1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/38563ac4d42bf1fe55cef04b927dfb9c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uum-o9CVrb2IgHYpPyEV18I5S%7EXquttQjqsSWSvQEgRPXsW8NV%7EJeRfqsoFvzxO1F6%7E7HfX%7EEzLCkDrpN8CR6sb1GvzG6%7EJag4fw%7Ev6CF6wUm9Sv-ZttrQs57enDBzhMdeNuZscYLr2TljxqcTmMVscUQz25euPgsQhfGFNp041rH8YSEnWLZ54aVQIC%7EWpz8CoEAnH12bx8p9600Tcv96aQKbnSyxrJxPNXzazW9TNDZiOSVfspzi3PoypgKvAGuN5jkARfJqibkGeub9wE6FR306cAFpC7QdKrOKDOZ2ARTKVnJQ9Zr77Qxn--OBfSsgAY%7EcQIMBiEICdMlwjLdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
34f97f0df00dbc7e16a6cf61bdf56dd5
PDF Text
Text
REASON v. RATIONALISM
PREFACE TO THE SERIES
We propose in this series of papers to consider and
answer various objections to religion and the super
natural which one hears expressed at the club, the
“pub./’ the workshop, the debating society, and the
street corner, and which underlie much of the writing
in the secular press—objections that are neither subtle
nor profound, but which have a certain surface plau
sibility that i ecommends them. Many are gratuitous
assertions, dictated, perhaps unwittingly, by a desire to
escape the consequences which a conscientious faith
entails ; others spring from mere ignorance, or mental
confusion, or inability to follow abstract reasoning ;
others, again, from misreading of history. Trivial as
they commonly are, they need an explicit refutation,
for they impress unthinking minds and by constant
repetition acquire a sort of prescriptive claim to be
accepted. The Bellman’s dictum—“What I tell you
three times is true ”—suggests a style of argument very
frequently met with in anti-religious propaganda.
�No. -2,.
WHAT
IS
THE
GOOD OF
GOD?
“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God ;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes.”
E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh.
“ Our thoughts come nearer to God’s reality than our speech
does, and He is yet more real than we can think.”—St. Augustine,
Ou the Trinity, vii 6.
CONTENTS
PAGE
There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe ...
3
The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken inference .
3
Creation is an impossible concept........................................ 4
Chance may account for the Universe, thus making the
notion of Design in Creation gratuitous
...
6
5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the order
ascribed to Creation......................................................... ?
6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life....
9
7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “Unknown Causes ” ? 10
8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing
.
.
.11
9. Creation cannot at any rate be proved from Causality . 13
10. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear .... 14
11. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance .
.
12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation .
.'
I7
13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation remains a
hypothesis
14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a system now
discredited
20
15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest course .
22
Appendix ....
1.
2.
3.
4.
-24
�What is the Good of God ?
3
1. There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe.
Science in these latter days has progressed wonderfully :
the properties of nature have been thoroughly in
vestigated : even invisible forces have been detected
and controlled: but nowhere, on earth or in the
skies, has man come across God. Therefore we are
justified in denying what is in no way perceptible.
Even the Apostle agrees with us, for he admits—“ No
one hath seen God at any time” (i John iv 12).
A puerile objection this, which supposes all know
ledge to consist of sense-perception. A thing may be
known directly or by inference. Robinson Crusoe
knew that his solitude was broken by seeing, not a
human being, but a human footprint, and the objector
may examine his watch for a long time without de
tecting its maker’s presence. Yet he knows that the
maker exists. And, in like manner, we know of God’s
existence from His handiwork. Design, or adaptation
of means to end, implies a Designer.
2. The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken
inference.
God, ex hypothesi, in a unique conception. Therefore
His existence cannot be inferred from common physical
relations of effect and cause. Show me a real Creator
at work on earth, and I shall be more ready to admit
a heavenly one. Because matter may be arranged by
man in different forms, it does not follow that it can
be brought into existence.
The analogy between the watch and its maker and
the universe and its Creator is simply an application of
the general law on which the argument is really based,
viz., that every effect is due to a proportionate cause.
If the various products of human activity point to
adequate causes in the minds and manual skill that
achieved them, so, we conclude, must the wonderful
haimony and order of the visible universe. It is the
expression of the Mind of God, and, as Kepler, the
great astronomer, said : “ All science is the reading of
God’s thought after Him.” The question of actual
�4
What is the Good of God?
creation in the strict sense does not enter into the
argument here, which simply proves that, there being
manifest purpose displayed throughout the Universe,
such purpose must be due to an adequate Cause, sc.
an intelligent Designer.
3. Creation is an impossible concept.
(1) From nothing only nothing can come—“Ex nihilo
nihil fit.” But creation supposes nothing to turn into
something!
We grant that self-creation is an impossible idea : the
axiom quoted merely means that nothing can cause itself
to exist, not that a thing existing in the Divine Mind
cannot be given actual existence by the Divine Power.
