and
it
it
is
an
anything
than
that),
human
mind some adequate and appropriate intellectual faculty, or function, by which they have been discovered.
is
noumenal universe
there
actually
known by man
must
be in
man
It is not practicable
in this connection
this highly impor-
to do
109
50.
which
is
developed further in
Enough
thought,
is,
nism
does,
in-
now
unrecognized
mode
of
knowing
is.
34. The main positions of the theory of noumenism may now be presented synoptically in the following summary 1. The universe is both a noumenon and a phe:
It
is
noumenon because
sCy
it
exists
and
is of,
an
sich),
independent
its
knowin
its
intelligible
consists
immanent
3.
relational constitution.
It
is
phenomenon because
in
part, not
it.
it
is
apparent
;
in
whole
and
the knowledge of
is
Every phenomenon
is
necessarily a
noumenon,
universe
Known
se is
known
The merely
stitute the
possible
phenomena
;
Unknown
is
so far as
it
potentially
that
unknown
is,
110
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
is
no reason
discoverable, either in
se,
human
conscious-
why
may
all
and inasmuch as
intelligible,
imagination which
intrinsically self-contradictory,
to reason, unless
it
is
con-
The human mind includes a perceptive understanding, by which the relational constitution of the universe per se has been already, to some extent,
5.
discovered and
science.
Its function is to
objective relations
immanent
human
consciousness.
understanding
(intellection,
intellectual
perception
or apprehension or intuition).
means
of that
posteriori
knowledge
of
up by noumena of
is
development
tions
as scientific
realism.
worked
out,
both in general
even hinted.
said to
show
Ill
in
its
modern
latent
losophy
as the
stability of
all its
results,
" objective
which
is
must depend
ern science
Whatever
mod-
may
may
single
losophies which
as a
men may
whole
they
The
and
for
But the
universal scientific
and
if,
as I
human thought
is
the architect
of
its
be
The appended
of the first
book, will
112
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
noumenism
The
first
to
the theory of
phenomenism and
to
render clearer
and phenomenon
and
and
issue
(so-called)
is
modern philosophy.
sharp
113
THREE TABLES
ILLUSTEATING
AND NOmiENISM.
TWO
I.
KANT'S
1.
OPPOSITIONS.
True Opposition.
versus
Phenomenon
Non-Phenomenon.
the Non- Apparent.
Nicht-Erscheinende.^^)
The Apparent
versus
2.
False Opposition.
versus
Phenomenon
Noumenon.
Ideal Appearance
{^^
versus
Real Being.
3.
Non-Phenomenon = Noumenon.
C^
Das Nicht-Erscheinende
8
= Das
Ding-an-sich.")
114
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
II.
PHENOMENISM.
1.
Hence
2.
of
Subjective Eepresentation.
RESULTS.
Noumenon
= Objectively
= Das
Ding-an-sich.'')
Phenomenon
= Die
Vorstellung")
115
III
NOUMENISM.
MODERN
^^
SCIENTIFIC REALISM.
Almost eriorismus."
1.
Hence
2.
Scientific
Method
= Analysis
of Objective Experience.
RESULTS.
Noumenon
= Objectively Related and Intelligible Real of the Being = Immanent Relational Constitution
Thing-in-itself.
Phenomenon
and
= Real
Subjectively
Related
and
Intelligible
Real
Being
= Real
Thing-in-itself.
PART
II.
THE RELIGION OF
SCIENCE.
PART
11.
THE RELIGION OF
SCIENCE.
CHAPTEE
IV.
What,
tlien,
must be the
religious
outcome
Method
tried to peer
large
have sought
to discover
which
is
down
to that underlying
scientific
method which
its
is
results,
pondering
subtile implications,
spirit.
For the
method
itself is
See
article
on " Positivism
120
immeasurably above
is
all his
all discoveries,
nay,
exists
immanently in them
all
meaning;
it
is
to its
and Thought. The issue of this long meditation has been the " philosophy of science " of which only
a few of the most prominent features have been
sketched in Part
First, yet
enough, I
trust, to give
some conception
of the
groundwork
of that
mode
of
my
anticipation of the
clearly.
is,
All Being
or
essentially intelligible,
and either
may
be,
apparent.
The Known
is
is
the
Unknown
potentially
unity of the
nite
Known and
"
is
the
Unknown
them
is
Infi-
both.
"
Unknowable
nothing
but ISTon-Being
the
own
The
The pretended
is
Unknowable "
nothing but
of
own
finitude,
our
"
Panther, Part
THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE.
when we
totality
strive to
121
its
comprehend
Infinite
Being in
finite
powers,
of our
own
into
shrinking
back
when we
Sound
phere;
dies
of
our
little
atmos-
sight fails
;
of our little
field of vision
less vacuity
of the
Unrevealed.
But nowhere
Of
in
Being
is
human Knowledge.
is
all
the presumptuous
up flimsy a priori
or Eomulus-walls, to be at
Eemus
of
and which,
if
it
him
38.
territory
" void
and
com-
immeasurably
vast,
and
it is
honest
and
stable ground,
ening to engulf us
we
stir
hand or
foot,
a
if
tiny
you
knows
actual
perish
who
or
what may,
122
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
own
conquests,
and
of
mankind by the
its
testifies
it
that
it
intelligible
wherever
unfail-
ing
method
its
research
and discovery.
It
indig-
away
nist's
merely subjective
real
It
kingdom
of man's dreams,
and
little
is
labo-
Nature herself
is
what
science explores
and
studies,
human
it
"representation;"
the means
uses,
but knowledge of
consciousness is not the end it seeks and attains. The phenomenist, who, reversing the precedent of
the
Hebrew
awkward immodesty
nists, is
of this
assumption by sharing
di-
lemma:
exists
consciousness
which
beyond
its
own
limits,
and
to discover in the
noumenal world
relations
which there
exist in total
123
entitled to
no serious consideration
is
consequent phenomenism
science.
39. It
is
no a priori assumption,
or
resting on
of
contempt
for experience
the rashness
overis
human knowledge.
is
On
a pure induction
from experience
made by man
of
human
intellect,
unknown
a demonintrinsically
unknown
is is
is
knowable.
learned ;
All knowledge
acquired gradually, or
itself
and
" to
learn "
to
convert the
unknown
experience
all
into the
itself,
known.
The
totality of
human
men
this
in all ages
and
all climes, is
the foundation
of
the
unknown is knowable per se. What other truth won by man can boast a warrant more absolute?
This undeniable KnoivaUeness of the Unknown, this
experientially proved Intelligibility of Infinite Being,
is
is
hope
hun
know anything
124
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
itself,
has
:
all
human
experience
on his
side,
when he
it
;
replies
"
my
consciousness, but
my
conof it
me much
if
already
and philosophy
an impostor,
she can-
not
me how, and help me to learn more." Dream as phenomenism may, the fact stands
tell
firm,
if
there
is
any firmness
in
modern
science
and the
se
modern
is
scientific
man
wit
man
there
has wit to
know
it all.
it
it.
Make
his
infinite,
The universe
the All
is
in itself
of
it,
and
is
is
intelligible
There
bound-
lessly
much
man
does
not yet
know, but
knowing, and
it
as the
he as the noumenon noumenon known; for (as Part First) the noumenon neces-
exists
in
the
phenomenon.
to
Phenomenism,
gibberish,
it
therefore,
"
reduces
itself
mere
mere
takes
puts
it
assumes to explain.
Hence the
doctrine
of
phenomenism,
reason,
if
is
of un-
made
itself
125
is
this philosophy
founded on nothing
it
then
made
becomes thereby
the worThe
KnowaUe Unknoivn
hnoivable
is
is
one thing
the
Known Unis
The former
yet
is
therefore
in itself
But the
able in
what
is
unknow-
now known
it is
In short, the
Known
Unknowable
40.
is
a parvenu mythology.
or the
Noumenism,
modern
therefore,
scientific
philosophy
latent in the
method, establishes
self -existent
Being,
infi-
is
absolutely and
the universe
jper se is intel-
transparent
to
go.
thought can
Universe
its
is
and
fied,
warrant
universal
human
experience, puriscientific
consolidated,
method.
41.
Few
show any
of their
own method;
Those
but
method, but
specialism,
and
it
126
scientific
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
men who
of
welcome a philosophy
itself
which
shall frankly
on
be a truly
To such
neither
more nor
less
than that
of the objectivity
;
and discoverability
and
it
will
be seen to be what
is
the philosophical
is
con-
genuinely
and
sterile
all scientific
knowledge
representation,
and thereby
the infinite
Noumenism maintains
phenomenism the
^er
se.
infinite unintelligi-
of the universe
"
lichen
Die Art der Beweise ist es, welche dem naturwissenschaftDenker jenen iustinctiven Widerwillen gegen die Philosopliie
einflcisst,
jenen Widerwillen, der sich zu unserer Zeit, wo auf alien Gebieten des Lebens der Realismus iiber den Idealismns triumbis
phirt,
(Von
Hart-
I. 9,
ed. 1882.)
