Page images
PDF
EPUB

UNIVERSITY

CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION.

IN

N order to a correct estimate of the theistic argument, we must know its exact scope and purpose. Misconception on this point is very common, and injustice is done to theism. It is commonly assumed that the theist aims to demonstrate the existence of God. Of course a strict demonstration is impossible, and then theism is held to be overthrown. No notice is taken of the great fact and field of probable reasoning upon which both daily life and objective science are built. It is also urged that the theist assumes that all order is designed order, and thus begs the question; for the dispute is, whether the natural order be designed. Most criticisms of theism turn upon one of these objections. Either the argument is rejected as a failure, or it is called a begging of the question. Such criticisms, so far as they are made in good faith, rest upon a failure to distinguish between demonstrating a theorem and solving a problem. The demonstration of theorems belongs entirely to the formal sciences; all the sciences which deal with reality aim only at the solution of problems. They find their problems in the observed facts, and then they raise the question how we must think of the back-lying cause or causes, or

antecedents, in order that the facts should be as they are. Every scientific hypothesis is an attempt to solve the problem presented by a certain class of facts; and the proof of the hypothesis always consists, not in its being impregnably deduced according to the canons of formal logic, but in its furnishing the only adequate solution of the facts. The geologist finds traces of fire in the rocks, and he explains them by assuming that the earth was once molten. Now even allowing this conclusion to be just, he would not pretend that he had demonstrated the original fluidity of the earth, but only that he had given a rational solution of the problem contained in certain geological facts. So with the nebular, the atomic, the ether, the evolution theories, etc.; they are all solutions of problems, and our faith in them is based entirely upon their adequacy to the facts.

The theistic theory is of the same kind; it has the same aim, and is judged by the same canon. The theist does not claim to demonstrate the existence of God, but only that the problem of the world and life cannot be solved without God. He does not assume that all order is designed order, but he insists that the actual order, which of course includes man, cannot be understood, except as the outcome of design. To the objection that he assumes that nature can be understood, he replies, that all science is based on the same assumption, and is but an attempt to comprehend the facts of experience. To the claim that what is necessary to an understanding of nature is not, therefore, necessarily a fact of

nature, he replies, that so far as this lies against theism, it is equally valid against any and every scientific hypothesis. Atoms, ethers, and a certain order of past events are necessary to an understanding of the present facts; but if we choose to be skeptical, we can say that this necessity does not prove their reality; and we can say it in this case with as much justice as in the case of theism.

Another point to be borne in mind is, that every theory must be judged, not only by its power of making grimaces at opposing theories, but also and chiefly by its own positive adequacy to the facts. This simple rule of criticism has been so generally ignored in judging theism that it is necessary to insist upon it. Every one acquainted with atheistic treatises will recognize that their chief force has been in picking flaws in the theistic argument. There has been comparatively little effort to show any positive sufficiency of atheism to give any rational account of the facts. On the contrary, the failure of theism to exclude all possibility of doubt has been oddly enough mistaken for a proof of atheism. It never occurs to the atheist to ask whether the difficulties and improbabilities of his own system be not infinitely greater than those of theism. In this respect he is like a disciple of the Ptolemaic astronomy, who, finding difficulties in Copernicus and Newton, should conclude that, therefore, the Ptolemaic system is true. A rational judgment can be reached only as the theistic theory, with all its difficulties, is placed be

side the atheistic theory, with all its difficulties. When this is done, the theist will have no cause to be ashamed of his faith. In neither case is it a matter of demonstration, but of rational probability. This point is generally kept out of sight in atheistic discussions; all the more, then, must the theist call attention to it.

Still another point must be mentioned. The nature of reality is never a matter of perception, but solely of inference from the phenomena. At this point crude common sense often lends aid and comfort to atheism and materialism. Matter as noumenon and as cause is supposed to be given in immediate perception; and as God and the soul are not perceived, but inferred, the impression spreads that atheism and materialism have fact on their side, while the opposing views are only subjective theories. Of all crudities in thinking, this is certainly one of the worst; it is in philosophy what Jasperism is in astronomy. It will be remembered that Brother Jasper, of Richmond, Va., has reached the conclusion that the sun moves; for he "hab seen de sun on one side ob de house in de mornin', and on de odder side ob de house in de afternoon; and as de house hab not moved, derefo' de sun he do move.' This is very clear and convincing. Brother Jasper thought that a resting sun could not be seen on both sides of the house, and hence he mistook the astronomical truth for a denial of the phenomenon. The philosophical Jaspers make the same blunder. They mistake inferences from the phenomena for their denial. Hence when

they hear that nature may be but the manifestation of a spiritual power working under the forms of space and time, they fancy that visible and tangible phenomena have been denied; and they think it sufficient to stamp on the ground or to kick a stone in disproof. It is pitiable in the extreme to find even distinguished editors of distinguished periodicals advancing such ghastly irrelevances. No one dreams of denying any of the phenomena of inner or outer experience. Brother Jasper, of course, has a very clear idea of matter; but the physicist finds himself forced to go behind material phenomena—not to deny, but to explain. At once he finds himself in a supersensible world, which can be entered only by thought, and whose reality can be assured only by thought. But the results reached are never to be mistaken for denials of phenomena, but as conclusions from them. The astronomical heavens do not deny the visible heavens, but are based upon them. It is oversight of this fact which accounts for the popular impression that philosophy leads to skepticism; and which, on the other hand, accounts for the popular skepticism of philosophical results. The question of all speculation is not whether there is reality, but what it is, and what its nature may be; and science and philosophy alike recognize that this question cannot be solved by immediate perception, but only by consistent thinking upon the phenomena. The most of the factors of physical science belong entirely to a thought-world, and can only be reached by thought. And even the Jaspers

« PreviousContinue »