public doma9 works f ! ,univ]sity ( ,mi*igan ,digital ,libr>ies47 ,a ,,c&id ,,exam9ation ,,( ,,!ism4 ,,by ,,physicus4 ,,bo/on3 ,,h\ghton1 ,,osgood1 ,,company4 #ahgh4 ,all rights res]v$ 99 99 99 99 99 ,,can/ ,,?\ ,,by ,,se>*+ ,,f9d ,,out ,,god8 99 99 99 99 99 ,,preface4 99 99 99 99 99 ,! foll[+ essay 0 writt5 sev]al ye>s ago2 b ,i h hi!rto refra9$ f publi%+ x1 le/1 aft] hav+ done s1 ,i %\ld f9d t m mature ?\ght _h modifi$ ! conclusions :i* ! essay sets =?4 ,judg+1 h[ev]1 t x is n[ m ?an ev] improbable t ,i %all myself be able to detect any errors 9 my reason+1 ,i feel t x is "t to pres5t ! latt] to ! contemplation ( o!r m9ds2 & 9 do+ s1 ,i make ?is explanation only because ,i feel x desirable to /ate at ! outset t ! pres5t treatise 0 writt5 be=e ! publication ( ,mr4 ,mill's treatise on ! same subject4 ,x is desirable to make ?is /atem5t1 fir/1 because 9 sev]al in/ances ! tra9s ( reason+ 9 ! two essays are p>allel1 & next1 because 9 o!r in/ances ,i h quot$ passages f ,mr4 ,mill's essay 9 connections :i* w\ld be sc>cely intelligible 7 x n und]/ood t ^! passages are ins]tions made aft] ! pres5t essay _h be5 complet$4 ,i h also add$ sev]al supplem5t>y essays :i* h be5 writt5 s9ce ! ma9 essay 0 f9i%$4 ,x is desirable fur!r to obs]ve1 t ! only reason :y ,i publi% ?is edition anonym\sly is because ,i feel v /rongly t1 9 matt]s ( ! k9d ) :i* ! pres5t essay deals1 op9ions & argum5ts %\ld be all[$ to produce ! exact degree ( influ5ce to :i* z op9ions & argum5ts !y are entitl$3 !y %\ld be p]mitt$ to /& ^u _! own intr9sic m]its alone1 & q beyond ! %ad[ ( t unfair prejudication :i* _c b arise s soon z _! au?or's au?ority1 or abs5ce ( au?ority1 becomes kn[n4 ,not)/&+ ?is av[al1 h[ev]1 ,i fe> t _m :o glance ov] ! foll[+ pages w read 9 ! ,physicus ( ! fir/ "o a v diff]5t motive4 ,!re is at ! pres5t "t a wond]fully wide-spread s5tim5t p]vad+ all classes ( society--a s5tim5t :i* x w\ld n be easy to def9e1 b ! practical outcome ( :i* is1 t to discuss ! "q ( :i* ?is essay treats is1 9 "s way or o!r1 morally wrong4 ,_m1 !re=e1 :o %>e ?is s5tim5t w d\btless attribute my retic5ce to a pu]ile fe> on my "p to meet x4 ,i c only say t su* is n ! case4 ,al?\gh ,i allude to ?is s5tim5t ) all respect--believ+ z ,i d t x is an (f%oot f ! /ock :i* conta9s all t is be/ & greate/ 9 human nature--nev]!less x seems to me impossible to d5y t ! s5tim5t 9 "q is z unreasonable z ! frame ( m9d :i* h>b\rs x mu/ be unreason+4 ,if !re is no ,god1 :]e c be ! h>m 9 our exam9+ ! spuri\s evid5ce ( 8 exi/5ce8 ,if !re is a ,god1 surely our fir/ duty t[>ds him mu/ be to ex]t to our utmo/1 9 our attempts to f9d him1 ! mo/ noble faculty ) :i* he has end[$ u--z c>efully to inve/igate ! evid5ce :i* he has se5 fit to furni% ( 8 own exi/5ce z we inve/igate ! evid5ce ( inf]ior ?+s 9 8 dep5d5t creation4 ,to say t !re is "o rule or me?od = asc]ta9+ tru? 9 ! latt] case1 :i* x is n legitimate to apply 9 ! =m] case1 is m]ely a cov]t way ( say+ t ! ,deity1 if he exi/s1 has n suppli$ u ) rational evid5ce ( 8 exi/5ce4 ,= my own "p1 ,i feel t su* an ass]tion _c b embody f> m unwor?y conceptions ( a ,p]sonal ,god ?an are repres5t$ by any am\nt ( e>ne/ inquiry into :atev] evid5ce ( 8 exi/5ce !re may be pres5t2 b1 neglect+ ?is reflection1 if !re is a ,god1 x is c]ta9 t reason is ! faculty by :i* he has enabl$ man to discov] tru?1 & x is no less c]ta9 t ! sci5tific me?ods h prov$ !mselves by f> ! mo/ tru/wor?y = reason to adopt4 ,to my m9d1 !re=e1 x is impossible to resi/ ! conclusion t1 look+ to ?is und\bt$ pre-em95ce ( ! sci5tific me?ods z ways to tru?1 :e!r or n !re is a ,god1 ! "q z to 8 exi/5ce is bo? m morally & m rev]5tly contemplat$ if we reg>d x purely z a problem = me?odical analysis to solve1 ?an if we reg>d x 9 any o!r light4 ,or1 /at+ ! case 9 o!r words1 ,i believe t 9 :atev] degree we int5tionally ab/a9 f us+ 9 ?is case :at we "k to be ! mo/ tru/wor?y me?ods ( inquiry 9 o!r cases1 9 t degree are we ei!r unwor?ily clos+ our eyes to a dread$ tru?1 or we are guilty ( ! wor/ among human s9s--,dep>t f u1 = we desire n ! k ( ?y ways4 ,if x is said t1 suppos+ man to be 9 a /ate ( probation1 fai?1 & n reason1 mu/ be ! in/rum5t ( 8 trial1 ,i am ready to admit ! validity ( ! rem>k2 b ,i mu/ also ask x to be rememb]$1 t unless fai? has "s basis ( reason :]eon to re/1 x diff]s 9 no?+ f sup]/ition2 & h5ce t x is /ill our duty to inve/igate ! rational /&+ ( ! "q be=e u by ! sci5tific me?ods alone4 ,& ,i may "h obs]ve p>5!tically1 t ! same reason+ applies to all inve/igations conc]n+ ! reality ( a suppos$ revelation4 ,) su* inve/igations1 h[ev]1 ! pres5t essay has no?+ to d1 al?\gh1 ,i may rem>k t if !re is any evid5ce ( a ,div9e ,m9d disc]nible 9 ! /ructure ( a pr(ess+ revelation1 su* evid5ce1 9 :atev] degree pres5t1 w\ld be ( ! be/ possible k9d = sub/antiat+ ! hypo!sis ( ,!ism4 ,su* be+1 !n1 :at ,i conceive ! only reasonable1 z well z ! mo/ truly moral1 way ( reg>d+ ! "q to be discuss$ 9 ! foll[+ pages1 ev5 if ! conclusions yield$ by ?is discussion 7 m negative ?an !y are1 ,i %\ld deem x culpable c[>dice 9 me = ?is reason to publi% anonym\sly4 ,= ev5 if an inquiry ( ! pres5t k9d c\ld ev] result 9 a f9al demon/ration ( ,a!ism1 !re might be mu* = its au?or to regret1 b no?+ = him to be a%am$ (2 &1 by p>ity ( reason+1 9 :atev] degree ! result ( su* an inquiry is se5 to h a t5d5cy to negative ! !i/ic !ory1 ! au?or %\ld n be a%am$ c&idly to ackn[l$ge 8 conviction z to ! degree ( su* t5d5cy1 provid$ only t 8 conviction is an hone/ "o1 & t he is consci\s ( its hav+ be5 rea*$ by us+ 8 faculties ) ! utmo/ c>e ( :i* he is capable4 ,if x is retort$ t ! "q to be dealt ) is ( s ultimate a "* t ev5 ! sci5tific me?ods are "h untru/wor?y1 ,i reply t !y are nev]!less ! be/ me?ods available1 & h5ce t ! retort is )\t p]t95ce3 ! "q is /ill to be reg>d$ z a sci5tific "o1 al?\gh we may p]ceive t nei!r an affirmative nor a negative answ] c be giv5 to x ) any approa* to a full demon/ration4 ,b if ! "q is ?us conc$$ to be "o fall+ )9 ! legitimate scope ( rational inquiry1 x foll[s t ! m]e fact ( demon/rative c]ta9ty be+ "h antec$5tly impossible %\ld n det] u f in/itut+ ! inquiry4 ,x is a well-recognis$ pr9ciple ( sci5tific rese>*1 t h[ev] difficult or impossible x may be to prove a giv5 !ory true or false1 ! !ory %\ld nev]!less be te/$1 s f> z x admits ( be+ te/$1 by ! full rig\r ( ! sci5tific me?ods4 ,:]e demon/ration _c be hop$ =1 x /ill rema9s desirable to r$uce ! "q at issue to ! la/ analysis ( :i* x is capable4 ,adopt+ ^! pr9ciples1 !re=e1 ,i h endeav\r$ 9 ! foll[+ analysis to fix ! precise /&+ ( ! evid5ce 9 fav\r ( ! !ory ( ,!ism1 :5 ! latt] is view$ 9 all ! flood ( light :i* ! progress ( mod]n sci5ce--physical & speculative--has %$ ^u x4 ,& =asmu* z x is impossible t demon/rat$ tru? c ev] be %[n untrue1 & =asmu* z ! demon/rat$ tru?s on :i* ! pres5t exam9ation re/s are ! mo/ fundam5tal :i* x is possible = ! human m9d to rea*1 ,i d n ?9k x presumptu\s to ass]t :at appe>s to me a necess>y d$uction f ^! facts--namely1 t1 possible errors 9 reason+ ap>t1 ! rational position ( ,!ism z "h def9$ mu/ rema9 )\t mat]ial modification z long z our intellig5ce rema9s human4 ,,london1 #ahgh4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,analysis4 ,,*apt] ,i4 ,,exam9ation ,,( ,,illogical ,,argum5ts ,,9 ,,fav\r ,,( ,,!ism4 ,,sect4 #a4 ,introductory4 #b4 ,object ( ! *apt]4 #c4 ,! ,argum5t f ! ,inconceivability ( ,self-exi/5ce4 #d4 ,! ,argum5t f ! ,desirability ( !re be+ a ,god4 #e4 ,! ,argum5t f ! ,pres5ce ( ,human ,aspirations4 #f4 ,! ,argum5t f ,consci\sness4 #g4 ,! ,argum5t = a ,fir/ ,cause4 ,,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,,! ,,human ,,m9d4 #h4 ,introductory4 #i4 ,exam9ation ( ! ,argum5t1 & ! indep5d5t co9cid5ce ( my views reg>d+ x ) ^? ( ,mr4 ,mill4 #aj4 ,locke's exposition ( ! ,argum5t1 & a re-enunciation ( x 9 ! =m ( a ,syllogism4 #aa4 ,! ,syllogism defective 9 t x _c expla9 ,m9d 9 ! ab/ract4 ,mill quot$ & answ]$4 ,?is defect 9 ! ,syllogism cle>ly def9$4 #ab4 ,! ,syllogism fur!r defective1 9 t x assumes ,intellig5ce to be ! only possible cause ( ,intellig5ce4 ,?is assumption am\nts to begg+ ! :ole "q z to ! be+ ( a ,god4 ,inconceivability ( ,matt] ?9k+ no pro( t x may n ?9k4 ,locke himself /rangely conc$es ?is4 ,8 fallacies & self-contradictions po9t$ out 9 an ,app5dix4 #ac4 ,objector to ! ,syllogism ne$ n be a ,mat]iali/1 b assum+ t he is "o1 he is z mu* entitl$ to ! hypo!sis t ,matt] ?9ks z a ,!i/ is to 8 hypo!sis t x does n4 #ad4 ,! two hypo!ses are ?us ( exactly equival5t value1 save t :ile ,!ism is arbitr>y1 ,mat]ialism has a c]ta9 basis ( fact to re/ ^u4 ,?is basis def9$ 9 a footnote1 :]e also ,pr(essor ,clif=d's essay on ,body & ,m9d is briefly exam9$4 ,difficulty ( e/imat+ ! wor? ( ! ,argum5t z to ! mo/ conceivable be+ mo/ likely true4 #ae4 ,locke's comp>ison betwe5 c]ta9ty ( ! ,inconceivability ,argum5t z appli$ to ,!ism & to ma!matics %[n to conta9 a virtual ?