Yon
mann
inductivnaturwissenschaftlicher Methode."
127
middle
there
AVhicli
of
is
no
logical
is
or
rational
ground.
of
the two
scientific
interpreter
the
method
and
spirit?
Large-minded
men
of
science, especially
those of
who have
and widespread influence which pheexerts even in scientific circles, will have
nomenism
no
difi&culty in
word "phenomena."
pearance of
subjective
For by
"phenomena"
the
by the
of
real appearance
and
scientific
men who
once under-
much
abused word.
Hence
it is
hardly presumptuous to
themselves, whether pre-
men
pared to go with
me
with
me
and
discovered
by the use
the
of that
method,
is
infinitely intelligible.
Clearly conceiving
conceives
it,
universe as noumenism
as guide the fun-
then,
and following
of
damental principle
mind
is
128
led, I
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
think irresistibly, to momentous conclusions.
it
we
are
to
telligence."
42.
What, then,
43.
but
Kow
there
is
no
relation but in
and with
terms
it
of
which
the relation.
rela-
lutely
inseparable in
It
to treat relations as
them
as separate entities
Scientific
it is
the
new
relations as
two
reality, indissolubly
yet for
44.
all
The thing
tl,
internal
forces,
and manifests
motions
it it
;
itself
by
the
the qualities,
;
a a
phenomenon
noumenon, con-
its intelligible
character.
according to the
129
quodvis
;
in-
dividwwm
omnimode determination)
all
perception
which
it
them
it is
never
known
no reason
for
denying that
known
in part
by
science.
Scientific
ato77i
discovery has
with the
of its analysis of
single
things
it-
(jjLovdhe^, Einzelivesen,
the universe
self is
tremes
a countless things
multitude of
masses,
intermediate
composite
(molecules,
compounds,
The
all
these various
in
fact,
the
case the
immanent
its
constitutes
real
unity, quiddity,
noumenal
es-
sence, substantial
intelligible
character.
in
philosophers
instance,
of
widely divergent
Fichte, on
tendencies;
as,
for
Kant and
the
180
other hand,^
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
who
its
it
all
that, so far as it is
consists
in
own system
internal
relations.
Consequently,
may
And
intelligibility itself
as an attribute or
predicate of things,
may now
in the language
rela-
noumenism, as
the possession of
an immanent
tional constitution, or
system of internal
relations.
is
45.
From
the
fact,
be inferred,
themselves alone.
dis-
no
is
less
life,
mony, or cosmos.
Order
death
and disorderly
death.
1
Taken by themselves
sincl
"
Dagegen
die innern
nomenon im
ed. Hart.)
Raume
"In der Form besteht das Weseu der Sache [forma dut hiess er bei den Scholastikern), sofern dieses durch VerVI. 480.) " Alle diese Vernunft erkannt werden (Fichte, Werke, 443.) haltnisse mit einander sind das Ding."
esse rei,
soil."
(Ibid.
I.
"
To know a
tbing
is
to
know
its
relations
it
is
its
relations."
"The
(Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, 1st Series, p. 59, Amer. ed.) thing is its relations." (Ibid. p. 89.) All these statements,
of course,
must be taken,
if fairly
is,
interpreted, in a phenomenistic,
as referring only to the things
that
phenomenal experience.
131
that do not
tionship,
relate,
mere undoing
of intelligible rela-
mere dissolution
of system,
mere nonsense
its
independent existence
they do not exist
lies
necessarily intelligible.
alone,
But
by themselves
and herein
which
is
itself
intelligible,
and
in
intelligible
by ceasing
In
chaos
not
system in which
it arises
it is
not
itself relatively
system
is
merely a part
it is
an incident
of
infinite.
of
an organic
cell is disorder
cell,
to
whole organ-
and
the
excretion of
its
exhausted
cells the
itself
is
;
whole organism
and, again,
and renew
to
the
system
of
animate Nature,
of its
and excretion
132
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
itself.
So the ravings of
enough
to
the
sagacious physician,
who
sees that
common human
of physiologico-psychological laws,
which
is
the con-
common human
relations
experience,
and
of
normal
Thus
disorder,
disease, or death,
a higher standlife,
point,
become
and
For
therefore intelligible.
possibility;
a stark im-
cosmos per
alone
possible.
chaos per
se is
simply un-
as
the
Knowable
Unknown, and
is
possible
finite intelligence
which
fails to
comprehend
it.
An
it
must be
that
self-existent,
and
self-existent chaos
would
be nothing but
is,
self-existent
universal disorder
is
flat
contradiction in terms.
46.
of
Hence our
critical
disorderly relations
leads
as
substantially the
same
it
did not
(2) that
no thing could
exist, if it
were not
THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE.
intelligible
;
133
exist
and
(3) that
if
or be intelligible,
relational
it
immanent
results
constitution.
:
To
state
these
is
in
(1) existence
the condition
existence
is
(3)
tion
existence
sibility,
their aboriginal
constitution
as
common ground
of pos-
and therefore the absolute ground of the The immanent identity of Being and Thought.
relational
to be the
such,
therefore,
is
seen
common
and
Thought,
at
once
the
ground-form
of
all
determinate
existence
results to the
problem in hand:
and
self-
in
its ^possession
of an
infinite
is
constitution.
This
the
to ask is
what
is
" in-
telligence"
48.
of
the
inteUigence must be
analysis of the knowing faculty {Erhenntnissvermogen), and that the nature of the object of knowledge
the
"what
is
known"
this
must
be determined by
the results of
priori
analysis.
Tennemann
has
weU pomted
"
134
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
all
priori analysis of
its
nously manifests
own
genetic
derivation
knowledge from the a priori analysis of the Noumenism, on the contrary, conceiving faculty.
all
must be
"that
deter-
mined by the a
which
knows
''that
"
which
known;"
is
the sole revealer of either, and in experience the subject is revealed only so far as it actually experiences.
Hence
comes
it
*'
what
is
known
first
and the
?
question, "
what knows
how
known
"
comes afterwards.^
49.
The
fact, therefore,
is only possible in relation to an object, an act of one kind or another only by special relation Thus the object at once determines the to a particular object. existence, and specifies the character of the existence, of the (Sir W. Hamilton, Lect. on Met., p. 158.) intellectual energy."
"
and
An
act of knoAvledge
it is
07ius
prohandi,
e.
g.
we have a
The
quesits
contents of experience,
not concerning
conditions.
do to say,
we
;
and then will follow the question, what 'organs' are those by which they are procured." (Dr. Shadworth H. Hodgson, art. on " Philosophy and Science," in the
actually have,
we
I.
p. 233.)
135
except
actually
known
is
known
themselves
is
internal
is
relations,
in
known
of the universe
per
is
se
except
its
immanent
relational
constitution,
itself,
understanding or
Knowing
sciousness
of
is
;
of
human
con-
the
human mind.
which
germane
to the matter in
knowing faculty
as such.
The
mode
of energizing
relations.
It deals
able ways,
and may be
therefore, to discharge
and
50. (1)
of the
is,
understandintellectual
ing
is
essentially intellection
that
apprehension,
intuition
;
observation,
is
intellectual
and
object
1 This last expression, " intellectual intuition {die intpllectnelle Anschauung]" is used here in a sense substantially identical with
136
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
pose the
thing in
immanent
itself.
relational
acts
constitution
of
;
the the
The thing
as
will,
and the
is
result of this
ing
is
two blades
and as
original
nition of the
meaning in Kant, who denoted by it the a posteriori cognoumenon by a perceptive or intuitive understanding.
denied the
its
Kant
purely hypothetical
existence
in
possible
higher
intelligences.
self-
and New England TranTheodore Parker, to denote the " immediate intuiBut these mystical meanings of the expression have tion of God." no more to do with the precise, strictly limited meaning assigned
to
it
or intuitus gnosticus
137
of vision
is
is
formed
color
perceived by
the sensibility
is
mere
limits
;
by the understanding
or " seen," far
fact, is
the
"
object of vision
is
perceived,
eye,
is
more by
"
the
in
not
seen
by the eye
the senses
tion to
to
zero.
all.
Sight
mind no
part,
knowing
faculty.^
Now
in itself
never exhaustive
power
of observation
and degree
the thing
of attention
to
The study
of
it,
This
assurer
d'aucune
chose,
I.
si
notre
entendement
n'y intervient,"
may, therefore, Mental Vision, or as the Perception of Relations." (Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, 1st Ser., p. 341, Boston, 1874. In a footnote, Lewes quotes Whewell as saying in 1849: "If we were allowed to restrict the use of this term, we might
(Descartes,
GEuvres,
164, ed. Cousin.)
"We
define Intuition as
conveniently confine
it
to those cases in
hend
we
distinctly.")