God does not take nothing as if it were a thing actually
in being and give it another shape, &c. When finite
creatures try to produce anything, they can only succeed
in effecting certain changes and combinations in already
existing matter. But an infinite Power can do infinitely
more than we can ; it can produce existence where pre
viously there was none. If it could merely change and
not create, it would differ from our power in decree
only, and not in kind. As things are, the divine power
of creation is not only infinitely greater than ours, but
so peculiar to God that it cannot be communicated to
creatures. We do not profess to say how creation is
effected: that is still a mystery, but it is much less
mysterious than self-creation, or an effect without a
cause, would be.
(2) Spencer declares that the creation of matter “out of
nothing” is incomprehensible,for sue)i a notion involves
the production of a relation in thorn%ht between something (the Creator) and nothing (1
'he object-not-yet
created); of a relation, therefore ;in which the one
wemfor is non-existent; consequently , of an impossible
relation.
y
aSnosticiS„i!ilgOOd>.SPeCimen °£ the mis«‘«ss of the
agnostic philosopher, who prided himself on the
ong>nahty and independence of his mentd processes'
�What is the Good of God?
5
A child can see that the same “ impossibility ” arises
whenever an idea is translated into fact. If Spencer’s
reasoning were sound, Tennyson could not have written
his poems. Before they were composed and written
they did not exist. Therefore the poet in composing
them produced a relation between himself and some
thing non-existent ! The fact is, of course, that the
materials of the poems existed z/z the mind- of the poet
before they were actually composed, and, in the same
way, the universe, before creation, existed in the mind
of God.
(3) Eternal evolution is at least as simple and rational
a concept as creation out of nothing. Therefore, the
latter hypothesis cannot be said to hold- the field. We
postulate, then, eternal matter and force acting from
eternity according to immutable laws. By the inter
action of this matter and force the universe is gradually
evolved, until at a certain point of evolution equilibrium
is disturbed, the whole cosmos dissolves into chaos and
the process starts afresh. So that instead of a continuous
evolution, which, starting from eternity, must long ago
have reached its term, we have a series of alternate
cycles of construction and ruin. Thus the line of cause
and effect is unbroken and unending, and the impos
sible conception of a self-existing cause is done away
with.
This argument, excogitated by the Germans, Strauss
and Buchner, is no sounder than Spencer’s. For this
eternal matter-and-force either had in itself sufficient
reason for its existence from eternity, or had not. If it
existed of itself, then it is the First Cause, and a per
sonal one, for intelligence, which undoubtedly exists in
the world, cannot be accounted for by an unintelligent
First Cause. If it did not exist of itself, and there was
nothing to give it existence, it is an effect without a
cause—a contradiction in terms.
Again, this matter-and-force substance must originally
have been either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If
homogeneous, the existing diversity of species is un
accounted for ; if heterogeneous, then there were
�6
What is the Good of God?
originally a multitude of self-existing things, whereas
only one such thing can be conceived.
Finally, from mere matter and force there cannot
arise life, still less the rational soul of man. It will be
noticed that these materialists who deride philosophy
and plume themselves on scientific fact, yet build up
their systems on pure metaphysical notions such as the
Absolute and Relative, the nature of Causality, the idea
of the Infinite. A little acquaintance with the Aristo
telian philosophy which they sneer at would have saved
them from many childish misconceptions, a thousand
times explained in the past.
4. Chance may account for the Universe, thus
making the notion of Design in Creation
gratuitous.
You are rather too hasty in postulating Design in the
Universe. There may be another cause. What is there
Chance cannot bring about ? Very often a man’s
course of life is quite altered by chance. Great discovene the spread of disease, 'devastating fires are
often due entirely to Chance.
*J
'
" ch’ance hi“nd 7‘her Si”ilar ar«umen‘s ‘he word
hance is used incorrectly. Scientifically speaking
' ere is no such thing as chance, if the te™ ft
°CC~ °f e«;CtS -hhoS ad
loosely tl X(
tmetlmeS the word is employed
mechanics!
i"gulsh what is due to causes merely
iron what ’iXZ “fX With°Ut °Ur faow'edgel
Everything hat iX u kn°™ intellig“‘ Purpose
“-■7inggX
1 eo SNat:TiaaU3e £
animal instinct or Jut laws> the action
‘he Creator. Bu ”XelT V ’ “V”6 '"'“vention of
dentally combiX maf o
”e,?hanicaI fo'ces acci-
which simulates design as X
y Pr°dUCe an effect
host mould a iuttilg ’ 1 r ^'n Snd wind al’d
human face. This result n
1° * 'C sembi™ce of a
peaking relatively, not absoXlXXX? ‘X6'
ty' To ascribe action
�What is the Good of God?
j
to “ chance,” meaning the absence of an efficient cause,
is to speak quite unscientifically, not to say foolishly; a
reproach which soi-disant scientists frequently incur/
5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the
order ascribed to Creation.
There are acknowledged “ freaks of Nature ”—chance
products of natural forces which exactly reproduce the
works of intelligence. Why should not the whole
harmony of the Universe be the result of the blind
working of the laws and properties oj matter, through
endless ages ? Given time enough, and the wonderful
facts of chemical affinity and repulsion, order and
harmony might evolve gradually out of initial chaos.