\gh n a =mal fallacy4 #af4 ,summ>y ( consid]ations z to ! value ( ?is ,argum5t f ,inconceivability4 #ag4 ,introductory to ! o!r ,argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ! conclusion t only ,intellig5ce c h caus$ ,intellig5ce4 #ah4 ,locke's pres5tation ( ! view t ! cause mu/ conta9 all t is conta9$ 9 ! effects4 ,8 /atem5ts contradict$4 ,mill quot$ to %[ t ! analogy ( ,nature is aga9/ ! doctr9e ( high] p]fections nev] gr[+ out ( l[] ones4 #ai4 ,enunciation ( ! la/ ( ! ,argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ! proposition t only ,intellig5ce c cause ,intellig5ce4 ,hamilton quot$ to %[ t 9 8 philosophy ! entire "q z to ! be+ ( a ,god h+es ^u t z to :e!r or n human volitions are caus$4 #bj4 ,absurdity ( ! old !ory ( ,free-w4 ,hamilton errone\sly id5tifi$ ?is !ory ) ! fact t we possess a moral s5se4 ,8 result+ dilemma4 #ba4 ,al?\gh ,hamilton 0 wrong 9 ?us id5tify+ g5u9e fact ) spuri\s !ory1 yet 8 ,argum5t f ! fact ( our hav+ a moral s5se rema9s to be consid]$4 #bb4 ,! "q "h is m]ely z to :e!r or n ! pres5ce ( ! moral s5se c be expla9$ by natural causes4 ,a priori probability ( ! moral s5se hav+ be5 evolv$4 ,a po/]iori confirmation suppli$ by ,utilit>ianism1 c4 #bc4 ,mill's pres5tation ( ! ,argum5t a resuscitation ( ,paley's4 ,8 criticism on ,paley %[n to be unfair4 #bd4 ,! real fallacy ( ,paley's pres5tation po9t$ out4 #be4 ,! same fallacy po9t$ out 9 ano!r way4 #bf4 ,paley's typical case quot$ & exam9$1 9 ord] to illu/rate ! root fallacy ( 8 ,argum5t f ,design4 ,mill's obs]vations ^u ?is ,argum5t criticis$4 #bg4 ,result yield$ by ! pres5t analysis ( ! ,argum5t f ,design4 ,! ,argum5t %[n to be a petitio pr9cipii4 ,,*apt] ,,iv4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,g5]al ,,laws4 #bh4 ,my belief t no compet5t writ] 9 fav\r ( ! ,argum5t f ,design c\ld h writt5 ^u x at all1 _h x n be5 = 8 in/9ctive appreciation ( ! mu* m important ,argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws4 ,! nature ( ?is ,argum5t /at$1 & its cog5cy insi/$ ^u4 #bi4 ,! rational /&+ ( ! ,argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws prior to ! enunciation ( ! doctr9e ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy4 ,! ,rev4 ,bad5 ,p[ell quot$4 #cj4 ,! nature ( ,g5]al ,laws :5 ^! are int]pret$ 9 t]ms ( ! doctr9e ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy4 ,! ^w ,law def9$ 9 t]ms ( ?is doctr9e4 #ca4 ,! rational /&+ ( ! ,argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws subsequ5t to ! enunciation ( ! doctr9e ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy4 #cb4 ,! self-evolution ( ,g5]al ,laws1 or ! objective aspect ( ! "q z to :e!r we may inf] ! pres5ce ( ,m9d 9 ,nature because ,nature admits ( be+ intellig5tly int]rogat$4 #cc4 ,! subjective aspect ( ?is "q1 accord+ to ! data af=d$ by evolution>y psy*ology4 #cd4 ,correspond5ce betwe5 products due to human intellig5ce & products suppos$ due to ,div9e ,intellig5ce1 a correspond5ce :i* is only g5]ic4 ,illu/rations drawn f prodigality 9 ,nature4 ,fur!r illu/rations4 ,illogical mann] 9 :i* natural !ologians deal ) su* difficulties4 ,! g5]ic resemblance contemplat$ is j :at we %\ld expect to f9d1 if ! doctr9e ( evolution>y psy*ology be true4 #ce4 ,! la/ ?ree sections p>5!tical4 ,necess>y nature ( ! conclusion :i* foll[s f ! la/ five sections4 ,,*apt] ,v4 ,,! ,,logical ,,/&+ ,,( ,,! ,,"q ,,z ,,to ,,! ,,be+ ,,( ,a ,,god4 #cf4 ,emphatic re-/atem5t ( ! conclusion rea*$ 9 ! previ\s *apt]4 ,?is conclusion %[n to be ( m]ely sci5tific1 & n ( logical conclusiv5ess4 ,prep>ation = consid]+ ! "q 9 its purely logical =m4 #cg4 ,! logic ( probability 9 g5]al expla9$1 & canon ( int]pretation enunciat$4 #ch4 ,application ( ?is canon to ! p>ticul> case ( ,!ism4 #ci4 ,exposition ( ! logical /ate ( ! "q4 #dj4 ,exposition cont9u$4 #da4 ,result ( ! exposition2 ,susp5d$ ,judgm5t ! only logical attitude ( m9d ) reg>d to ! "q ( ,!ism4 ,,*apt] ,,vi4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,metaphysical ,,teleology4 #db4 ,/atem5t ( ! position to :i* ! "q ( ,!ism has be5 r$uc$ by ! =ego+ analysis4 #dc4 ,di/9ction betwe5 a sci5tific & a metaphysical teleology4 ,/atem5t ( ! latt] 9 legitimate t]ms4 ,criticism ( ?is /atem5t legitimately made on ! side ( ,a!ism z be+ gratuit\s4 ,imp>tial judgm5t on ?is criticism4 #dd4 ,exam9ation ( ! "q z to :e!r ! metaphysical sy/em ( teleology is really de/itute ( all rational support4 ,plead+ ( a suppos$ ,!i/ 9 support ( ! sy/em4 ,! pr9ciple ( correlation ( g5]al laws4 ,! complexity ( ,nature4 #de4 ,summ>y ( ! ,!i/'s plead+1 & judgm5t t x fairly removes f ! hypo!sis ( metaphysical teleology ! *>ge ( ! latt] be+ gratuit\s4 #df4 ,exam9ation ( ! degree ( probability t is pres5t$ by ! hypo!sis ( metaphysical teleology1 compris+ an exam9ation ( ! ,!i/ic objection to ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+ on acc\nt ( its symbolism1 & %[+ t a no less cog5t objection lies aga9/ ! metaphysical tra9 ( reason+ on acc\nt ( its embody+ ! supposition ( unkn[able causes4 ,di/9ction betwe5 inconceivability 9 a =mal or symbolical1 & 9 a mat]ial or realisable s5se4 ,reply ( a suppos$ ,a!i/ to ! previ\s plead+ ( ! suppos$ ,!i/4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c] quot$ on inconceivability ( cosmic evolution z due to ,m9d4 #dg4 ,f9al judgm5t on ! rational value ( a metaphysical sy/em ( teleology4 ,di/9ction betwe5 inconceivability 9 an absolute & 9 a relative s5se4 ,f9al judgm5t on ! attitude ( m9d :i* x is rational to adopt t[>ds ! "q ( ,!ism4 ,! desirability & ! rationality ( tol]ance 9 ?is p>ticul> case4 ,,*apt] ,,vii4 ,,g5]al ,,summ>y ,,& ,,conclusions4 #dh4 ,g5]al summ>y ( ! :ole essay4 #di4 ,conclud+ rem>ks4 ,,app5dix ,,& ,,supplem5t>y ,,essays4 ,,app5dix4 ,a ,critical ,exposition ( a ,fallacy 9 ,locke's use ( ! ,argum5t aga9/ ! possibility ( ,matt] ?9k+ on gr\nds ( its be+ inconceivable t x %\ld4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essay ,i4 ,exam9ation ( ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]'s ,!i/ical ,argum5t1 & criticism to %[ t x is inadequate to su/a9 ! doctr9e ( ,cosmic ,!ism :i* ,mr4 ,fiske endeav\rs to re> ^u x4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essay ,,ii4 ,a ,critical ,exam9ation ( ! ,rev4 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w on ,!ism4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essay ,,iii4 ,on ! ,speculative ,/&+ ( ,mat]ialism4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essay ,,iv4 ,on ! ,f9al ,my/]y ( ,?+s4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,!ism4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,i4 ,,exam9ation ,,( ,,illogical ,,argum5ts ,,9 ,,fav\r ,,( ,,!ism4 #a4 ,few subjects h occupi$ s mu* att5tion among speculative ?9k]s z t :i* relates to ! be+ ( ,god4 ,not)/&+1 h[ev]1 ! great am\nt t has be5 writt5 on ?is subject1 ,i am n aw>e t any "o has successfully endeav\r$ to approa* x1 on all its v>i\s sides1 f ! gr\nd ( pure reason alone1 & ?us to fix1 z ne>ly z possible1 ! exact position :i*1 9 pure reason1 ?is subject ought to occupy4 ,p]haps x w be ?\ght t an exception to ?is /atem5t ought to be made 9 fav\r ( ,john ,/u>t ,mill's po/hum\s essay on ,!ism2 b f my great respect = ?is au?or1 ,i %\ld r be incl9$ to reg>d t essay z a criticism on illogical argum5ts1 ?an z a c>eful or matur$ attempt to =mulate ! /rictly rational /atus ( ! "q 9 all its be>+s4 ,nev]!less1 z ?is essay is 9 "s respects ! mo/ sci5tific1 j1 & cog5t1 :i* has yet appe>$ on ! subject ( :i* x treats1 & z any?+ :i* came f ! p5 ( t great & accurate ?9k] is des]v+ ( ! mo/ s]i\s att5tion1 ,i %all c>efully consid] 8 views ?r\gh\t ! c\rse ( ! foll[+ pages4 ,see+ !n t1 ) ?is p>tial exception1 no compet5t writ] has hi!rto endeav\r$ once = all to settle ! long-/&+ "q z to ! rational probability ( ,!ism1 ,i _c b feel t any attempt1 h[ev] imp]fect1 to d ?is1 w be welcome to ?9k]s ( e s*ool--! m s 9 view ( ! fact t ! prodigi\s rapidity :i* ( late ye>s has m>k$ ! advance bo? ( physical & ( speculative sci5ce1 has af=d$ highly valuable data = assi/+ u t[>ds a reasonable &1 ,i ?9k1 a f9al decision z to ! /rictly logical /&+ ( ?is important matt]4 ,h[ev]1 be my attempt welcome or no1 ,i feel t x is my obvi\s duty to publi% ! results :i* h be5 yield$ by an hone/ & c>eful analysis4 #b4 ,i may mo/ fitly beg9 ?is analysis by briefly dispos+ ( su* argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism z are manife/ly errone\s4 ,& ,i d ?is ! m will+ly because1 z ^! argum5ts are at ! pres5t "t mo/ 9 vogue1 an exposure ( _! fallacies may p]haps det] our popul> apologi/s ( ! future f draw+ ^u !mselves ! sil5t contempt ( e read] ^: intellect is n ei!r prejudic$ or imbecile4 #c4 ,a fav\rite piece ( apologetic juggl+ is t ( fir/ demoli%+ ,a!ism1 ,pan!ism1 ,mat]ialism1 c41 by successively call+ ^u !m to expla9 ! my/]y ( self-exi/5ce1 & !n tacitly assum+ t ! ne$ ( su* an explanation is abs5t 9 ! case ( ,!ism--z ?