_Weakness of Materialism_
Just here comes along the materialist and asks us some questions, tries
to serve on us a kind of metaphysical writ of _quo warranto_. If modern
physics leads us inevitably to the conception of a single infinite Power
manifested in all the phenomena of the knowable Universe, by what
authority do we identify that Power with the indwelling Deity as
conceived by St. Athanasius? The Athanasian Deity is to some extent
fashioned in Man's image; he is, to say the least, like the psychical
part of ourselves. After making all possible allowances for the gulf
which separates that which is Infinite and Absolute from that which is
Finite and Relative, an essential kinship is asserted between God and
the Human Soul. By what authority, our materialist will ask, do we
assert any such kinship between the Human Soul and the Power which
modern physics reveals as active throughout the universe? Is it not
going far beyond our knowledge to assert any such kinship? And would it
not be more modest and becoming in us to simply designate this ever
active universal Power by some purely scientific term, such as Force?
This argument is to-day a very familiar one, and it wears a plausible
aspect; it is couched in a spirit of scientific reserve, which wins for
it respectful consideration. The modest and cautious spirit of science
has done so much for us, that it is always wise to give due heed to its
warnings. Let us beware of going beyond our knowledge, says the
materialist. We know nothing but phenomena as manifestations of an
indwelling force; nor have we any ground for supposing that there is
anything psychical, or even quasi-psychical, in the universe outside of
the individual minds of men and other animals. Moreover, continues the
materialist, the psychical phenomena of which we are conscious--reason,
memory, emotion, volition--are but peculiarly conditioned manifestations
of the same indwelling force which under other conditions appears as
light or heat or electricity. All such manifestations are fleeting, and
beyond this world of fleeting phenomena we have no warrant, either in
science or in common sense, for supposing that anything whatever exists.
This world that is cognizable through the senses is all that there is,
and the story of it that we can decipher by the aid of terrestrial
experience is the whole story; the Unseen World is a mere figment
inherited from the untutored fancy of primeval man. Such is the general
view of things which Materialism urges upon us with the plea of
scientific sobriety and caution; and to many minds, as already observed,
it wears a plausible aspect.
Nevertheless, when subjected to criticism, this theory of things soon
loses its sober and plausible appearance and is seen to be eminently
rash and shallow. In the first place, there is no such correlation or
equivalence as is alleged between physical forces and the phenomena of
consciousness. The correlations between different modes of motion have
been proved by actual quantitative measurement, and never could have
been proved in any other way. We know, for example, that heat is a mode
of motion; the heat that will raise the temperature of a pound of water
by one degree of Fahrenheit is exactly equivalent to the motion of 772
pounds falling through a distance of one foot. In similar wise we know
that light, electricity, and magnetism are modes of motion, transferable
one into another; and, although precise measurements have not been
accomplished, there is no reason for doubting that the changes in brain
tissue, which accompany each thought and feeling, are also modes of
motion, transferable into the other physical modes. But thought and
feeling themselves, which can neither be weighed nor measured, do not
admit of being resolved into modes of motion. They do not enter into the
closed circuit of physical transformations, but stand forever outside of
it, and concentric with that segment of the circuit which passes through
the brain. It may be that thought and feeling could not continue to
exist if that physical segment of the circuit were taken away. It may be
that they could. To assume that they could not is surely the height of
rash presumption. The correlation of forces exhibits Mind as in nowise a
product of Matter, but as something in its growth and manifestations
outside and parallel. It is incompatible with the theory that the
relation of the human soul to the body is like that of music to the
harp; but it is quite compatible with the time-honoured theory of the
human soul as indwelling in the body and escaping from it at death.
In the second place, when we come to the denial of all kinship between
the human soul and the Infinite Power that is revealed in all
phenomena, the materialistic theory raises difficulties as great as
those which it seeks to avoid. The difficulties which it wishes to avoid
are those which inevitably encumber the attempt to conceive of Deity as
Personality exerting volition and cherishing intelligent purpose. Such
difficulties are undeniably great; nay, they are insuperable. When we
speak of Intelligence and Will and Personality, we must use these words
with the meanings in which experience has clothed them, or we shall soon
find ourselves talking nonsense. The only intelligence we know is
strictly serial in its nature, and is limited by the existence of
independent objects of cognition. What flight of analogy can bear us
across the gulf that divides such finite intelligence from that
unlimited Knowledge to which all things past and future are ever
present? Volition, as we know it, implies alternative courses of action,
antecedent motives, and resulting effort. Like intelligence, its
operations are serial. What, then, do we really mean, if we speak of
omnipresent Volition achieving at one and the same moment an infinite
variety of ends? So, too, with Personality: when we speak of personality
that is not circumscribed by limits, are we not using language from
which all the meaning has evaporated?