First premising that this hypothesis does not do away
with the necessity of a First Cause, to which matter and
its properties are due, we reply that the order of the
Universe emphatically requires Intelligence to account
for it. A strictly fortuitous concourse of atoms, even
endowed with invariable properties, will not do. All
the laws of mathematical probability are against it.
Let us examine this a little more closely. Instead of
taking' a quasi-infinite number of atoms, let us take
seven little stones which, arranged in especial order,
may represent the colours of the rainbow. How many
other different positions are possible ?
Let the little
stones be designated as a, b, c, &c. The first two have
only two possible positions :—
ab, ba.
The first three only 3 x 2—•
abc, bac, cab.
acb, bca, cba.
1 No one has pointed out more eloquently the universal reign of
causation than the agnostic, Huxley. After describing the sea
shore in a storm as a group of phenomena which the thoughtless
would ascribe to “chance,” he savs :—
“ The man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect
order is manifested ; that there is not a curve of the waves, not a
note in the howling chorus, not a rainbow glint on a bubble, which
is other than a necessary consequence of the ascertained laws of
nature ; and that with a sufficient knowledge of the conditions,
competent physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed
predict, every one of those ‘ chance ’ events.”
�What is the Good of God ?
The first seven have 7x6x5x4x3x2=5040 possible
positions. With twelve little stones the number would
amount to 479,001,600; with thirteen, to more than six
thousand millions ; with fifteen, to over a billion ; with
twenty, to more than two trillions. The probability,
therefore, in this latter case, against hitting on one
special position is as two trillions to 1.
Here we have only twenty little stones, yet the
number of atoms in the whole world are innumerable.
The earth alone contains more than 2,700 cubic miles.
How many atoms would that make ? The sun is 333,000
times lai ger than the earth, Again, how many atoms ?
Our solar system is only a little part of the Universe
Celestial photography has already discovered a hundred
million fixed stars. It is altogether beyond earthly
arithmetic to calculate the odds against this definite
arrangement of matter, which we call the Universe
resulting from the interaction of the material atoms
composing it.1
On the hypothesis, therefore, that the original masses
of atoms were like an immense and chaotic sandstorm
rnming along the illimitable inane,” without any law
01 purpose impressed on them from without, who with
ny common sense could possibly imagine that they
°U S0 arranSe tbemselves as to form the majestic
and beautiful design of the Universe, so wonderful as1 a
whole and in its smallest detail. It would bea less
silly to assert that a child, if it hammered on the piano
Liszt’s"" ft ’ ""g114 “1(lmately Produce, note by note
Liszts Hungarian Rhapsody.” As a result tt,„
’
come Sth^nS “
‘o intelhgence.
Even the free^K "
with two°£ andlwo^pS 35?“ “ Ka die are 5 to r ;
if for a million years a mill;™? nd'veKronig has reckoned fhaf
attained the ag’ Tten X™
e
bo,rn ^ly, each of whijm
cast thirty dice twenty times it is nnf'S| a?^each minute of his life
ever obtain
™
�What is the Good, of God ?
9
a watch implies a watchmaker, and a palace an architect,
how can it be that the Universe does not imply a Supreme
Intelligence ? ”
We are all of us, atheists and agnostics included,
constantly judging of causes from their effects, and
ascribing to intelligence whatever shows marks of in
telligence. A page of intelligible print is a certain in
dication that a mind originated it. But the Book of
Nature is read by many who deny Intellect to its Author!
Nowhere is the fixed desire to escape from a Personal
Cause more evident than this appeal to blind laws
working through indefinite time. This conception is
so little “scientific” that a smattering- of arithmetic is
enough to dispose of it.
6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life.
The j>roof of God's existence which is drawn from the
necessity of an efficient cause to produce life is worth
less ffior it has been maintained by modern scientists
that life may originate from non-living matter.
Herbert Spencer says : “ At a remote period in the past
when the temperature of the surface of the earth was
much higher than at present, and other physical con
ditions were unlike those we know, inorganic matter
through successive complications gave rise to organic
matter.1 And Huxley asserts that if it were given him
“ to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded
time ” he might “ expect to be a witness of the evolution
of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”2 Weismann, the great biologist, declares that spontaneous
generation, in spite of all vain efforts to demonstrate it,
“ remains for me a logical necessity ” ; 3 and finally
Virchow, speaking before the Science Congress at
Munich in 1877, said: “ There is indeed no positive
fact to prove spontaneous generation ever took place
. . . nevertheless the acceptance of this theory is the
only possible way of explaining the first living being.”
These various dicta are good types of the abandon
ment of scientific methods to which even eminent
1 Nineteenth Century, May, 1886.
2 Critiques and Addresses, p. 239.
'
3 £osrr)-s, p. 3^.
�IO
What is the Good of God ?
scientists resort when they leave their special domain.
