!■ •; ,"' : iji.v8. UNCAUSED BEING My i'HE CF ON OF TRUTt JL.^ * JL*£ * JL-/ JL-*' A V.JL V. Class Mjl j y~ i Book_ Copyright}! L COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT; THE UNCAUSED BEING AND THE CRITERION OF TRUTH TO WHICH IS APPENDED AN EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF SIR OLIVER LODGE CON- CERNING THE ETHER OF SPACE BY E. Z. DERR, M.D. Author of " Evolution versus Involution ' BOSTON SHERMAN, FRENCH & COMPANY 1911 t$? S"U Copyright, 1911 Sherman, French &+ Company ©CI.A2S9210 CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Introductory 1 II. General Considerations and the Criterion of Truth .... 26 III. Propositions 51 IV. Space — Motion — Force — Matter 59 V. Conceptions of the Uncaused Being 77 VI. The Theory of Evolution in its Relation to the Present Dis- cussion — The Ether of Space . 93 FOREWORD This work was completed before the death of William James, professor of philosophy in Har- vard University, and the criticisms of his Plur- alistic philosophy stand exactly as then written, without additions or alterations of any kind. As a man, Prof. James was beloved by all who knew him, and his benevolent nature and open mindedness endeared him to many whose philo- sophical views differed radically from his own. But esteem for the man should not disarm criticism of the writings he has laid before the world. In his last work, "A Pluralistic Uni- verse," Prof. James, in declaring for a finite God, strikes at the very foundation of Monothe- ism. Polytheism, with all of its absurdities, is the logical outcome of such a philosophy. Prof. James seems to have been so weighed down by the presence of so much suffering in the world that he could not reconcile it with the ex- istence of an Omnipotent Deity. He therefore declares in his "Pluralistic Universe": — "I be- lieve that the only God worthy of the name must be finite. ... If the Absolute exist in addition, and the hypothesis must, in spite of its irrational features, still be left open, then the absolute is only the wider Cosmic whole of which v vi FOREWORD our God is but the most ideal portion, and which in the more usual human sense is hardly to be termed a religious hypothesis at all. Cosmic emotion is the better name for the reaction it may awaken. Observe that all the irrationality and puzzles which the Absolute gives rise to, and from which the finite God remains free, are due to the fact that the Absolute has nothing, ab- solutely nothing, outside itself. The finite God whom I contrast with it may conceivably have almost nothing outside of himself ; He may have triumphed over and absorbed all but the min- utest fraction of the Universe, but that fraction, however small, reduces him to the status of a rel- ative being, and in principle the Universe is saved from all the irrationalism incidental to ab- solutism. . . . Because God is not the Absolute, but is himself a part when the system is conceived pluralistically, his functions can be taken as not wholly dissimilar to those of the other smaller parts, as similar to our functions, consequently. Having an environment, being in time, and working out a history just like our- selves, he escapes from the foreignness of all that is human." The -finite Being here depicted is shorn of the chief attributes of Deity — creative power and Omnipotence — and there is no good reason why there should not be a multitude of such limited beings. FOREWORD vii But this is not the place to enter upon a crit- icism of Prof. James's philosophy; this is done under the head of Polytheism. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY It is doubtful if arguments concerning the ex- istence of a Creator can be advanced which will be satisfactory to all minds. To one the dictum of Descartes, "J'ai tire la preuve de V existence de Dieu de Videe que je trouve en moi d'un etre souverainement parfait," is all sufficing. Another looks abroad on nature and sees in the starry heavens and the broad expanse of ocean unanswerable arguments for the existence of a Deity. The beautiful adap- tation of means to ends observable in all of na- ture's ways appeals to many with irresistible elo- quence. The great Galen spoke of his anatom- ical writings as a hymn of praise to the Deity, and Sir Charles Bell regarded the mechanism of the human hand as a strong argument for the existence of a designing power overruling Na- ture. The arguments drawn from these sources are hallowed by time, and will never lose weight with the mass of thinking minds. But there are those who demand more convincing proofs than these arguments can supply. To the assertion of the Pantheist that "The Universe as a whole is to be regarded as the Deity," the arguments 1 2 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND drawn from the evidence of design in nature af- ford no satisfactory reply. The moral chaos resulting from such doctrines, so strenuously urged by some, is not so apparent to others ; and at the present day there are journals which en- joy a high reputation for the learning and abil- ity with which they are edited that are devoted to the propagation of Pantheistic ideas. The men so engaged are earnest seekers after truth and it is unjust to accuse them of knowingly spread- ing false doctrines. It is obvious that the argu- ments against Pantheism, drawn from the moral evil which it is supposed to entail, have not the slightest weight with such thinkers. The present age is a veritable Babel of philo- sophical and scientific speculation. The Panthe- ist or Materialistic Monist declares that the Universe is sufficient unto itself ; and the Plural- ist, on the other hand, affirms that there may be an indefinite multitude of independent beings, and that the greatest of them we may dignify by the title of God, though He, like the rest, is finite, with antecedents and a "history." By one we are told that the ultimate atoms of matter are possessed of a certain kind of voli- tion and self -consciousness (Voght's pyknotic theory, adopted by Haeckel in his "Riddle of the Universe") which enable them to select suit- able partners for themselves, which unions re- THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 3 suit in the various combinations which matter assumes. 1 We are treated to learned and sympathetic criticism on the vagaries of a Nietzsche, a F'ech- ner and a Bergson, and their writings enlist a host of ardent admirers. We are told by Prof. William James that if there be a God he must be "finite" with a "his- tory"; that the existence of what we call evil in the world is incompatible with an Omnipotent Beneficence. Thus the door is thrown wide open to Polytheism, for if there is one finite Deity there is no good reason why there should not be a multitude. This is nothing less than an invitation to all the Olympians, from Jupiter down, to take possession of their old abodes whence they were ejected, bag and baggage, some two thousand years ago. By some we are informed that the Ether is a continuum (that is, without vacuities) and ab- solutely infinite in extension. Void space is therefore everywhere abolished, and we are in- vited to contemplate an absolutely infinite ma- terial corporeality — an absolutely solid mass of matter (a solid of such a nature as "old-time" i This theory was evidently suggested by the Monads of Leibnitz, but the difference between the Pyknatom and the Monad is the difference between Materialism and Theism. The one is conceived of as self-existent, but Leibnitz made his Monads the creation of Deity, 4 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND science conceived the atom to be, for in a contin- uum there can be no vacuities) extending in all directions without limit. The examination of this theory, both on its scientific and philosophic sides, furnished the excuse for the appendix to this volume. One of its chief exponents, Sir Oliver Lodge, is con- fessedly a Theist, but his views lead logically to materialistic Pantheism. If the Ether is an absolutely infinite contin- uum (space being thereby abolished) then it might be regarded, with some show of reason, as the One Great Being, and the position of the Pantheist or Materialist would be more strongly entrenched. We have but to endow the Ether with thought, and the Pantheism of Spinoza stands revealed. There is but one substance, says Spinoza, and that substance possesses thought and extension, and is God. That Spinoza identified God and Nature as One there can be no reasonable doubt, in view of the following quotations from the "Ethica," translated by White: — Prop. XIV. (First part). Besides God, no sub- stance can be nor can be conceived. Corollary. 1st. Hence it follows with the great- est clearness that God is one, that is to say, in Nature there is but one sub- stance. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 5 Corollary. 2nd. It follows second, that the Thing Extended {rem extensum) } and the Thing Thinking {rem cogitan- tem), are either the attributes of God or affections of the attributes of God. Prop. I. (Second part). Thought is an attri- bute of God. Individual thoughts, or this and that thought, are modes which express the nature of God in a certain and determinate manner. God there- fore possesses an attribute, the concep- tion of which is involved in all indi- vidual thoughts, and through which they are conceived. Thought, there- fore, is one of the infinite attributes of God which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of God or, in other words, God is a thinking Thing. Prop. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an Extended Thing. The dem- onstration of this proposition is of the same character as the last. Prop. XI. The first thing which forms the actual being of the human mind is nothing else than the idea of an individual thing actually existing. Corollary. Hence it follows that the human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God, and therefore, when we say that the human mind perceives this or that thing, we say nothing else than that God has this or that idea. 6 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND In the preface to part four of the "Ethica" we have: — "We have shown in the appendix to the first part of this work that Nature does nothing for the sake of an end, for that eternal and infinite Being whom we call God or Nature acts by the same necessity by which He ex- ists. . . . Since, therefore, He exists for no end; and since He has no principles or end of existence, He has no principles or end of action." As a piece of consecutive reasoning the "Eth- ica" of Spinoza stands without a rival in the history of philosophy. Attempting as much as he did it is not surprising that he should have become entangled in the mazes of his own thought, and that his conclusions are often er- roneous. If, however, we substitute for the word, God, the word, Nature, much of the am- biguity in his system is cleared up. Pantheism and Atheism are philosophically identical. Both regard the universe as un- caused and eternal — the supreme existence, and the idea of creation has no place in this scheme of things. The word Atheism has been discarded in a great measure by philosophers, and this is largely due to its vicious associations, and its abandonment, therefore, is nothing more than a concession to popular opinion. The words Pan- THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 7 theism, Monism, Materialism, Naturalism are adopted in its stead. The "Cosmic emotion" which stirs within us as we look abroad on the face of nature and behold the beautiful adapta- tion of means to the accomplishment of ends, or contemplate the wonders of the heavens, is re- garded by these philosophers as a fair substitute for the religious emotion experienced by those who believe in the existence of a beneficent Cre- ator. While we must accord all sympathy to those who are deprived by their philosophical tenets of an object of worship other than the wonders of nature, we must yet demur at the in- consistency and short-sightedness of elevating the material world into an object of religious adoration. Sound judgment compels us to look upon man and his intellectual achievements as the crown of terrestrial things. Great indeed are the wonders of the phenomenal universe, but the mind of man is greater still. The stars which "sparkle on the robe of night" are, after all, nothing more than immense masses of mat- ter, akin to the dirt we tread upon, in an incan- descent state, and our world is the offspring of a star of similar nature. It must be confessed, therefore, that, from the materialistic point of view, the religion of the Positivists, founded by a celebrated Frenchman, has some ground for justification. The extremists of the French Revolution elevated on the altar of Notre Dame 8 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND a beautiful woman, symbolic of human reason. With what measure of religious adoration they viewed this nude goddess we are allowed to con- jecture, but surely her worship was not attended by any marked improvement in the morals of her devotees. A distinguished American writer, Prof. James, has divided mankind into the tough minded and the tender minded. As the tough minded re- quire but little in the way of religion for their peace of mind, the cult established by Comte may be all-sufficient for their needs, but the tender minded require something more inspiring than the worship of human nature. Even the most illustrious of the race have their faults, and their imperfections often assume alarming proportions in the glare of publicity. To Comte's immortal honor, be it said, no crafty statesmen or bloody warriors were given place in his Calendar of the Saints. In the Pan- theon which he suggested, niches were reserved only for those truly great men whose achieve- ments in the world of mind have shed glory over the age in which they lived, or whose efforts in ameliorating suffering and want have endeared them to the whole of mankind. Thus we find such names as Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Galileo, Harvey, Newton and Howard, but there are no Hannibals, Cassars nor Napoleons. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 9 The celebrated German philosopher, Kant, while maintaining that the various arguments for the existence of a Creator fall short of ab- solute demonstrative proof was nevertheless so firmly persuaded that man's moral nature re- quired belief in such a Being, that he declared in his "Critique of Pure Reason" : — "If there does not exist a Supreme Being dis- tinct from the universe — if the universe is without a beginning, consequently without a Creator — if our wills are not free, and the soul is divisible and subject to corruption just like matter — the ideas and principles of morality lose all validity, and fall with the transcendental ideas which consti- tuted their theoretical support. . . . For in this sphere action is absolutely necessary, that is, I must act in obedience to the moral law in all points. The end is here incontrovertibly estab- lished and there is only one condition possible, ac- cording to the best of my perception, under which this end can harmonize with all other ends and so have practical validity — namely, the existence of a God and of a future world. I know also, to a cer- tainty, that no one can be acquainted with any other conditions which conduct to the same unity of ends under the moral law. But since the moral precept is at the same time my maxim (as reason requires that it should be) I am irresistibly con- strained to believe in the existence of God and in a future life; I am sure that nothing can make me waver in this belief, since I should thereby over- 10 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND throw my moral maxims, the renunciation of which would render me hateful in my own eyes." The distinguished English biologist, George Romanes, the close friend and disciple of Dar- win, was led by like considerations, to renounce an avowedly atheistical attitude, and to recog- nize the existence of a Creator. 1 The power of the reasoning faculty to demon- strate the existence of a God has often been denied, yet the writer is firmly persuaded that this, the greatest of our endowments, has not been so slighted by its Creator as to have with- held from it the power of proving that Creator's existence. Twenty-five years ago the writer published a work entitled "Evolution versus In- volution" in which he endeavored to show that the theory of Evolution, when properly inter- preted, necessitates belief in such a Being. The i This distinguished scientist declared in his last work, published after his death, "When I wrote the preceding treatise (The Candid Examination) I did not sufficiently appreciate the immense importance of human nature, as distinguished from physical nature, in my inquiry touch- ing Theism. But since then I have seriously studied an- thropology (including the science of comparative relig- ions), psychology and metaphysics, with the result of clearly seeing that human nature is the most important part of nature as a whole whereby to investigate the theory of Theism. This I ought to have anticipated on merely a 'priori grounds, and no doubt should have per- ceived, had I not been too much immersed in merely physical research." THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 11 word "Evolution," means (using the lan- guage of Dr. Martineau) "to unfold from within, and it is taken from the history of the seed or embryo of living natures. And what is the seed but a casket of prearranged futurities with its whole contents prospective, settled to be what they are by reference to ends still in the distance?" This was written by Dr. Martineau in criticism of Mr. Spencer's general philosophi- cal attitude, and his definition of evolution in particular. Spencer formulates several defini- tions of evolution. On page 360 "First Prin- ciples" he says: — "Evolution is definable as a change from incoherent homogeneity to a coher- ent heterogeneity, accompanying the dissipation of motion and integration of matter." On page 369 of the same work he tells us: — "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dis- sipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and dur- ing which the retained motion undergoes a paral- lel transformation." He elsewhere formulates it thus: — "Evolution is a change from an indefi- nite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, co- herent heterogeneity, through continuous differ- entiations and integrations.** In another place we are told: — "At the same time that evolution is a change from the homogeneous to the heter- ogeneous, it is a change from the indefinite. 