As has been explained in this Lecture, many idealistic writers who insist
upon the necessity of God as a universal, knowing Mind to explain both
the existence of the world and our knowledge of it, are more or less
ambiguous about the question whether the divine Mind is to be thought of
as willing or causing the world, though passages occur in the writings of
most of them which tend in this direction. 'God {57} must be thought of
as creating the objects of his own thought' is a perfectly orthodox
Hegelian formula. Among the idealistic writers (besides Berkeley) who
correct this--as it seems to me--one-sided tendency, and who accept on
the whole the view of the divine Causality taken in this Lecture, may be
mentioned Lotze, the 9th Book of whose _Microcosmus_ (translated by Miss
Elizabeth Hamilton and Miss Constance Jones) or the third Book of his
_Logic_ (translation ed. by Prof. Bosanquet), may very well be read by
themselves (his views may also be studied in his short _Philosophy of
Religion_--two translations, by the late Mrs. Conybeare and by Professor
Ladd); Pfleiderer, _Philosophy and Development of Religion_, especially
chapter v.; and Professor Ward's _Naturalism and Agnosticism_.
Among the non-idealistic writers who have based their argument for the
existence of God mainly or largely upon the consideration that Causality
is unintelligible apart from a rational Will, may be mentioned--among
older writers Reid, _Essays on the Active Powers of Man_, Essay I.
(especially chapter v.), and among more recent ones Martineau, _A Study
of Religion_. Flint's _Theism_ may be recommended as one of the best
attempts to state the theistic case with a minimum of technical
Metaphysic.
Two little books by Professor Andrew Seth (now Seth Pringle-Pattison),
though not primarily occupied with the religious problem, may be
mentioned as very useful introductions to Philosophy--_The Scottish
Philosophers_ and _Hegelianism and Personality_.
[1] Of course deeply religious men like Green who have held this view did
not admit, or did not realize, such consequences. The tendency here
criticized is undoubtedly derived from Hegel, but passages suggestive of
the opposite view can be extracted from his writings, e.g.: 'God,
however, as subjective Power, is not simply will, intention, etc., but
rather immediate Cause' (_Philosophy of Religion_, Eng. trans., ii. p.
129).
[2] The idea of Causality was by Kant identified with the idea of logical
connexion, _i.e._ the relation of the premisses of a syllogism to its
conclusion; but this does not involve _time_ at all, and _time_ is
essential to the idea of Causality. For an admirable vindication of our
immediate consciousness of Causality see Professor Stout's chapter on
'The Concept of Mental Activity' in _Analytic Psychology_ (Book II.
chap. i.).
[3] _Excursion_, Book IV.
[4] For the further development of this argument see Lecture IV.
[5] See especially the earlier chapters of _The Philosophy of the
Unconscious_ (translated by W. C. Coupland).
[6] Of course passages can be quoted from Hegel himself which suggest the
idea that God is Will as well as Thought; I am speaking of the general
tendency of Hegel and many of his disciples. Some recent Hegelians, such
as Professor Boyce, seem to be less open to this criticism, but there are
difficulties in thinking of God as Will and yet continuing to speak of
ultimate Reality as out of Time.
[7] It may be objected that this is true only of 'conceptual space' (that
is, the space of Geometry), but not of 'perceptual space,' _i.e._ space
as it presents itself in a child's perception of an object. The
distinction is no doubt from many points of view important, but we must
not speak of 'conceptual space' and 'perceptual space' as if they had
nothing to do with one another. If the relations of conceptual space
were not in some sense contained or implied in our perceptions, no amount
of abstraction or reflection could get the relations out of them.
[8] _Sociology_, vol. iii. p. 172.
[9] _Naturalism and Agnosticism_, vol. ii. pp. 191-2.
[10] For a further discussion of the subject the reader may be referred
to my essay on 'Personality in God and Man' in _Personal Idealism_.
{58}