Huxley, although owning that in the controversy
between bio-genesists and abio-genesists the former
were “ victorious all along the line,” 1 is content to state
his opinions unsupported by a single fact. Spencer,
with more solemn show of argument, states his personal
impression. The Germans imply, honestly enough,
that their determination not to admit the supernatural
forces them to maintain spontaneous generation. Yet
the whole negative force of scientific testimony is
against them. All the resources of science have been
employed to no purpose in the endeavour to produce
life, and Virchow himself proclaims : “ Never has a
living being, or even a living element—let us say, a
living cell—been found of which it could be predicated
that it was the first of its species.” 2 Finally, Professor
B. Moore, the celebrated bio-chemist, states positively :
“ The mode of production of living matter is character
istic, and cannot be brought about by the actions solely
of inorganic forms of energy.” 3
7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “ Un
known Causes”?
But why should I admit God ? He is not a fact of
exfieiience, with which alone Science deals. His exist
ence is merely inferred. And if I choose to “stick to
�What is the Good of God ?
11
my last” and concern myself with the material Universe
alone, saying of its origin—I know nothing: I ascribe
it to unknown causes, to energies of matter which may
well have existed under earlier and different conditions
—who can complain of my attitude ? Speculation is
not science.
The objection to such an attitude is that it is a
deliberate narrowing or blinding of the human intellect. It is like the proverbial conduct of the ostrich
in presence of danger. Man’s mind is compelled by
its constitution to search for truth and ultimate truth.
To'refuse to draw logical inferences from ascertained
facts, lest the knowledge thus obtained should be in
convenient, should humble pride or rebuke sensuality,
is a cowardly crippling of man’s highest faculty. The
position, once more, is an illegitimate claim on the part
of physical science to the whole sphere of knowledge.
There are many truths which are not within the pur
view of physical science. It is mock modesty to say
we cannot go farther than she leads us. That were to
limit all knowledge to the records of our senses. Our
senses tell us the world exists ; our minds tell us with
at least equal certainty that it had a cause. An un
known cause, in one sense, because it cannot be fully
comprehended ; but known at least as completely as
the force of gravitation is known, through its effects.
Finally, to appeal to material forces and energies, as
possibly existing in the beginning and capable of pro
ducing the Universe, yet of which matter has now no
trace, and which, moreover, contradict all we know of
matter, is surely to fly in the very face of scientific
method, which is solely concerned with the observation
of facts and logical deductions from them.
8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing.
At best, it is one hypothesis against the other : material
ists ascribe the Universe to the potentialities of eternal
matter; theists to the creative act of a personal God.
The proofs the latter advance do not as a matter of
�12
What is the Good of God ?
fad carry conviction to many reasonable minds, as
experimental or mathematical proofs do.
There are other forms of evidence no less valid than
mathematical or experimental proofs ; for instance, the
proof we call deductive or inferential. The proofs of
God's existence are of this nature, not such as exclude
all possibility of doubt, but such as make doubt or
denial unreasonable.1 And their cogency, as we have
already implied, depends much on the moral and
intellectual prepossessions of those to whom they are
addressed. Some of these arguments are philosophical,
some are scientific. We may take one of the former,
referring the reader for further information to books
quoted in the appendix.
The Principle of Causality which, rightly understood,
is an axiom, asserts that nothing can come into existence
except through the action of some adequate cause,
independent of itself. Now the physical universe has
had a beginning. Therefore it must have had an
external cause, capable of giving it existence and inde
pendent of itself. This conclusion is irresistible once
the premisses are granted. The first premiss is, as we
have implied, self-evident, i.e., it is seen to be true on
analysis of its meaning. To say that a thing has had a
beginning is to say that it once did not exist. There
fore, it must have been given existence by some other
thing, as existence is a necessary preliminary to action.
• ?^Td Premiss~that the Universe is not eternalis admitted by most competent scientists, both believers
nrfiv^atena uDU ThUS HUX1Cy Speal<S Of the visible
aS ' henomena, the very nature of which
,
theZmus^al
had a be§inning and that
y must also have had an end.”3 And Lord Kelvin
opinions, the° Empero^fdSessed^^1!8 T"®, utterinS hifidel
“You believe in my genius but
the following effect:
know of its existence by my victories ” A^h have,s,een k ? You
inference, yet, if one wzsfe/oneSt crtdkW7 *’ea?°nable
to chance or good luck.
Napoleon s victories
3 Lay Sermons, p, 13,
�What is the Good of God ?
13
says: “ Regarding the Universe as a candle that has
been lit, we become absolutely certain that it has
not been burning from eternity, and that a time must
come when it will cease to burn.” The scientific
law of the Dissipation of Energy makes it clear
that if the forces of Nature had started working in
eternity they would long have been exhausted.1 The
same argument may be suggested with equal cogency
as regards a single aspect of the Universe, sc. the
presence of life. Science teaches that in the first
stages of the existence of the Universe the temperature
was such as to preclude the possibility, even in germ,
of life as we know it, />., the power of self-motion.
Whence then did life originate ? Not from anything
lifeless, for “ you cannot get more out of a sack than
there is in it.” And therefore from some living Being
outside the Universe—viz., the First Cause—God.
9. Creation cannot at any rate be Proved from
Causality.
