camp see the coming of the reconciliation.

A writer of a recent
scientific book upon God, when told by a friend that People
will say that the book is written by an atheist, replied: I would
make no objection if they only modify the statement by saying,
Written by an atheist who loves God.
Dr. Paul Carus, editor of The Monist, says: The best evidence
that the scientific spirit pervades the atmosphere of the present
age can be seen in the influence which science exercises on
religion. There it appears as Biblical Research (sometimes called
Higher Criticism); in the study of the history of Christianity
and of other faiths; and in a philosophical purification and
deepening of the God-idea.
The same writer characterizes the Monistic position by the
following motto:
No agnosticism but positive Science,
Not mysticism but clear thought,
Neither supernaturalism nor materialism.
But a unitary conception of the world;
Not dogma but Religion,
Not creed but faith.
Passing from the field of theology and religion to that of
metaphysics, we find changes equally revolutionary. From being
considered the foggiest, most impractical, dreamiest form of
speculative thought, we find metaphysics invading the field
of the practical and workable. The new metaphysics, arising in
response to the spirit of the age, is meeting the requirements
of Pragmatism the test question of which is: What is it good
for? How will it work? What can be done with it? Will it work
out in everyday life? Strange as it may appear to those familiar
only with the old conception of metaphysics, the modern
demand is for a new metaphysics a system of metaphysics
that may be used in everyday life, and that will be of some
good to those who may master its principles. This tendency
The Crucible of Modern Thought
136
is deplored by those of the old school who hold that the
subject of metaphysics must necessarily be entirely removed
from that of the phenomenal world and the activities of life,
but, be that as it may, it is unquestionably the fact that the
trend of the latest metaphysical thought is in the direction of
a practical metaphysics and away from the foggy speculations
of the past. The material of the past, however, is being used
in constructing the new metaphysics. No longer concerned
with the abstractions regarding the probable nature of an
Absolute which by reason of its very being must be without
qualities, attributes or properties, the latter-day metaphysician
is inquiring how the underlying something manifests through
the individual, and how the individual may avail himself of
the cosmic forces behind and in him. The many are asking
how the One may be manifested through them. As crude and
naive as may be some of these efforts, nevertheless, this is the
metaphysical problem of to-day this is the quality demanded
of the new metaphysics.
Passing from the realm of metaphysics into that of philosophy,
we find startling changes. The philosophy of to-day, instead of
being merely an extension of metaphysical inquiry, has taken
on quite a scientific spirit. The inductive method of reasoning
has supplanted the deductive in philosophy the scientific
method is now the rule. No longer content with the attempt
to explain the universe by an assumed principle, philosophy

now begins with the universe and strives to work backward to

its underlying principles. The guesses of the majority of the
old philosophers are now regarded merely as the curiosities of
philosophical thought. While many of the old thoughts appear
in the new systems, they are used in connection with new
methods of inquiry. Biology and psychology are blended into
the philosophies of to-day and philosophical theories must
square with these branches of science in order to be accepted
by thinkers. The old school philosopher evolved a theory of
the universe from his own inner consciousness and then
The Bubbling of the Pot.
137
attempted to explain the universe by means of his theory. If the
facts did not agree with or fit in with his theory, well, then so
much the worse for the facts. The new school of philosophers,
on the contrary, have made of philosophy a science; indeed, as
Dr. Carus has claimed, philosophy is the science of sciences.
This writer speaks as follows regarding the method of scientific
inquiry demanded, and observed, in the work of the modern
philosopher:
Science is based upon observation and experience. It starts with
describing the facts of our experience, and complements experience
with experiment. It singles out the essential features of facts, and
generalizes the result in formulas for application to future experience;
partly in order to predict coming events; partly, to bring about
desirable results. Generalized statements of facts are called truths, and
our stock of truths, knowledge. There are always two factors needed
for establishing scientific truth, indeed, for establishing any kind of
knowledge; they are, first, sense experience, and, second, method. By
method we mean the function of handling the material furnished by
sense activity, viz., identifying samenesses and differences, comparing
various phenomena, i. e., classifying and contrasting them; measuring
and counting them; tracing the succession of cause and effect, and
arranging the truths thus established into an harmonious whole. The
old philosophies are constructions of purely subjective significance,
while agnosticism, tired of these vain efforts and lacking strength to
furnish a better solution of the problem, claims that the main tasks
of philosophy cannot be accomplished; but, if science exists, there
ought to be also a philosophy of science, for there must be a reason
for the reliability of knowledge. We may confidently hope that the
future which the present generation is preparing will be the age of
science. Here we have the test of progress. Progress is not, as Spencer
says, a passage from the homogeneous to a heterogeneous state, it
is the realization of truth. Progress means the growth of soul, and
growth of soul means growth of truth. The more clearly, correctly and