138
perceptive
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
exploration of the
immanent
is
relational
;
Analysis
is
and
understanding
essentially
analytical.
when
it
immanent
relations intelligible as a
it
whole
in
a word,
when
be
the
of
And
Analysis
itself
may now
made hy
defined
experiential
discovery,
immanent
relational
51. (2)
is
of the understanding
The
in the
mind
coins into
Words
are
not
symbols at all;
far
systems
identical, as
as
and
dis-
Eelations
;
common
is
as
an immanent relational
139
existence,
their aboriginal
common ground
of
of possibility,
no such thing as
symbolical conceptions
much
itself
is
made
in the
"Synthetic Philosophy,"
is
a "pseud-idea."
in
it
lies in
likenesses
or
outline
sketches
(so
to
speak), since, as
of analysis
work
never
is
therefore incom-
same
extent.
But that
it
this
work
is
goes,
and
is
mind, whenever
Now
class.
the concept of
The concept
joint
work
of the
individual thing
intuition
tellectual
was the
joint
work
the sensuous
imagination re-
140
SCIENTIFIC THEISM,
and the conceptive understanding are just as indissolubly associated in activity, as were the sensuous
intuition
its
original production.
thing, therefore,
The concept
of the individual
may
the image-concept,
or, shortly,
The conwork
the sole
For, in
a relational constituof
immanent
in
an actual unity
sensuously
which
is
whereas,
a relational constitution
immanent
in
an actual
unity of
many
which, however,
to perception.
fore,
it is
immanent
as such furnishes
no percept
intuition
and no image
not, therefore,
and canit
is,
an individual thing
of a higher order,
141
possesses a relational
constitution
immanent
never presented
if
Nay,
the species
as a whole, that
is,
dividuals composing
ception, then
it
image
would be a percept
any "generic
indi-
and not
vidual"
which
is
a sheer absurdity.
is
Hence the
all,
no image at
to
No
such pictures
The universal
system
individ-
a pure thought-system
relations of
resemblance among
many
uals,
never
;
individual
it
immanent in
none
of the
species,
which includes,
peculiar to the
relations
or qualities
;
individual as an individual
and
it is
the synthetical
work
is
Such, also,
action, the
motion, and so on
all
these
and capable
of still higher
142
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
In
all
re-
There
is
classifications, abstractions,
and
so forth,
which the
fix
conceptive imderstanding
may
thus permanently
They
and subject
tive one.
The analogy between the word and the coin is a very instrucMan is an immanent relational constitution, or unitary
;
From
the fact of
human
of labor-products
is
The
student of science or
dis-
who
scientific or
philosophical bankrupt.
THE
fresh
RELIGIOl"^
OF SCIENCE.
143
discoveries,
instru-
Hence
intellectual
reproductive
of eva-
and conversion
understanding.
52.
is
(3)
The
creative use of
:
the understanding
is
essentially telcological
that
is, it
struction of ends
ideal
and means.
The end
a purely
is
to
the means
is
a purely
by which
is
to be realized
these purely
subjective
relations
is
effected
by the
will,
which
is
mind and
When
of its
end from
end
it
creates is
and
that
its
is,
principle of action
fidelity to the
is utility
or expediency
is it
tion of the
tion of its
mind
itself
end
is
and
principle
of action
is
justice
that
fidelity to the
immanent
relational constitution of
144
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
se.
There
is
only
when
when
feeling asserts
an unnatural
and
illegitimate
The understanding,
will, is
freedom
when
is
cation of
when
the immediate
end
is
mediate end
is
the conduct of
or the achievement
For example,
creates
in-
pictures, sculptures,
all
;
musical instruof
works
the
higher
in
human
society;
plans
of
conduct, schemes
of
and
so forth,
and
religious activity,
in
the
instrumentalities
and
enginery of
human
53.
civilization.
Now,
145
it is
The
percept,
and
subject,
and the understanding, object noumenon known and noumenon knowand interacting
in the
ing, co-existing
phenomenon,
cept
tion
is
the perpetuation
of the percept
;
that
is,
and purely
ideal
subse-
will.
the conceptive
understanding
or
its
reproduces
them
new
subjective
systems of relations.
The
supreme
is
Mctliod,
;
which
is
teleology
means
to ends,
not for a single act or judgment, but for the universal series of acts or judgments.
Hence, method
actu, the
is
plainly
apparent.
In
standing
judgment
and judgment
is
always the
affirmation
systems of relations.
146
logical
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
combination of judgments of objective exist-
ence to produce a final judgment of precisely the same character. The percept is, originally, the judg-
ment
system as a whole
the
is
the judgment
the
end
is
is
system to
existence of
the
is
end.
But
this
is
not
all.
The
understanding
executive
in
masters forces
which
exist
the
outward world, and constrains them to reproduce relational systems which have absolutely no origin
but the understanding
itself.
This
is
the
manner
in
originally acted
understanding alone
idea, its
immanent
it
relational constiof
tution,
without which
147
formed,
is
as a
is
means
to its
own
ends.
The
ship, as
such,
truly a thing in
Hence the
tem
by the understand-
And
may now
be condensed into this brief definition, to be interpreted in the light of what precedes
:
Intelligence is
or
coristittttions.
54.
It only
identical
and
degrees.
Any
which has
food,
innutri-
or
its
to fly
from
its
mate,
proves
which
Any
organism
its
possession, not
148
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
creative, understanding.
Many
of the
lower animals
show themselves
So
modern
is
that
mind
in kind,
however various in
infinite, it
man's under-
standing were
it is,
might be added
to
it
it
would
still
nizes
would cease
to
be mind altogether.
inosculating and
tions
The network
of relations, the
which
in their totality
of
relational constitution
remain to be known
should not
and the
mind which
infinite
can be
finite
knowledge
There
itself,
is
knowledge
them
all.
or
whether
it
be
finite or infinite
the difference
is
in the nature of
infinite.
Hence
nature,
if
to the absolute
and,
if
there
infinite
149 with
essential nature
must be
identical
that of the
human mind,
if,
and not
in kind,
is
mind
or
intelligence
relational systems.
from a
finite
an
infinite
understanding would be
conceptive
;
and
creative,
but not
and while,
its
percep-
and creation must be given from without, this material, to the infinite intelligence, must be given
from within.
For, on the one hand,
it
is
only the
and
an
infinitely
perceptive
understanding
would
itself
On
the fact that the finite intelligence originally deals with relational systems only in that which is given
to
it
its
finitude
as such;
an
infinite
mind would
necessarily origi-
nate from within both matter and form of the relational systems which, as an infinite perceptive
understanding,
it
would
intuitively
comprehend.
and the
intelligence;
but the
150
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
which either
"
discovers
or
creates
relational
systems
remains
and
degrees.
;
If this is "
anthropomorphism,"
it
matters not
hard
false
principle into a
;
is
the principle
And
forms
and
degrees,
following
or
so
clearly
and necessarily
of the
from the
scientific
noumenal conception
Having
?
What
?
is in-
and
"
What
is
intelligence
" it is
time
to
of our
main argument.
It has
been shown
of the thing,
consists in
manent
and
of
relational constitution,
infinite
an immanent and
shown
of
possible forms
and
degrees.
What
is
conclusion from
351
that
must
The
existent
" other
ence.
infinitely
intelligible
universe
since
is
the
selfis
totality
of
it
all
Being,
there
its
no
"
to
which
existself-
self-existent
must be
it
determined in
and
could not
it
were likewise
is
intelligent.
Self-existent intelligibility
self -intelligibility
is
self-intelligibility,
:
and
self-
intelligence
itself
or,
must be
and therefore
intelligent in
itself.
To express
ence,
this
thought in
less
abstract terms
its
own
exist-
sole
own
that
is, it
own immanent
" ab-
relations;" and no
is
either
known
So
in
far as
system
as an effect,
must
This
creative understanding of
as
a cause.
is
substantially the
meaning
of
and
152
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
and
of Prof. Caporali's distinction,
7iatura naturata,
and natura
It does not
mean
is
causation or creation at
any
particular time,
or self-creation
Infinite
which
or causa sui
and
we
saw
in Part First,
phenomenism
no
less the
itself is
powerless
to escape.
And
it is
conception towards
steadily tending
Hence immanent
ture
is
Nature
intelligent
of
much
The absolute
invariability of natural
law,
is
which
is
verse
Now,
as
was shown
method
is
that
immanent
relational
and that
which
it is
all
the countless
particular
potentially discoverable
by observation, experiment,
No
scientific investi-
: : ;
153
;per se
of
known,
a
that
the scientific
is,
knowableness
existence
in
of
the unof
of
tlie
Nature
relational
known, but no
lessness.
unknown
in all its
bound-
of science, discovering
new
fact as soon as it is
or system of
Nature
is
the most
Yet
been shown,
is
System
all-inclusive
has, even
conjecturally,
and an
known
Chance, or
fate,
no hypothesis at
it
is
all
hypothesis
intelligence
is
the
ing, is the
1
only experientially
it
known
man
of
or hypotheti-
as witli that
whom
Gassendi
!
This clock
mad
lo,
four times
'
The
man had
not force of mind enough to reflect that four times one Those who explain tlie world by a o'clock makes four o'clock.
154
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Yet the system
;
Nature
is
it
has,
and
known
tem
is
must have, an adequate cause and the only cause to man which is ever the originator of systhe creative understanding.