\gh ! attribute 9 "q 7 m conceivable :5 posit$ 9 a ,deity ?an :5 posit$ else:]e4 ,x is1 ,i hope1 unnecess>y to obs]ve t1 s f> z ! ultimate my/]y ( exi/5ce is conc]n$1 any & e !ory ( ?+s is equally entitl$ to ! inexplicable fact t some?+ is2 & t any endeav\r on ! "p ( ! vot>ies ( "o !ory to %ift f !mselves to ! vot>ies ( ano!r !ory ! onus ( expla9+ ! necess>ily inexplicable1 is an in/ance ( irrationality :i* bord]s on ! ludicr\s4 #d4 ,ano!r argum5t1 or semblance ( an argum5t1 is ! v preval5t "o1 ,our he>t requires a ,god2 !re=e x is probable t !re is a ,god3 z ?\gh su* a subjective necessity1 ev5 if made out1 c\ld ev] prove an objective exi/5ce4#a #e4 ,if x is said t ! !i/ic aspirations ( ! human he>t1 by ! m]e fact ( _! pres5ce1 po9t to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god z to _! explanatory cause1 ,i answ] t ! argum5t w\ld only be valid aft] ! possibility ( any m proximate causes hav+ be5 9 action has be5 exclud$--else ! !i/ic explanation violates ! fundam5tal rule ( sci5ce1 ! ,law ( ,p>cimony1 or ! law :i* =bids u to assume ! action ( m remote causes :]e m proximate ones are f\nd suffici5t to expla9 ! effects4 ,consequ5tly1 ! validity ( ! argum5t n[ "u consid]ation is inv]sely proportional to ! numb] ( possibilities !re are ( ! aspirations 9 "q be+ due to ! ag5cy ( physical causes2 & =asmu* z our ignorance ( psy*ological causation is well-nigh total1 ! ,law ( ,p>cimony =bids u to all[ any det]m9ate degree ( logical value to ! pres5t argum5t4 ,9 o!r words1 we mu/ n use ! abs5ce ( k z equival5t to its pres5ce--mu/ n argue f our ignorance ( psy*ological possibilities1 z ?\gh ?is ignorance 7 k ( correspond+ impossibilities4 ,! burd5 ( pro( ?us lies on ! side ( ,!ism1 & f ! nature ( ! case ?is burd5 _c be dis*>g$ until ! sci5ce ( psy*ology %all h be5 fully p]fect$4 ,i may add t1 = my own "p1 ,i _c help feel+ t1 ev5 9 ! pres5t embryonic condition ( ?is sci5ce1 we are n )\t "s indications ( ! mann] 9 :i* ! aspirations 9 "q arose2 b ev5 7 ?is n s1 ! above consid]ations prove t ! argum5t be=e u is invalid4 ,if x is retort$ t ! fact ( ^! aspirations hav+ _h proximate causes to acc\nt = _! orig91 ev5 if made out1 w\ld n negative ! inf]5ce ( ^! be+ due to a ,deity z to _! ultimate cause2 ,i answ] t ?is is n to use ! argum5t f ! pres5ce ( ^! aspirations2 x is m]ely to beg ! "q z to ! be+ ( a ,god4 #f4 ,next1 we may consid] ! argum5t f consci\sness4 ,_m p]sons gr\nd _! belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity ^u a real or suppos$ necessity ( _! own subjective ?\ght4 ,i say real or suppos$1 because1 9 its be>+ ^u rational argum5t1 x is ( no consequ5ce ( :i* "* ! alleg$ necessity actually is4 ,ev5 if ! necessity ( ?\ght be real1 all t ! fact entitles ! ?9k] to affirm is1 t x is impossible = him1 by any ef=t ( ?9k+1 to rid himself ( ! p]suasion t ,god exi/s2 he is n entitl$ to affirm t ?is p]suasion is necess>ily b\nd up ) ! con/itution ( ! human m9d4 ,or1 z ,mill puts x1 ,"o man _c by proclaim+ ) ev] s mu* confid5ce t he p]ceives an object1 conv9ce o!r p t !y see x too4444 ,:5 no claim is set up to any peculi> gift1 b we are told t all ( u are z capable ( see+ :at he sees1 feel+ :at he feels1 nay1 t we actually d s1 & :5 ! utmo/ ef=t ( :i* we are capable fails to make u aw>e ( :at we are told1 we p]ceive ?is suppos$ univ]sal faculty ( intuition is b ',! ,d>k ,lant]n ( ! ,_s ,:i* none see by b ^? :o be> x4' ,x is ?us1 ,i ?9k1 abundantly c]ta9 t ! pres5t argum5t mu/1 f its v nature1 be p[]less z an argum5t to anyone save its ass]tor2 z a matt] ( fact1 ! alleg$ necessity ( ?\ght is n univ]sal2 x is peculi> to ^? :o employ ! argum5t4 ,& n[1 x is b j to g "o /ep fur!r & to "q :e!r ! alleg$ necessity ( ?\ght is1 9 any case & prop]ly speak+1 a real necessity4 ,unless ^? :o advance ! pres5t argum5t are ! victims ( "s m5tal ab]ration1 x is ov]:elm+ly improbable t _! m9ds %\ld diff] 9 a fundam5tal & important attribute f ! m9ds ( ! va/ majority ( _! species4 ,or1 to cont9ue ! above quotation1 ,!y may fairly be ask$ to consid]1 :e!r x is n m likely t !y are mi/ak5 z to ! orig9 ( an impression 9 _! m9ds1 ?an t o!rs are ignorant ( ! v exi/5ce ( an impression 9 !irs4 ,no d\bt x is true t education & habits ( ?\ght may s /]eotype ! intellectual faculties1 t at la/ :at is conceivable to "o man or g5]ation may n be s to ano!r2#b b to adduce ?is consid]ation 9 ?is place w\ld cle>ly be b to de/roy ! argum5t f ! intuitive necessity ( believ+ 9 a ,god4 ,la/ly1 al?\gh sup]flu\s1 x may be well to po9t out t ev5 if ! impossibility ( conceiv+ ! negation ( ,god 7 an univ]sal law ( human m9d--:i* x c]ta9ly is n--! fact ( 8 exi/5ce c\ld n be ?us prov$4 ,d\btless x w\ld be felt to be mu* m probable ?an x n[ is--z probable1 = in/ance1 if n m probable1 ?an is ! exi/5ce ( an ext]nal _w2--b /ill x w\ld n be necess>ily true4 #g4 ,! argum5t f ! g5]al cons5t ( mank9d is s cle>ly fallaci\s1 bo? z to facts & pr9ciples1 t ,i %all pass x ov] & proce$ at once to ! la/ ( ! unt5able argum5ts--t1 namely1 f ! exi/5ce ( a ,fir/ ,cause4 ,& "h ,i %\ld l to express myself indebt$ to ,mr4 ,mill = ! foll[+ ideas3--,! cause ( e *ange is a prior *ange2 & su* x _c b be2 = if !re 7 no new antec$5t1 !re w\ld be no new consequ5t4 ,if ! /ate ( facts :i* br+s ! ph5om5on into exi/5ce1 _h exi/$ always or = an indef9ite duration1 ! effect also w\ld h exi/$ always or be5 produc$ an indef9ite "t ago4 ,x is ?us a necess>y "p ( ! fact ( causation1 )9 ! sph]e ( exp]i5ce1 t ! causes z well z ! effects _h a beg9n+ 9 "t1 & 7 !mselves caus$4 ,x w\ld seem1 !re=e1 t our exp]i5ce1 in/ead ( furni%+ an argum5t = a fir/ cause1 is repugnant to x2 & t ! v ess5ce ( causation1 z x exi/s )9 ! limits ( our k1 is incompatible ) a ,fir/ ,cause4 ,! re/ ( ,mr4 ,mill's rem>ks ^u ! ,fir/ ,cause argum5t are tol]ably obvi\s1 & _h occurr$ to me be=e ! publication ( 8 essay4 ,i %all1 h[ev]1 adh]e to 8 ord] ( pres5t+ !m4 ,b x is necess>y to look m p>ticul>ly into ?is matt]1 & analyse m closely ! nature ( ! causes ( :i* mank9d h exp]i5ce4 ,= if x %\ld turn out t ?\gh all causes h a beg9n+1 !re is 9 all ( !m a p]man5t elem5t :i* _h no beg9n+1 ?is p]man5t elem5t may ) "s ju/ice be t]m$ a fir/ or univ]sal cause1 inasmu* z ?\gh n suffici5t ( itself to cause any?+1 x ent]s z a con-cause into all causation4 ,he !n %[s t ! doctr9e ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy supplies u ) su* a datum1 & ?us ! conclusion easily foll[s--,x w\ld seem1 !n1 t ! only s5se 9 :i* exp]i5ce supports1 9 any %ape1 ! doctr9e ( a ,fir/ ,cause1 viz41 z ! primval & univ]sal elem5t ( all causes1 ! ,fir/ ,cause c be no o!r ?an ,=ce4 ,/ill1 h[ev]1 x may be ma9ta9$ t all =ce is w-=ce4 ,b if !re be any tru? 9 ! doctr9e ( ,cons]vation ( ,=ce1 444 ?is doctr9e does n *ange f true to false :5 x rea*es ! field ( volunt>y ag5cy4 ,! w does n1 any m ?an o!r ag5cies1 create ,=ce3 grant+ t x orig9ates motion1 x has no means ( do+ s b by conv]t+ into t p>ticul> manife/ation1 a portion ( ,=ce :i* already exi/$ 9 o!r =ms4 ,x is kn[n t ! s\rce f :i* ?is portion ( ,=ce is d]iv$1 is *iefly1 or entirely1 ! =ce evolv$ 9 ! processes ( *emical composition & decomposition :i* con/itute ! body ( nutrition3 ! =ce s lib]at$ becomes a fund ^u :i* e muscul> & e n]v\s action1 z ( a tra9 ( ?\ght1 is a draft4 ,x is 9 ?is s5se only t1 accord+ to ! be/ lights ( sci5ce1 volition is an orig9at+ cause4 ,volition1 !re=e1 does n answ] to ! idea ( a ,fir/ ,cause2 s9ce ,=ce mu/1 9 e in/ance1 be assum$ z prior to x2 & !re is n ! slighte/ col\r1 d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 = suppos+ ,=ce itself to h be5 creat$ by a volition4 ,z f> z any?+ c be conclud$ f human exp]i5ce1 ,=ce has all ! attributes ( a ?