12 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND Along with an advance from simplicity to com- plexity, there is an advance from confusion to order, from undetermined arrangement to de- termined arrangement." The keynote of these various definitions is that evolution is a change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. Mr. Spencer borrowed the idea from the cele- brated Von Baer who used it merely as a mor- phological generalization, and had no notion of making it the foundation of an all-embrac- ing philosophy. But in Mr. Spencer's hands it became the basis for a cosmogony. Therein he made a fundamental error which it is im- possible to understand how he could have made, in view of the fact that every egg and seed in nature declare that they are not "confused" masses of "undetermined arrange- ments," as is clearly shown when the egg is hatched and the seed sprouts into the plant. Mr. Spencer's definition ignores the potencies, which make the egg what it is, and is therefore utterly inadequate and misleading. In replying to Dr. Martineau's criticism Mr. Spencer made the following remarkable answer (First Princi- ples, pp. 285-6) "Now, this criticism would have been very much to the point did the word evolu- tion truly express the process it names. If this process, as scientifically defined, really involved that conception which the word evolution was originally designed to convey, the implications THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 13 would be those Mr. Martineau alleges. But the word having been in possession of the field be- fore the process was understood, has been adopted merely because displacing it by another word seemed impracticable. And this adoption of it has been joined with a caution against mis- understandings arising from its unfitness. Here is a part of the caution: — 'Evolution has other meanings, some of which are incongruous with, and some even directly opposed to, the meaning here given it. As ordinarily understood, to evolve is to unfold, to open and expand, to throw out, to emit ; whereas, as we understand it, the act of evolving, though it implies increase of a concrete aggregate, and in so far an ex- pansion of it, implies that its component matter has passed from a more diffused to a more con- centrated state — has contracted. The antithet- ical word "involution/' would much more truly express the nature of the process, and would in- deed describe better the secondary characters of the process which we shall have to deal with presently.' So that the meanings which the word (evolution) involves, and which Mr. Mar- tineau regards as fatal to the hypothesis, are al- ready repudiated as not belonging to the hypo- thesis." Mr. Spencer in repudiating the true meaning of the word evolution, revealed by every seed and egg in nature, still clung to it to name his sys- 14 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND tern, offering as an excuse that being already in possession of the field, it seemed impracticable to replace it by the word involution, which he says is much better fitted to express his views. Was ever a lamer excuse offered by a philosopher in naming a system of thought ? By the light with which this word involution floods his philosophy, its inconsistencies and shortcomings are re- vealed. In the writer's work "Evolution versus Involution," the attempt is made to expose the errors of his system. A distinguished English writer has characterized Mr. Spencer's philos- ophy as "possessing the incurable defect of fun- damental incoherence," and the criticism is a just one. It was an apt saying of Berkeley that nature speaks to us in a "visual language." This was not a mere figure of speech with Berkeley, but a truth of profound significance. The lesson taught us by the germs of nature speaks to our understanding and enables us to interpret the hidden meaning of things. It is undeniably true that the fertilized seed of the plant and the fertilized ovum of the animal embrace within their compass the potencies of the fully developed plant and animal. The signifi- cance of Dr. Martineau's definition of evolution is at once apparent — what is not involved cannot be evolved. Evolution is an unfolding of that which previously existed, and this existence may THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 15 be potential or it may be material, or it may be both. No doubt we would find a great difference in the molecular structure of the essential part (the germinal spot) of a chicken's egg and that of a duck if the powers of the microscope could be increased sufficiently, but as it is they are ab- solutely indistinguishable by the best instru- ments at our command. Nevertheless, every point of difference be- tween the developed chicken and the developed duck must have existed potentially or in material form in their respective eggs. We cannot call on environment to explain the wide difference of structure, for the difference exists when they issue from the shell. What is true of the seed of a plant or the egg of an ani- mal, is true of the globe on which we dwell. All things which the earth has brought forth must have existed potentially or in material form in the molten mass as thrown from its parent, the Sun. The Sun, in its turn must have possessed in potency or in material peculiarities, the vari- ous forms which the earth presents, and must have inherited these from the nebulous mass to which it owes its origin. From this conclusion there is no escape — What is not involved cannot be evolved. Now, Pantheism asserts that the Material Universe has existed from eternity, and we are therefore compelled to regard it as the Uncaused Being, the ultimate source of all 16 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND things. In the process known as evolution, Pantheism asks us to contemplate this Being in the act of unfolding itself. But man is himself a part of this Being, and we are thus called upon to accept the astounding proposition that the Uncaused can be circumscribed and subjected to analysis by that which is dependent upon it for existence, and to ignore the self-evident truth that "The whole is greater than any of its parts." Man, being but a part, cannot in reason pred- icate growth or development of the whole. As well might a blood corpuscle circulating in the vessels speculate on the nature and doings of the whole man. In other words, if the Material Universe is itself the Uncaused Being, the theory of Evolution, as explaining the Cosmos, becomes a glaring absurdity, inasmuch as it implies that man has circumscribed and subjected to analy- sis the Ultimate Source of his being. But if we regard the Universe as a dependent being, a caused thing like ourselves, we can justly main- tain that the process known as evolution is but the unfolding of the Will of the Uncaused Being to whom it owes its existence. The process be- comes possible only when there are involved laws to be made manifest. Evolution, therefore, as applied to the Cosmos necessarily implies the existence of a Being in whom the idea of the Cosmos must have been THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 17 present before it assumed material form, and in the phenomena we are to recognize the Will of this Being in process of being unfolded. But we must be careful not to confound this Being with the will power which He manifests, for by so doing we place ourselves in the exact position now held by the Materialist. As the doctrine of Evolution, considered as a Cosmic process, may be questioned by some, we must advance other arguments for the existence of a Creator, and the following pages are de- voted to this obj ect. Now if anything exists an Uncaused Being exists, and, on a priori grounds, we are compelled to maintain that this Being is absolutely infinite. If it can be shown that we are not justified in regarding the matter of which the Universe con- sists as a Continuum and universal space a plen- um, then we are justified in maintaining that matter is not absolutely infinite, however extended it may be throughout the Celestial Sphere. Matter is that something which impresses us as occupying Space, or, to put it in another way, matter is the absence of space, and if it be ab- solutely continuous (a Contmuum), without vac- uities or voids, it is obvious that all space is abolished. On this view Matter would be absolutely in- finite, and we would be obliged to accord to it an absolutely infinite magnitude, thus satisfying our 18 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND a priori conception of the Uncaused. But we maintain that Matter is not a Continuum, that space (void) really does exist, and that Matter is, therefore, not of such a magnitude that we cannot conceive a greater, for in imagination we can fill up these voids. Matter and Space (void) mutually limit one another: if all matter were abolished then Space would be absolutely infinite, if all Space were abolished then Matter would be absolutely in- finite. Sir Oliver Lodge in maintaining that Matter is a Continuum has abolished Space, and from his standpoint the Universe is a solid mass of Matter, a solid of such a nature as "old- time" science regarded the atom to be. 1 In other words the Universe becomes One Great Atom, without parts, indivisible and in- compressible. Now, indeed, Materialism would be triumphant if this were true. But sense per- ception and the verdict of reason declare that this view of things is not tenable. Weight of authority should always be respected, particu- larly in matters pertaining to science, but when i The atom, whatever its ultimate nature, is properly- defined as the smallest particle of matter which is with- out parts, indivisible and incompressible. The elements known to chemistry, such as gold, iron, etc., are now regarded as molecules, composed of still smaller par- ticles, perhaps etheric. The word "Electron" is now much in vogue to designate these smallest particles. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 19 we are asked to accept the irrational we are justi- fied in hewing a path for ourselves. We there- fore maintain that motion in a material Con- tinuum is impossible, is contradictory, and that the acceptance of the one is a denial of the other. The ability to pen these lines is a refutation of the theory of a Continuum. The idea has been advanced that, after all, the atoms may be nothing more than centers of force. This attempt to reduce matter itself to a form of force, as suggested by Bischoff and others, is leaving the domain of physics and en- tering upon that of metaphysics. Science, purely as such, knows nothing of a force which is not initiated by matter in motion. In other words, the force known to science is not an en- tity in itself, but is imparted or transmitted mo- tion — motion imparted by a moving mass or atom of matter to another mass or atom. This becomes very clear if we assume, as Materialism does, that matter is uncaused and has always been in motion. On the assumption that matter has been created, then, it is equally clear, that the Power that set it in motion can be defined only as a Spontaneous Will, or to use the lan- guage of theology, a Divine decree. The great Bishop Berkeley, in abolishing the atoms, which he regarded as the stronghold of Atheism, replaced them by the direct impres- 20 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND sion made upon our consciousness by Divine Power. 1 It is needless to state that this is not the in- terpretation to be placed on the views of the modern scientist who talks about reducing mat- ter to centers of force. What is gained, from the standpoint of science, by calling that which impresses us as occupying space, Force, instead of using the word Matter? It would be merely a change of name without advancing our knowl- edge. Instead of elucidating, it would cause confusion by designating by the same word, force, the mass, say of the sun, and the force (gravitation) induced by this mass. To those who interpret matter in the terms of Berkeley we have nothing to say ; for matter, in last analysis, can be defined only as the expres- sion of the will of Deity. To the mere physi- cist we reply, "You are merely changing the names of things, and are calling black, white. Science, then, requires us to look upon matter as composed of ultimate particles of something which occupies Space. These particles, what- ever their nature may be, "Etheric" or "Elec- tronic," or by whatever name we choose to des- ignate them, are the true atoms of nature, with- out parts, indivisible and incompressible. They i Amid the obscurity of Hegel illuminating flashes oc- casionally greet us, as when he tells us, that "the truth of Matter is Spirit" THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 21 move freely among one another and are sep- arated by Space (void) and the motion they impart to one another constitutes the various forces which we see manifested in the Material Universe. Now, these atoms are either Uncaused, i. e. self existent, or they are caused, that is, cre- ated. If Uncaused, we have Materialism, and, in addition, Pluralism with a vengeance, for each atom being self existent, is independent of all others, and becomes a little God in itself. In the appendix to "Evolution versus Involu- tion," the writer expressed himself on this point as follows: "An Uncaused thing can have no compulsory re- lation to any other Uncaused thing — must be un- conditioned. Any relation which it might have to another Uncaused thing must spring from within itself uninfluenced by anything outside of it — must be the result of free volition. On the sup- position, then, that there are such things as atoms, and that they are Uncaused, and therefore uncon- ditioned, it is obvious that the mutual reaction ex- isting among them cannot be the result of necessity or compulsion, but of spontaneous conscious activ- ity; for were such interaction induced by compul- sion, then the premise with which we started as a necessary postulate of an Uncaused thing would be violated. 22 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND "The Materialist, therefore, who regards the atoms as Uncaused (and to be a Materialist he must so regard them) and still denies self-con- sciousness and freedom to each, is guilty of a con- tradiction, for he takes away from the atom, by this very denial, its Unconditioned and Uncaused nature. If, setting at defiance all reason, he main- tains that the atoms do possess self-consciousness and freedom, then he multiplies the mystery of the Universe in the same measure that indefinite mul- titude is greater than unity — instead of one God he would have an indefinite multitude of Gods. "The Materialist, then, is reduced to the neces- sity of denying the existence of atoms, and to look upon the Universe as a continuous unbroken mass of matter (a Continuum). But this necessarily involves the denial of the existence of Space. And here the Materialist is met by the incontrovertible facts of universal experience. He cannot shut his eyes to the truth that what he calls matter is denser in some places than in others; that, for instance, a cubic inch of iron contains more matter than a cubic inch of air. But if he acknowledges this, and acknowledge it he must, then, perforce, he must likewise acknowledge that Space (which may be defined as the absence of what we call Matter) does exist. But if Space exists, the Universe can- not be continuous Matter, and what we call Mat- ter must, therefore, be conceived of as consisting of infinitesimal particles (atoms) separated from one another by Space; and to such particles, as al- ready shown, an unconditioned nature cannot be assigned. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 2S "An Uncaused, Unconditioned, limited thing is a contradiction. The atoms, therefore, cannot be Uncaused, and Materialism is an absurdity." In the following pages the writer has at- tempted to show that the matter of which the Universe consists is not a Continuum, and is not, therefore, of such a magnitude, however ex- tended it may be, as to satisfy our conception of Uncaused Being. The demonstration it sup- plies in proof of the existence of a Creator is, therefore, a posteriori. Several different words are in use to express that system of belief which looks upon the Uni- verse as a self-subsistent thing, but all of them, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Monism, Materialism, Naturalism and Rationalism, in last analysis, may be expressed by the word Atheism (a, with- out, and Theos, God) for they recognize no Be- ing distinct from the Universe who called it into existence. All efforts to reconcile man's moral nature with this system of thought have signally failed. From a moral point of view the question is one of transcendent practical importance, to say nothing of its profound philosophical signifi- cance. The views of individual philosophers filter though to the masses, influencing their con- duct in all the relations of life, and it is not too much to say that Atheism engrafted on illiteracy 24 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND forms a combination which is a standing menace to civilization. It is curious as well as instructive to note with what regularity these tidal waves of Atheistical belief have swept over the civilized world, and their appearance, with almost cyclical regularity, might justify us in believing that there is some law governing their recurrence. The terrible catastrophy which overtook France in the latter part of the 18th century, while directly the result of bad government and oppression, was fostered by the Atheistical spirit so widespread among the people; and the Nihilistic movement of more recent times was largely due to the same causes. Atheistical philosophers have much to answer for in letting loose the fiends of unbelief upon the world. The holy spirit of freedom, which teaches man to assert his native dignity and to rise against op- pression, they might have guided to the com- passing of noble ends: but they have chosen to sow the seeds of Atheism, thereby diverting this grand spirit from its legitimate channels, thus encouraging anarchy and crime. Anarchy and Atheism, with the illiterate, go hand in hand and are inseparable. And what, indeed, is Atheism but moral Anarchy, where the very foundations of right and wrong are swept away, leaving the conduct of life based upon nothing but the shifting sands of expediency ? THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 25 "Has matter innate motion? Then each atom, Asserting its indisputable right To dance, would form an universe of dust. Has Matter none? Then whence these glorious forms And boundless flights, from shapeless and re- posed? Has matter more than motion? Has it thought, Judgment and genius? Is it deeply learn'd In mathematics? Has it framed such laws, Which, but to guess, a Newton made immortal? If so, how each sage atom laughs at me, Who think a clod inferior to a man ! If art, to form; and counsel to conduct: And that with greater far, than human skill, Resides not in each block: — a Godhead reigns, — Grant, then, invisible, eternal mind; That granted, all is solved." Young — "Night Thoughts." CHAPTER II GENERAL CONDITIONS AND THE CRI- TERION OF TRUTH All of our ideas concerning the ultimate nature of things may be classed under one or the other of the following headings: — Monotheism, Pan- theism, Polytheism and Solipsism * or, if we may coin a word for the sake of uniformity, Egotheism. 