Such difficulties are insurmountable. Words which have gained their
meanings from finite experience of finite objects of thought must
inevitably falter and fail when we seek to apply them to that which is
Infinite. But we do not mend matters by emptying terms taken from the
inorganic world rather than from human personality. To designate the
universal Power by some scientific term, such as Force, does not help us
in the least. All our experience of force is an experience of finite
forces antagonized by other forces. We can frame no conception whatever
of Infinite Force comprising within itself all the myriad antagonistic
attractions and repulsions in which the dynamic universe consists. We
go beyond our knowledge when we speak of Infinite Force quite as much as
we do when we speak of Infinite Personality. Indeed, no word or phrase
which we seek to apply to Deity can be other than an extremely
inadequate and unsatisfactory symbol. From the very nature of the case
it must always be so, and if we once understand the reason why, it need
not vex or puzzle us.
It is not only when we try to speculate about Deity that we find
ourselves encompassed with difficulties and are made to realize how very
short is our mental tether in some directions. This world, in its
commonest aspects, presents many baffling problems, of which it is
sometimes wholesome that we should be reminded. If you look at a piece
of iron, it seems solid; it looks as if its particles must be everywhere
in contact with one another. And yet, by hammering, or by great
pressure, or by intense cold, the piece of iron may be compressed, so
that it will occupy less space than before. Evidently, then, its
particles are not in contact, but are separated from one another by
unoccupied tracts of enveloping space. In point of fact, these particles
are atoms arranged after a complicated fashion in clusters known as
molecules. The word _atom_ means something that cannot be cut. Now, are
these iron atoms divisible or indivisible? If they are divisible, then
what of the parts into which each one can be divided; are they also
divisible? and so on forever. But if these iron atoms are indivisible,
how can we conceive such a thing? Can we imagine two sides so close
together that no plane of cleavage could pass between them? Can we
imagine cohesive tenacity too great to be overcome by any assignable
disruptive force, and therefore infinite? Suppose, now, we heat this
piece of iron to a white heat. Scientific inquiry has revealed the fact
that its atom-clusters are floating in an ocean of ether, in which are
also floating the atom-clusters of other bodies and of the air about
us. The heating is the increase of wave motion in this ether, until
presently a secondary series of intensely rapid waves appear as white
light. Now this ether would seem to be of infinite rarity, since it does
not affect the weight of bodies, and yet its wave-motions imply an
elasticity far greater than that of coiled steel. How can we imagine
such powerful resilience combined with such extreme tenuity?
These are a few of the difficulties of conception in which the study of
physical science abounds, and I cite them because it is wholesome for us
to bear in mind that such difficulties are not confined to theological
subjects. They serve to show how our powers of conceiving ideas are
strictly limited by the nature of our experience. The illustration just
cited from the luminiferous ether simply shows how during the past
century the study of radiant forces has introduced us to a mode of
material existence quite different from anything that had formerly been
known or suspected. In this mode of matter we find attributes united
which all previous experience had taught us to regard as contradictory
and incompatible. Yet the facts cannot be denied; hard as we may find it
to frame the conception, this light-bearing substance is at the same
time almost infinitely rare and almost infinitely resilient. If such
difficulties confront us upon the occasion of a fresh extension of our
knowledge of the physical world, what must we expect when we come to
speculate upon the nature and modes of existence of God? Bearing this in
mind, let us proceed to consider the assumption that the Infinite Power
which is manifested in the universe is essentially psychical in its
nature; in other words, that between God and the Human Soul there is
real kinship, although we may be unable to render any scientific account
of it. Let us consider this assumption historically, and in the light of
our general knowledge of Evolution.
[Illustration]