David Strauss denies the validity of all proofs of God’s
existence, because it is impossible to get beyond the
series of natural proofs. If every single thing has its
cause in another, this is a universal law which must
hold good always and everywhere, thus making it im
possible to reach an exterior cause.
An objection which denies the validity of rational
inference! A train passes before my window. It is so
long that I cannot see eithei- the beginning or the end.
I can only see that every carriage is drawn by another
and that evidently there must be some motive power,
and I naturally conclude that there is an engine in front
of the train. My conclusion goes beyond what I can
see. Strauss would say that my conclusion is wrong
1 Once we grant a First Cause, self-existent from eternity, the
eternity of the created universe becomes conceivable, for the" First
Cause may have been eternally creative. It is not easy to arrive at
a clear conclusion on such matters as these, for by a necessity of
our minds we cannot think of eternity except as infinite time
whereas it does not involve succession, as time does,
’
�14
What is the Good of God ?
for that very reason. He would admit that each
carriage was pulled by another, but would deny the
necessity of a locomotive. Is it credible ?
Others, again, affect a childish precocity, and assert
that as we seek the cause of all things, so we should go
further back and seek the cause even of God Himself.
But this is absurd. The law of causality only says :
“ Every effect must have a cause,” or, in other words :
“ That which is not self-existing must have the cause of
its existence in something else.” Does it not clearly
follow that a First Cause must exist, One whose essence
includes His existence ? This Being—God—exists
necessarily of Himself and of no other; to demand
a further cause for the self-existent is nonsense.
io. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear.
The only scientific way to investigate this question is
to go back to origins and study development—the
positive, historical method. According to ethnographists, religion took its start from the fears of
primitive man, excited by the terrible phenomena of
nature. As Horace says even of the Romans of his
time: “ When ffove thunders in the sky we believe in
the fad of his sovereignty.” 1
As usual, we are met by an unverified assumption.
There is no evidence in history for a continuous
evolution of man from a lower to a higher moral and
intellectual level. Indeed, what evidence we have
tends to prove that the human race started in a “ Golden
Age of some sort, from which it afterwards degeneiated. The Biblical narrative, containing the first revela
tion, is confirmed by the oldest literature in the world.
1 he only inference to be drawn from the fact that savages
attribute natural phenomena to their gods, is that they
relieve those deities to be immensely superior to men.
We cannot “scientifically” conclude that belief in the
existence of the gods actually arose from the pheno
mena, whether formidable or beneficent. It is mucl|
1 Odes, iii 5.
�What is the Good of God ?
1
I
i5
truer to say that fear (fear, that is, of an omnipotent
judge) causes disbelief in God. “ No one denies God’s
existence unless he has an interest in doing so,” says
Bacon. “ There is no God ” might often be para
phrased “ I wish there were no God, for I have reason
to fear Him.”
ii. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance.
The riddles of Nature gave rise to a belief in God.
It seemed simpler to seek their solution in a personal
agent than to account for them otherwise. But the
growth of science has explained things fully, and
experience has banished mere speculation. As a
general rule such credulity disappears with the advance
of learning. It was but natural in the savage, of
whom Pope writes:
“ Lo, the poor Indian whose untutored mind
Sees God in clouds or hears Him in the wind,'' &c.
Essay on Man.
This argument is characteristic of the methods of
certain modern scientists who hope by repeated unsup
ported assertions to give currency to their own peculiar
views. It also illustrates the inspired saying of St.
Paul : “ Scientia inflat ”—“ Knowledge puffeth up.”
It is full of an arrogance which is quite alien to the
spirit of true learning. The real wise man is too
conscious of the narrow limits of his own knowledge to
despise the ignorance of others. To these self-sufficient
sciolists may fitly be addressed the words of Job : “ Are
ye, then, the only men that there are, and shall wisdom
die with you ? ”1 As a matter of fact, whether we
count names or weigh merits, the witness to God’s
existence among men of science is overwhelmingly
great. Let us mention but a few of the more prominent
modern English-speaking scientific men, who, in spite of
their great learning, have retained their religious beliefs.
Amongst Physicists, Chemists, &c., we find Lord Kelvin,
Lord Rayleigh, Sir William Ramsay, Sir Henry Roscoe,
§ir William Crookes, Professor Balfour Stewart,
1 fob xii 2.
�i6
What is the Good of God ?
Professor P. G. Tait, Sir William Abney. Amongst
Mathematicians, Professors H. Lamb, A. C. Dixon,
George Chrystal, M. W. Crofton, G. M. Minchin, Sir
Oliver Lodge. Amongst Geologists and Palaeontologists,
Professors J. Geikie, W. Boyd Dawkins, H. G. Seeley,
Sir Joseph Prestwich, E. Hull, W. J. Sollas, Sir
Archibald Geikie. Amongst Biologists, Physiologists, &c.,
Professors G. J. Romanes, Augustus Waller, W.
Stirling, L. S. Beale, Sir Douglas Galton, Sir Jas.