1. Monotheism, usually called Theism for brev- ity, looks upon the Universe, ourselves included, as phenomenal, and the work of a Being distinct from it in essence, who stands in relation to it as Cause, Author or Creator. The Reality pos- sessed by the Universe, so conceived of, is called a dependent, contingent, or caused reality to distinguish it from the un- caused reality of the Being to whom it owes its existence. % Pantheism looks upon the Universe, ourselves included, as Noumenal, all sufficient unto itself, uncreated and eternal, without be- i The word, Solipsism, signifies that the individual thinker is the sole existence. The word, Egotheism, ex- presses the same idea. This notion has been, and is still held by some philosophers, though veiled. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 27 ginning and without end. The reality it possesses is therefore uncaused or in- dependent, for beside it there is naught else. This view of the nature of things is also designated Atheism, Materialism, Monism and Naturalism, In their phil- osophical significance they are all identi- cal with Pantheism, for all regard the Universe as the sole existence, uncaused and eternal. &. Polytheism. When the Olympians were obliged to flee from their mountain height before the advancing footsteps of calm- eyed Truth, all arrayed in flowing gar- ments of purest white ; when, at the ap- proach of the same bright vision, the Scandinavian hordes, headed by Woden himself, sought refuge in the bottomless fiords or retreated to the icy and inac- cessible caverns of their glacial-capped land, it was thought that Polytheism had disappeared forever from the haunts of civilized man. But history will sometimes repeat itself, and under the guise of Pluralism, Polytheism again rears its head, championed by some of the most brilliant writers of the day. It is hard to believe in this age of ma- 28 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND terial and intellectual progress, when "Space is mocked and time outrun," that such ideas should be revived in the minds of men. The battle of the "Many" with the "One" is on once more. Under the leadership of Prof. James, not to mention lesser lights, the great host, with confidence in their redoubtable chief, are advancing to the contest. Despairing of a direct frontal attack on the Absolute or Omnipotent One, they have resorted to a flank movement, and think they have discov- ered in the problem of Good and Evil the weak point of their adversary's position. As the Gen- eral-in-Chief of the assaulting columns we will give room for Prof. James to marshal his forces. In his "Pluralistic Universe" he says: — "I must ask you to distinguish the notion of the Absolute (By which he means Omnipotence), from that of another object with which it is liable to become entangled. That other object is the 'God' of common people in their religion, and the Crea- tor God of orthodox Christian religion. . . . He and we stand outside of each other, just as the devil, the saints and the angels stand outside of both of us. I can hardly conceive of anything more different from the Absolute than the God, say, of David or of Isaiah. That God is an essen- tially finite Being in the Cosmos. . . . If it should prove probable that the Absolute does not exist, it will not follow in the slightest degree that THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 29 a God like that of David, Isaiah or Jesus may not exist, or may not be the most important existence in the Universe for us to acknowledge. . . . I hold to the finite God, for reasons which I shall touch on in the seventh of these lectures. But I hold that his rival and competitor — the Absolute, is not only not forced on us by logic, but that it is an improbable hypothesis. . . . Although the hy- pothesis of the Absolute, in yielding a certain kind of religious peace, performs a most important rationalizing function, it nevertheless, from the intellectual point of view, remains decidedly irra- tional. The ideally perfect whole is certainly that whole of which the parts also are perfect. If we can depend on logic for anything, we can depend on it for that definition. "The Absolute is defined as the ideally perfect whole, yet most of its parts, if not all, are ad- mittedly imperfect. Evidently the conception lacks internal consistency, and yields us a prob- lem rather than a solution. It creates a specula- tive puzzle, the so-called mystery of evil and error, from which pluralistic metaphysic is entirely free. I believe that the only God worthy of the name must be finite ... if the Absolute exist in addition, and the hypothesis must, in spite of its irrational features, still be left open — then the Absolute is only the wider Cosmic whole of which our God is but the most ideal portion, and which in the more usual human sense is hardly to be termed a religious hypothesis at all. 'Cosmic emotion' is the better name for the reaction it may awaken. Observe that all the irrationality and puzzles 30 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND which the Absolute gives rise to, and from which the finite God remains free, are due to the fact that the Absolute has nothing, absolutely nothing, outside of itself. "The finite God whom I contrast with it may con- ceivably have almost nothing outside of himself; he may already have triumphed over and absorbed all but the minutest fraction of the Universe, but that fraction, however small, reduces him to the status of a relative being, and in principle the Universe is saved from all the irrationalism inci- dental to Absolutism. The irrationality left would be the irrationality of which Pluralism as such is accused. . . . Reality may exist in distributive form, in the shape not of an All but of a Set of E aches, just as it seems to — this is the Anti-Absolutist hypothesis. . . . Because God is not the Absolute, but is himself a part when the system (universe) is conceived pluralistically, his functions can be taken as not wholly dissimilar to those of the other smaller parts, — as similar to our functions, consequently — having an environment, being in time and working out a history just like ourselves, he escapes from the foreignness of all that is human/ 1 And thus, in the view of Prof. James, the Omnipotent One is hurled from his throne as the ruler and Creator of the Universe, and "Chaos and Old Night" enthroned in His place ; for his finite God is a creature like the rest of us, and still engaged in "overcoming" what is left THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 31 of Chaos (or the Cosmos?). But the weapons wielded by Prof. James, though of a different character, are no less ineffective than those of that great Archangel we read about. "High was his degree," and "his countenance like the morning star," as he sallied forth at the head of his brilliant squadrons of deluded followers all panoplied in "gold and adamant." The result, we are told was dire ! But now to the picture Prof. James has drawn for us. First, we must enter our earnest protest against the assertion that the Christian's God is regarded by the average Christian as a finite Be- ing. While there are many earnest Christians who would be puzzled sorely to define the differ- ence between finite and infinite — in fact would not know what you were talking about — yet, however low the general intelligence, they have an idea of boundless or unlimited power. The common word, Almighty, on the lips of the street urchin, shows that even he has some notion of the unlimited. That "God can do anything" is a very common expression among the common- est kind of people, and the greatest philosopher can say no more. As to the God of David and Isaiah being finite, we can only say that both the Old and the New Testaments abound in passages which express the limitless power of the Deity. "The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork" is one only of 32 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND the numerous passages which might be cited. The Bible not being a work on philosophy the words finite and infinite are not often met with. Being a book which deals with religious feel- ings and observances, the personal and paternal character of God are emphasized, and hence he is described as walking and conversing with men. We feel quite sure that if David and Isaiah were to come to life again they would set at rest all doubts on the subject. The existence of evil or imperfection in the world is an insuperable difficulty with Prof. James, and one which compels him to decide for a finite God. The reason assigned does credit to his heart, but it obliges him to sacrifice funda- mental philosophic as well as religious concep- tions, and after the sacrifice has been made the "puzzle" remains a puzzle still. His finite God is indeed relieved of all responsibility in the mat- ter, being but a creature like ourselves — a crea- ture of the universal whole, and in this universal whole we must look for the radical vice which he thinks is inherent in the constitutions of things. The problem of Good and Evil has been touched on by the author of this book in a former work entitled "Evolution versus Involu- tion," so a few quotations from it will not be out of place : — THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 33 "Two kinds of good and evil are recognized among men — physical good and physical evil; moral good and moral evil. Though often con- founded in thought and speech they are as widely- sundered as the poles, and have no affinity with one another. The definition of physical good is that which is beneficial to the material well-being of the individual and of the race; physical evil is anything which militates against this. Famine, pestilence, suffering and death are all denominated physical evils. Moral good and moral evil, on the other hand, depend for their existence upon the consciousness of right and wrong, as measured by some recognized and accepted standard of conduct. Moral good consists in obedience to this standard, while wilful violation of it constitutes moral evil or sin. The essential nature of physical good and evil, therefore, lies in the act, whilst the essential nature of moral good and evil lies in the motive. "St. Paul tells us, 'the strength of sin (moral evil) is the Law,' thereby revealing its true nature, and reiterating a similar statement in 4th Romans, 'for where no Law is, there is no transgression.' . What are known as physical evils occur in the established order of nature. . . . We can- not understand why pain and death should enter into the plan of the Universe, but their existence carries with it the warrant of their justification. The Atheist as well as the believer in a Beneficent Creator must alike regard the Universe as the best that is possible. Inexorable logic compels the Atheist so to re- 34 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND gard it, and firm reliance on Infinite wisdom leads the Theist to believe it." * A radical vice in the constitution of things is irrational and therefore inadmissible. Reason herself teaches us her own limitations when we stand before this great problem, for be it remembered that we have been brought forth by a Being superior to ourselves, whether that Being be an Omnipotent Power, (in the Mono- theistic sense) or the Material Universe. In the first case can the creature in reason question the wisdom of its Creator? In the second case can a part array itself against the whole? The axiom "The whole is greater than any of its parts" teaches Reason that she can- not hope to comprehend that whole. In either case the mind must bow before the limitations of its being. In the first case, there is a possibil- ity that we may sometime understand in a future life what is now inexplicable ; in the last, it must always remain an insoluble problem, for a caused thing can never hope to compass or compre- i Some Pantheists refuse to acknowledge it. Schopen- hauer affirms in his "World as Will and Idea" that this "is the worst 'possible world," and his follower, Von Hartmann, declares in his "Metaphysic of the Uncon- scious," that "it is the best possible world, but worse than none at all." These two thinkers have exercised an immence influence, and are among the founders of the modern school of Pantheistic or Atheistic doctrine. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 35 hend the uncaused, i. e., "The whole is greater than any of its parts." Man cannot, therefore, in reason arraign the Omnipotent One, whether it be the God of The- ism or the Cosmos of the Atheist, for the consti- tution of the world, or make its apparent im- perfections an excuse for calling in question the rightness or wrongness of the whole. The logic of Prof. James, therefore, loses all of its force, and his method of explaining the apparent imperfections which so trouble him, instead of explaining, makes the confusion still worse confounded. We are invited to contemplate a finite God and the philosophy of "Eaches" as a way out of the difficulty. The finite God, being "a part of the system" (Universe) ; "with functions similar to our own"; "having an environment" ; "being in time, and working out a history just like ourselves" must be either embodied, (a union of matter and spirit, just as we are) or he must be pure spirit without a material body. In the first case he must occupy space and have a local habitation. In either case he must owe his existence to the system (Universe) which antedated him. In other words he "being in time," is a creature of the Universe which has existed from eternity. He is pictured to us as engaged in conquer- ing the Universe, which, "He may already 36 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND have triumphed over and absorbed all but the minutest fraction, but that fraction, however small, reduces him to the status of a relative being.' 9 In contemplating this picture we are contem- plating a most astounding feat — that of a part trying to swallow the whole! If, however, there is no such a thing as a whole or system of the Universe; that is to say if "Reality" (ultimate or uncaused reality, not contingent or caused reality, is here meant by Prof. James) exist in distributive form, in the shape not of an All but of a set of "Eaches," which Prof. James assures us is the anti-abso- lutist hypothesis, then we are asked to contem- plate a picture only a little less surprising and far more terrifying in composition. We see before us myriads of independent Be- ings, (the self -existent "Eaches") taking their various ways along the line of endless duration. Now they jostle and repel one another in angry conflict, and now attract and blend in a mutual embrace. But no one can annihilate the other, for the stamp of primitive equality is on all. Even the chief among them (the finite God of Prof. James) is but primus inter pares, in this vast concourse of self-subsistent Beings. "Who can in reason, then, or right assume Monarchy over such as live by right THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 37 His equals — if in power and splendor less, In freedom equal? or can introduce Law and edict on us." 1 So spake Great Lucifer and "on his crest sat horror plumed." The Polytheistic implications of Pluralism are not denied by Prof. James, nor can he con- sistently do so for the premise is itself an asser- tion of the fact. Now the various "Eaches" must be composed of matter or spirit, but not of both, for an "Each" is an ultimate reality, and, therefore, cannot be a compound or union of two different things, in other words, cannot have a cause at all. We have had fathers and mothers, and they have had fathers and mothers, and so on up to Adam. Some of us are disposed to stop there, but others continue on. As compound beings we are not self-existent and therefore not "Eaches," but we may be such when discarnated. We may suppose that our spiritual "Eaches" that is our proper selves, entered into an agreement with certain other "Eaches" called atoms, to form a union to endure for a stated time and then dis- solve partnership, each "Each" going its own way to form other unions. Every compound body is necessarily ephemeral, disappearing ab- i Milton: " Paradise Lost." 38 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND solutely when the union of its component parts is dissolved, and this holds whether the partnership is a commercial firm composed of Tom, Dick and Harry ; or whether it is the spirit of man and his body; or whether it is the human body itself composed of its various tissues ; or whether it is the organic and inorganic compounds which go to make them. When these various partnerships are dissolved the things themselves disappear from being, but the individuals whose partner- ships made them, remain undisturbed amid all the turmoil. At death the spirit of man (which we will suppose to be an "Each") continues on its own self-centered self-sufficiency; the atoms of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc., composing the various tissues of his body, wend their sev- eral ways, seeking new unions, and perhaps forming new bodies for other spiritual "Eaches" to enter into partnership with. We have re- ferred to the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc., entering into the constitution of our bodies as if they were "Eaches," but if, as we have good reason for thinking, they are but compounds of still smaller particles, say of etheric atoms, then we must revise the statement that they are in themselves "Eaches ," and confer this dignity on the etheric atoms: and if it should come to pass that the etheric atom is itself a compound, we will be compelled to go still further back; and should it be discovered at some future time that, THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 39 after all, the ultimate form of what we call mat- ter is merely a center of force (a spiritual some- thing) as is even now held by some, then the material "Eaches" would disappear from being and all the "Eaches" being spiritual, the ma- terial Universe would cease to be — not destroyed, but merely extinguished by the dissolution of the various co-partnerships of spiritual "E aches" which constitute it. The religious implications of Pluralism are obvious. All the various "Eaches" are co-eter- nal and therefore co-equal, and enter into unions or combinations with one another of their own free will. Nothing can be compulsory amid this vast democracy of uncaused beings, for they are all independent of one another, and exist by the necessity of their own nature. They are all finite in power, for the sphere of activity of each is limited by each, hence a multitude of infinite beings is impossible. Nor can we, with any show of reason, assume that any one of these equal beings can lift itself so high above the rest as to assert sovereignty over them. All the Eaches being Gods in their own right, there is no such a being as A God; the word, indeed, loses all its significance. And thus Pluralism or mod- ern Polytheism ends in absolute Nihilism, and the religious sentiment must necessarily go by de- fault. The Polytheism of Greece and Rome gave full 40 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND play to the poetic imagination, and much of the finest poetry that the world has produced gath- ers around the doings of their ancient Gods, but the "Eaches" of Pluralistic philosophy appeal neither to the poetic sentiment nor to the reason of men. 4. Ego-theism or Solipsism, (as it is usually called) regards self as the absolute reality upon which all else is contingent. It holds that each individual human being is to regard himself or herself as the only real existence, and that the surrounding Universe is the result of the unconscious working of the Ego to realize itself to it- self. Like the larva it spins from within itself its own environment. In the history of philosophy, Ego-theism serves to illustrate the wild vagaries to which the human mind is sometimes subject — vagaries which if carried to the same degree in practical affairs would afford sufficient ground for a com- mission in lunacy. He who can regard the phe- nomena which the Universe presents as forms or modifications of his own being, who can look upon himself as the center from which all things radiate, has placed himself on a height from which all the arrows ever forged in the armory of pure reason will never dislodge him. Safe in his cloud-capped retreat let him remain. To THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 41 attempt to reason with him were to reason with a mad man. The Universe, taken in its totality, is either an uncaused being, or it is the ex- pression of the will of such a being. 