All experienced
man and
mere parts
the
known
to exist as the
immanent
man
discovers a multi-
as such, therefore,
;
is
no proof
of
originating understanding
is
independent
they are
dependent yarts,
which
in its
them
or renders
them
of
There
is
one,
man,
man
is
of Nature, because
one.
known
fact,
gence, the
known
To
known
systems?
this question
if
experience
verified
155
by experience as far as experience has gone, and confirmed by reason as far as reason can go, is the
one grand and decisive proof that
ligibility
56.
see
if
Now
let
they
make
Our
se is infinitely intelligible,
is
and
infinitely intelligent.
with
per
se is
is
an
infi7iite
in-
telligible is
knowl-
edge
of
that which
;
intelligent
is
an actual subject
knowledge
in itself is at once
intelligible
and
an actual subject-object
This actual identity
a
is
of subject
and
object,
or
"
transcendental [experiI,"
ential] synthesis of
the undeniable
consciousness
Urthatsache
infinitely
des Bewnsstseins).
intelligible
The
universe, then,
intelligent
is
and
it
infinitely
at
the same
time; since
includes all
of
knowledge than
sequently,
it
itself, it
must be
own
object
con-
infinite subject-
object, that
is,
infinite self-consciousness.
Thus
far,
we seem
to
156
scientific
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
method and
of
to the
is
momentous
Self-
se
an Infinite
though
infinitely
removed
the conI see
in degree,
is
the
human
intellect.
is
Theism
and
no
way
to escape
itself.
it,
method
But
by no means an
ultimate one.
ter,
we
; ; ;
157
CHAPTEE
THE UNIVEESE
57.
:
V.
MACHINE OE ORGANISM
The immanent
se,
universe per
then,
the
mode
in
which the
itself as
the universeof
or infinitely intelligible
it is
System
Nature
and, so far as
yet known,
psychical science
is
the knowledge of
is
From
;
the
human
is
discovery
from
divine revelation
and the
fore,
infinite.
The philosophy
of
of science, there-
when
of
at last developed
universal reason
wisdom
but
life
Man
God.
lifeless
and
light appear as
we go
still
System
58.
of Nature,
with science
as our guide.
The System
all existent
must
be,
not
158
only infinitely
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
intelligible,
of the word.
must be
per-
fectly
of Being,
must be perfectly
gressively understood.
must be
perfectly adapted
in part,
whole and
tem, else
Finally,
it it
nothing
is
and inside
of itself there
no
partial or finite
perfection
it
may
possess.
In short, whatever
imperfect carries in
its
own
of death
must
at last decay
to
be
own
absolute perfection
by the bare
of
The conception
an
infinite
infinite
materialism),
It is
all,
but an unintelligible
159
It is a conception intermediate
of
infinite
;
it
of
the
total relational
system
establishes the
Many, but
it
abolishes the
One
it
and
therefore all
and therefore
thus destroying
it
all principle of
By
all real
and
ideal unity
of the universe,
would be
of the
immeasurably
inferior to each
their
for,
a whole,
gible,
each monad
atom
is
is
necessarily so conceived,
The conception
therefore,
is
essentially
and
monstrosity, and
complex unity
mob
of
disorderly elements.
be,
As
a perfect system,
self-
Nature must
and colliding in a
infinite
160
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
The
universe, then,
is
a self -existent,
infi-
nitely
intelligible,
is
But what
eral, is
that
closely
and,
purely as system,
portion to the
more
closeness,
There are
known
itself,
each may be perfect in may be perfectly adapted to its own immanent end and its own place in the general
in
human
experience
inasmuch
as it
inasmuch
and
be
comprehensiveness in
mternal correlation
may
More-
itself,
in
supreme perfection
system
is
realized in
the
lives
OrgoMism.
All other
known systems
this,
are
immeasurably
less perfect
than
and
grows.
;
Nothing
lives or
grows
the knowl-
and growth
is
derived from
it
alone
life
161
its
essential marks,
and constitute
human
perfect system.
61.
Now,
knowing faculty
that the
we found
supreme function of the understanding was the teleoThe creative understandlogical creation of system.
ing of man, however,
is
powerless
it
to
create
the
cannot project
any
it
Even
its
human knowledge
is
of
is
human
construction
mechanical recombination
The
fine arts
the statue,
the
human mind.
the mind
;
The
;
body
the wants of
ments
of the
mechanical
Hence the
for the
finite
understanding can
artificial
numerable mechanical or
enlargement
of its
systems as means
own
life,
162
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
systems as means for the creation of life in itself. If it ever should, it would only prove itself more
divine than
incf
its
it
seems.
But the
infinite
understandof
which
own
tical
"life is
with-
in
and
The
Infinite Self-conscious
Organism
of
Nature,
that
is,
the
naturans) eternally
{naUim
life
is
naturata), because
self -existence or
eternally a
self-sufficient
end that
realizes
itself,
an end in
;
itself
it
that
is
further end
and
even dependent
a self-sufficient
life
likewise, at
realizes
least
in
part,
end that
itself.
is
In other
its
words,
life,
:
whether
infinite
or
"
finite,
own
"
justification
you
fulfil
your
being's
by
living your
own
life in all
fulness by truly
fulfilling,
that
it
and you are wise indeed, if less depth of meaning and the vastness
1
in
Befriedigung gelangen, als bis es, den ganzen Standpunkt dieser ausserhalb der Natur entworfenen und ihr eingepflanzten Zweckbeziehungen verlassend, die Idee des Lebens als den sich von innen herans seine Mittel schaffenden, sich selbst verwirklicbenden
Zweck
begreift."
I.
163
implies.
is
which the
word
The
which
the
is its
essential function
;
because
essentially
as
life
finite
understanding,
and
all
its
means
for
tlie
own
uni-
Now
modern
science
rapidly reaching,
nay, has
of the universe as a
countless
grades
is
of
perfect
which
is
and
its
environ-
ment
considered rela-
more or
less perfect as
they
embrace mere or
less
of the
environment in those
life
own
which
constitute,
life.
Hence
it
an organism
and learns
;
to
its
own
uses
or, in its
other
creative
machines,
that
as
is, its
kinds, created
means
enrichment, the
This
is "
" full-filling,"
own
existence.
but
164
the test
is
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
sound.
Man
has no better
title
to his
the combinations
(relational
forces,
systems)
by
and
practi-
annexed
to his
own
of the planet
he inhabits.
be conceived as an
as
Now
or
annex.
then,
it
is
to
organism,
of
must be conceived
and growth are
an organism
all
whose
life
strictly
immanent, and
finite
from the
and
is
The
;
finite
organism not
only
it
lives
by drawing
uses, that
its
into itself,
is
and subordinating
itself,
to its
own
by
which
not
and
it
dies at last
inability to convert,
itself.
But the
infinite
organism
lives,
and
dies not
it lives
by eternally converting
form, and
it
as
no need
its
to con-
because
eternal
eternal self-creation.^
Again,
1 " En effet, c'est une chose bien claire et bien evidente a tous ceux qui considereront avec attention la nature de temps, qu'une substance, pour etre conservee dans tous les moments qu'elle dure> a besoin du meme pouvoir et de la meme action qui seroit necessaire pour la produire et la creer tout de nouveau, si elle n'e'toit
point encore
en sorte que
c'est
nous
que la conservation et
ne
dif-
ferent qu'au regard de notre fa9on de penser, et non point en " Mais il est certain, et c'est effet." (Descartes, (Euvres, I. 286.)
les theologiens,
que Taction
le
meme
que ceUe
par laquelle
il
I'a cre'e."
165
organism reproduces
is
itself
only by pro-
not
itself,
subject
But the
instant,
its
infinite
organism reproduces
itself at
;
every
its
form and
organ-
Again, the
finite
ism
the
infinite
itself,
and do not
affect
its
eternal
self -identity.
These
overlooked
tial
conception,
Infinite
then,
of
is
the
System
of
Nature as an
ception which
Organism
man
his
infi-
of
universal Being
is
law
of evolu-
conception of
166
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
has
systems of those
it.
to philosophize
In
modern thought
on the
and
this turns
determination of the concept of the immanent relational constitution of the universe joer
se.
On
this
great question,
to say
;
phenomenism
it
the answer to
its
lies
method,
of
logical presuppositions,
is
noumenism which
It is
my
final
Science has not yet reached the fulness of this conception, but
it
lies implicit in
whenever
shall
have become
come philosophy
64.
itself.
Now
this
organic
conception of
Nature
the idea,
and
falsity of
often
in
1
broached, that
"God comes
to consciousness
Man."i
Cf.
system
of
Hegel,
nothig,
befreit.
ehe
der Geist
XIII. 48: "Es sind viele Wenduugen zum Bewusstseyn seiner kommend sich
Nach
dieser allein
ist
der Philosophie
betrachten."