+ et]nal & uncreat$4444 ,all t c be affirm$ 7ev57 by ! /ronge/ ass]tion ( ! ,fre$om ( ! ,w1 is t volitions are !mselves uncaus$ & are1 !re=e1 alone fit to be ! fir/ or univ]sal cause4 ,b1 ev5 assum+ volitions to be uncaus$1 ! prop]ties ( matt]1 s f> z exp]i5ce discloses1 are uncaus$ also1 & h ! advantage ov] any p>ticul> volition1 9 be+1 s f> z exp]i5ce c %[1 et]nal4 ,!ism1 !re=e1 9 s f> z x re/s on ! necessity ( a ,fir/ ,cause1 has no support f exp]i5ce4 ,su* may be tak5 z a suffici5t refutation ( ! argum5t t1 z human volition is app>5tly a cause 9 nature1 & moreov] con/itutes ! basis ( our conception ( all causation1 !re=e all causation is probably volitional 9 "*4 ,b z ?is is a fav\rite argum5t ) "s !i/s1 ,i %all introduce ano!r quotation f ,mr4 ,mill1 :i* is tak5 f a diff]5t "w4 ,volitions are n kn[n to produce any?+ directly except n]v\s action1 = ! w influ5ces ev5 ! muscles only ?r\gh ! n]ves4 ,?\gh x 7 grant$1 !n1 t e ph5om5on has an effici5t & n m]ely a ph5om5al cause1 & t volition1 9 ! case ( ! p>ticul> ph5om5a :i* are kn[n to be produc$ by x1 is t cause2 are we !re=e to say ) ^! writ]s t s9ce we "k ( no o!r effici5t cause1 & ought n to assume "o )\t evid5ce1 !re is no o!r1 & volition is ! direct cause ( all ph5om5a8 ,a m outrage\s /ret* ( inf]5ce c\ld h>dly be made4 ,because among ! inf9ite v>iety ( ! ph5om5a ( nature !re is "o1 namely1 a p>ticul> mode ( action ( c]ta9 n]ves :i* has = its cause &1 z we are n[ suppos+1 = its effici5t cause1 a /ate ( our m9d2 & because ?is is ! only effici5t cause ( :i* we are consci\s1 be+ ! only "o ( :i*1 9 ! nature ( ! case1 we c be consci\s1 s9ce x is ! only "o :i* exi/s )9 ourselves2 does ?is ju/ify u 9 conclud+ t all o!r ph5om5a mu/ h ! same k9d ( effici5t cause ) t "o em95tly special1 n>r[1 & peculi>ly human or animal ph5om5on8 ,x is !n %[n t a logical p>allel to ?is mode ( inf]5ce is t ( g5]alis+ f ! "o kn[n in/ance ( ! e>? be+ inhabit$1 to ! conclusion t e heav5ly body )\t exception1 sun1 planet1 satellite1 comet1 fix$ />1 or nebula1 is inhabit$1 & mu/ be s f ! inh]5t con/itution ( ?+s4 ,aft] :i* ! passage cont9ues1 ,x is true !re are cases 9 :i*1 ) ackn[l$g$ propriety1 we g5]alise f a s+le in/ance to a multitude ( in/ances4 ,b !y mu/ be in/ances :i* resemble ! "o kn[n in/ance1 & n su* z h no circum/ance 9 common ) x except t ( be+ in/ances4444 ,b ! support]s ( ! volition !ory ask u to inf] t volition causes ev]y?+1 = no o!r reason except t x causes "o p>ticul> ?+2 al?\gh t "o ph5om5on1 f> f be+ a type ( all natural ph5om5a1 is em95tly peculi>2 its laws be>+ sc>cely any resemblance to ^? ( any o!r ph5om5on1 :e!r ( inorganic or ( organic nature4#c 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,,! ,,human ,,m9d4 #h4 ,leav+ n[ ! obvi\sly unt5able argum5ts1 we next come to ^? :i*1 9 my op9ion1 may prop]ly be t]m$ sci5tific4 ,x w be conv5i5t to classify ^? z ?ree 9 numb]2 & "u "o or o!r ( ^! heads ne>ly all ! m intellig5t advocates ( ,!ism w be f\nd to range !mselves4 #i4 ,we h fir/ ! argum5t drawn f ! exi/5ce ( ! human m9d4 ,?is is an argum5t :i*1 = at lea/ ! la/ ?ree c5turies1 & especially dur+ ! pres5t "o1 has be5 m reli$ ^u ?an any o!r by philosophical ?9k]s4 ,x consi/s 9 ! reflection t ! be+ ( our own subjective intellig5ce is ! mo/ c]ta9 fact :i* our exp]i5ce supplies1 t ?is fact dem&s an adequate cause = its explanation1 & t ! only adequate cause ( our intellig5ce mu/ be "s o!r intellig5ce4 ,grant+ ! exi/5ce ( a condition$ intellig5ce 7& no "o c\ld reasonably suppose 8 own intellig5ce to be o!rwise71 & ! exi/5ce ( an uncondition$ intellig5ce becomes a logical necessity1 unless we d5y ei!r ! validity ( ! pr9ciple t e effect mu/ h an adequate cause1 or else t ! only adequate cause ( ,m9d is ,m9d4 ,x has be5 a great satisfaction to me to f9d t my exam9ation ( ?is argum5t--an exam9ation :i* 0 und]tak5 & complet$ sev]al mon?s be=e ,mr4 ,mill's essay appe>$--has be5 m9utely corroborat$ by t ( our great logician4 ,i m5tion ?is circum/ance "h1 z on previ\s occasions1 n = ! petty motive ( v9dicat+ my own orig9ality1 b because 9 matt]s ( ?is k9d ! accuracy ( ! reason+ employ$1 & !re=e ! logical validity ( ! conclusions atta9$1 are gu>ante$ 9 ! be/ possible mann]1 if ! tra9s ( ?\ght h be5 indep5d5tly pursu$ by diff]5t m9ds4 #aj4 ,see+ t1 among ! advocates ( ?is argum5t1 ,locke w5t s f> z to ma9ta9 t by x alone he c\ld r5d] ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity z c]ta9 z any ma!matical demon/ration1 x is only fair1 prep>atory to our exam9+ ?is argum5t1 to pres5t x 9 ! words ( ?is great ?9k]4 ,he says3--,!re 0 a "t :5 !re 0 no kn[+ 7i4e41 consci\s7 be+1 & :5 k began to be2 or else !re has be5 also a kn[+ be+ f all et]nity4 ,if x be said1 !re 0 a "t :5 no be+ _h any k1 :5 t et]nal be+ 0 void ( all und]/&+1 ,i reply1 t !n x 0 impossible !re %\ld ev] h be5 any k3 x be+ z impossible t ?+s :olly void ( k1 & op]at+ bl9dly1 & )\t p]ception1 %\ld produce a kn[+ be+1 z x is impossible t a triangle %\ld make itself ?ree angles bigg] ?an two "r ones4 ,= x is z repugnant to ! idea ( s5seless matt]1 t x %\ld put into itself1 s5se1 p]ception1 & k1 z x is repugnant to ! idea ( a triangle1 t x %\ld put into itself great] angles ?an two "r ones4#d ,n[1 al?\gh ?is argum5t has be5 m fully elaborat$ by o!r writ]s1 ! above pres5tation conta9s its :ole ess5ce4 ,x w be se5 t x has ! great advantage ( re/+ imm$iately ^u ! f\ndation f :i* all argum5t conc]n+ ?is or any o!r matt]1 mu/ necess>ily arise1 viz41--^u ! v exi/5ce ( our argum5tative faculty itself4 ,= ! sake ( a critical exam9ation1 x is desirable to ?r[ ! argum5t be=e u into ! syllogi/ic =m4 ,x w !n /& ?us3-- ,all kn[n m9ds are caus$ by an unkn[n m9d4 ,our m9d is a kn[n m9d2 !re=e1 our m9d is caus$ by an unkn[n m9d4 #aa4 ,n[ ! major premiss ( ?is syllogism is inadmissible = two reasons3 9 ! fir/ place1 x is assum$ t kn[n m9d c only be caus$ by unkn[n m9d2 &1 9 ! second place1 ev5 if ?is assumption 7 grant$1 x w\ld n expla9 ! exi/5ce ( ,m9d z ,m9d4 ,to take ! la/ ( ^! objections fir/1 9 ! words ( ,mr4 ,mill1 ,if ! m]e exi/5ce ( ,m9d is suppos$ to require1 z a necess>y antec$5t1 ano!r ,m9d great] & m p[]ful1 ! difficulty is n remov$ by go+ "o /ep back3 ! creat+ m9d /&s z mu* 9 ne$ ( ano!r m9d to be ! s\rce ( its exi/5ce z ! creat$ m9d4 ,be x rememb]$ t we h no direct k 7at lea/ ap>t f ,revelation7 ( a m9d :i* is ev5 app>5tly et]nal1 z ,=ce & ,matt] are3 an et]nal m9d is1 z f> z ! pres5t argum5t is conc]n$1 a simple hypo!sis to acc\nt = ! m9ds :i* we "k to exi/4 ,n[ x is ess5tial to an hypo!sis t1 if admitt$1 x %\ld at lea/ remove ! difficulty & acc\nt = ! facts4 ,b x does n acc\nt = m9d to ref] our m9d to a prior m9d = its orig94 ,! problem rema9s unsolv$1 nay1 r increas$4 ,nev]!less1 ,i ?9k t x is op5 to a ,!i/ to answ]1 ,my object is n to expla9 ! exi/5ce ( ,m9d 9 ! ab/ract1 any m ?an x is my object to expla9 ,exi/5ce itself 9 ! ab/ract--to ei!r ( :i* absurd attempts ,mr4 ,mill's reason+ w\ld be equally applicable2--b ,i seek = an explanation ( my own individual f9ite m9d1 :i* ,i "k to h _h a beg9n+ 9 "t1 & :i*1 !re=e1 9 accordance ) ! wide/ & mo/ complete analogy t exp]i5ce supplies1 ,i believe to h be5 caus$4 ,& if !re is no o!r objection to my believ+ 9 ,intellig5ce z ! cause ( my intellig5ce1 ?an t ,i _c prove my own intellig5ce caus$1 !n ,i am satisfi$ to let ! matt] re/ "h2 = z e argum5t mu/ h "s basis ( assumption to /& ^u1 ,i am well pleas$ to f9d t ! basis 9 ?is case is ! mo/ solid :i* exp]i5ce c supply1 viz41--! law ( causation4 ,fully admitt+ t x does n acc\nt = ,m9d 79 ! ab/ract7 to ref] "o m9d to a prior m9d = its orig92 yet my hypo!sis1 if admitt$1 does acc\nt = ! fact t my m9d exi/s2 & ?is is all t my hypo!sis is int5d$ to cov]4 ,= to endeav\r to expla9 ! exi/5ce ( an et]nal m9d1 c\ld only be done by ^? :o d n und]/& ! mean+ ( ^! words4 ,n[1 ,i ?9k t ?is reply to ,mr4 ,mill1 on ! "p ( a !i/1 w\ld s f> be legitimate2 ! !i/ic hypo!sis does supply a provisional explanation ( ! exi/5ce ( kn[n m9ds1 & x is1 !re=e1 an explanation :i*1 9 lieu ( a bett]1 a !i/ may be all[$ to reta94 ,b a !i/ may n be all[$ to confuse ?is provisional explanation ( 8 own m9d's exi/5ce ) t ( ! exi/5ce ( ,m9d 9 ! ab/ract2 he mu/ n be all[$ to suppose t1 by ?us hypo!tically expla9+ ! exi/5ce ( kn[n m9ds1 he is !reby e/abli%+ a probability 9 fav\r ( t hypo!tical cause1 an ,unkn[n ,m9d4 ,only if he has "s indep5d5t reason to inf] t su* an ,unkn[n ,m9d exi/s1 c\ld su* a probability be made out1 & 8 hypo!tical explanation ( kn[n m9d become ( m value ?an a guess4 ,9 o!r words1 al?