1 The implications involved in the first statement are Pantheistic, in the second Theistic. The determination of the problem presented falls within the scope of legitimate philosophi- cal inquiry, and furnishes the theme for the present essay. The domain of human knowledge has been ac- quired through the agency of sense perception and certain a priori conceptions of the under- standing. The first, sifted and interpreted by the reasoning faculty, constitutes objective knowledge. On the other hand, any proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its very 1 Creation can be denned only as the expression of the will of Deity. The mind derives its notion of Creation from its own workings. The form of the chair on which I sit is the Creation of the human mind, but the wood of which it is composed is not. Knock the chair to pieces and the chair ceases to exist, but the material which composed it remains. Human art, then, does create forms, but forms alone; Divine art creates not only the forms of things, but the material of which they are composed. Hence the genesis of the idea of Creation in the human mind. Evolution and Creation are in accord, for the theory of Evolution recognizes that the act of Creation is the un- folding of the Will of Deity. 42 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND conception is a judgment a priori. Together they constitute the armamentarium of the mind in its search after truth. One in ultimate ori- gin, they are one in their aims, and antagonism cannot exist between them. Any seeming con- tradiction will be found, on investigation, to arise from individual defects or idiosyncrasies. "Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other" is an a priori conception or necessary truth, yet it is conceivable that in verifying this an error might be made in the measurement, or the individual, from being im- perfect in sense perception, might be wholly un- able to undertake the verification. On the other hand, from mental imperfections he might not be able to grasp an axiomatic or a priori concep- tion. A statement, however axiomatic, would have no weight with a lunatic. It is obvious that a coterie composed of such imperfect indi- viduals could by no means arrive at a true con- ception of nature. But the mass of mankind are comparatively free from such defects, and in them the trustworthy character of the senses has been sufficiently tested to render it in the highest degree probable that their sense perception of the external world is correct. The diseased mind might not be able to grasp the idea that "the whole is greater than any of its parts," yet the normal mind will at once rec- ognize this statement to be a necessary truth. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 43 Relying upon the validity of sense perception and a priori conceptions of the understanding, man has established a vast body of knowledge which he has systematized. Making all due al- lowance for rash observation and fallacious de- duction, we must all agree that much of mod- ern science reflects a fair image of what actu- ally exists in nature. If in all this body of accepted knowledge anything could be pointed out which conflicted with an a priori conception, it would be branded as false, and prompt to a more searching scru- tiny of the facts. We may therefore formulate our criterion of Truth, as: — The concordance between pure or a priori CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING AND SENSE PERCEPTION. So long as we can apply this test without con- tradiction, so long may we rest satisfied that we are on the path of truth. While it is not possible nor needful to apply this principle at every point in the vast edifice which the collec- tive wisdom of the race has erected, yet there are many points where it can be applied, and the deep foundations of the temple of human knowledge must rest upon it. An architect in estimating the strength of a building first care- fully examines its foundations, and then the su- 44 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND per-structure. Any great defect in the founda- tion condemns the building at once. In the following pages the author has en- deavored to apply the criterion of truth, as al- ready defined, to an examination of the founda- tions upon which is based a Pantheistic concep- tion of things. If in the course of this exami- nation it should appear that our criterion is vio- lated by this view of the Universe then we will be justified in throwing the Pantheistic theory aside as worthless ; and as there is but one other hypothesis left — that of Theism — we will be compelled, perforce, to regard it as the true one. It will be seen, therefore, that the method pur- sued furnishes an a posteriori argument for the existence of a Creator. It is this method, and this method alone, that can have any weight with the mind already prejudiced in favor of Panthe- ism. The dictum of Descartes, embodied in the phrase " J'ai tire la preuve de V existence de Dieu de Videe que je trouve en moi d*un etre souve- rainement parfait" appeals irresistibly to cer- tain minds, but it is inconclusive, inasmuch as it supplies no argument against the assertion which the Pantheist might make, that "the Uni- verse taken as a whole is a Perfect Being." It may not be out of place in this connection, to pass in review Kant's discourse on this subject THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 45 in his "Transcendental dialectic." * He there marshals the various arguments for the existence of a Creator, and shows the weakness and in- sufficiency of each to meet the assaults of the skeptic. He says, "There are only three modes of proving the existence of a Creator, on the grounds of speculative reason. . . . The first is the physico-theological argument, the second the cosmological, the third the ontolog- ical. More there are not, and more there can- not be. I shall show that it is as unsuccessful on the one path — the empirical, as on the other — the transcendental. ... As regards the order in which we must discuss these arguments, it will be the reverse of that in which reason, in the progress of its development attains to them." Kant, therefore, first takes up the Ontological argument, which is particularly identified with the name of Descartes, and subjects it to a searching analysis, and clearly shows that, on purely a priori grounds, it is not proof against the assaults of the skeptic. In summing up on that argument he says, "Whatever be the con- tent of our conception of an object, it is neces- sary to go beyond it if we wish to predicate ex- istence of the object. In the case of sensuous objects, this is attained by their connection, ac- cording to empirical laws, with some one of my i Meiklej ohn's translation. 46 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND perceptions ; but there are no means of cogniz- ing the existence of objects of pure thought, be- cause it must be cognized completely a priori." He then proceeds to discuss the Cosmological argument. "It is framed in the following man- ner: — If something exists, an absolutely neces- sary being must likewise exist. Now I, at least exist, consequently there exists an absolutely necessary being. . . . But this merely aids reason in making one step — to the existence of a necessary being. What the properties of this being are cannot be learned. . . . Experi- ence being utterly insufficient to demonstrate the presence of this attribute (necessary existence) in any determinate existence or thing. Although the existence of a necessary being were admitted we should find it impossible to answer the question: — What of all things in the Uni- verse must be regarded as such?" It will be seen from the above quotations, that the Cosmological argument goes no further than the recognition of a necessary being leaving un- determined whether this being is the Universe or something distinct from it. The question of the truth or falsity of Pantheism is, therefore, left untouched. The physico-theological, or, as it is now generally designated, the teleological, or ar- gument from design, is next taken up by Kant, and shown to be logically inconclusive, though worthy of the highest consideration and respect. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 47 "It is the oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common sense of humanity. It animates the study of nature, as it itself de- rives its existence and draws ever new strength from that source. It introduces aims and ends into a sphere in which our observation could not of itself have discovered them, and extends our knowledge of nature, by directing our attention to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond nature. This knowledge of nature again reacts upon this idea — its cause ; and thus our belief in a divine Author of the Universe rises to the power of an irresistible conviction. But although we have nothing to object to the reasonableness and utility of this procedure, but have rather to commend and encourage it, we cannot approve of the claims which this argu- ment advances to demonstrative certainty. . . . I maintain, then, that the physico-theological argument is insufficient of itself to prove the ex- istence of a Creator." While Kant thus questioned the powers of the human mind to demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being distinct from the Universe, yet he was far from being an agnostic in the modern sense of the term. Pie again and again asserts his earnest conviction of the existence of such a Being, and bases his belief on ethical grounds. The elevating influence of such a belief upon the individual and the race, and the practical 48 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND results in promoting the well being of mankind as a whole, were sufficient in his mind to produce conviction. In these latter days there has arisen a school of thought, with a very extensive following which affects to find in Pantheistic no- tions the same stimulus to a just life. In the minds of many, therefore, ethical arguments for the existence of a Creator have ceased to have any weight. Independent of all religious considerations the subject is one of great intrinsic interest, and of transcendent importance to the cause of philos- ophy. In the introduction of this book it is claimed that the theory of evolution necessarily implies the prior existence of that which is being evolved, that is to say, the material Universe must have pre-existed in ideal or spiritual form before it became an objective reality. In other words, must have existed in the mind (to use the only suitable word) of the Being who called it into existence. Now, if the Universe were the Sole Existence, as Pantheism claims, evolution would be impos- sible, for the whole is already in material evi- dence, and, necessarily, has always been so. The human mind, being but a part of this whole, cannot in reason predicate such changes in the whole as the word evolution implies, without vi- olating the axiom "The whole is greater than THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 49 any of its parts." Pantheism and cosmic evo- lution are therefore absolutely contradictory. But, if the Universe is a caused thing like man himself, it offers a legitimate field of conquest for the human mind, and we can entertain the idea of cosmic evolution without violating an axiomatic truth. Aside, however, from the argument based upon the theory of evolution, there is another method of proving the existence of a Creator, and it depends upon the principle already for- mulated as the criterion of truth, viz. the con- cordance between pure or a priori conceptions and the sensuous perception of the external world. The method is, therefore, both Ontological and Cosmological, depending as it does equally upon a priori conceptions and a study of the phenomena of nature which the possession of sense perception enables us to make. In his review of the Cosmological argument, Kant showed that its strength, in proof of the contingent character of the Universe, depended upon the law of causality, the fallacious charac- ter of which he exposes. This law may be briefly stated thus: — Everything which is de- pendent has a cause, which, if itself dependent, must also have a cause; and so on until a primal cause is reached, without which the chain would be incomplete. This reasoning contains a peti- 50 THE UNCAUSED BEING tio principii — assumes the very thing to be proved. The Cosmological argument alone is, there- fore, of no conclusive value ; but united with the Ontological argument, as enunciated in the prin- ciple already formulated as our criterion of truth, it acquires new strength. This may be called the Onto-cosmological argument. It claims to show that the analysis of the external world, which the possession of sense percep- tion enables us to make, does not justify us in maintaining that the material Universe is an ab- solutely infinite thing, that, therefore, it is not self-subsistent or uncaused, but owes its exist- ence to a Being distinct from it in essence. Now, from a priori conceptions, we demand absolute infinitude to be predicated of an un- caused thing. Hence, if in our analysis of the external world, antagonism be established be- tween this a priori conception and the teaching of sense perception, then are we justified in maintaining that the corporeal Universe is a dependent thing, and not the Uncaused Being which we are compelled to posit as existing. "To subsist always according to the same, and in a similar manner, and to be the same, belongs to the most divine of all things alone. But the na- ture of body is not of this order." x i Plato in the "Statesman." CHAPTER III PROPOSITIONS Prop. I. If anything exists an Uncaused Be- ing exists. Prop. II. The Uncaused Being, not being de- pendent upon any other thing for exist- ence is, therefore, absolutely infinite. Corollary. There can be but one Uncaused Being, all other forms of being must be caused or dependent. Prop. III. The Uncaused cannot be subjected to analysis by a caused thing. The caused cannot comprehend the Uncaused, i. e., "the whole is greater than any of its parts. 9 ' Corollary. Growth or development cannot be predicated of the Uncaused Being. Prop. IV. A caused being cannot determine what the Uncaused Being IS, but it can determine what the Uncaused Being is NOT. Prop. V. The material universe cannot be the Uncaused Being. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSITIONS Prop. I. If anything exists an Uncaused Be- ing exists. The celebrated Scotch philosopher, David 51 52 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND Hume, pointed out the weakness of the argument for the existence of a Deity based on the doc- trine of causation. He clearly showed that, if we regard the Uni- verse as an unbroken chain of causes and effects, it is illegitimate to assume any definite com- mencement of this chain. In other words, he held that the mind cannot consistently rest in any such thing, as a Primal Cause, for this would be an assumption that the Universe had a beginning and, therefore, a Beginner — the thing to be proved. The law of causality has already been quoted in the first chapter, and that it con- tains a petitio-principii is very apparent. But the criticism of Hume cannot be wielded against the proposition announced above. It will be observed that the proposition carries with it no implication as to the nature of this being, and it leaves the question open as to whether the Uncaused Being is the Universe or the Author of it. It lays down no theory of causation, but merely affirms that there must be an Uncaused existence if anything exists. The proposition is an axiomatic one and cannot be assailed by reason. The Pantheist affirms that the Universe, considered as a whole, is this Un- caused Being, and that the changes which we see taking place in the material world about us are the transformations going on within the THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 53 self-centered Cosmos. According to this view the Universe is the ultimate reality. The Theist, on the other hand, maintains that the Universe is dependent, and owes its existence to a creative act by a Being which is distinct from it in nature. Prop. II. The Uncaused Being, not being de- pendent upon any other thing for existence is, therefore, absolutely infinite. If the Uncaused Being be conceived of as material or corporeal, i. e., as occupying space, an absolutely infinite magnitude must be pred- icated of it. An uncaused limited corporeality is at once repudiated by the mind. If the Un- caused be conceived of as immaterial, power to produce or create must be attributed to it; and this creating or producing power it must pos- sess to an unlimited degree. From this propo- sition flows the corollary that there can be but One Uncaused Being. As an uncaused thing must be absolutely without limitations, it is quite impossible that there should be more than one absolutely infinite thing; and this holds whether we regard it as material or immaterial, for, let it be assumed that there are a plurality of uncaused things, then, on the supposition that they are immaterial, the sphere of activity or producing power of each would be limited 54 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND by the others, and none of them could be re- garded as absolutely infinite. Again if ma- terial, they would limit one another in magni- tude. A plurality of absolutely infinite beings is, therefore, a contradiction. From the recog- nition of this it follows that all other forms of being are caused, derivative or dependent. Prop. III. The Uncaused Being cannot be sub- jected to analysis by a caused thing. The caused cannot comprehend the Uncaused, i. e., the whole is greater than any of its parts. The truth of this proposition appeals to the mind with axiomatic force. From it flows the corollary that growth or development cannot be predicated of the Uncaused Being. The as- sumption of development or any change in the essential nature of a thing as a whole, presup- poses that the thing under consideration has been circumscribed. But the nature of the Un- caused is absolutely infinite, and cannot be cir- cumscribed or comprehended by that which itself has caused, i. e., (i the whole is greater than any of its parts." The reader will appreciate the significance of this axiom in its relation to Pan- theistic Evolution. