按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
grammar must follow〃 （p。 313）。 The whole book； which keeps
unusually close to concrete facts； is little more than an
amplification of this text。
Lend me your attention while I run through some of the points of
the older systematic theology。 You find them in both Protestant
and Catholic manuals； best of all in the innumerable text…books
published since Pope Leo's Encyclical recommending the study of
Saint Thomas。 I glance first at the arguments by which dogmatic
theology establishes God's existence； after that at those by
which it establishes his nature。＇293＇
＇293＇ For convenience' sake； I follow the order of A。 Stockl's
Lehrbuch der Philosophie； 5te Autlage； Mainz； 1881； Band ii。 B。
Boedder's Natural Theology； London； 1891； is a handy English
Catholic Manual； but an almost identical doctrine is given by
such Protestant theologians as C。 Hodge： Systematic Theology；
New York； 1873； or A。 H。 Strong： Systematic Theology； 5th
edition； New York； 1896。
The arguments for God's existence have stood for hundreds of
years with the waves of unbelieving criticism breaking against
them； never totally discrediting them in the ears of the
faithful； but on the whole slowly and surely washing out the
mortar from between their joints。 If you have a God already whom
you believe in； these arguments confirm you。 If you are
atheistic； they fail to set you right。 The proofs are various。
The 〃cosmological〃 one； so…called； reasons from the contingence
of the world to a First Cause which must contain whatever
perfections the world itself contains。 The 〃argument
from design〃 reasons； from the fact that Nature's laws are
mathematical； and her parts benevolently adapted to each other；
that this cause is both intellectual and benevolent。 The 〃moral
argument〃 is that the moral law presupposes a lawgiver。 The
〃argument ex consensu gentium〃 is that the belief in God is so
widespread as to be grounded in the rational nature of man； and
should therefore carry authority with it。
As I just said； I will not discuss these arguments technically。
The bare fact that all idealists since Kant have felt entitled
either to scout or to neglect them shows that they are not solid
enough to serve as religion's all…sufficient foundation。
Absolutely impersonal reasons would be in duty bound to show more
general convincingness。 Causation is indeed too obscure a
principle to bear the weight of the whole structure of theology。
As for the argument from design； see how Darwinian ideas have
revolutionized it。 Conceived as we now conceive them； as so many
fortunate escapes from almost limitless processes of destruction；
the benevolent adaptations which we find in Nature suggest a
deity very different from the one who figured in the earlier
versions of the argument。＇294＇ The fact is that these arguments
do but follow the combined suggestions of the facts and of our
feeling。 They prove nothing rigorously。 They only corroborate
our preexistent partialities。
＇294＇ It must not be forgotten that any form of DISorder in the
world might； by the design argument； suggest a God for just that
kind of disorder。 The truth is that any state of things whatever
that can be named is logically susceptible of teleological
interpretation。 The ruins of the earthquake at Lisbon； for
example： the whole of past history had to be planned exactly as
it was to bring about in the fullness of time just that
particular arrangement of debris of masonry； furniture； and once
living bodies。 No other train of causes would have been
sufficient。 And so of any other arrangement； bad or good； which
might as a matter of fact be found resulting anywhere from
previous conditions。 To avoid such pessimistic consequences and
save its beneficent designer； the design argument accordingly
invokes two other principles； restrictive in their operation。
The first is physical： Nature's forces tend of their own accord
only to disorder and destruction； to heaps of ruins； not to
architecture。
This principle； though plausible at first sight； seems； in the
light of recent biology； to be more and more improbable。 The
second principle is one of anthropomorphic interpretation。 No
arrangement that for us is 〃disorderly〃 can possibly have been an
object of design at all。 This principle is of course a mere
assumption in the interests of anthropomorphic Theism。
When one views the world with no definite theological bias one
way or the other； one sees that order and disorder； as we now
recognize them； are purely human inventions。 We are interested
in certain types of arrangement； useful； aesthetic； or moralso
interested that whenever we find them realized； the fact
emphatically rivets our attention。 The result is that we work
over the contents of the world selectively。 It is overflowing
with disorderly arrangements from our point of view； but order is
the only thing we care for and look at； and by choosing； one can
always find some sort of orderly arrangement in the midst of any
chaos。 If I should throw down a thousand beans at random upon a
table； I could doubtless； by eliminating a sufficient number of
them； leave the rest in almost any geometrical pattern you might
propose to me； and you might then say that that pattern was the
thing prefigured beforehand； and that the other beans were mere
irrelevance and packing material。 Our dealings with Nature are
just like this。 She is a vast plenum in which our attention
draws capricious lines in innumerable directions。 We count and
name whatever lies upon the special lines we trace； whilst the
other things and the untraced lines are neither named nor
counted。 There are in reality infinitely more things 〃unadapted〃
to each other in this world than there are things 〃adapted〃；
infinitely more things with irregular relations than with regular
relations between them。 But we look for the regular kind of
thing exclusively； and ingeniously discover and preserve it in
our memory。 It accumulates with other regular kinds； until the
collection of them fills our encyclopaedias。 Yet all the while
between and around them lies an infinite anonymous chaos of
objects that no one ever thought of together； of relations that
never yet attracted our attention。
The facts of order from which the physico…theological argument
starts are thus easily susceptible of interpretation as arbitrary
human products。 So long as this is the case； although of course
n