\gh ! !i/ic hypo!sis supplies a possible explanation ( kn[n m9d1 we h no reason to conclude t x is ! true explanation1 unless o!r reasons c be %[n to ju/ify1 on indep5d5t gr\nds1 ! validity ( ! !i/ic hypo!sis4 ,h5ce x is manife/ly absurd to adduce ?is explanation z evid5ce ( ! hypo!sis on :i* x re/s--to argue t ,!ism mu/ !re=e be true2 because we assume x to be s1 9 ord] to expla9 kn[n m9d1 z di/+ui%$ f ,m9d4 ,if x be answ]$1 ,we are ju/ifi$ 9 assum+ ,!ism true1 because we are ju/ifi$ 9 assum+ t kn[n m9d c only h be5 caus$ by an unkn[n m9d1 & h5ce t ,m9d mu/ some:]e be self-exi/+1 !n ?is is to lead u to ! second objection to ! above syllogism4 #ab4 ,& ?is second objection is ( a mo/ s]i\s nature4 ,m9d c only be caus$ by ,m9d1 &1 !re=e1 ,m9d mu/ ei!r be uncaus$1 or caus$ by a ,m9d4 ,:at is our w>rant = rank+ ?is ass]tion8 ,:]e is ! pro( t no?+ c h caus$ a m9d except ano!r m9d8 ,answ] to ?is "q !re is none4 ,= aught t we c ev] "k to ! contr>y1 any?+ )9 ! :ole range ( ! ,possible may be compet5t to produce a self-consci\s intellig5ce--& to assume t ,m9d is s f> an entity sui g5]is1 t x mu/ ei!r be self-exi/+1 or d]iv$ f ano!r m9d :i* is self-exi/+1 is m]ely to beg ! :ole "q z to ! be+ ( a ,god4 ,9 o!r words1 if we c prove t ! ord] ( exi/5ce to :i* ,m9d belongs1 is s ess5tially diff]5t f t ord]1 or ^? ord]s1 to :i* all else belongs1 z to r5d] x ab/ract$ly impossible t ! latt] c produce ! =m]--if we c prove ?is1 we h likewise prov$ ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity4 ,b ?is is j ! po9t 9 dispute1 & to set out ) a b>e affirmation ( x is m]ely to beg ! "q & to ab&on ! discussion4 ,d\btless1 by ! m]e act ( consult+ _! own consci\sness1 ! fact n[ 9 dispute appe>s to "s p]sons self-evid5t4 ,b 9 matt]s ( su* high ab/raction z ?is1 ev5 ! evid5ce ( self-evid5ce mu/ n be reli$ ^u too implicitly4 ,to ! c\ntry boor x appe>s self-evid5t t wood is annihilat$ by combu/ion2 & ev5 to ! m9d ( ! greate/ philosoph]s ( antiquity x seem$ impossible to d\bt t ! sun mov$ ov] a /ation>y e>?4 ,mu* m1 !re=e1 may our broad di/9ction betwe5 cogitative & incogitative be+#e n be a di/9ction :i* is legitimat$ by ! conditions ( ext]nal reality4 ,d\btless _m w fall back ^u ! position already indicat$1 ,x is z repugnant to ! idea ( s5seless matt]1 t x %\ld put into itself s5se1 p]ception1 & k1 z x is repugnant to ! idea ( a triangle1 t x %\ld put into itself great] angles ?an two "r ones4 ,b1 grant+ ?is1 & also t consci\s matt] is ! sole alt]native1 & :at foll[s8 ,n surely t matt] _c p]ceive1 & feel1 & "k1 m]ely because x is repugnant to our idea ( x t x %\ld4 ,grant+ t !re is no o!r alt]native 9 ! :ole possibility ( ?+s1 ?an t matt] mu/ be consci\s1 or t self-consci\s ,m9d mu/ some:]e be self-exi/+2 & grant+ t x is q impossible = u to conceive ( consci\sness z an attribute ( matt]2 /ill surely x w\ld be a prodigi\s leap to conclude t = ?is reason matt] _c possess ?is attribute4 ,inde$1 ,locke himself else:]e /rangely en\gh insi/s t ?\ght may be a prop]ty ( matt]1 if only ! ,deity *ose to unite t attribute ) t sub/ance4 ,:y x %\ld be deem$ ab/ract$ly impossible = matt] to ?9k if !re is no ,god1 & yet ab/ract$ly possible t x %\ld ?9k if !re is a ,god1 ,i confess myself q unable to det]m9e2 b ,i conceive t x is v important cle>ly to po9t out ?is peculi>ity 9 ,locke's views1 = he is a fav\rite au?ority ) !i/s1 & ?is peculi>ity am\nts to no?+ less ?an a suicide ( 8 entire argum5t4 ,! m]e circum/ance t he assum$ ! ,deity capable ( end[+ matt] ) ! faculty ( ?9k+1 c\ld n h enabl$ him to conceive ( matt] z ?9k+1 any m ?an he c\ld conceive ( ?is 9 ! abs5ce ( 8 assumption4 ,yet 9 ! "o case he recognises ! possibility ( matt] ?9k+1 & 9 ! o!r case d5ies su* possibility1 & ?is on ! sole gr\nd ( its be+ inconceivable6 ,h[ev]1 ,i am n "h conc]n$ ) ,locke's ecc5tricities3#f ,i am m]ely engag$ ) ! g5]al pr9ciple1 t a subjective inability to e/abli% c]ta9 relations 9 ?\ght is no suffici5t w>rant = conclud+ t correspond+ objective relations may n obta94 #ac4 ,h5ce1 an objector to ! above syllogism ne$ n be a mat]iali/2 x is n ev5 necess>y t he %\ld hold any !ory ( ?+s at all4 ,nev]!less1 = ! sake ( def9ition1 ,i %all assume t he is a mat]iali/4 ,z a mat]iali/1 !n1 he w\ld appe> to be z mu* entitl$ to 8 hypo!sis z a !i/ is to 8--9 respect1 ,i mean1 ( ?is p>ticul> argum5t4 ,= al?\gh ,i ?9k1 z be=e %[n1 t 9 /rict reason+ a !i/ might h tak5 exception to ! la/-quot$ passage f ,mill 9 its connection ) ! law ( causation1 t passage1 if consid]$ 9 ! pres5t connection1 is c]ta9ly unansw]able4 ,:at is ! /ate ( ! pres5t argum5t z betwe5 a mat]iali/ & a !i/8 ,! my/]y ( exi/5ce & ! inconceivability ( matt] ?9k+ are _! common data4 ,^u ^! data ! mat]iali/1 ju/ly argu+ t he has no "r to make 8 own conceptive faculty ! unconditional te/ ( objective possibility1 is cont5t to m]ge ! my/]y ( 8 own m9d's exi/5ce into t ( ,exi/5ce 9 g5]al2 :ile ! !i/1 compell$ to accept )\t explanation ! my/]y ( ,exi/5ce 9 g5]al1 nev]!less has rec\rse to inv5t+ a :olly gratuit\s hypo!sis to expla9 "o mode ( exi/5ce 9 p>ticul>4 ,if x is said t ! latt] hypo!sis has ! m]it ( caus+ ! my/]y ( mat]ial exi/5ce & ! my/]y ( m5tal exi/5ce to be unit$ 9 a ?9kable mann]--viz41 9 a self-exi/+ ,m9d1--,i reply1 ,x is n s2 = 9 :atev] degree x is un?9kable t ,matt] %\ld be ! cause ( ,m9d1 9 t precise degree mu/ x be un?9kable t ,m9d 0 ev] ! cause ( ,matt]1 ! correlatives be+ 9 ea* case ! same1 & exp]i5ce af=d+ no evid5ce ( causality 9 ei!r4 #ad4 ,! two hypo!ses1 !re=e1 are ( exactly equival5t value1 save t :ile ! "o has a c]ta9 basis ( fact to re/ ^u1#g ! o!r is :olly arbitr>y4 ,b x may /ill be retort$1 ',is n t :i* is mo/ conceivable mo/ likely to be true8 & if x is m conceivable t my intellig5ce is caus$ by ano!r ,intellig5ce ?an t x is caus$ by ,non-intellig5ce1 may ,i n reg>d ! m conceivable hypo!sis z also ! m probable "o8 ,x is some:at difficult to say h[ f> ?is argum5t is1 9 ?is case1 valid2 only ,i ?9k x is q evid5t t its validity is op5 to grave dispute4 ,= no?+ c be m evid5t to a philosophical ?9k] ?an t ! sub/ance ( ,m9d mu/--s f> at lea/ z we c at pres5t see--necess>ily be unkn[able2 s t if ,matt] 7& ,=ce7 be ?is sub/ance1 we %\ld antec$5tly expect to f9d t ! actual causal connection %\ld1 9 ?is p>ticul> case1 be m inconceivable ?an "s imag9>y "o3 x w\ld be m natural = ! m9d to inf] t some?+ conceivably m ak9 to itself %\ld be its cause1 ?an t ?is cause %\ld be ! entity :i* really gives rise to ! un?9kable connection4 ,b ev5 waiv+ ?is reflection1 & grant+ t ! above argum5t is valid1 x is /ill to an indef9ite degree valueless1 see+ t we are unable to tell h[ mu* x is m likely t ! m conceivable %\ld "h be true ?an t ! less conceivable %\ld be s4 #ae4 ,return+ !n to ,locke's comp>ison betwe5 ! c]ta9ty ( ?is argum5t & t :i* proves ! sum ( ! angles ( a triangle to be equal to two "r-angles1 ,i %\ld say t !re is a virtual1 ?\gh n a =mal1 fallacy 9 8 pres5tation4 ,= ma!matical sci5ce be+ confess$ly b ( relative significance1 any comp>ison betwe5 ! degree ( c]ta9ty atta9$ by reason+ ^u s transc5d5tal a subject z ! pres5t1 & t ( ma!matical demon/rations reg>d+ relative tru?1 mu/ be mislead+4 ,9 ! pres5t in/ance1 ! :ole /ra9 ( ! argum5t comes ^u ! adequacy ( ! propos$ te/ ( tru?1 viz41 our be+ able to conceive x if true4 ,n[1 w any "o und]take to say t ?is te/ ( tru? is ( equival5t value :5 x is appli$ to a triangle & :5 x is appli$ to ! ,deity4 ,9 ! "o case we are deal+ ) a geometrical figure ( an exce$+ly simple type1 ) :i* our exp]i5ce is well acqua9t$1 & pres5t+ a v limit$ numb] ( relations = u to contemplate4 ,9 ! o!r case we are endeav\r+ to deal ) ! summum g5us ( all my/]y1 ) ref]5ce to :i* exp]i5ce is q impossible1 & :i* 9 its m5tion conta9s all ! relations t are to u unkn[n & unkn[able4 ,"h1 !n1 is ! ov]sight4 ,because m5 f9d conceivability a valid te/ ( tru? 9 ! affairs ( ev]yday life--z x is easy to %[ priori t x mu/ be1 if our exp]i5ce has be5 =m$ "u a giv5 code ( con/ant & g5]al laws--!re=e !y conclude t x mu/ be equally valid :]ev] x is appli$2 =gett+ t its validity mu/ p]=ce decrease 9 proportion to ! di/ance at :i* ! te/ is appli$ f ! sph]e ( exp]i5ce4#h #af4 ,^u ! :ole1 !n1 ,i ?9k x is transp>5tly obvi\s t ! m]e fact ( our be+ unable to conceive1 say1 h[ any disposition ( matt] & motion c\ld possibly give rise to a self-consci\s intellig5ce1 9 no wise w>rants u 9 conclud+ t = ?is reason no su* disposition is possible4 ,! only "q w\ld appe> to be1 :e!r ! te/ :i* is "h propos$ z an unconditional crit]ion ( tru? %\ld be all[$ any ! smalle/ degree ( cr$it4 ,see+1 on ! "o h&1 h[ v fallible ! te/ 9 "q is kn[n to h prov$ itself 9 _m cases ( mu* less speculative difficulty--see+1 too1 t ev5 n[ ! philosophy ( ! condition proves t ?+s !re are :i* may1 nay mu/1 be true1 ( :i* nev]!less ! m9d is unable to con/rue to itself ! possibility2#i & see+1 on ! o!r h&1 t ! sub/ance ( ,m9d1 :atev] x is1 mu/ necess>ily be unkn[able2--see+ ^! ?