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 55 Prop. IV. A caused Being cannot determine what the Uncaused Being IS, but it can deter- mine what the Uncaused Being is NOT. A being which knows itself to have been caused can recognize the same dependent nature in other things, and this enables it to say with the highest certainty that the thing under obser- vation is not uncaused. Whilst the human mind can resolve the phenomena which the world pre- sents into chains of causes and effects, still, on a priori considerations alone, it recognizes that it cannot circumscribe the whole of Being, for "the whole is greater than any of its parts." If, therefore, the corporeal universe be the whole of Being, that is uncaused, it must forever re- main an insoluble enigma. Not necessarily so, however, if it be a caused or dependent thing. Prop. V. The Universe cannot be the Uncaused Being. The external world is manifested to our con- sciousness as a combination of matter, motion and force. Space and time or duration are the conditions under which these operate. Matter, motion and force are always blended in the pro- duction of phenomena. They form an insepa- rable triad. While physical science teaches that all phe- nomena whatsoever are the result of the working of this trial as a whole, yet a careful analysis 56 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND justifies us in giving precedence to matter, the substance which supports the other two, and without which they could have no existence. In other words, motion and force are not to be re- garded as entities at all, but merely conditions of that which occupies space. If we subject to analysis any chain of cause and effect, which the Universe presents, we will invariably find that matter is the ultimate cause which can be reached by experiment; that our conception of motion is that of a particle or mass of matter in the act of translation from one point of space to another, and that our con- ception of force is that of a particle or mass of matter in motion communicatmg this motion to another particle or mass of matter. A mass of matter m motion must always be followed by the manifestation of force if there be another mass of matter to which it can com- municate this motion. Force is therefore communicated or trans- mitted motion. Reducing a chain of cause and effect to its ultimate scientific beginning we are bound to conceive of matter as initiating it and never a force. On the supposition that there was a time in the history of the material universe when the matter of which it is composed was in a quiescent state, then we cannot call the Something which set it in motion a force, as physical science un- THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 57 derstands that word; Will manifestation is the nearest approach our terminology admits of in speaking of such a Something. On the hy- pothesis that the matter of which the universe consists has always been in motion, then it is clear that matter is the ultimate term, motion its attribute, and force the transmission or com- munication of this motion to other masses of matter. This is the force which is known to science, nor should anything else receive that title. Experimental science must, therefore, al- ways regard matter as the ultimate scientific ori- gin of all external phenomena — the ultimate scientific starting point for every chain of cause and effect observable throughout the physical universe. If we would attain to sublimer heights we must provide ourselves with wings other than those which experimental science can furnish, with which to soar. These wings are supplied by pure or a priori conceptions, the concordance existing between which and the teachings of sense perceptions being the test for truth. In the course of this discussion we will en- deavor to show that our notions of the universe from the empirical standpoint, are reducible to our conception of matter undergoing transla- tion in space ; and that this matter is not of such a magnitude to justify us in attributing to it an absolutely infinite character, in other words, 58 THE UNCAUSED BEING that we can conceive the mass of matter enter- ing into the constitution of things greater than sense perception shows it to be. In the following chapter each of the grand divisions, space, motion, matter and force, which, considered as a whole, constitute the ex- ternal world, will be examined, and their claim, individually and collectively, to be considered the uncaused source of things, carefully weighed. CHAPTER IV SPACE— MOTION— FORCE— MATTER Space may be defined as the absence of matter, that is to say, space is a VOID, and therefore not an entity or thing. The difficulties surrounding the discussion of space, motion, force, matter and kindred topics are familiar to everyone acquainted with meta- physical writings. Such subjects offer a fine field for the proverbial verbosity of the pro- fessional metaphysicians who, too often, in their efforts to elucidate, befog the main issues, which thus become lost to view in the mists created by their own metaphysical subtleties. The celebrated German philosopher, Kant, discussing the nature of space says: — "Space does not represent to us any determination of objects such as attaches to the objects them- selves, and would remain, even though all sub- jective conditions of the intuition were ab- stracted. . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense, that is, the subjective condition of the sensi- bility, under which alone external intuition is possible." 59 60 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND The student of metaphysics will get much out of this, but, it is safe to say, that the individual who has no acquaintance with metaphysical language will get little or nothing. If an ignorant man were asked the question "What is space?" he would probably answer: "Space is nothing," by which he would mean that there is an absence of objects to be seen or felt and his answer would be correct. Our sense perception teaches us that space is no thing, but the absence of things, that is, a VOID. 1 The inability to see the air about it, and the consequent ability to see objects gives the infant mind its first notion of space. This visual knowledge is supplemented by the ab- sence of obstructions to motion and the two to- gether enable the child to acquire an idea of space or a void. Space, then, is not an entity or thing, but the absence of things. To this, reply might be made, "How then does space exist, can nothing i "Absolute space in itself and without regard to any- thing external, remains eternally the same and immova- ble. Relative space is any movable dimension or meas- ure of absolute space determined by our senses by the position of bodies." Sir I. Newton. "Space is a relation, an order, not only of existing things, but of all those which possibly might exist." Leibnitz. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 61 be said to exist?" This would be a mere play on language and gathers around the word ex- istence as applied to a void. This verbal diffi- culty cannot be surmounted and those disposed to quibble will continue to do so. We can only define space or a void in its relation to matter, and therefore we say that space is the absence of matter. As we have defined space as the absence of matter, so we may define matter as the absence of space. If there were no void or space the universe would be a solid mass of mat- ter (a continuum), and how human beings, con- stituted as they are, could intuit matter with- out space as a medium, is a puzzle for those to solve who believe that matter is a continuum. Nor is space a continuum, for if it were, there would be no matter. As the individual atoms and groups of atoms are separated by space, so the various points of space are separated by matter. The separation in the latter case is of course not as complete as in the former, for space surrounds the atoms and groups of atoms. Space is, therefore, continuous, but the exist- ence of matter prevents it from being a con- tinuum. The extent or magnitude of space necessarily remains constant so long as the quantity of mat- ter remains constant. The destruction of a single atom would increase the extent of space that much. 62 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND While we cannot say that space possesses mo- tion, not being a thing, yet the movement of the atoms is perpetually abolishing and creating space (voids), so that the relations between the points of space and individual atoms and groups of atoms are constantly changing. Space is infinite but not absolutely infinite. As this statement may cause a question in the minds of some who have always regarded one in- finity as being necessarily as great as another, a little explanation and definition of terms may be in order. Those familiar with mathematics are aware that mathematicians recognize that one infinity can be greater than another. In mathematics it is customary to call a line start- ing from a fixed point and projected indefi- nitely, and therefore endless in one direction, an infinite line, but it is clear that such a line cannot equal another line projected endlessly in both directions. Calling the first infinite, we are obliged to call the second absolutely infinite, for a greater line cannot be conceived. The absolutely infinite must be defined as that of which a greater cannot be imagined or con- ceived. It is obvious that the first line fails to meet this requirement. To illustrate further: let two lines, AB and AC, be drawn in a plane from a point A in that plane (Fig. 1) and extended endlessly. The area of the plane embraced by the lines will THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 63 therefore be infinite. Now increase the size of the angle (as in Fig. 2). It is clear that the E area embraced by the lines AD and AE, exceeds that embraced by AB and AC. Now conceive of A as a point in a plane which extends bound- lessly in all directions ; such a plane would be the greatest possible — would be an absolutely in- finite plane. Hence we are justified in making a distinction between the infinite and the abso- lutely infinite, and of defining the absolutely infinite as that of which a greater cannot be im- agined or conceived. Though universal space or void has no geo- metrical figure, being without bounding lines, yet, for the purpose of exposition, we may liken it to a sphere with its center everywhere and sur- face nowhere. Space, therefore, would be ab- solutely infinite were it not for the existence of matter, but the presence of matter destroys its absolute character, for where body is, there space is not, hence space is not of such a magnitude that we cannot imagine a greater. The same obtains with regard to matter. It is not abso- lutely infinite because space exists. Let it be 64 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND granted that we could travel forever and still find matter floating in the depths of space, it would still remain true that we could imagine the voids between the atoms and groups of atoms completely filled, thus increasing the quantity of matter. Matter is, therefore, not absolutely infinite. It is customary to speak of space as if it were a phenomenon (that which appears) of nature, but as it is through the absence of appearances (phenomena) only that we apprehend the exist- ence of space, it is manifestly improper, to be strictly accurate, to call it a phenomenon. Thus, we can truly say that space is the nega- tive and matter the positive of the universe. The first negates, the latter affirms the existence of beings. Plato and Parmenides declared that space was non-being, by which they wished to convey the idea that space is the absence of material things. Motion is matter in the act of changing its position in space. An atom or group of atoms undergoing trans- lation in space manifests the phenomenon called motion. It is obvious that were there no space (void), motion would be an utter impossibility and the universe would be an absolute solid, a THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 65 solid of such a nature as we now conceive the ultimate etheric atom to be. As space is the condition of all external phenomena, but is in itself no thing, so motion is the occasion of all external phenomena, but is in itself no thing. Space exists, and yet is not entity, so with motion. It is said of Heracletus that he taught that "everything is motion, and nothing else exists." It is probable that he meant by this, that as the atoms were in perpetual motion, the word, mo- tion, could be used as a synonym for matter it- self. Pantheism, negating as it does, the idea of Creation, asserts that matter has always been in motion, and that the universe as we see it, is the outcome of this perpetual change of place among the atoms which has been going on from a beginningless past. From this point of view we are to regard the material universe as a mass of atoms flowing along the line of infinite dura- tion, and their mutual attraction and repulsion the occasion of all the phenomena. Theism, on the contrary, holding as it does the idea of Creation, maintains that the atoms were created and that motion was primarily im- parted to them by the fiat of Omnipotence. The motion so imparted will therefore continue dur- ing the pleasure of the Being who called the atoms into existence. The Theistic Scientist 66 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND while recognizing this, also recognizes that mo- tion is indestructible in the regular course of nature or by man's agency, and he knows that its apparent disappearance at one point is al- ways followed by the appearance of the same quantity of motion at other points. Thus when two bodies come into collision, both may be brought to a dead stop. The ignorant man might declare that here is an example of the destruction of motion, but the scientific man knows that the loss of motion exhibited by the bodies is only apparent; that mass motion has been converted into molecular motion, and that, if all this motion manifested as heat, could be collected, it would equal in amount the motion of the bodies before the collision. From this fact has been deduced the well known law of the "conservation of energy," which may very properly be worded in terms of motion ; for, as we shall see later on, energy or force is nothing more than motion communicated by one atom or group of atoms to another atom or group of atoms. Force is transmitted motion, or motion com- municated by an atom or group of atoms to an- other atom or group of atoms. That which has not for its cause a prior state of motion cannot be empirically apprehended. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 67 A mass or particle of matter in motion must al- ways precede the manifestation of force. If there were but one mass of matter in existence, motion could not be transmitted, and, hence, force could have no existence. That force is definable only as transmitted or communicated motion becomes very clear when we consider that empirically we have no basis to work on where matter does not exist. Any definition of force that does not clearly recognize a prior state of matter in motion as the starting point is de- fective. "Matter is not a go-cart, to and from which force, like a horse, can be now harnessed, now loosed," says Dubois-Raymond. "Force without matter is not a reality, and both by their union have made the world and all its phenomena," says Spiller. "Force without matter has no independent ex- istence," says Cornelius. While all these definitions recognize the in- separability of matter and force, yet, from their wording, it is still left ambiguous how we are to conceive of force — whether it is to be re- garded as an entity in itself united to matter, or whether it is merely a condition of matter. That it is merely a condition resulting from mat- ter in motion becomes apparent when we attempt to conceive of force abstracted from matter or preceding it in a sequence of cause and effect. 