On
wurdigen Ansicht von der Geschichte der Tempel der selbstbewussten Vernunft zu this and similar passages Von Hartmann well
167
tliouglit,
has risen with incalculable slowness from the unconscious to the conscious; but the whole process
the uni-
is
universe
itself
as Divine
that
S'pace.
is,
as the
Infinite Life of
No more
The notion
*
of
in
Man,
if
it
means that no
before
Intellect
existed
man
namely, that an
can have no
an
intellectual
cause,
infinite
and
that,
if
infinite
intelligibility
and
intelligence
co-exist
as
must
that universe
Infinite
must be an
Self-consciousness.
Intellect
itself
is
the
intelli-
of
Der Hegel'sche
.
. .
ist
erst
'
Resultat
ist
'
fiir
sich
ist
die nothwendige,
wenn auch
ist."
bisher
meist nur stillschweigende Vormissptznn'j jodos ohjectiven odor absoluten Idealismus, der nicht unzweideutiger Theismus
168
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
is
objective relations,
of infinite
mind.
Hence
it is
God
is
originally not
self-consciousness, but
in
;
merely comes to a
thus
fails
consciousness
system or
infinite
creative understanding.
65.
of
Nature reveals
falsity of the
God
exists outside of
known
as
Being.
jectivity of
priori forms
and
self-
destructive.^
The noumenism
non
of
of the scientific
method
noumena
themselves.
The uni-
See
my
article
169
thereis
The attempt,
to
the
destruction of
intelligibility in
the philosophy
which
"
attempts
it.
In
fact,
the
statement that
" is
God
exists outside of
a double-
barrelled
contradiction
of
Time"
denies,
while the
the
All existence as
neces(if it
necessarily presupposes
Time
as all matter
affirm at the
God and
it
would
deny
all real
of either.
Not even
Time
;
outside of
To claim, then, that " God exists Space and Time" is, on any hypothesis,
at least to banish
God from
to be, in the
most
literal sense,
God
in the world."
it
But
it is
a waste of
criticism to
chaotic.
66.
expend
on a conception so dismally
The
fact of
it, is
evolution, independent of
all
theory about
170
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
modern
to the
science.
is
at least as
old as
eternal
'flux" of Herakleitos
''rest" of the
is
not yet to that which is, or development, was the only reality. Prior to the spotless and immortal
foundation
of
modern
scientific
evolutionism,
the most
influential
of
was that
as a
Idealistic
the
evolution
of the universe as a
is,
been, that
premise in
its
only
Even Schopenhauer,
who
the
starts off
so boldly in his
1
"The world
the
is
my
of
representation,"
shows
his
timid inconsistency in
existence
very same
sentence, admits
intellectual pessimistic
A
1
ir-
refutable,
"
'
but
ist
it
Die Welt
meine Vorstellung
ihn versteht
wenn
Werke,
III. 4.)
171
solipsists,
each conceiving
thing in his
own
dream,"
Idealism
of the comical.
it
ought to be a monologue;
all,
what we
I am.
my
if
philosoI
phizing
I am.
for,
if
I doubt, I
itself
think,
and,
think,
By doubt
start.
am
my
doubt
itself
must
My
with this immediate knowledge of myself as thinking and existing, knowing and being, in one indivisible reality
;
my
as
first
fact
must be that
of
my own
itself to
consciousness
immediately manifesting
identity of
itself in a real
knowing and
only a given
;
being.
can in no
way account
it;
is
any more
fact,
for
is
which no reason
assignable
it is is
a fact which
indubitable simply
because
it
immediately
devise
self-
would beg
172
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
it
was seeking
to explain
exist reasoning
'
Consequently,
first
fact
as
my
"
But
this
whole
of
my
first
is
fact?
Perhaps I have
it.
left
something
philosophy
out which
really part of
If so,
my
Let
me
more keenly.
"It
is
self-evident
thinking somethmg.
My
my
;
thinking
is
an
activity,
object.
What
is this
?
something,
I
thinking
Whenever
now
not
say,
and now
in
whole
'
my
thinking.
It is
enough
'
I think, therefore I
am
;
'
must
I not say,
am and
the
world
is
'
seems as
if
my
consciousness.
"But
no.
;
am
conscious of
any world
the world
in
;
am
not
my
consciousness, after
is
My
thought of the
world
only
my own
thought,
only
it
my own
anything but
sentation; I do
know any
object
! ;
173
itself.
my
my
thought
It is evidently nothing
my
mere representation.
it
Indeed, I do not
sentation
of
'
know why
;
I should call
'
repre-
at all
it is
any
imme-
diately know.
my
thought,
nothing
is
presented,
sentation at
of
all,
then,
I
it
must be
to
a representation
myself
though
nothing
;
Very
keep
well, then
it
when
clearly in
my
mind
cases,
must mean,
in all possible
myself
never
than myself.
My
irrefutable
This repre-
But, for
put on the
obstinately refuses to
a side-view, or a back-
most obstinately
I
persists in giving
me
a view of
all,
myself which
in
174
giving
I
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
me
my
good reasoning,
Other.
it
as
an
Other,
may
an Other, and
?
my awkward
it
?
difficulty
May
not
external to myself
May
ternal existence in
my
and
and
own
be!
existence, determines
as I do
?
my
representations,
makes me think
What
out of
What an
easy
way
in
my
difficulty,
of this puzzling
and very
of
obstinacy
my
representation
the
Let
me
'
the foundation of
ference
of
my
is,
whole philosophy.
after
all,
This
'
in-
mine
only another of
is
my
am
am
My
nothing whatever
contains nothing
but merely
but
my own
thought
is
;
thought
it
it
my own
it
inferred;
In
just as
The
on
my
perplexity.
now
175
an Other.
my
philosophy.
must
stick to
my
and
principle
it
and
sing.
may
calls
My
me
"
whole philosophy
So be
is
at stake,
it
upon
then
Whatever I
think, or represent, or
as
hoth
svljjcct
and
is
object
that
its
Idealism,
and
its
anything else
nothing but
phantom and
into
sham.
my thought
and not
essentially Eealism,
As an
is
Idealist, 1
ever I infer
myself in disguise.
cannot break
my own
mere
My
than I imagined!
My
whole
of
me
there
must be
me an
unconscious-
do not
must emerge out of some unsuspected depth of my own being, in obedience to some force or law of my own being which I do not consciously comprehend.
It is clear that I
am immensely
than
I at first suspected or
imagined
;;
176
"
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
But some
of
my
"Whatever
is
nothing but
if
my
repre-
my representation,
am
an Idealist
The conclusion
they are unreal
irresistible
mankind
ception,
exist only in
my
thought
;
they exist in
my
per-
my
non-perception
my
representa-
their esse
is
percipi.
am
as I
" I
as
am the sole Creator of the world itself. am equally their Destroyer. I represent them dying, and therefore I am the Creator of Death.
I
But
that
is
would
not Me,
Death
to
me would
be the non-representa-
cannot
and
all
is
to
me
;
absolute
nothing.
representations I call
men
self.
die
when
I cease to represent
them
but I shall
never
die,
am
Time
are
no
less
my
repre-
Infinite
Being
itself is
my
representation,
and I
creat^^
that
Ill
As
a unity of conscious
my
representa-
and
I
:
all
my
all
myself.
the All
am am
that I create.
Hence
I myself
the Infinite, I
am
the Absolute, I
am am
the Eternal, I
am
God
and only
and
"Having
arrived
satisfactory
logical conclusion
from
my
Idealistic principle,
now
take a nap."
of a "consistent
Idealist,"
is
himself an absolutely
he
is
my
representation,"
and
or in real Hfe.
The
real Idealist I
meet
is
always
inconsistent
always
;
dilutes
his
Idealism with a
it it
dash of Eealism
he boldly apphes
to the
world
unflinchingly
in particular; he
boldly applies
it
to
Space and
as has
Now,
Idealism
would certainly
be absurd;" and few would deny that the above But any philosophy soliloquy ends in absurdity.
of intellectual respect,
its
when
it
fundamental
178
principles
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
and makes arbitrary exceptions
in
to
them
as
and
real Idealism,
different
way,
is
just
absurd as solipsism.
is
there
is
no other
if
and our
overheard
shows what,
he could be
if
But the
"
solipsist himself,
he ventured to say
it to
himself,
existence,
as he only soliloquized.
In
only
irrefutability of Idealism.
Eeal Idealism
is
already
is
refuted,
if
refu-
tation
but
?
who can
refute a
man who
of
refuses all
dialogue
69.
its
Idealism
lies
in
assumption of
the
Idealist
individual
or
consciousness
alone as
indubitable
datum,
con-
human
has discovered.
Des-
upon
its Idealistic
think, therefore
Extreme Nominalism which was championed by Eoscellinus and his companions hundreds of years before ^ and Kant and his successors, men of mighty
;
"
De meme,
le
gene'ral, sans
aucune chose creee, n'est point hors de notre pensee, non plus que toutes ces autres ide'es ge'ne'rales que dans i'e'cole on comprend sous le nom d'universaux." (Descartes, (Euvres,
179
imparted to
all
Hegel,
the greatest of
"Thought, by
its
own
where
it
exists
for
itself,
its
own
is
object; "1
the chief
maxim
of philosophy
is
Idealism."