+s1 if any "q rema9s z to :e!r ! te/ ( inconceivability %\ld 9 ?is case be reg>d$ z hav+ any degree ( validity at all1 !re c1 ,i ?9k1 be no reasonable d\bt t su* degree %\ld be reg>d$ z ( ! smalle/4 #ag4 ,let u !n turn to ! o!r consid]ations :i* h be5 suppos$ to ju/ify ! ass]tion t no?+ c h caus$ our m9d save ano!r ,m9d4 ,neglect+ ! cru%+ fact t x does n acc\nt = ,m9d to ref] x to ano!r ,m9d = its orig91 let z see :at positive reasons !re are = conclud+ t no o!r influ5ce ?an ,intellig5ce c possibly h produc$ our intellig5ce4 #ah4 ,fir/ we may notice ! argum5t :i* is well & t]sely pres5t$ by ,locke1 ?us3--,:atsoev] is fir/ ( all ?+s mu/ necess>ily conta9 9 x1 & actually h1 at lea/1 all ! p]fections t c ev] aft] exi/2 nor c x ev] give to ano!r any p]fection t x ha? n actually 9 itself1 or at lea/ 9 a high] degree2 x necess>ily foll[s t ! fir/ et]nal be+ _c be ,matt]4 ,n[1 z ?is pres5tation is /rictly =mal1 ,i %all fir/ meet x ) a =mal reply1 & ?is reply consi/s 9 a direct contradiction4 ,x is simply untrue t :atsoev] is fir/ ( all ?+s mu/ necess>ily conta9 9 x1 & actually h1 at lea/1 all ! p]fections t c aft] exi/2 or t x c nev] give to ano!r any p]fection t x ha? n actually 9 itself4 ,9 a s5se1 no d\bt1 a cause conta9s all t is conta9$ 9 its effects2 ! latt] cont5t be+ pot5tially pres5t 9 ! =m]4 ,b to say t a cause already conta9s actually all t its effects may aft]w>ds s conta91 is a /atem5t :i* logic & common s5se alike condemn z absurd4 ,nev]!less1 al?\gh ! argum5t n[ be=e u ?us admits ( a *ildi%ly easy refutation on /rictly =mal gr\nds1 ,i suspect t 9 sub/ance ! argum5t 9 a g5]al way is (t5 reli$ ^u z "o ( v consid]able weight4 ,ev5 ?\gh x is cle>ly illogical to say t causes _c give to _! effects any p]fection :i* !y !mselves d n actually pres5t1 yet x seems 9 a g5]al way incr$ible t gross matt] c\ld conta91 ev5 pot5tially1 ! faculty ( ?9k+4 ,nev]!less1 ?is is b to appeal to ! argum5t f ,inconceivability2 to d :i*1 ev5 7 x "h legitimate1 w\ld1 z we h se51 be unavail+4 ,b to appeal to ! argum5t f ,inconceivability 9 ?is case w\ld n be legitimate2 = we are 9 possession ( an abundant analogy to r5d] ! supposition 9 "q1 n only conceivable1 b cr$ible4 ,9 ! words ( ,mr4 ,mill1 ,ap>t f exp]i5ce1 & argu+ on :at is call$ reason1 t is1 on suppos$ self-evid5ce1 ! notion seems to be t no causes c give rise to products ( a m preci\s or elevat$ k9d ?an !mselves4 ,b ?is is at v>iance ) ! kn[n analogies ( nature4 ,h[ va/ly nobl] & m preci\s1 = in/ance1 are ! vegetables & animals ?an ! soil & manure out ( :i*1 & by ! prop]ties ( :i*1 !y are rais$ up6 ,! t5d5cy ( all rec5t speculation is t[>ds ! op9ion t ! developm5t ( inf]ior ord]s ( exi/5ce into sup]ior1 ! sub/itution ( great] elaboration1 & high] organisation = l[]1 is ! g5]al rule ( nature4 ,:e!r ?is is s or n1 !re are at lea/ 9 nature a multitude ( facts be>+ t "*1 & ?is is suffici5t = ! argum5t4 #ai4 ,we n[ come to ! la/ ( ! argum5ts :i*1 s f> z ,i "k1 h ev] be5 adduc$ 9 support ( ! ass]tion t !re c be no o!r cause ( our intellig5ce ?an ano!r & sup]ior ,intellig5ce4 ,! argum5t is *iefly rem>kable = ! v great prom95ce :i* 0 giv5 to x by ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton4 ,?is le>n$ & able au?or says3--,! ,deity is n an object ( imm$iate contemplation2 z exi/+ & 9 himself1 he is beyond our rea*2 we c "k him only m$iately ?r\gh 8 works1 & are only w>rant$ 9 assum+ 8 exi/5ce z a c]ta9 k9d ( cause necess>y to acc\nt = a c]ta9 /ate ( ?+s1 ( ^: reality our faculties are suppos$ to in=m u4 ,! affirmation ( a ,god be+ ?us a regressive inf]5ce f ! exi/5ce ( a special class ( effects to ! exi/5ce ( a special "* ( cause1 x is evid5t t ! :ole argum5t h+es on ! fact1--,does a /ate ( ?+s really exi/ su* z is only possible ?r\gh ! ag5cy ( a ,div9e ,cause8 ,= if x c be %[n t su* a /ate ( ?+s does n really exi/1 !n our inf]5ce to ! k9d ( cause requisite to acc\nt = x is necess>ily null4 ,?is be+ und]/ood1 ,i n[ proce$ to %[ y t ! class ( phnom5a :i* requires t k9d ( cause we d5om9ate a ,deity is exclusively giv5 9 ! phnom5a ( m9d1--t ! phnom5a ( matt] tak5 by !mselves1 7y w obs]ve ! qualification tak5 by !mselves7 s f> f w>rant+ any inf]5ce to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 w\ld1 on ! contr>y1 gr\nd ev5 an argum5t to 8 negation4 ,if1 9 man1 intellig5ce be a free p[]1--9 s f> z its lib]ty ext5ds1 intellig5ce mu/ be indep5d5t ( necessity & matt]2 & a p[] indep5d5t ( matt] necess>ily implies ! exi/5ce ( an immat]ial subject1--t is1 a _s4 ,if1 !n1 ! orig9al indep5d5ce ( intellig5ce on matt] 9 ! human con/itution1 9 o!r words1 if ! spirituality ( m9d 9 man be suppos$ a datum ( obs]vation1 9 ?is datum is also giv5 bo? ! condition & ! pro( ( a ,god4 ,= we h only to inf]1 :at analogy entitles u to d1 t intellig5ce holds ! same relative supremacy 9 ! univ]se :i* x holds 9 u1 & ! fir/ positive condition ( a ,deity is e/abli%$ 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( ! absolute priority ( a free creative intellig5ce4#aj #bj4 ,?us1 accord+ to ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 ! :ole "q z to ! be+ ( a ,god dep5ds ^u t z to :e!r our intellig5ce be a free p[]1--or1 z he else:]e /ates x himself1 ,!ology is :olly dep5d5t ^u ,psy*ology1 = ) ! pro( ( ! moral nature ( man /&s or falls ! pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity4 ,x w be obs]v$ t ,i am n at pres5t engag$ ) ! legitimacy ( ?is au?or's decision ^u ! comp>ative m]its ( ! diff]5t argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism3 ,i am m]ely %[+ ! high op9ion he ent]ta9$ ( ! p>ticul> argum5t be=e u4 ,he positively affirms t1 unless ! fre$om ( ! human w be a matt] ( exp]i5ce1 ,a!ism is ! sole alt]native4 ,d\btless mo/ well-in=m$ read]s w feel t ! solit>y basis ?us provid$ = ,!ism is a v insecure "o1 :ile _m su* read]s w at once conclude t if ?is is ! only basis :i* reason c provide = ,!ism to /& ^u1 ,!ism is )\t any rational basis to /& ^u at all4 ,i h no hesitation 9 say+ t ! la/-m5tion$ op9ion is ! "o to :i* ,i myself subscribe1 = ,i am q unable to und]/& h[ any "o at ! pres5t day1 & ) ! mo/ mod]ate p[]s ( ab/ract ?9k+1 c possibly br+ himself to embrace ! !ory ( ,free-w4 ,i may add t ,i _c b believe t ^? :o d embrace ?is !ory ) an hone/ conviction1 mu/ h fail$ to und]/& ! issue to :i* mod]n ?\ght has r$uc$ ! "q4 ,"h1 h[ev]1 is n ! place to discuss ?is "q4 ,x w be suffici5t = my purpose to %[ t ev5 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton himself consid]$ x a v difficult "o2 & al?\gh he ?\ght ^u ! :ole t ! w mu/ be free1 he nev]!less all[$--nay1 insi/$--t he 0 unable to conceive h[ x c\ld be s4 ,su* inability 9 itself does n ( c\rse %[ ! ,free-w !ory to be untrue2 & ,i m]ely po9t out ! circum/ance t ,hamilton all[$ ! suppos$ fact un?9kable1 9 ord] to %[ h[ v prec>i\s1 ev5 9 8 eyes1 ! argum5t :i* we are consid]+ mu/ h appe>$4 ,let u !n1 = ?is purpose1 contemplate 8 attitude ) reg>d to x a little m closely4 ,he says1 ,x w\ld h be5 bett] to %[ articulately t ,lib]ty & ,necessity are bo? incompreh5sible1 z beyond ! limits ( legitimate ?\ght2 b t ?\gh ! ,free-ag5cy ( ,man _c be speculatively prov$1 s nei!r c x be speculatively disprov$2 :ile we may claim = x z a fact ( real actuality1 ?\gh ( inconceivable possibility1 ! te/imony ( consci\sness1 t we are morally free1 z we are morally acc\ntable = our actions4 ,9 ?is mann] ! :ole "q ( free- & bond-w is 9 !ory aboli%$1 leav+1 h[ev]1 practically our ,lib]ty1 & all ! moral in/9cts ( ,man entire4#aa ,f ?is passage x is cle> t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton reg>d$ ^! two c\nt]-!ories z ( precisely equival5t value 9 ev]y?+ save ! te/imony ( consci\sness2 or1 z he else:]e /ates x1 z equally un?9kable1 ! two c\nt]1 ! two "o-sid$1 s*emes are ?us !oretically balanc$4 ,b1 practically1 our consci\sness ( ! moral law 444 gives a decisive prepond]ance to ! doctr9e ( fre$om ov] ! doctr9e ( fate4 ,b ! :ole "q conc]n+ ! fre$om ( ! w has n[ come to be z to :e!r or n consci\sness does give its v]dict on ! side ( fre$om4 ,suppos+ we grant t we are w>rant$ to rely on a deliv]ance ( consci\sness1 :5 t deliv]ance is t a ?+ is1 al?\gh we may be unable to ?9k h[ x c be1#ab 9 ?is case ! "q /ill rema9s1 :e!r our oppon5ts h rightly int]pret$ ! deliv]ance ( _! consci\sness4 ,i1 = "o1 am q p]suad$ t ,i nev] p]=m any action )\t "s appropriate motive1 or set ( motives1 hav+ induc$ me to p]=m x4 ,h[ev]1 ,i am n discuss+ ?is "q1 & ,i h m]ely made ! above quotations = ! purpose ( %[+ t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton appe>s to id5tify ! !ory ( ,free-w ) ! fact t we possess a moral s5se4 ,he argues ?r\gh\t z ?