Crichton-Browne, Sir Victor Horsley, J. Butler Burke,
Gerald Leighton, B. Windle. Amongst Astronomers,
Sir David Gill, Dr. E. W. Maunder, Professor H. H.
Turner, Dr. A. C. Crommelin, Professor Ellard Gore, Sir
Robert Ball, Professor S. Newcomb. In the Medical
Profession, Lord Lister, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Patrick
Manson, Sir James Y. Simpson, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir
Samuel Wilks. Amongst Zoologists, Professor A. Sedg
wick, Sir Richard Owen, Professor G. H. Carpenter,
Dr. S. O. Harmer, Professor H. Macintosh. Amongst
Psychologists, Professor James Ward, Dr. J. C. Schiller,
Professor J. C. Murray, Professor H. L. Orchard.
We have not given all possible names ; we have not
included all the branches of Science ; we have not men
tioned men of past generations or of other countries, or
clergymen eminent in scientific research ; there are
enough and to spare here to give the lie to the
constantly repeated assertion that real learning is
incompatible with belief in God.1 One believer of
commanding eminence in Science would sufficiently
disprove it, and there are hundreds.
In strong contrast to the dogmatism of many pseudoscientists is the caution of the genuine pioneers and
discoverers With few exceptions these realize the
units of their subject and the inadequacy of their
A. HRel,^io1^ Beliefs of Scientists, by
by J. J. wLlsh ’ C?
Sciencc' Ist and 2lld series;
K. A. Kneller, S.J, translated by f M l^ttlf m'p'T Sfe'lC%f}
^graphical dictionary.
y
-Kettle, M,P„ and any full
�What is the Good of God?
*7
methods. Romanes declares (Nineteenth Century, June,
1888), the theory of evolution has done nothing but
“throw back the question of design from the facts
immediately observed to the causes subsequently dis
covered. And there the questions must be left by
science, to be taken up by philosophy”—for which
latter pursuit most “ popular scientists ” are singularly
ill-equipped. Speaking merely as a scientific man, Du
Bois-Reymond, who is an avowed materialist, has the
honesty to confess that, after all that science has done,
its verdict as to ultimate truths must be, “ We do not
know and we never shall.” Still more explicit is the
testimony of the late Lord Kelvin, one of the most
eminent physicists of the 19th century. He, if any one,
had penetrated into the deepest secrets of nature, yet
this is how he sums up his life-work, even within
the domain of science itself :—
“ One word characterises the most strenuous efforts I have
made perseveringly during fifty-five years : that word is failure. I
know no more of electric and magnetic force, or of the relation
between ether, electricity, and of ponderable matter, or of chemical
affinity than I knew and tried to teach to my students fifty years
ago in my first session as Professor.” 1
In the light of such testimonies, the absolute dicta of
Haeckel and his English vulgarisateurs, Clodd, McCabe,
Hird and the rest, may be rated at their true worth.
So far from belief in God resting on ignorance, it is
more imperatively demanded by every advance in
human knowledge.
12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation.
No doubt many learned men have been believers, but
there are, and have been, many who are atheists. If
knowledge leads to belief in God, why do not they
believe ? No one can dispute the profound knowledge
of a Darwin, a Spencer, a Huxley, a Haeckel—yet their
great intellects and eminent talents left them, perhaps
even made them, creedless.
As we have just seen, the pursuit of Science, even
when attended by the greatest success, so far from
1 Speech on the occasion of his Jubilee, 1896. See Life, vol. ii,p,984.
�18
Whad is the Good of God ?
leading away from God, is quite compatible with full
acceptance of the supernatural. So the atheism and
agnosticism of many scientific men must be ascribed to
some other cause or causes. Some of these are un
doubtedly moral—belief in God implies recognition of
His claims, acknowledgement of certain limitations to
human liberty, and due responsibility for human action.
Some, again, are intellectual—every one has some philo
sophy, practical or speculative, and if his philosophy is
false, if it denies, for instance, the existence of absolute
truths, or the invariability of metaphysical laws, it
may easily blind him to the cogency of the proofs for
God’s existence. Add to this, that God has designedly
left those proofs such that, unlike mathematical truths,
they can be denied without obvious self-stultification ;
in other words, that good-will must enter into the act of
faith—and we have enough to account for the un
doubtedly disquieting phenomena of many powerful
intellects arrayed against the truth. If the boasted
methods of science were applied rigorously all round
and its due weight given to every form of evidence,
reason alone would lead to God. As Lord Kelvin said
to some University students in 1903 1 : “Do not be
afraid of being free-thinkers. If you think strongly
enough you will be forced by science to the belief in
God, which is the foundation of all religions. You will
find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.”
Long ago Bacon expressed the same thought: “A
little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism • but
depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to
leigion.
But to start, as many sceptics do, with
assuming as an axiom that there is nothing beyond
nature, is to close one’s mind to all possible evidence
The sclT'f3tUral_SUrely "Ot 3 scientific proceeding !
™ eXlP
SCle",Ce Pr°Pe‘-Physical science—is the
SS'X*’ are applicable “d
PP
’^>1099.
all leasoning processes on what* Essays: Of Atheism.