68 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND On the supposition that there was a time in the history of the universe when the matter of which it is composed was in a state of quiescence, then the Something which disturbed this equilib- rium of rest cannot be designated a force as the scientist uses that term. Such a Something would have no affinity to the force known to science as such. Spontaneous Will Power is the only phrase which could describe such a mani- festation, a wholly different thing from the force of the scientist which always possesses a material background. Our idea, then, of force, when reduced to its lowest terms, is nothing more than transmitted motion, and presupposes the prior existence of matter in motion. The well known law of the "correlation and conservation of force," the establishment of which is reckoned among the triumphs of modern science, might more properly be stated in terms of matter in motion. The phrase, the indestructibility of matter and the perpetuity of its original motion, really embodies the same ideas. The inseparability of force and moving matter enables us all the better to appreciate the fact that every kind of motion has its counter- part in a force of a similar nature. Thus we have mass motions and mass forces. The course of the earth in its orbit, and of a stone through the air, are familiar examples of THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 69 the first. Heat, light, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity and vitality are examples of the second. Mass motions and forces, and molecu- lar motions and forces are mutually convertible. Familiar instances of the conversion of molecu- lar energy into mass energy are seen in the pro- jectile forced from the cannon's mouth by the explosion of gunpowder, and the propulsion of the steam engine by the use of coal and water. The chemical forces accompanying the digestion and assimilation of food are converted into vital force at work in building up the tissues, which in turn is converted into mass motion and forces, manifested in the movements of the body, and the physical force which it exercises on other bodies. All these motions and forces, mass and molecular, can be traced back to the sun, the great storehouse of physical energy. Force, then, is not an entity associated with matter but merely a resultant of matter in mo- tion. Being merely a condition consequent upon moving matter, force cannot be the Uncaused Being after which we are seeking. When we designate by the name of force the Something which originally set the matter of the universe in motion (assuming that it has not always been in motion ) , we apply the term to that which is totally different, scientifically con- sidered, from the force which we see around us in nature. On the assumption that the matter 70 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND of the universe has always been in motion, then, it is clear that all force is nothing more than the communication of motion from one mass of matter to another in a begirmingless and end- less sequence. As already shown we have no empirical knowl- edge of any force which is not communicated motion. Any attempt, therefore, to identify force with matter necessarily leads to error. For it is plain that even were we to define matter as force which impresses us as occupying space we would still be no nearer the truth, and the wide distinction between this space-occupying force and the force induced by it would be lost sight of. Two widely different things would thus be confounded, much to the injury of philosophy. It is, therefore, wholly unscientific to give that which impresses us as occupying space any other name than matter, retaining the word, force, to designate the motion communi- cated from an atom or group of atoms to an- other atom or group of atoms. To the man, then, who denies the existence of a Creator, the Universe of Being is resolvable down to matter in ceaseless motion as the ultimate thing. MATTER Matter is something which impresses us as occupying space, or, better still, matter is the absence of space. The definition may be worded either way, but THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 71 the latter phrase is less ambiguous, for it carries with it unmistakably the idea to be conveyed, that where matter is, there space (a void) can- not be. We take congnizance of matter by the re- sistance which it offers to touch (mass resist- ance), and to hearing, sight, smell and taste (molecular resistance). These are the avenues which bring the Ego (and by the Ego is under- stood self-consciousness) into relation with the outer world; which, in other words, enables the Ego to recognize the existence of such an outer world. All known forms of matter are embraced in the tables of elementary substances laid down in our text books on chemistry. They are called elements, for as yet they have not been resolved into simpler forms, with the possible exception of Radium. For a long time there has been a feeling among chemists that all the so-called ele- ments are really compounds, and may be resolved eventually into something simpler. Even the notion of transmutation, so tenaciously held by the alchemists of the middle ages, has been re- juvenated, and many scientific men are of the opinion that it will be realized some day. If there be a universal substance from which the so-called elements have arisen by some un- known process, then we must regard the smallest particles of these elementary bodies as mole- 72 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND cules or groupings of the atoms of some sub- stance still simpler. It has been suggested that the ether may be this common substance. This mysterious and subtle something, the source of light, heat, elec- tricity and magnetism, is believed to pervade uni- versal space and to interpenetrate all bodies. If the ether is the common substance, the parent of all tangible bodies, we are then called upon to regard it as consisting of particles, indivisible and incompressible, the etheric atoms; or to view it as a continuum, that is without pores or vacui- ties, and therefore without parts. If the latter view be maintained then space is annihilated. Space is the absence of matter, and if matter be continuous (without vacuities) and infinitely ex- tended in all directions it is obvious that space can have no existence, and we must regard the ether as an infinite corporeality. That the ether is a continuum, and the uni- verse a plenum (absolutely full) of it, is the view held by Professor Lodge and others. The ap- pendix to this volume is devoted to an examina- tion of this theory and its logical consequences. The reader is referred to it for the arguments in refutation. Assuming that the ether is the ultimate form of matter, and that the etheric atoms are the parents of all the so-called elementary bodies, we are then obliged to conceive of it as denser in THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 73 some places than in others; that, for instance, there are more etheric atoms in a cubic inch of iron than in a cubic inch of air. In other words, that the vacuities separating the ultimate etheric atoms are larger and more numerous in a gas like nitrogen or oxygen than in a metal like iron. Space, then, both interatomic and interstellar, does really exist, and the bulk of matter in the universe is limited by it, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as absolutely infinite, however ex- tended it may be throughout the celestial sphere. Indeed, the quantity of matter in the universe compared with space is insignificant. Space is a necessary condition of motion. If the uni- verse were a continuous mass of matter, such as we now conceive the atom to be, all motion would be impossible. It is inconceivable that motion can take place in a continuum, Profes- sor Lodge to the contrary notwithstanding. This truth was recognized by the early philoso- phers, and Lucretius, in "De Natura rerum" pointed out that if there were no void spaces in the universe, motion would be impossible. But if there are void spaces in the universe, then matter is not of such a magnitude that we can- not conceive of a greater. Matter, then, is a limited thing — limited by space — and is utterly incapable of fulfilling our definition of an absolutely infinite thing. 1 To i Some critic may advance the plea that as space is 74 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND ascribe independent or uncaused existence to matter is to establish antagonism between a priori conceptions on the one hand, and sense perception on the other. A priori conceptions demand that we attribute absolute infinitude to that which has no cause, and sense perception declares that what we call matter cannot be an infinite corporeality. Hence the material uni- verse cannot be regarded as the Uncaused Be- ing. But the postulate laid down by pure reason that "if anything exists an Uncaused Being ex- ists" still confronts us, and from its unassail- able position of apodictic certainty demands rec- ognition. 1 not a thing, it is evident that matter is limited by noth- ing and is therefore unlimited or absolutely infinite. The play on words would constitute the whole strength of such a criticism. i Materialists in their efforts to give a semblance of probability to their notions of the universe, have resorted to the subterfuge of endowing the atom with a quasi psychic character. The pyknatoms of Haeckel, referred to in the intro- duction of this book, though they correspond in general to the atoms recognized by the ordinary scientist, differ from them, in that they are credited with sensation and inclination, or Will power of the simplest form, "with souls, in a certain sense." "These atoms with souls do not float in empty space, but in the continuous, extremely attenuated intermediate substance, which represents the uncondensed portion of primitive matter." "The two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable matter and ether, are not dead and only moved by ex- THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 75 trinsic force, but they are endowed with sensation and Will (though of the lowest grade) : they experience an inclination for condensation, a dislike of strain: they strive after the one and struggle against the other." "The shade of inclination, from complete indifference to the fiercest passion, is exemplified in the chemical re- lations of various elements towards each other." The above quotations show the nature of the views now very prevalent among Materialists of the present day. That they are borrowed from the "Monadology" of the celebrated Leibnitz, and not improved in the borrow- ing, is clearly indicated by a few quotations from the work of Leibnitz, translated by Dr. Hedge. "The Monad is a simple substance without parts. They are the atoms of nature." "There is no possibility of their dissolution naturally, nor could they have begun to be naturally." "Therefore the Monad can only begin by Creation, and end by annihilation by Deity." "A Monad cannot be altered or changed (naturally) by external influences." "Monads must have qualities or they would not be entities." "Each Monad must differ from every other." "Each Monad is subject to change, but the change starts from within and is continual." "This tendency to change may be called perception, which is not conscious, thus being distinguished from apperception or consciousness." "The internal principle which causes perception may be called appetition, appetite or desire (i. e. attraction)." "Monads that have memory may be called souls." "Memory gives to the Monad Soul a kind of consecu- tive action which imitates reason." "The cognition of necessary and eternal truths is that which distinguishes us from mere animals. It is this which gives us reason and science, and raises us to the knowledge of ourselves and God." "The final reason of things must be found in a neces- sary substance, This supreme substance is One and 76 THE UNCAUSED BEING necessary, incapable of limits, and must contain as much of reality as is possible; and since nothing can hinder the possibility of that which has no bounds, no negative, and no contradiction, that alone is sufficient to establish the existence of a God a priori. Also the existence of God is proved a posteriori by showing that, since con- tingent beings exist, they can have their ultimate and sufficient reason only in some necessary Being, who con- tains the reason of His existence in himself." "God alone is the primitive unity, or the simple, original substance of which all the Created monads are the products." It will be seen from the above quotations that the souls with which Leibnitz endows his monads, correspond to the laws which all modern Theistic writers recognize as governing the atoms in their relations to one another. The wide distinction between the views of Leibnitz and those of Haeckel is very clear. The Monads of Leibnitz are Created things; the pyknatoms of Haeckel are self existent, uncaused realities. There is a family likeness between them and the "Eaches" described in the second chapter of this book. Sir Oliver Lodge, commenting on Haeckel's views, well says: "Thus, then, in order to explain life and mind and consciousness by means of matter, all that is done is to assume that matter possesses these unexplained attributes. . . . This is not science and its formulation gives no sort of conception of what life and will, and consciousness really are. It recognizes the inexplicable and relegates it to the atoms, where it seems to hope that further quest may cease. Instead of tackling the difficulty where it actually occurs; instead of associating life, will and con- sciousness with the organisms in which they are actually found, these ideas are foisted into the atoms of matter; and then the properties which have been conferred on the atoms are denied to the fully developed organisms which these atoms help to compose." CHAPTER V CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNCAUSED BEING As it is fully in accord with the demands of reason that a caused being might be endowed with powers sufficient to compass all other caused beings whatsoever, so, in the same meas- ure, is it a violation of reason to assume that caused being can circumscribe or comprehend Uncaused Being. This truth naturally flows from the axiom, "The whole is greater than any of its parts.* 9 As reason demands that there should be an Uncaused Existence, and as sense perception and reason unite in declaring their inability to identify such a Being with the corpo- real universe, it becomes apparent that the powers of man are limited to a mere apprehen- sion of Its existence. But the apprehension of the existence of a thing is unavoidably accompanied by an at- tempt to picture in the mind or to formulate into words some conception of the thing appre- hended. As it is the verdict of reason that Uncaused Being cannot be comprehended by that which Itself has caused, it is obvious that all such pictures or formula? are but expressions 77 78 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND of an aspiration toward a goal which is abso- lutely unattainable. In formulating our ideas of the Uncaused source of things we must be guided by what we conceive to be the highest thing known to us, the known attributes of such a thing serving to mark out the direction of the line which aspir- ing thought must travel in its efforts to form a conception of Uncaused Existence. The mind of man with its wondrous powers presents to us the highest form of dependent ex- istence, hence in forming a conception of Nou- menal or Uncaused Existence, our only resource is to study the phenomena presented by the human mind. Language, which enables us to express our ideas, possesses certain words descriptive of human attributes, and every qualifying term has its opposite — intelligence implies unintelligence ; conscious, unconscious; personal, impersonal; design, chance; good, evil; wisdom, folly or ignorance, etc. The first terms of this series are the positive elements; the second, the negative. If we are to formulate any conception of the author of our being we should make use of the positive terms of this series of adjectives rather than the negative, but so qualified as to take them beyond the bounds of all limitations. Thus, we can use the words infinite, absolute, or super, and THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 79 this will serve to distinguish the attributes of man from those of the Uncaused source of things. Both Schopenhauer and Von Hartman selected the negative in preference to the positive of these terms, and the reason is not far to seek. They were anxious to remove themselves as far as possible from popular ideas of religion, and thus ran into the absurdity of using language which detracted from the dignity of the sub- ject of which they were treating. The Will of Schopenhauer ( The world as Will and Idea) is an unconscious something, and Von Hartman, a close disciple, entitles his own sys- tem the "Philosophy of the Unconscious." It is not surprising that both held pessimistic views of the nature of things. Schopenhauer declared "it is the worst of all possible worlds," and Von Hartman was a close second in his affirmation that while "it is the best of all possible worlds, it is worse than none at all." There is not much to choose from in these statements. Both philosophers have had and still have a tremendous following in Germany, and many ardent admirers in the United States. THE UNCAUSED BEING AS A PERSONALITY The word personality, as ordinarily used, carries with it the notion of embodied limita- 80 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND tion, hence the objection which has been urged against ascribing personality to the Uncaused. But that which has no personality we regard as impersonal. Now, as we are compelled to make use of one or the other of these words in speaking of the Uncaused source of things, our choice of terms must be determined by the dig- nity of the conception suggested by the word. That which possesses personality is, by com- mon consent, considered higher in the scale of being than an impersonal thing. The one is an individual in which all the parts bear a coherent relation to the whole, the other is an incoherent mass. What the crystal is to the same matter in an amorphous (without form) state, that personality is to impersonality. Furthermore, when we carefully analyze our notion of personality we find that the word pos- sesses other and higher meanings, meanings which peculiarly fit it as a descriptive term of the Uncaused source of things, and which do not necessarily carry with them ideas of em- bodiment and limitation. The personality or individuality of a thing is measured by the qualities which are peculiar to it, and by its independence. The more charac- teristic its attributes and complete its independ- ence, the greater does its personality become. To render this clear to the mind we have but to turn to external nature and trace the gradual THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 81 growth of individuality from the amorphous in- organic to the highest form of the organic. In man personality reaches its highest expression among terrestial things. A heap of sand pos- sesses little or no individuality as compared with a crystal with its geometrical figure and planes of cleavage. A lump of charcoal has a less de- gree of individuality than the diamond. The machine, with its nicely adjusted parts of wheels and levers, possesses a higher degree of individ- uality than a confused heap of iron wheels. There is but little distinction among the leaves of the same tree or among the blades of the same species of grass. In the lower walks of crea- tion individuality exists only to a noticeable de- gree among species, and among individuals of the same specie but few distinctions can be traced. Continuing up the scale of being, the higher we ascend the greater become the pecul- iarities which distinguish individuals of the same species one from the other; and the highest in- dividuality or personality is reached in man. Again, there -are fewer distinguishing traits among savages than among civilized men, and among civilized men personality reaches its maximum with those individuals who are marked off as men of genius. Thus the higher we mount in the scale of be- ing the greater does personality become as meas- ured by peculiarities of attributes. Further, if 82 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND we analyze our notion of personality as meas- ured by the independence or freedom of the in- dividual, the same truth impresses itself upon us. In the inorganic and vegetable kingdoms voli- tion or personal independence of action is ab- solutely nil; and so faintly is it manifested in the lower orders of the animal kingdom that we are scarcely justified in ascribing personal voli- tion to the animal creation until quite a height has been reached on the tree of life. The higher we climb the more does personal volition enter as a factor in the life of the animal, rendering it more and more capable of extending the limits of its environment. In man this personal voli- tion reaches its maximum ; for he covers the face of the habitable globe, and intellectually has brought himself into relation with some of the most hidden of nature's processes. He has even passed the limits of the terrestrial sphere, seek- ing in the abysses of space other worlds to study. With the growth of intelligence environment is widened, and freedom of action becomes more and more marked. The lowest savage in his manner of life, and in the degree of his depend- ence, reminds us of the higher brutes. As his intelligence grows this enslavement to nature be- comes less and less, and volition in modifying environment, becomes more and more conspic- uous. This extended freedom is rendered still more apparent when we remember that he makes THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 83 use of these same natural forces to neutralize their effects upon himself, thus converting the devastating powers of nature into beneficent allies to further his advancement. This grow- ing freedom from natural bonds, so conspicuous in his material progress, is equally conspicuous in his increasing moral freedom, or freedom from the enslavement of personal appetites. Man, in the Mass, is becoming more and more an intellectual being, and less and less de- pendent upon the lower elements of his nature for happiness and pleasure. The power of dis- criminating between right and wrong, accord- ing to some accepted standard, initiated the first step in moral freedom. The imperative Ought, now came to be used among men, and its introduction opened up vistas in moral progress which the most enthu- siastic altruistic of the century cannot see the limit of. Whatsoever philosophical views a man may hold concerning the system of nature and his place in it, he is morally bound to give this word recognition, and to regard himself, in the prac- tical conduct of his life, as a free agent. We believe man to be at the summit of terres- trial creation, and in our ascent to him through the various grades of the animal kingdom, the more do we see fulfilled the requirements of the definition of personality which has been given. 