\gh ! !ory he advocates 7 ! only "o t c expla9 a giv5 fact ( real actuality4 ,b no "o ) :om we h to deal que/ions ! fact ( our hav+ a moral s5se2 & to id5tify ?is deliv]ance ( consci\sness ) belief 9 ! !ory t volitions are uncaus$1 is1 or w\ld n[ be1 m]ely to ab&on ! only que/ions 9 dispute4 ,x is v in/ructive1 f ?is po9t ( view1 to obs]ve ! dilemma into :i* ,hamilton f\nd himself driv5 by ?is id5tification ( g5u9e fact ) spuri\s !ory4 ,he believ$ t ! fact ( man possess+ an e?ical faculty c\ld only be expla9$ by ! !ory t man's w 0 n det]m9$ by motives2 = o!rwise man c\ld n be ! au?or ( 8 own actions4 ,b :5 he consid]$ ! matt] 9 its o!r aspect1 he f\nd t 8 !ory ( ,free-w 0 z little compatible ) moral responsibility z 0 ! oppos+ !ory ( ,bond-w2 = n only did he c&idly confess t he c\ld n conceive ( w z act+ )\t motives1 b he fur!r all[$ ! unque/ionable tru? t1 ?\gh inconceivable1 a motiveless volition w\ld1 if conceiv$1 be conceiv$ z morally wor?less4#ac ,i say ?is is v in/ructive1 because x %[s t 9 ,hamilton's view ea* !ory 0 alike irreconcilable ) ! deliv]ance ( consci\sness1 & t he only *ose ! "o 9 pref]5ce to ! o!r1 because1 al?\gh n any m conceivable a solution1 x seem$ to him a m possible "o4#ad #ba4 ,su*1 !n1 is ! speculative basis on :i*1 accord+ to ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 our belief 9 a ,deity c alone be gr\nd$4 ,^? :o at ! pres5t day are /ill confus$ en\gh 9 _! notions reg>d+ ! ,free-w "q to suppose t any fur!r rational "q rema9s1 may "h be left to rum9ate ov] ?is bolus1 & to draw f x su* n\ri%m5t z !y c 9 support ( _! belief 9 a ,god2 b to ^? :o c see z pla9ly z daylight t ! doctr9e ( ,det]m9ism n only h>monises ) all ! facts ( obs]vation1 b alone af=ds a possible condition =1 & a satisfactory explanation (1 ! exi/5ce ( our e?ical faculty1--to su* p]sons ! "q w naturally arise3--,al?\gh ,hamilton 0 wrong 9 id5tify+ a kn[n fact ) a false !ory1 yet may he n h be5 "r 9 ! d$uctions :i* he drew f ! fact8 ,9 o!r words1 grant+ t 8 !ory ( ,free-w 0 wrong1 does n 8 argum5t f ! exi/5ce ( a moral s5se 9 man to ! exi/5ce ( a moral ,gov]nor ( ! ,univ]se rema9 z intact z ev]8 ,n[1 x is q true t :atev] degree ( cog5cy ! argum5t f ! pres5ce ( ! moral s5se may at any "t h _h1 ?is degree rema9s unaffect$ by ! explosion ( errone\s !ories to acc\nt = su* pres5ce4 ,we h1 !re=e1 /ill to face ! fact t ! moral s5se ( man und\bt$ly exi/s4 #bb4 ,! "q we h to det]m9e is1 ,:at evid5ce h we to %[ t ! moral "p ( man 0 creat$ 9 ! image ( ,god2 & if !re is any su* evid5ce1 :at c\nt]-exi/5ce is !re to %[ t ! moral exi/5ce ( man may be due to natural causes8 ,9 decid+ ?is "q1 j z 9 decid+ any o!r "q ( a purely sci5tific "*1 we mu/ be guid$ 9 our exam9ation by ! ,law ( ,p>cimony2 we mu/ n assume ! ag5cy ( sup]natural causes if we c discov] ! ag5cy ( natural causes2 nei!r mu/ we m]ge ! suppos$ my/]y directly into ! highe/ my/]y1 until we are q sure t x does n admit ( be+ proximately expla9$ by ! action ( proximate influ5ces4 ,n[1 :e!r or n ,mr4 ,d>w9's !ory z to ! orig9 & developm5t ( ! moral s5se be consid]$ satisfactory1 !re c1 ,i ?9k1 be v little d\bt 9 any imp>tial m9d :i* duly consid]s ! subject1 t 9 "s way or o!r ! moral s5se has be5 evolv$4 ,! body ( sci5tific evid5ce :i* has n[ be5 collect$ 9 fav\r ( ! g5]al !ory ( evolution is simply ov]:elm+2 & 9 ! pres5ce ( s l>ge an analogy1 x w\ld require a va/ am\nt ( contradictory evid5ce to remove ! presumption t human consci5ce1 l ev]y?+ else1 has be5 evolv$4 ,n[1 = my own "p1 ,i am q unable to di/+ui% any su* evid5ce1 :ile1 on ! o!r h&1 9 support ( ! priori presumption t consci5ce has be5 evolv$1 ,i _c conceal f myself t !re is a l>ge am\nt ( po/]iori confirmation4 ,i am q unable to di/+ui% any?+ 9 my s5se ( "r & wrong :i* ,i _c easily conceive to h be5 br\ght ab\t dur+ ! evolution ( my intellig5ce f l[] =ms ( psy*ical life4 ,on ! contr>y1 ev]y?+ t ,i c f9d 9 my s5se ( "r & wrong is precisely :at ,i %\ld expect to f9d on ! supposition ( ?is s5se hav+ be5 m\ld$ by ! progressive requirem5ts ( social developm5t4 ,read 9 ! light ( evolution1 ,consci5ce1 9 its e detail1 is d$uctively expla9$4 ,&1 z ?\gh !re 7 n suffici5t evid5ce ( ?is k9d to ju/ify ! conclusion drawn f ! !ory ( evolution1 ! doctr9e ( utilit>ianism--sep>ately conceiv$ & sep>ately work$ out on altoge!r indep5d5t gr\nds--! doctr9e ( utilit>ianism comes 9 ) irresi/ible =ce to confirm t priori conclusion by ! wide/ & mo/ unexceptionable ( inductions4#ae ,9 ! sup]natural int]pretation ( ! facts1 ! :ole /ress ( ! argum5t comes ^u ! "* ( consci5ce z a spontane\sly admoni%+ influ5ce :i* acts indep5d5tly ( our own volition4 ,= x is f ?is "* alone t ! inf]5ce c arise t consci5ce is ! delegate ( ! w ( ano!r4 ,?us1 to r5d] ! :ole argum5t 9 ! s+ul>ly beautiful words ( ,dr4 ,newman3--,if1 z is ! case1 we feel responsibility1 are a%am$1 are fright5$ at transgress+ ! voice ( consci5ce1 ?is implies t !re is ,"o to :om we are responsible1 be=e :om we are a%am$1 ^: claims ^u u we fe>4 ,if1 on do+ wrong1 we feel ! same te>ful1 brok5-he>t$ sorr[ :i* ov]:elms u on hurt+ a "m2 if1 on do+ "r1 we enjoy ! same seem+ s]5ity ( m9d1 ! same soo?+1 satisfactory delight1 :i* foll[s on "o receiv+ praise f a fa!r1--we c]ta9ly h )9 u ! image ( "s p]son to :om our love & v5]ation look1 9 ^: smile we f9d our happ9ess1 = :om we ye>n1 t[>ds :om we direct our plead+s1 9 ^: ang] we wa/e away4 ,^! feel+s 9 u are su* z require = _! excit+ cause an intellig5t be+2 we are n affectionate t[>ds a /one1 nor d we feel %ame be=e a horse or a dog2 we h no remorse or compunction 9 break+ m]e human law4 ,yet s x is2 consci5ce emits all ^! pa9ful emotions1 confusion1 =ebod+1 self-condemnation2 &1 on ! o!r h&1 x %$s ^u u a deep peace1 a s5se ( security1 a resignation1 & a hope :i* !re is no s5sible1 no e>?ly object to elicit4 ',! wick$ flees :5 no "o pursue?2' !n :y does he flee8 :5ce 8 t]ror8 ,:o is x t he sees 9 solitude1 9 d>kness1 9 ! hidd5 *amb]s ( 8 he>t8 ,if ! cause ( ^! emotions does n belong to ?is visible _w1 ! ,object to :i* 8 p]ception is direct$ mu/ be sup]natural & div9e2 & ?us ! ph5om5a ( consci5ce z a dictate avail to impress ! imag9ation ) ! picture ( a ,supreme ,gov]nor1 a ,judge1 holy1 j1 p[]ful1 all-see+1 retributive4#af ,n[ ,i h quot$ ?is passage because x seems to me to convey 9 a concise =m ! :ole ( ! argum5t f ,consci5ce4 ,b h[ trem5d\s are ! inf]5ces :i* are drawn f ! facts6 ,z ! fir/ /ep 9 our criticism1 x is necess>y to po9t out t two v diff]5t ord]s ( feel+s are "h treat$ by ,dr4 ,newman4 ,!re is fir/ ! pure or uncomp\nd$ e?ical feel+s1 :i* spr+ directly f ! moral s5se alone1 & :i* all m5 exp]i5ce 9 v>y+ degrees4 ,& next !re are :at we may t]m ! e?ico-!ological feel+s1 :i* c only spr+ f a bl5d+ ( ! moral s5se ) a belief 9 a p]sonal ,god1 or o!r sup]natural ag5ts4 ,! =m] class ( feel+s1 or ! uncomp\nd$ e?ical class1 h exclusive ref]5ce to ! moral obligations t subsi/ betwe5 ourselves & o!r human be+s1 or s5ti5t organisms4 ,! latt] class ( feel+s1 or ! e?ico-!ological class1 h ref]5ce to ! moral obligations t are believ$ to subsi/ betwe5 ourselves & ! ,deity1 or o!r sup]natural be+s4 ,n[1 9 ord] n to lose sight ( ?is all-important di/9ction1 ,i %all criticise ,dr4 ,newman's r5d]+ ( ! ord9>y argum5t f ,consci5ce 9 ea* ( ^! two po9ts ( views sep>ately4 ,to beg91 !n1 ) ! uncomp\nd$ e?ical feel+s4 ,su* emotions z att5d ! op]ation ( consci5ce 9 ^? :o foll[ its light alone )\t any !ories z to its sup]natural orig91 are all ( ! "* ( reasonable or explicable emotions4 ,grant+ t fell[-feel+ has be5 = ! b5efit ( ! race1 & !re=e t x has be5 develop$ by natural causes1 c]ta9ly !re is no?+ my/]i\s 9 ! emotions t att5d ! violat+ or ! foll[+ ( ! dictates ( consci5ce4 ,= consci5ce is1 by ?is naturali/ic supposition1 no?+ m ?an an organis$ body ( c]ta9 psy*ological elem5ts1 :i*1 by long inh]itance1 h come to in=m u1 by way ( intuitive feel+1 h[ we %\ld act = ! int]e/s ( society2 s t1 if ?is hypo!sis is correct1 !re _c be any?+ m my/]i\s or sup]natural 9 ! work+ ( consci5ce ?an !re is 9 ! work+ ( any ( our o!r faculties4 ,t ! disagreeable feel+ ( self-reproa*1 z di/+ui%$ f religi\s feel+1 %\ld foll[ ^u a violation ( su* an organiz$ body ( psy*ological elem5ts1 _c be ?