�If'hat is the Good of God?
19
ever subject. A sincere acceptance of the inexorable
and self-evident law of causality—“ Nothing can begin
to be without a cause independent of itself ”—would go
far to upset all the theories of the materialists.
13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation
remains a hypothesis.
After all, “ seeing is believing.” As a matter of fact
the man of Science, as Huxley says, “ has learnt to
believe in justification, not by faith but by verifica
tion” lize believe vchat has been experimentally
proved. All the rest is the creation and, perhaps, the
mere figment of the brain.
This is the common talk of half-educated scientific
smatterers. Such men do not realize that a great deal
more than fact verified by experiment enters into their
knowledge. They talk glibly of the laws of nature—
which of them has ever seen such a law ? These
“ laws ” are, to quote Huxley again, “ the product of a
mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
under our observation, and has no more existence
outside the mind than colour has.”1 They discourse
learnedly, once more, about atoms, molecules, etherwaves of light, but all these things are mere postulates
of the reason. None of them has been seen or
measured. Disciples of Haeckel should remember,
though he himself frequently forgets, their master’s
descriptions of “purely scientific investigation,” viz.
“firstly, experience; secondly, inference.”* We must
insist again upon the reality of our purely inferential
knowledge. Philosophy is as truly a part of “ science ”
as is the study of natural forces, &c.: they differ only
in the fact that the former deals with ultimate causes of
phenomena, and the latter with proximate causes and
the phenomena themselves. The logical process that
determines the existence of the electric fluid is exactly
the same as that which demonstrates the existence of
God. To question the validity of our mental operations
1 Pseudo-Scientific Realism, p. 77. • Riddle oj the Universe, p. 6.
�20
What is the Good of God ?
or the power of our mind to acquire certain knowledge
is to destroy the possibility of Science itself.
14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a
system now discredited.
At one time Philosophy was all in all, and Science
was hardly thought of. Bid since the time of Bacon
these positions have been gradually reversed, until in
most scientific circles Philosophy is only mentioned to
be laughed at. But without Philosophy there can be
no real proof of God's existence.
In order to criticize this statement properly we must
determine what is meant by philosophy. It is the
application of mind to the facts of experience with a
view to discovering their ultimate nature. Just as
Mathematics has its axioms, so Philosophy must have
its principles, certain assumptions, for instance, about
the power of the intellect to ascertain absolute truth, or
about the laws which govern the right use of the mental
processes. One system of Philosophy differs from
another according to the principles it starts with or the
piocesses it sanctions. If any philosophical system has
been disci edited, it is important to discover which it is.
The only systems which are known or studied nowadays
in scientific circles ” are those which arose after the
general abandonment of Catholic philosophy by those
who left the Church at the Reformation. These, there
fore, being the only ones they know, are the only systems
scientific men have a right to laugh at, and we may
well grant them that right. Since Descartes and Kant
the so-called modern philosophy has let the
�What is the Good of God?
1
1
our sense-experience, and our deductions therefrom
have no correspondence with reality. There are two
orders, of thought and of thing, but there is no means
of uniting them. On this assumption he undertakes to
investigate our knowledge and intellectual powers ; but
with what instrument ? With his own intellect, of
course, which, according to him, is completely unre
liable. What result can we expect from such an inves
tigation ? Kant tells us that we have certain mind-forms,
a priori cognitions, such as those of space and time, by
which our sense-experience is necessarily modified.
But those “ forms ” have no existence outside the mind,
so that we have no knowledge of things as they are.
How, then, can he expect us to accept his opinions as
true ? Must he not admit that he too is the victim of
illusions, and that he cannot know whether he tells the
truth or not, whether he explains human knowledge
rightly or wrongly ? Kantian Dualism is weighed and
found wanting.
Fichte (1762-1814) went still further, and denied the
reality of sense-perceptions, explaining them as crea
tures of the Ego which alone possesses any reality. So
that the world does not exist outside consciousness.
This is idealistic Monism, and is equally unsatisfactory.
We need not further examine the later philosophy of
Hegel (1770-1831), which is more purely arbitrary than
its predecessors. Everything is an expression of Abso
lute Thought ; we are aH part of God, &c. This is
Pantheistic Idealism. That such philosophical systems
should fall into discredit even in the land of their origin
is not surprising, but rather quite natural. What foun
dations remain if this huge visible world of matter and
force, of light, colour, and sound, is nothing more than
a mere projection of my inward sense, or, if the whole
world of thoughts and ideas is nothing but a phantom
of the “ Ego,” a creation of the mind without any true
objective equivalent ?
The reaction from such spinning of cobwebs has
�22
/F/W
is the Good of God ?
naturally taken amongst unbelievers the form of
Materialism. In this system, which is also monistic,
instead of everything being Mind, everything is Matter.
Comte (1798-1857), the inventor of Positivism, or the
Religion of Humanity,1 was a Materialist, in that he
limited all valid knowledge to sense-perception, for the
senses can only tell us of the existence of matter. The
chief modern exponent of Materialism is Haeckel, who,
while professing to keep within the limits of pure
Science, is as speculative as the veriest Idealist of them
all. If this form of Philosophy is not also derided by
men of Science it is because it masquerades under
another name, and thus conceals its non-scientific
character. We need say no more of it here.