This
is
the
absolute sacrifice of the objective factor in human Hegel sublimely disregards the distincexperience.
between Finite Thought and Infinite Thought: the latter, indeed, creates, while the former finds, ite
tion
object.
it
is
only
finite,
Idealism, except
But
all
modern
scientific
of Bacon's
Gordian
construes experience
subject alone.
III. 99, ed. Cousin.)
Here
is
"On compte
genre, I'espece, la difference, le propre, et Taccident." This principle of Conceptualism denies by neces(Ibid., III. 101.) sary implication the objectivity of relations, and therefore of all the
a savoir,
le
by the scientific method. Logic and history alike show that every possible philosophy is built either on the sul)jectivity or the objectivity of relations, and the world
objective relational systems discovered
180
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
Idealistic
between the
and
Scientific
;
Hypotheses, for
But
if
the wonderful
human knowledge by
then there
is
method be not
and
scientific hypothesis,
no such thing as
is
verification,
all
human knowledge
if
a melan-
choly
lie.
70.
To-day, then,
thing,
it
Idealistic Evolution;
and
scientific realism
merely
phenomenal
fact,
is
at once both
of our
argument
and
way
demands
of science
and philosophy
others
are
Two
tion,
to
which
all
logically
reducible,
The triumph
of the
immanent
relational constitu-
Organism.
as a machine,
to
explain
it
on simply
mechanical principles
181
of
on organic by which
principles.
all
The
eternal warfare
ideas
struggle
What
has nou-
science, to say
them
affirms
reality of
that, just as noumenism phenomenism that affirms (the phenomena), and affirms also what phe:
all
nomenism
the
failure of
mechanism
to explain the
them
all.
fact of
an objective
of
and
intelligible
constitution
Nature,
its
totally independent of
human
representation for
existence;
consistent
and worthy
of philosophical recognition,
Nature
is
a veritable sys-
divergence begins.
182
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
is
heaps up proofs
of evil of
;
of its
Nature
from the
of finite
necessities
does
any
avoidable or real imperfection in the system of NaFurthermore, the mechanical theory takes, as ture.
type of the actual system of Nature, the machine while the organic theory takes the organism. It is
evident enough that the mechanical theory conceives
the real and rational unity of Nature in a far lower and cruder form than the organic theory; for the
organism
is
and comprehensiveness
73.
of internal relationship,
of content.
and
No
little light is
and
relative value of
mere hypotheses, by a critical analysis of the two fundamental concepts on which they are based, and to which, despite all special pleading, they must be
ultimately reduced.
lives
The
fact that no
machine
either
or grows, while
lives
and
grows, shows
which the mechanical theory labors, in trying work out an intelligible and complete concept
evolution as the
life
to
of
for
183
is
and growth
organism, and
is,
which
it
is
theory to establish.
this theory deals
All
is
but, the
moment
it
ap-
its difficulties
begin,
of
in
the domain
The
fact
system of Nature as
conceive
evolution
it
as
is
exclusively mechanical.
No
not, the
moment
it
its
without surrendering
This result
the case.
is
its
own fundamental
principle.
which
persist
184
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
The concept
of
is
it
as a living
facts,
and growing
whole;
it
must include
all
physical no less
and growth
of
life
and
are
Many and
the
One
essentially
and necessarily
The search
in the
the
Many and
the
Many
Many and
itself.
the
One except
the idea of
the organism
Most
machine, no matter
how
elaborated or
how expanded,
of
acumen
which are
supreme
as deeply
interest to philosophy,
When
Alexander von
Humboldt,
in
his
Kosmos,
"a
living whole," he
showed a
man
of
more than
science,
Science
itself, as
heit,
ist fiir die denkende Betrachtung Eiuheit in VielVerbindung des Mannigfaltigen in Form und Mischung, Inbegriff der Naturdinge und Naturkrafte als ein lebendiges Ganze." {Kosmos, I. 5, 6, ed. 1845.) (Compare Hegel, Werke, VII. 38: " Die Natur ist an sich ein lebendiges Ganzes.")
185
fact
now brought
face to face,
by the established
of universal
which yet admits only of a philosophical solution namely, is this universe a machine or an organism 1
74.
The old
distinction of
and inorganic,"
cated, has
as a distinction
artificial,
which
is
intrinsically misleading,
It
is
and
false in itself.
no longer possible
run between
to point out
where the
line is to be
is
it.
down, and no
man
has
enough
A
the
most momentous
universe
is
consequence
namely, that
Which
ory.
shall
be?
"
"Inorganic!"
"
!
chanical theory.
Organic
down
to the
all
The one
merely a more
machine
itself as
developed
as
an
artificial
organism
issue
is
The
not
vital one,
is
civilized world,
wherever thought
There
is
swamped
in
mere brute
existence.
no
possibility,
how-
186
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
to
by appealing
method
of
ism,
tific
permanent
must be viewed
ganic.
as wholly organic or
And
at last
depend
highest moral
interests,
aspirations of mankind.^
75.
But the
two concepts
of the
still
remains to be made.
If the results of our inquiry into the
nature of
are
valid,
intelligence,
in
the
preceding
is
chapter,
understanding
is
essentially
a means
or
an end.
re-
Now
lational
that
is
agreed.
Both
of
these
means
or ends
but that
is
mod-
all teleology,
Analysis,
lay to
"
But
this I
all
men
to
know and
heart, that he
who
Mechanism
in the
Uni-
way missed the secret of the On Heroes, Hero- Worship, and the
Uni^-erse
Heroic
in
History, p. 160,
New
York, 1872.)
187
deeply
as
just as
machine
itself
and
is
explanation of either.
Consequently, even
the
that
is
mechanical theory
every organism
is
is
correct in maintaining
its
a mere machine,
contention
tantamount
organism
is
to
teleologically constituted,
tantamount,
is
therefore, to
of its
own fundamental
The machine
is
This criticism
waive
76.
adapted
accomplishment
an
ends proves
exist,
what
it
is,
It
by
itself,
;
by the mechanist
itself,
to effect
them
repair
itself,
or reproduce itself
;
it
exists only
artificial
is
by another, and
the
for another
it is
purely
work
of art for
purposes of
art.
Such
every
the
is
exhrnal ends.
So over-
whelmingly strong
is
rudely resembling
188
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
mind
that this
crude machine
is
demonstration
of the existence of
prehistoric savages,
by whom
it
was fashioned,
itself
as a
means,
itself.
for
an organism
were,
of lower grade,
an
artificial extension, as it
as,
of
for instance,
the car-
penter's tool
an extension
of
the
human
hand,
creatively conceived
tively
by the human mind and creawrought by the human hand itself. But the
not explain
itself,
tool does
much
less the
hand;
tool.
In
short, the
machine
is
is
an
mechanist, and
able without
ex-
its
own
existence.
Conse-
ism in
annexed
it
to itself as a con-
not-itself,
and
so far given
strictly sub-
Hence
it
is
by the
itself,
it
itself
189
becomes an organism
of a lower or non-living
grade, only
when used by
own
77.
organic ends.
applies
this
must
of course con;
form
it
must not
employs.
mechanical
machine,
its
own
external
mechanist.
logically
to realize
is
this concept,
it
or
to
complete
by
conceiving
God
and the
" glory of
it.
God
is
"
as the
end
for
and
Dualism
in the
form
an old-fashioned,
artificial,
truly mechanical,
If,
and
of theology.
on the contele(as,
ology, discards
curiously enough,
philosophies),
it
does
in all
modern mechanical
itself to
thereby reduces
the utterly
no end
is
means
190
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
From
The
old-
conclusion there
theory,
is
no possible escape.
logical,
is
mechanical
when
and,
if
either
Paley type
it
presumes to stigmatize
is
crush-
ing that
it
is
which likens
the
machine
that
is, to
"
It
would be
"
safe for
As
a professedly
Monistic
as its con-
machine,
is
the
And,
finally, since
both
it,
the
:
denial of teleology
78.
is its
suicide as
philoso'phy.
Such
is
such
is
it is
apply
then,
AVhat,
It
would
but
in a reasonable
compass
to serve
"
191
adapted to
The non-living
artificial
organism
and internal
ends;
the
cosmical
ends.
only internal
:
The machine has already been explained it is only means to an end, and the end is not its own, but
and which gives
it
it,
by using
it,
the only
life
which
organism
created
an end
in itself,
which
is
not
its
As an end
is
in itself, the
its
full-fill "
own
as a
means
to
an end which
not
its
own, but
it is
simply a machine
latter,
in
precisely the
is
same
to
a mere
means
an end
of the natural
organism
itself
itself.
The cosmical
" full-fill
it
simply to
own
from
life
thus
this
supreme end
machine
its
own
192
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
full-fill "
the universal
life.