84 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND Thus by gradual steps do we rise to the ap- prehension that Perfect personality can alone reside in the Uncaused, for He alone possesses absolute independence and attributes which no dependent form of being can possess. THE UNCAUSED AS A SELF-CONSCIOUS BEING One of our highest attributes is that of self consciousness. We know that we exist, and from this knowledge is suspended all other knowledge. That which is unconscious of its own existence is regarded, and very justly, as far beneath a self conscious being in dignity. The lowest forms of animal life, the vegetable kingdom, the earth itself, are wanting in this at- tribute. At least so we believe, and no seriously minded man would for a moment hold the con- trary. This attribute is not confined to man, however, and the highest forms of the brute cre- ation undoubtedly possess it. Where to draw the line between the conscious and the uncon- scious members of the animal kingdom would in- deed be impossible, but we can safely hazard the opinion that the simple forms which constitute so large a portion of the animal kingdom, are destitute of this attribute. As we rise in the scale of being, the attribute of self conscious- ness becomes more and more developed, until it reaches its climax in man. We are thus led to THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 85 place the stamp of inferiority upon that which is unconscious of its own existence. Hence, the utter hollowness of Schopenhauer's system is at once apparent. In the blind long- ings of his unconscious will we see the universe come into being and with it consciousness. 1 But can the stream rise higher than its source ? Can the conscious have its ultimate origin in the un- conscious? Schopenhauer calls upon us to reverse com- pletely the notions of superiority and inferiority. The world is to be literally turned upside down. Without attempting to define the nature of self consciousness, it is enough to know that all well balanced minds agree in calling that inferior which does not possess it. Now, as we are log- ically bound to regard as superior to ourselves the first cause of things, it is evident that con- sistency requires that we should not regard this Being as unconscious, but should view it along the line which consciousness points out. We must look up, not down. While the condition known to the human mind as self consciousness is wholly insufficient to express the absolute self i The Will as thing in itself, constitutes the inner, true and indestructible nature of man. In itself, however, it is unconscious. For consciousness is conditioned by the intellect, and the intellect is a mere accident of our being, for it is a function of the brain. ScHOPEKHAVEtt — "The World as Will and Idea." 86 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND consciousness of Uncaused Being, yet, by the use of the term, we are saved from the great er- ror of detracting from the dignity of the Sub- ject by the use of another term which carries with it the notion of inferiority. THE UNCAUSED AS A SUPER-INTELLIGENT BEING The attribute of intelligence, or that power which enables us to discriminate the impressions received from without, and to appreciate the re- lations subsisting among the phenomena of the world; to call up new images by the formation of new combinations, in a word, the inductions and deductions of the mind, we regard, and re- gard justly, as another of our higher attributes. Intelligence or thought, therefore, in its nature implies the prior existence of things and the externality and independence of the things in re- lation to the thinker. The difficulty of ascribing intelligence, so defined, to the Uncaused Being is obvious at a glance. Prior to all else, He and He alone existed, self-centered in his own self-sufficiency. Shall we then conceive of the Uncaused as Unintelli- gent? By so doing we at once confound Him with the lower creation, and thus run into the deplorable error of detracting from his dignity ; and our conception, instead of being more ex- alted than ourselves, sinks to a level lower than THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 87 ourselves. Here, then, we are impaled on one of the horns of a dilemma. By ascribing intel- ligence to the Supreme we lay ourselves open to the charge of anthropomorphism; on the other hand by speaking of the Supreme as unintelli- gent, our conception is powered. We can avoid the difficulty only by prefixing the word abso- lute or super to the term intelligence. So qual- ified, the limitations implied by the "term, intelli- gence, are removed. Caused or dependent intelligence, and Un- caused or absolute intelligence, differ from one another in the same degree ftiat dependent being differs from Uncaused or Absolute Being — as finitude differs from infinitude. This artifice in the use of words prevents us from falling into the error of confounding the Uncaused Be- ing with what we regard as the inferior part of the world. THE UNCAUSED BEING AS A DESIGNING POWER 1 The analysis of our conception of any pro- ducing or causative power resolves itself into our conception of law and design. Our conception of law is that of a power working through ne- cessity; our conception of design is that of a power working through choice or spontaneity. A designing power may, law must act. i Rewritten from the author's work, "Evolution versus Involution." 88 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND Design implies forethought or intent, a pre- conceived end to be attained, and the adaptation of means to the accomplishment of this end. Man's relation to his fellows and to the lower world furnishes us with the type of a designing power. The word design, carries with it another very- important implication, viz. spontaneity or free- dom. It is this element in the content of the word which renders it peculiarly fitting as a de- scriptive term of the acts of the Uncaused Be- ing. The human mind in its study of nature dis- covered the truth that the adaptation of means to the accomplishment of ends was not an attri- bute peculiar to itself, but that a similar method of procedure obtained in the processes of the lower creation. The contemplation of the beau- tiful adaptations of means to ends observable in all nature's ways has furnished to philosophy, science and literature their most brilliant pro- ductions. But it never occurs to anyone to attribute to nature Self-consciousness in bring- ing these adaptations about. They are regarded by all classes of thinkers as the operations of law working in or on the material universe. To one class of thinkers, the prevalence of law im- plies the existence of a Law-Maker. By another class these laws are regarded as the necessary and unvarying sequence of the phenomena which THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 89 nature presents. With the former, law is the Agent of a self-conscious overruling power: with the latter, law becomes a necessary attribute of matter itself. It will be observed that in both these concep- tions of law the notion of necessity enters as an all important factor. Our idea of law, then, from whatsoever source obtained, is that of a causative power workmg through necessity. We are now called upon to consider whether our conception of what we call law in external nature is inferior to our conception of what we call design in ourselves. The study of nature demonstrates that its phenomena are suspended one from another, forming an endless chain ( as far as we can prac- tically determine) of cause and effect, and the whole cause of a thing becomes a law unto that thing. Our idea of law is, then, as already stated, that of a causative power working through necessity. As natural causes present us with an apparently endless chain it is obvious that, empirically, we can never arrive at the no- tion of an uncaused cause. But looking in upon ourselves, the conscious power of volition to act or not to act, to come or to go, engenders within us a notion of spontaneity which external na- ture cannot supply. With the savage and su- perstitious, spontaneity is indeed ascribed to the powers of nature, but the notion is but a reflex 90 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND of what they are conscious of in themselves. Thus by the recognition of our own conscious freedom we arrive at an apprehension of the pos- sible existence of an Uncaused Causative power. Now, as an uncaused thing must be greater than that which is caused, and as our idea of law is of something that is caused or necessitated by something else, it is obvious that the word de- sign, which carries with it the notion of spon- taneity or freedom, should be applied to the methods of the Uncaused source of things in preference to any other word which our vocabu- lary affords. In a word, our conception of de- sign is higher than our conception of law in the same measure that freedom is higher than com- pulsion. 1 SUMMARY Having satisfied ourselves that there is an Uncaused Being to whom all things owe their origin, it becomes our bounden duty to contem- plate this Being with reverential awe. But in order to contemplate, some attempt must be made to embody a conception. In forming this conception we must first determine which are our i The vexed question of freedom of the will need not trouble us here. We are dealing with conceptions, and no one can deny that we at least possess the notion of spon- taneity or freedom, and that it has been acquired from our internal consciousness. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 91 highest conceptions. Having done this, we clothe this Being with these attributes, but so qualified as to take them beyond the sphere of all limitations. We are therefore to think of this Being as Personal, not as Impersonal; as Intelligent, not as Unintelligent; as Conscious, not as Uncon- scious ; as a free or spontaneous Causative Power, not as an Inexorable Necessity (our no- tions of which have been derived from the action of Law in nature) which must act, and which is not conscious of the results of its own actions. But having done all this, having stretched our limited faculties to their highest bent, we may still recognize that we have fallen infinitely short of the Great Reality. But He who laid the foundations of the Universe, and prescribed the limits thereof will not judge His creatures for the limitations which He Himself has fixed. The Uncaused Being has been designated by various titles, according to age and nation. They all denote some attribute of excellence, such as Creator, Overruling Power, Permanence, Goodness, etc. Among the Hebrews, Jehovah signified the Permanent Being; Deus with the Latins, the Shining One; Theos, among the Greeks, Crea- tive Power. Our word, GOD, is the same as the Anglo- 92 THE UNCAUSED BEING Saxon word for good. Whether or not this is the origin of the word, it is most fitting. In the Hebrew Scriptures we are told that He called Himself, I AM THAT I AM. CHAPTER VI THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN ITS RELATION TO THE PRESENT DISCUSSION The doctrine of evolution teaches that the ma- terial universe is undergoing alternate periods of evolution and dissolution. 1 The evolution now going on will be succeeded by a period of disso- lution in which the matter entering into the con- stitution of things will be resolved into gas and dissipated throughout space. When the worlds of space have undergone this transformation, another period of evolution will set in with the result of bringing forth a new universe. The mind of man has thus attempted to cir- cumscribe the universe of material being. Now, on the supposition that the Universe is itself the Uncaused Being, what are the implications of all this? Man is a dependent being and owes his existence to the Uncaused Source of things, which, on the above supposition, is the material universe. We are thus called upon to contem- plate and to accept the astounding proposition i The theory, of course, does not hold that these changes affect the whole material universe at once; evolution may- be in progress at one point, while dissolution is taking place at another. 94 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND that the Uncaused can be subjected to analysis and circumscribed by that which is dependent upon IT for existence, and to ignore the self- evident truth that "the whole is greater than any of its parts." Man being but a part cannot, in reason, predicate growth or development of the whole. As well might a blood corpuscle circu- lating in the vessels speculate upon the nature of the whole man. Any theory of evolution which embraces the entire universe cannot be consistently entertained by the mind which re- gards the universe as an Uncaused Existence. Pantheistic Evolution is antagonistic to the a priori conception that "the whole is greater than any of its parts. 9 * But the philosophy that looks upon the universe as a caused thing, meets with no such difficulties in the adoption of the theory of evolution. Like man himself, the uni- verse is but a creature, and the human intellect in attempting to weigh and measure it, finds in the undertaking a legitimate sphere for the ex- ercise of its powers. It sees in the phases which the universe assumes the expression of the Su- preme WILL, and is careful not to confound the manifestation of this will, as expressed in the phenomenal universe, with the essential nature of the Being who exercises the will. The theory of evolution has now a coherent basis upon which to rest. Scientifically, evolution may be defined as the THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 95 unfolding of cause into effect ; and, by the light of Theistic philosophy, this definition merges into the transcendental definition, that Evolution is the unfolding of the Will of the Uncaused Being. Thus evolution, properly interpreted, finds its ally in that system of philosophy which teaches that the universe is a created thing, and that the Being who called it into existence is distinct from it in nature. THE ETHER An Examination of the Views of Sir Oliver Lodge Concerning the Ether of Space. The existence of an etherical substance ex- tending throughout space, and penetrating the interstices of all bodies, has been long accepted by science. It is recognized as the medium by which light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and perhaps, gravitation are manifested. As de- fined by the distinguished mathematician and physicist, James Clark Maxwell, "Ether is a material substance of a more subtle kind than visible bodies, supposed to exist in those parts of space which are apparently empty." In this very conservative definition there is no attempt to define the intimate constitution of the ether, much less to regard it as the parent of the ele- mentary substances known to the chemist, and which go to make up all known bodies. Con- 96 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND siderably more than three score of these ele- mentary substances are now set down in our text books on chemistry. All efforts to resolve these into simpler substances have failed, hence we recognize atoms of gold, silver, iron, copper, hydrogen, etc. The different combinations of the various atoms go to make up the visible world as we know it. The word atom signifies that which is indivisi- ble and incompressible, the smallest particle of matter, hence the use of the word to designate the chemical elements. The word molecule, on the other hand serves to distinguish the various combinations of the atoms. We speak of a molecule of sodium chloride because it can be broken or resolved into the atoms of chlorine and sodium, but when we attempt to resolve the so- dium and the chlorine all efforts fail. But the time may come when the chemist may be able to break up or resolve what are now regarded as the simple elements, and then we will be obliged to consider as a molecule what is now called an atom of gold, and so with the rest of the so- called elementary bodies. Many scientific men believe that there is an ultimate substance from which all others are derived. This notion found expression in the efforts of the old alchemists to transmute one substance into another, and in quite recent times it is claimed that radium under- goes dissolution into other substances. If it be THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 97 true that there is one common substance from which all other substances are derived then the word "atom" as applied to the smallest particles of gold, silver, iron, etc., is a misnomer; they are nothing more than molecules or combinations of the atoms of the ultimate form of matter. Our conception of an atom is that of a cont'm- uum (that is, without pores), and the point in space which it occupies, a plenum (that is, abso- lutely full). Sir Oliver Lodge and others have advanced the theory that the ether is the ultimate form of matter, and that the visible universe is due to certain modifications of this substance to which they give the name of "Electrons." They hold that the ether is a continuum, that is, with- out pores or interstices, and that universal space is therefore a plenum — absolutely full, without a break in its continuity. In other words a solid so dense that "lead and gold are as gossamer compared with it." In his work on the "Ether of Space" Sir Oliver Lodge says, "It (the ether) is turning out to be by far the most substantial thing, perhaps the only substantial thing in the material uni- verse. Compared to the ether, the densest mat- ter, such as lead and gold, is a filmy gossamer structure. . . . The fundamental medium filling all space, if there be such, must in my judgment, be ultimately incompressible, other- wise it would be composed of parts, and we 98 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND should have to seek for something still more fundamental to fill the interstices." Sir Oliver now goes on to tell us about the "Electron." "The Ether being incompressible, and an electron being composed simply and solely of ether, it follows that it (the electron) cannot be either a condensation or a rarefaction of that material, but must be some singularity of structure or some portion (of the ether) other- wise differentiated. It might, for instance, be something analogous to a vortex ring, differen- tiated kinetically, i. e., by reason of its rotational motion, from the remainder of the ether; or it might be differentiated statically, and be some- thing which would have to be called a strain center or a region of twist, or something which cannot be very clearly at present imagined with any security, though various suggestions have been made in that direction. The simplest plan for us is to think of it somewhat as we think of a knot on a piece of string. The knot differs in no respect from the rest of the string except in its tied up structure; it is of the same density with the rest, and yet it is differentiated from the rest; and, in order to cease to be a knot, would have to be untied — a process which as yet we have not learned to a ppty to an electron. If ever such a procedure becomes possible, then electrons will thereby by resolved into the gen- eral body of the undifferentiated ether of space. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 99 The important notion for present purposes is merely this ; that the density of the simple ether, and the density of the tied up or beknotted or otherwise modified ether constituting an elec- tron, are one and the same." . . . "Hence, the argument above given, when properly worked out, tends to establish the ethereal density as of the order 10 12 times that of water. There ought to be nothing surprising in such an estimate, in- asmuch as many converging lines of argument tend to show that ordinary matter is a very por- ous or gossamer-like substance, with interspaces great as compared with the spaces actually oc- cupied by the nuclei which constitute it. Our conception of matter, if it is to be composed of electrons, is necessarily like the conception of the solar system, or rather of a milky way, where there are innumerable dots here and there, with great interspaces between them, so that the average density of the whole of the dots or ma- terial particles taken together — that is to say, their aggregate mass compared with the space they occupy — is exceeedingly small." . . "A reader may suppose that in speaking of the immense density or massiveness of ether, and the absurdly small density or specific gravity of gross matter by comparison, I intend to sig- nify that matter is a rarefaction of the ether. That, however, is not my intention. The view I advocate is that the ether is a perfect con- 100 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND tinuum, an absolute plenum, 1 and that, there- fore, no rarefaction is possible. The ether in- side matter is just as dense as the ether outside, and no denser. A material unit, say, an electron, is only a peculiarity or singularity of some kind in the ether itself, which is of perfectly uniform density everywhere. What we 'sense' as mat- ter is an aggregate or grouping of an enormous number of such twists. How then, can we say that (gross) matter is millions of times rarer or less substantial than the ether of which it is es- sentially composed? ... It may be noted that it is not unreasonable to argue that the density of a continuum is necessarily greater than the density of any disconnected aggregate ; certainly of any assemblage whose particles are actually composed of the material of the con- tinuum. Because the former is 'all there,' everywhere, without break or intermittance of any kind; while the latter has gaps in it — it is here and there but not everywhere. ... It may be said, why assume any definite density for the ether at all? Why not assume that, as it is infinitely continuous, so it is infinitely dense — whatever that may mean — and that all its prop- erties are infinite? This might be possible were it not for the velocity of light. By transmitting i For the sake of clearness, Prof. Lodge should have written "and space an absolute plenum" for that is what he wishes to express. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 101 waves at a finite and measurable speed, the ether has given itself away, and let in all the possibili- ties of calculations and numerical statements. Its properties are thereby exhibited as essentially finite — however infinite the whole extent of it may turn out to be. . . . As for the elas- ticity of the ether, that is ascertainable at once from the speed at which it transmits waves. That speed — the velocity of light — is accurately known, 3 x 10 10 centimetres per second. And the ratios of the elasticity or rigidity to the density is equal to the square of the speed ; that is to say, the elasticity must be 9 x 10 10 times the density. . . . But we must go on to ask to what is this rigidity due? If the ether does not consist of parts, and if it is fluid, how can it possess the rigidity appropriate to a solid so as to transmit waves ? To answer this we must fall back upon Lord Kelvin's kinetic theory of elas- ticity ; that it must be due to rotational motion — intimate fine grained motion throughout the whole etherical region — motion not of the nature of locomotion, but circulation in closed curves, returning upon itself — vortex motion of a kind far more finely grained than any waves of light or any atomic or even electronic structure. Now if the elasticity of any medium is to be thus ex- plained kinetically, it follows, as a necessary con- sequence, that the speed of this internal motion must be comparable to the speed of wave propa- 102 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND gation; that is to say, that the internal squirm- ing circulation, to which every part of the ether is subject, must be carried on with a velocity of the same order of magnitude as the velocity of light. This is the theory then — this theory of elasticity as dependent on motion — which, in combination with the estimate of density, makes the internal energy of the ether so gigantic. For in every cubic millimeter of space we have, according to this view, a mass equivalent to what, if it were (gross) matter, we should call a thousand tons, circulating internally, every part of it, with a velocity comparable to that of light, and therefore containing stored away in that small space, an amount of energy . equal to the energy of a 1,000,000 horsepower station working continuously 40,000,000 years. The question is often asked, is ether material? This is largely a question of words and convenience. Undoubtedly the ether be- longs to the material or physical universe, but it is not ordinary matter ; I should prefer to say it is not "matter" at all. It may be the substance or substratum or material of which matter is made, but it will be confusing and inconvenient not to be able to discriminate between (gross) matter on the one hand and ether on the other. If you tie a knot on a bit of string, the knot is composed of string, but the string is not com- posed of knots. If you have a smoke or vortex THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 103 ring in the air, the vortex ring is made of air, but the atmosphere is not a vortex ring; and it would be only confusing to say it was. The es- sential distinction between (gross) matter and ether is that (gross) matter moves, in the sense that it has the property of locomotion and can effect impact and bombardment; while ether is strained, and has the property of exerting stress and recoil. All potential energy exists in the ether. It may vibrate and it may rotate, but as regards locomotion it is stationary — the most stationary body we know ; absolutely stationary, so to speak; our standard of rest." We have allowed the author of "The Ether of Space" to speak for himself so as to enable the reader, not familiar with the work, to exercise his own judgment as to the value of the specu- lations advanced. They are nothing but spec- ulations, and speculations that are not only incoherent, but even contradictory. We are asked to regard the ether of space as a continuum (that is, non-porous) and coexten- sive with space, which is therefore a plenum, that is, absolutely full. We are told that the ether is absolutely stationary, yet that it can vi- brate and rotate. But what is vibration but motion within certain limits? We are told that it can undergo stress or strain, resulting in the formation of nodes or "knots" called electrons, which are in incessant motion, combinations of 104 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND which go to make up the particles known to chemistry as atoms, such as oxygen, hydrogen, iron, etc. We are invited to think of a knot in a string in order to bring before our mental vi- sion an image of these electrons which are occa- sioned by the strain in the ether. Now, we are justified in requesting to know what is meant by strain, used in this sense. In ordinary science when a bar of iron, for example, is put under strain, it means that there is a force applied which tends to rupture the continuity of the bar — tends to tear the atoms of iron from one an- other's embrace. In other words atomic motion or vibration is set up in the bar, which, if it pass certain limits, causes the atoms to recede so far from one another that they cannot recover them- selves, and the bar gives way. To return to the electron ; these tied up "knots" or "strains" in the ether, are allowed translation in space, and we may well ask how they can change their po- sition if there are no vacuities anywhere in the rest of the ether? We cannot suppose that the undifferentiated ether can penetrate through the differentiated portions of itself called the "elec- trons," for these electrons are themselves, ac- cording to the theory, so many individual con- tinuums, as dense as the general body of the ether. Elsewhere we are told that these electrons are charges of positive and negative electricity, hence the name electron. "An atom of hydrogen THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 105 may consist of 700 electrons, 350 positive, and 350 negative. Sixteen times as many would con- stitute an atom of oxygen, 16,000 an atom of radium. The mass of the electron is about tuW of the atomic mass of hydrogen. If an electron is represented as a sphere an inch in di- ameter, the diameter of an atom would be a mile and a half. The spaces between the electrons are thus enormous when compared with their size, relatively as great as the spaces between the planets of the solar system." From this quota- tion we are called upon to identify electricity as one with the electrons, which as we have before seen, are nothing but "strains" or "knots" in the general body of the ether. We are informed that the internal squirming circulation to which every part of the ether is subj ect, must be carried on with a velocity of the same order as the velocity of light, yet we are told that the ether is "absolutely stationary." The speculations advanced by Prof. Lodge and others may be met on both physical and philosophical grounds. 1. It is physically impossible that motion can exist in the interior of a continuum. The possibility of such motion whether vortical, ro- tary, or in a direct line, presupposes the rupture of the continuum. But rupture means reces- sion or giving way of parts ; and how is it possi- ble for recession to take place in view of the 106 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND fact that universal space is a plenum of the etherical continuum, so that there are no void spaces anywhere to permit of such recession or giving way. To make our meaning clearer, let us consider the "old" chemical atom. This atom was supposed to be without parts, that is a con- tinuum and, therefore, science never predicated motion in the interior of an atom. The atoms moved as a whole, and their motion manifested itself in the phenomena of heat, light, electricity, chemical affinity, etc., but their interior was ab- solutely quiescent, and it was recognized that to assume the possibility of internal motion would have destroyed the physical constitution of the atom as postulated. Now, if universal space is a plenum of the etherical continuum we are justi- fied in regarding the ether as analogous to the old chemical atom. We may indeed very prop- erly call it an atom of infinite dimensions. As the "old" physics could not entertain the idea of motion in the interior of the limited continuum, called the atom, so, for the same reason, must we deny the possibility of motion in the interior of the infinite continuum called the material universe — the One great atom. But this is an absurdity, motion exists everywhere about us and in us, and, as far as the senses can determine, there is no such thing as stability; everything seems to be in ceaseless motion and commotion. THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 107 We are therefore compelled to regard the theory that the ether is a continuum, and that universal space is a 'plenum of it, as absolutely without scientific foundation. 2. On philosophical grounds the theory is still more objectionable for we are thus brought face to face with an absolutely infinite corporeal- ity; but reason declares that there can be but one absolutely infinite Being, hence it follows that this Being is the Ether. A materialistic interpretation of the Supreme Being thus be- comes inevitable. Psychic conceptions must give way to materialistic conceptions, and what we call the psychic element in the universe of things becomes interpretable in terms of the mechanical manifestations of the universal ether. In our studies of it we are subjecting to analysis the very essence of Being. When we speak of the density and elasticity of the ether we are really speaking of the density and elasticity of the Un- caused Source of things — The One Supreme Being. But we are here met by one of those pure conceptions of the understanding that calls a halt to our reckless course — "The whole is greater than any of its parts." The Uncaused cannot be subjected to analysis or compre- hended by that which Itself has caused. 108 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND CONCLUSION The ether is not a continuum and universal space is not a plenum of it; in other words, empty spaces (voids) do really exist. However extended the ether may be throughout the Celes- tial Sphere it is not an absolutely infinite cor- poreality — not an absolutely infinite magnitude, for it is everywhere limited by the voids or spaces which separate its ultimate particles. We can, therefore, conceive of a greater magnitude than really exists, for in imagination we can fill these voids with matter. The ultimate particles of the ether may be the real atoms of nature, and the various combina- tions in chemical union may be the source of all material forms. We may then regard the so- called elements, gold, silver, etc., as the children of the ether of space, and the old chemical atom as a molecule or compound of the ultimate eth- eric atoms. It may be that these molecules sometimes undergo dissolution (as is held to be the case with radium), and the etheric atoms of which they are composed returned to the gen- eral body of the ether whence they arose. It is unfortunate that the term, electron, has been grafted on the language of science, for it as- sumes the identity of electricity with the etheric atom, a mere speculation. As to the nature of the ether, Newton con- THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 109 jectured that it might be about 700,000 times more elastic than air and above 700,000 times more rare. Its resistance he found would be above 600,000,000 times less than water, and that such resistance would make no sensible al- teration in the motion of the planets in 10,000 years. This view of the ether as a subtle fluid of great rarity — so rare that its resistance de- fies all attempts at accurate measurement — is more in accord with our common sense percep- tion than the theory advanced by Prof. Lodge. From whatever point of view regarded this theory is unsatisfactory. 1. It abolishes space as such, and calls upon us to regard the universe as a solid mass of mat- ter of absolute density — a continuum. 2. It declares that the ether is absolutely stationary, yet affirms that it is in a state of ceaseless vortical or vibratory motion of such magnitude as to bewilder the mind. This vor- tical motion is allowed it on the ground of its being a "perfect fluid. 9 * We are thus asked to reconcile perfect fluidity with absolute density — a density so great that the heaviest metals are but as "gossamer" compared with it. 3. The theory holds that the "electron" is a "differentiated part," or a "twist," or a "strain," or a "knot" or some other "singularity" of the ether, and is as "dense as it but no denser." These electrons are in constant motion in the in- 110 THE UNCAUSED BEING terior of the old chemical atom with a velocity comparable to that of light. We are invited to contemplate these (the old chemical atoms) as minute solar systems in which the distance sep- arating each electron is relatively as great as the distances which separate the planets. We are told that the body of the atom is composed of the absolutely continuous ether, and that the "strains" or "twists" in it, called electrons, are rupturing this mass ceaselessly with the above named velocity. Are we not justified in asking how such a remarkable motion could take place in a medium of absolute density by a portion of this same medium arranged as a "twist" or a "strain"? The theory of an Ethereal Continuum is there- fore worthless — worthless by reason of its in- consistency and fundamental incoherence ; worth- less as absolutely without scientific evidence; worthless as establishing antagonism between sense perception and a priori conceptions; worth- less, therefore, in its philosophical implications, for, in predicating absolute infinitude of the ether, it lends itself to that system of thought which identifies the material universe with the ultimate essence of Uncaused Being. MAY, 25 19U , One copy del. to Cat. Div. wvy 25 «U