To such depths has modern philosophy sunk. But
it would be a great mistake and a sign of a very limited
knowledge indeed if one confounded these vague and
arbitrary systems with the true, sound, always valuable
“ philosophia perennis ” which was founded by Aris
totle, adopted by Christianity, and marvellously
developed by the Scholastics, especially by St.
Thomas Aquinas, and which even nowadays is in full
harmony with the results of the natural sciences, and
gives us the only consistent explanation of the world.
But it needs the humble repentance of the Prodigal
Son and a “ Pater, peccavi,” to find God, and this the
poor, hungry, and naked so-called modern philosophy
has not got the courage to say.
15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest
course.
Aflei hearing of all these different opinions and systems
of the philosophers, one is finally driven to the opinion:
Nobody knows anything for certain; one person
denies what another asserts.” Therefore, the only
thing left for the man who has not the time or the
a 11 y for pei sonal investigation, is to remain in an
tht'e^peiaX Gid'
°‘ “S adtarents-t0 “nsisl °f
�What is the Good of God?
23
altitude “ of honest doubt.” Scepticism becomes the
only rational policy.
Scepticism, in its full sense, holding nothing as cer
tain, is not only not rational, but is also not possible.
For as soon as a sceptic makes an assertion, he contra
dicts himself and admits at least something as true.
He either maintains the incertitude of all cognition,
and claims that assertion and the arguments which
support it to be true ; or, he doubts that assertion, in
which case he still holds several things as true ; for
instance—that, true and false are not the same, that
certitude and doubt differ from each other, that one
cannot acquire certitude, that he himself has that
opinion, and that he himself is existing. “ But I doubt
even that.” “ Do you doubt the difference between
true and false ?” “Yes.” “ Why, then, do you contra
dict me ? For it does not matter to you whether it is
so or not ! Do you also doubt the difference between
your opinion and mine ? ” “ Yes.” “ Then you have no
reason whatever to say anything. Moreover, you have
just now asserted two things, and even if you were to
say again, 11 do not know,’ you would at least affirm
your ignorance. In short, if you wish not to contradict
yourself you must never express yourself.”
It is clear, then, that as long as a man uses his reason
at all he cannot doubt everything. By its very con
stitution the mind is bound to admit facts which are
based on evidence, just as a healthy eye must see, if
the necessary conditions are at hand. And there are
a number of truths which are self-evident. Thus he
must admit the fact of his own existence, for if he
doubt it, his doubt supposes it already. The same with
the principle of contradiction, z.e., that the same thing
under the same aspect cannot exist and not exist at
the same time ; for every denial and every doubt pre
supposes the principle. Even in mathematics the first
general and fundamental propositions, that the part is
less than the whole, for example, are taken as self-
�24
What is the Good of God ?
evident. They may be explained but not proved, for
they are self-evident and fundamental truths.
From the existence of unchangeable truths like these,
moreover, the existence of a real primitive truth—that
is, the existence of God—follows as a logical sequence.
Accordingly, although “ doctors disagree” very fre
quently and fundamentally in this modern world, the
business of the learner is to discover some logical
system which makes no arbitrary demands, which
acknowledges the soundness and, at the same time,
the limitations of natural faculty, which gives an answer
to all the puzzles of life, or at least gives reasons why
the answer is not yet possible, which, logically pursued,
does not issue in immorality or inhumanity. There is
only one system that does all that, the system which
is based on the fact of a Personal Creator to whom
the Universe belongs and to whom man is accountable.
APPENDIX
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS FURTHER DEVELOPING THE
PRECEDING ARGUMENTS
Pamphlets—
The Existence of God, by Mgr. Canon Moyes. Sands, 6d. net.
Science and Faith, by Rev. Dr. Aveling. Sands, 6d. net.
The Church versus Science, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net
Modern Free Thought, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net. •
Why I Believe tn God, by A. E. Proctor. C T S id
Agnosticism, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. C.T.S. id’’
Modern Science and Ancient Faith, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J.
c. 1 .o., id.
Science and Sczendsfc; Science or Romance?; Evolutionary
Philosophy and Common Sense, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Three
volumes. C.T.S., is. each.
Books—
by Rev- Bernard Boedder, S.J. Longmans,
•, By ,Pre,sident Windle. Sands, 3s. 6d. net.
Se Old
Dr< AvelinS- Sands, 3s. 6d. net.
^ Re^J Ger”ald
<Criticism of Haeckel),
The Reign if Law, by the Duke^rgyU
5 Pap6r’ 6d<
Agnosticism, by Prof. Robert Flint. Blackwood.
printed and pcbushedby THE CATHOLIC truth
SOCIETY, LONDON.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What is the good of God?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Catholic Truth Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Series: Reason Versus Rationalism, no.2
Notes: Includes bibliography (p.24).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1522
Subject
The topic of the resource
God-Attributes
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (What is the good of God?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
God-Proof
Religion and science