The
artificial
organism,
is
a pure
means
is
to
an end not in
itself
both an end in
to
own
life)
and a means
organism
an end which
not in
itself
(helping
at once
an absolute end in
and an
be con-
absolute means
to this
end in
itself.
therefore,
End and an
of its
Its
Immanent immanent
and
the "full-filling"
own
life,
renders
it
effect of itself,
of ego-
and
and
self-development.
co-operative)
A'ersal
is
the uniof
divine
life,
altruism,
legitimate
or
self-sacrifice
and
self-devotion.
which have
itself,
by the pursuit
of happiness, of
no
less
in society,
by
all
shows
itself in
193
forth,
but above
all
in the
supreme
and
self-
consecration.
The way
is
in
which
this exient
end in
ness in
making
it
in general.
is
no
benefit,
but rather a
;
it is
general good
it
is
species or kind.
In this
is
organism
is
machine
in
a mere means
and
the
universe as a whole.
79.
itself
of the
Many
all
and the
the facts
discover.
One
and includes
194
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
While, therefore, the mechanical theory proves itself utterly unable to explain even its own fundamental
concept, that of the machine,
and much
less that of
which
it
"open sesame"
real
philosophy the
all
rational
and
far
unity,
not
only of
and
it
thrown by the
Darwinism,
is
the only
principle
which renders
either Evolution or Darwinism philosophically inIt is, in truth, the only principle which telligible. universe from within, and renders it the lights up
is
wanted
of the abso-
my
the
knowledge
question,
goes,
itself,
beg
at
issue,
by consciously
the
or unconsciously, overtly or
moment
it
biology.
I will only
the
mechanical philosophy.
81.
What
is
"Life,"
195
unequivocally rejects
teleology, as a
principle
But
" ad-
justment"
tical
is
a concept which
is
absolutely iden-
"Adjustment
an
end.
is
The change
the end
;
is
ence
and that
and
teleology in undiluted
of
life,
strength.
teleological
then, consists in
this
teleological activity
still
according
No machine
itself to
anything
it-
created
"
it
it
simply
is
own
con-
an admission
it
that
an external
is
there,
mere machine,
that
Ed.
340.
that
So
the organism
Nature works
teleologi-
1 I.
Principles of Psychology,
293.
2
Principles of Biology,
I.
196
cally,
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
and not mechanically,
in providing beforehand,
for
the
exigencies of
organic
life.
down the
absolute and irretrievable failure of his whole philosophy, as a mechanical theory of evolution, in that
one word
"
adjustment."
and more
se-
own
philosophy.
On
"
Moreover,
we
we
the
first
causes at which
Darwin has
arrived, namely,
;
and Inheritance
and
we
There
is
future,
and we content ourselves for the present with the tracing back of organic phenomena to two
etc.^
mysterious properties,"
which
strives
The italics above are as 1 History of Creation, I. 32, Amer. ed. of there printed. Prof. Enrico Caporali, in his brilliant series still Evoluzione," " Cosmica della Pitagorica Formola La articles on
publishing in
La Nuova
Scienza (which
is
hopeful intellectual movement, in the direction of a truly scientific and yet truly religious philosophy, which appears within the philosophical horizon of the present), adds to Haeckel's two causes the
missing third
by which " Heredity, Adaptation, and Selection " " Selection " Caporali means, not the action of mere mechanical causes, but the teleological activity of the " Unita Madre," or Nature tre processi cosmici, {La Nuova Scienza, I. 75 " as Prolific Unity.
:
197
form the
to pro-
its species, to
descendants
parents,
and always
which constantly
to
change the
organic forms through the influence of the varying agencies of the outer world, to create
new forms
Accordingly
or changes into a
new
The degree
of con-
which obtains
at
any moment,
is
simply
momentary predominance
(or physi^
which
either of these
activities)
ological
On
nature,
of
we concede
we may
is
designate as
the
And,
I.
History of Creation,
253, 254.
2 Ibid., I. 17.
in
fact,
passim.
"
198
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
he
calls
Nature.
Here, then,
we have
we have
first
to explain the
whole
fact of
organic evolution,
is
her
strives to keep
its
For,
the end.
ity
So,
is
also,
cause,
gradual appearance of
new
species,
which
also is
it
as the natural
the
tendency which
strives to
the end!
from these two words, " Inheritance and they lapse into absolute mean"Adaptation," and
inglessness.
By
199
in the
prove),
own mechanical
theory.
slips
down with
the
professes
83.
The truth
the
is,
except
old-fashioned,
dualistic,
supernatural,
and
or of
faintest
philosophy.
date
Their systems,
;
therefore,
are
out of
age.
already
they
are
not
abreast of
the
Haeckel shows
"
is
no
less evident in
Spencer:
mind and body, bewhich was maintained by tween force and matter, the erroneous dualistic and tcleological philosophy
The
artificial
discord between
'200
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
development, and can no longer exist in face of the prevailing mechanical and monistic philosophy of
our day."
(The
The
" dualistic
and
to the past
"
philoso-
phy
but
of
is
the teleological
the
scientific
method
of evolution
The
and
it is sufficient
ment.
evolution,
which
is
is
the
only form of
all.
logically exist at
is
The
teleology
presents
in the
endocosmic,
its
not exocosmic,
immanent
universe as
it
life,
not external to
as
Inasmuch
as every
machine
conceive
is
"the
unscientific idea of a creator existing out of matter [die unwissenschajlliche Vorstellung von einem ausserholb der Materie stehenden
und
dieselbe
Spencer shows scarcely more insight in his very shallow treatment of " the atheumbildenden Schopfer)."
(Ibid.,
I.
10.)
istic,
pantheistic,
It
and
pp. 30-36.
subject
201
Machine
;
and
making
Monism, unmakes
it
as
is
philosophy altogether.
202
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
CHAPTER
VI.
84 The immanent
se is,
is
relational
constitution
of
machine, which
ganism, which
is
Many and
the
One.
The immanent
is
organism
and
means
(relational
been shown to be at once the essential Method of all Being and the essential Method of all TJiought, and therefore, through this unity of method,
jective) has
Thought
( 46).
of Being-in-itself,
of
Though tis
that
is,
Ideal
the
203
the universe
principle
which
of
Being
is
instinct
with an
and
infinitely intelligent
ends
that are
shows
Na-
itself in
ture to the
"
human
understanding
is
in
no sense
se,
and
sci-
actually
known
which
Nature
itself.
It
shows that
Nature
fest,
is
not a
"
manifestation "
intelligible self-revelation
It
shows that
there
is
fundamental
spiritual
identity between
essential
man and
of
the sufinite or
preme
of ends
characteristic
whether
infinite,
and
and means,
;
systems
the neces-
204
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
and
This
is
lying the
that
"
God
man
in his
own
image."
Anthro-
are no absolute
phy
ish
when
are
Wisdom and Infinite Will characteristic attributes of God which stand lumifound.
Infinite
se.
But
teleology has
its
richest fruit.
end
the
we found
Indwelling or Immanent
End and
the
for the
so far as
it is
her
as the infinite
organism, by implanting
own
and pater-
nal affection, the deep and indestructible yearning to repeat itself in that whose life is a renewal and continuation of
itself
is
its
own
in that
if
which
is
at once
both
and not
itself.
Now,
the universe of
Being
infinite organism,
end,
is
it
would seem,
for there
nothing beyond
205
which
it
it
duce
itself in
another
But
it is
that, lost.
organism,
self-abnegating
God which
trust
or
expiring
impotency,
it
reappears
with re-
doubled power
out the
infinite
organism
itself,
as
deepened
it
Law
returns,
il-
bosom
of the universe as
ineffable
limitable
in its
love
of
itself,
as
satisfaction
own
fulness, beauty,
and
the
perfection,
spiritual
and as
boundless
tenderness
of
for
offspring,
veritable "children
God,"
who
"live and
move
is
and have
but
love,
What
this
infinite
beatitude,
infinite
benignity,
infinite
the
of
hood
God ?
is
87. If such
is
principle of
immanency.
"
Be-
ing-in-itself is
in-itself,
the absolute
is,
full-filling
'
of
Thought-
that
206
:
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
we saw
Now
system freely
by the
creative
will,
is
nothing but
Thought
is
Force,
and Force
is
Substance.
thereis
The absolute
fore, or
Thought-in-Being
tem
Universe.
The ground
of this realization
can only
fitness of the
Be that
Abso-
is,
to
perception
Act.
itself
a profoundly
as
ethical
is
organism manifests
a
Moral Being
is
universe
of
Moral Law,
that the
such
sanctity
it
creative
fabric
understanding
of creation
itself
obeys
purity, rectitude,
and holiness
of
God.
The
man
207
immeasurably vaster
it-
for,
as the
atom
is
grandest virtue of
man
God.
88. I
evil
alas,
who
own
that
human can
is
forget that
But neither
Love and
without
us
that
cannot extend
is
for,
just as
om-
that
is
power
to do all
that
is
doable,
nature of things.
and
from
all
evil.
Evil
is
no end
an
in itself
it
cannot
infinite whole,
but only
mutual relation
all
shadow-side of
avoided,
all
finite
If
it
could be
if
and
is
the source of
we
justly
simply in-
Is it not
enough to lay
208
the
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
mind
"
to
know
;
that,
finite
better than
non-being
sole
and
that,
possibilities, Infinite
itself
not precisely
it is
pessimism
and
theodicy
enough
mind.
'
89. Let us
now review
sum-
mary the
tion
of
noumenal concep-
is
in
actually
itself
known
in
human
it
science,
must be
in
in-
telligible; that
it is
a phenomenon.
2.
Because
it
is infinitely intelligible, it
must be
infinitely
Because
it is
at the
intelligible
and
infinitely intelligent, it
must be an
object,
Because
it
is
an
infinitely intelligible
constitution.
5.
it
relational constitution,
fect system.
must be an absolutely
per-
209
it
Because
it
is
cannot be an
infinite
infinite organism.
7.
Because
it
is
an
infinite
organism,
its
life-
principle
its
own
finite
8.
infinite life,
in
is
other words,
infinite infinite
it
must be
its
in-
Will directed by
Wisdom.
organism,
exient
Because
it
an
organic
infinite
finite.
9.
Love
of
itself
and
infinite
Love
of
the
Because
it
is
an
infinite
organism,
its
imma-
and therefore
as infinite Holiness.
it
10.
fests
thus manior
Goodness,
fulness,
the
essential
manifestations of personality,
must be conceived
finite
and Eternal
alities
Home
of the derivative
it,
person-
but are no
less real
than
itself.
90.
Such appears
to
me
to be the
conception
of the universe
logically, in-
evitably,
scientific
method;
and such,
OF
me
to be the
Idea
God which
210
science.
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
In truth,
it is
and
human
organized
and
upon the
method.
New
any such
itself
now
lies
The further
Pantheism,
is
God
is
and
A
this
still
idea
as
Scientific
If all
" It
is
forms of
Monism
are necessarily
deemed
belief that reason in its original capacity and funcknowledge of spiritual truth, not even of the first and fundamental truth of religion, the being of God. ... I deny the ability of the human intellect to construct that ladder, whose foot being grounded in irrefragable axiom, and its steps all laid in dialectic continuity, the topmost round thereof shall lift the climbing intellect into vision of the Godhead. Between the last truth which the human intellect can reach by legitimate induction and
my
tion has no
the being of
God
lie
'deserts
of vast eternity.'
Not by that process did any soul yet arrive at that transcendent truth; not from beneath, but from above, not by intellectual escalade, but by heavenly condescension, comes the idea of God, even by the condescending Word," etc. (F. H. Hedge, Reason in Religion, p. 208, Boston, 1865.) Dr. Hedge's distrust and fear of the understanding, or " human intellect," Avhich is shared by most of the Transcendentalists, arises from defective comprehension of the spirit, tendency, and immanent philosophical creativeness of the
scientific
method.
211
on the ground
that
Pantheism must
rest
thought which
on the
principle of one sole substance, then Scientific Theism must be conceded to be Pantheism for it certainly
;
is
the All,
that
posits Spirit
and mutually
nature,
facts,
is
a defective intellectual
synthesis of the
to the
Monism
substance and
absolute unity of relational constitution in one organic universe per se, and which conceives God, the
Infinite Subject, as eternally thinking, objectifying,
Dualism
clumsy
is
is
inevitably
its
and Deism
evoluthe only form of the mechanical theory of mechanical tion which does not flatly contradict the
concept.
why
rejected
may have
tells
itself,
except in
denial of
finite,
on the other hand, Pantheism is the finite or inall real personality, whether
then,
most emphatically.
Scientific
Theism
is
diametrical opposite.
Teleper-
ology
is
;
sonality
212
it is
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
the decisive battle-ground between the personal
of the universe.
There
if
it
is it
must
and
relational
systems
is
hence the
necessarily the
will,
cannot be escaped
it
by any device
is
or else surreptitiously
introduced into,
tion, as
of
and
of
artificial
form
of the
mechanical theory
that
"
;
external creator,
"
creation ex nihilo,
and meaningless
second causes
Monism
of
yields the
theory
of
evolution
so
or
Scientific
Theism,
is
much
Pantheism as
really true and has appeared in every deeply religious philosophy since
human
thought.
213
religious philosophy
must
hold
fast,
the same
time,
the two
great prin-
ciples of the
to
foundation,
Monism.
he
is
God
is
not conceived
as transcendent,
But,
if
he
is
is
ban-
own
and mere
ceives
it
is
Infinite
Mechanic.
in
Theism con-
him
as
immanent
far as it remains
in
the world of
in the world
human
which
and transcendent
This
is
of the
no sense transcendent, as Hence the merely in the infinite universe iKr se. subjective distinction of the Transcendence and Im-
immanent
for
God
is still
conceived
in
manence
the
of
God
"Known" and
;
the "Unknown,*' as
absolutely
God
is "
Known "
as the
;
Immabut he
as the Transcendent
the Transcendent.
him
to con-
that
upon
found him
is,
Unknowable "
or Unintelligible
the Non-Existent.
Scientific
Theism does
calling
human mind by
to
worship what
it
214
stand
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
an unreal
"
;
minus one, an
a
only
synonym
it
Absolute
Un-
reality
for that
But
the
gives an idea of
of
demands
the
those of the
94.
human
heart.
man
strive to w^orintel-
which has no
being
So long as man
is
finite,
scendent, the
to of
Unknown
finite
Beyond
which the
this
cannot reach
ever-abiding
those sentiments of
true woris
abso-
mind where no
of
shoots
its
Being, but
darkness.
where
all
If the glorious
is
thought of a universe in
which God
and the
Self-
Self -Manifested,
the
Self-Eevealing
in
and
the
Eevealed, a universe
in
awe unspeakable,
Thee!"
God, I
Thy thoughts
after
a universe which
215
the
human
human
conscience,
heart,
if,
the
human
soul and
lift it
up
to the sub-
religion
is
is
dead indeed,
this
and energy in
itself as to
of sorrow,
from
its
bier at the
commanding word
95.
the
(and
it
was
my
it),
this
dignified
it
tlie
happiness and
sentiment.
We
are
born
too late for the old, and too early for the new, faith.
I see in those classes and those persons in
whom
216
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
accustomed to look for tendency and progress, what is most positive and most rich in human
am
for
nature,
of to-day
and
the assurance of
acter,
I see in
them
char-
but scepticism
the inadequacy
of the
this
fact.
They have
insight and
truthfulness
mask
of
their convictions
the
soul
piety,
adoration
I do not
find.
and
of
man-
interests
all
these they
have
ment which
.
man
being,
it
and
not
it is
not in churches,
is
in houses.
movement,
I see not
how
the great
God
heart in the
96.
new
order of things."
The
great seer
new
the great
prophet of
New
not deeply enough that mighty striving after tnith which is born of the scientific method, and in turn
bears fruit in the bewildering scientific discoveries of
this
new
time.
He saw
new form
beginnings of a
217
human
intellect
with
voice
"
of
by the earthquake and the wind of the by the " still, small Method, which the Scientific their creator,
who
to
are patient
and
muse.
If I
spirit,
and tendency
new
satisfy
to
For the head has been too long the heart in religion; and the result
satisfaction
of
to-day
is
is
the
neither.
:
Scientific
Theism
it is
it is
a rehgion,
a gospel,
a faith on knowledge rather than on blind belief, arrayed more no be will heart and in which head
against
each
other in
irreconcilable
feud,
as
the
world beholds them now, but will kneel in worship the side by side at the same altar, dedicated, not to
1
this Dante {Paradiso, XXVIII. 106-111) beautifuUy expresses love of it, vision of Divine Truth must precede the
:
hanno
diletto,
Quanto la sua vcduta si profonda Nel Vero, in che si quota ogn' intelletto. Quinci si pub veder come si fonda
JJ esser bcato
nell' atto
che vede,
Non
in quel ch'
218
"
SCIENTIFIC THEISM.
God,"
still less to
Unknown
the "
Unknowable God,"
is
but to the
Science.
Known God
of
God which
is
is
slowly, nay,
unconsciously, creating
abstraction spun out of
that of no metaphysical
the cobwebs
of
idealistic
and supremely
invisibly
product human
nature and
the
human
soul.
Scientific
Theism
utters in intel-
ligible
the universe
resistless
perit.
He who
Light
"
self-
luminous Knowledge
God
Inner
are wanderto be in
knows himself
by the up
clear
absolute security,
so long as he
of destiny
and steady
sheds,
lifts
soul in secret
infinite
and adoration
to
Him
from whose
being
all
all
human knowledge
it
itself is
a shining ray.
With
dead be
spoken
God
new
order of
For
Scientific
Theism
is
the Philosophy
OF
Free
Religion
Philosophy.
219
then, do I
breath,
my
hour of death
strife.
To
Or
chamber lone or
I lift
in tlie
crowd,
my
sight.
'
To
I consecrate
As
and
o'er,
To
And
To Thee,
then,
useless care,
And
bid
my
And hush
her
cries.
To Thee, then, with a thirsting heart I turn. And at Thy fountain stand, and hold my urn, As aye I stood.
Forgive the
call
I cannot shut Thee from my sense or soul, I cannot lose me in the boundless whole
For Thou
art
All.
DATE DUE