\ght surpris+1 if x is rememb]$ t "o ( ^! elem5ts is natural fell[-feel+1 & ! o!rs ! elem5ts :i* lead u to "k directly t we h violat$ ! int]e/s ( o!r p]sons4 ,& z reg>ds ! m]e fact t ! work+ ( consci5ce is indep5d5t ( ! w1 surely ?is is n m ?an we f9d1 9 v>y+ degrees1 to be true ( all our emotions2 & consci5ce1 accord+ to ! evolution !ory1 has its root 9 ! emotions4 ,h5ce1 x is no m an argum5t to say t ! irrepressible "* ( consci5ce ref]s u to a ,god ( morality1 ?an x w\ld be to say t ! sometimes resi/less =ce ( ! ludicr\s ref]s u to a god ( laught]4 ,love1 aga91 is an emotion :i* _c be subdu$ by volition1 & 9 its t5d5cy to p]si/ be>s j su* a /rik+ resemblance to ! feel+s ( morality z we %\ld expect to f9d on ! supposition ( ! =m] hav+ play$ an important "p 9 ! g5esis ( ! latt]4 ,! dictat+ "* ( consci5ce1 !re=e1 is cle>ly 9 itself ( no avail z po9t+ to a sup]human ,dictator4 ,?us1 = example1 to take ,dr4 ,newman's own illu/ration1 :y %\ld we feel su* te>ful1 brok5-he>t$ sorr[ on int5tionally or c>elessly hurt+ a "m8 ,we see no %ad[ ( a reason = resort+ to any sup]natural hypo!sis to expla9 ! fact--love betwe5 "m & (fspr+ be+ an ess5tial condition to ! exi/5ce ( high] animals4 ,yet ?is is a simple case ( truly consci5ti\s feel+1 :]e ! ?\ght ( any p]sonal cause ( consci5ce ne$ n be ent]ta9$1 & is c]ta9ly n necess>y to expla9 ! effects4 ,& simil>ly ) all cases ( consci5ti\s feel+1 except 9 cases :]e x ref]s directly to its suppos$ au?or4 ,b ^! latt] cases1 or ! e?ico-!ological class ( feel+s1 are 9 no way surpris+4 ,if ! moral s5se has _h a natural g5esis 9 ! actual relations betwe5 man & man1 z soon z an ideal image ( a holy1 j1 p[]ful1 all-see+1 retributive ,god is firmly believ$ to h an objective exi/5ce1 z a matt] ( c\rse moral feel+s mu/ become transf]r$ to ! relations :i* are believ$ to obta9 betwe5 ourselves & ?is mo/ holy ,god4 ,inde$1 x is ^! v feel+s :i*1 9 ! abs5ce ( any pro( to ! contr>y1 mu/ be conclud$1 9 accordance ) ! law ( p>cimony1 to h g5]at$ ?is idea ( ,god z holy1 j1 & good4 ,& ! m]e fact t1 :5 ! complex sy/em ( religi\s belief has once be5 built up1 consci5ce is /rongly wr\ght ^u by t belief & its accompany+ emotions1 is surely a fact ! v rev]se ( my/]i\s4 ,suppose1 = ! sake ( argum5t1 t ! moral s5se has be5 evolv$ f ! social feel+s1 & %\ld we n c]ta9ly expect t1 :5 ! belief 9 a moral & all-see+ ,god is sup]add$1 consci5ce %\ld be di/ract$ at ! ?\ght ( (f5d+ him1 & exp]i5ce a soo?+1 satisfactory delight 9 ! belief t we are pleas+ him8 ,& z to ! argum5t1 ,:y does ! wick$ flee :5 none pursue?8 :5ce 8 t]ror8 ! "q admits ( only too easy an answ]4 ,inde$1 ! =m into :i* ! "q is ?r[n w\ld almo/ seem--7 x n writt5 by ,dr4 ,newman--to imply a s>ca/ic ref]5ce to ! p[] ( sup]/ition4 ,:o is x t1 n only ,dr4 ,newman1 b ! haunt$ savage1 ! m$ival sorc]]1 or ! fright5$ *ild1 sees 9 solitude1 9 d>kness1 9 ! hidd5 *amb]s ( 8 he>t8 ,:o b ! image ( 8 own ?\ght8 ,if ! cause ( ^! emotions does n belong to ?is visible _w1 ! ,object to :i* 8 p]ception is direct$ mu/ be sup]natural & div9e4 ,assur$ly2 b :at an inf]5ce f :at an assumption6 ,:e!r or n ! moral s5se has be5 develop$ by natural causes1 ^! emotions ( t]ror at ! ?\ght ( (f5d+ be+s sup]natural & div9e are n ( su* unique occurr5ce 9 ! visible _w z to give ,dr4 ,newman ! monopoly ( 8 p>ticul> ,object4 ,) a deep] mean+1 !re=e1 ?an he int5ds may we repeat1 ,! ph5om5a ( consci5ce z a dictate avail to impress ! imag9ation ) ! picture ( a ,supreme ,gov]nor4 ,b criticism "h is positively pa9ful4 ,let x be en\gh to say t ^? ( u :o d n already believe 9 any su* p>ticul> ,object--be x gho/1 %ape1 demon1 or deity--are /rang]s1 utt] & complete1 to any su* sup]natural pursu]s4 ,! fact1 !re=e1 ( ^! v>i\s religi\s emotions be+ associat$ ) consci5ce 9 ! m9ds ( !i/s1 c 9 itself be no pro( ( ,!ism1 see+ t x is ! !ory ( ,!ism :i* itself eng5d]s ^! emotions2 ^? :o d n believe 9 ?is !ory exp]i5c+ none ( ^! feel+s ( p]sonal dread1 responsibility to an unkn[n ,god1 & ! feel+s ( do+ injury to1 or ( receiv+ praise f1 a p>5t4 ,to su* ( u ! violation ( consci5ce is its own puni%m5t1 z ! pursuit ( virtue is its own rew>d4 ,= we "k t n m c]ta9ly ?an fire w burn1 any violation ( ! deeply-root$ feel+s ( our humanity w leave a gap+ w\nd :i* ev5 "t may n always heal4 ,& :5 x is %[n u t our natural dread ( fire is due to a sup]natural cause1 we may be prep>$ to ent]ta9 ! argum5t t our natural dread ( s91 z di/+ui%$ f our dread ( ,god1 is likewise due to su* a cause4 ,b until ?is c be done we mu/1 z reasonable m51 ^: m9ds h be5 tra9$ 9 ! s*ool ( nature1 =be> to all[ t ! "o fact is ( any great] cog5cy ?an ! o!r1 s f> z ! "q ( a sup]natural cause ( ei!r is conc]n$4 ,=1 z we h already se51 ! law ( p>cimony =bids u to ascribe ! ph5om5a ( consci5ce z a dictate to a sup]natural cause1 until ! sci5ce ( psy*ology %all h prov$ t !y _c h be5 due to natural causes4 ,b1 z we h also se51 ! sci5ce ( psy*ology is n[ beg9n+1 z quick & ?or\ghly z c be expect$1 to prove ! v conv]se2 s t ! probability is n[ ov]:elm+ t our moral s5se1 l all our o!r faculties1 has be5 evolv$4 ,!re=e1 :ile ! burd5 ( pro( really lies on ! side ( ,!ism--or ) ^? :o acc\nt = ! natural ph5om5a ( consci5ce by ! hypo!sis ( a sup]natural orig9--?is burd5 is n[ be+ rapidly dis*>g$ by ! opposite side4 ,t is to say1 :ile ! pro(s :i* are n[ beg9n+ to sub/antiate ! naturali/ic hypo!sis are all 9 full accord ) ! ord9>y l9es ( sci5tific explanations1 ! vague & feeble reflections ( ^? :o /ill ma9ta9 t ,consci5ce is evid5ce ( ,deity1 are all su* z run c\nt] to ! v truisms ( sci5tific me?od4 ,9 ! face ( all ! facts1 !re=e1 ,i f9d x impossible to recognise z valid any inf]5ce :i* is drawn f ! exi/5ce ( our moral s5se to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god2 al?\gh1 ( c\rse1 all inf]5ces drawn f ! exi/5ce ( our moral s5se to ! "* ( a ,god already believ$ to exi/ rema9 unaffect$ by ! =ego+ consid]ations4#ag 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,,iii4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,design4 #bc4 ,! argum5t f ,design1 z pres5t$ by ,mill1 is m]ely a resuscitation ( x z pres5t$ by ,paley4 ,true x is t ! logical p5etration ( ! =m] enabl$ him to p]ceive t ! latt] _h put ! case mu* too /rongly2 al?\gh1 ev5 "h1 he has fail$ to see :]e9 ,paley's error consi/$4 ,he says3--,if ,i f\nd a wat* on an app>5tly desolate isl&1 ,i %\ld inde$ inf] t x _h be5 left !re by a human be+2 b ! inf]5ce w\ld n be f ! m>ks ( design1 b because ,i already "k by direct exp]i5ce t wat*es are made by m54 ,n[ ,i submit t ?is misses ! :ole po9t ( ,paley's mean+2 = x is evid5t t !re w\ld be no argum5t at all unless ?is au?or be und]/ood to say :at he cle>ly en\gh expresses1 viz41 t ! evid5ce ( design suppos$ to be af=d$ by ! wat* is suppos$ to be af=d$ by exam9ation ( its me*anism only1 & n by any previ\s k z to h[ t p>ticul> me*anism call$ a wat* is made4 ,paley1 ,i take x1 only *ose a wat* = 8 example because he knew t no read] w\ld dispute ! fact t wat*es are con/ruct$ by design3 except = ! purpose ( po9t+ out t me*anism is 9 "s cases admitt$ to be due to intellig5ce1 = all ! o!r purposes ( 8 argum5t he might z well h *os5 = 8 illu/ration any case ( me*anism occurr+ 9 nature4 ,:at ! real fallacy 9 ,paley's argum5t is1 is ano!r "q1 & ?is ,i %all n[ endeav\r to answ]2 =1 z ,mill's argum5t is cle>ly ! same 9 k9d z t ( ,paley & 8 numb]less foll[]s1 9 exam9+ ! "o ,i am also exam9+ ! o!r4 #bd4 ,9 nature1 !n1 we see innum]able examples ( app>5t design3 are ^! ( equal value 9 te/ify+ to ! pres5ce ( a design+ intellig5ce z are simil> examples ( human contrivance1 & if n1 :y n8 ,! answ] to ! fir/ ( ^! que/ions is pat5t4 ,if su* examples 7 ( ! same value 9 ! "o case z !y are 9 ! o!r1 ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity w\ld be1 z ,paley appe>s to h ?\ght x 01 demon/rat$ by ! fact4 ,a brief & yet satisfactory answ] to ! second "q is n s easy1 & we may be/ approa* x by assum+ ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity4 ,if1 !n1 !re is a ,god1 x by no means foll[s t e app>5t contrivance 9 nature is an actual contrivance1 9 ! same s5se z is any human contrivance4 ,! eye ( a v]tebrat$ animal1 = in/ance1 exhibits z mu* app>5t design z does a wat*2 b no "o--at ! pres5t day1 at lea/--w und]take to affirm t ! evid5ce ( div9e ?\ght furni%$ by "o example is z conclusive z is ! evid5ce ( human ?\ght furni%$ by ! o!r--& ?is ev5 assum+ a ,deity to exi/4 ,:y is ?is8 ,! reason1 ,i ?9k1 is1 t we "k by our p]sonal exp]i5ce :at are our own relations to ! mat]ial _w1 & to ! laws :i* preside ov] ! action ( physical =ces2 :ile we c h no correspond+ k ( ! relations subsi/+ betwe5 ! ,deity & ^! same objects ( our own exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce1 to suppose t ! ,deity con/ruct$ ! eye by any su* process ( ?\ght z we "k t m5 con/ruct wat*es1 is to make an assumption n only incapable ( pro(1 b de/itute ( any assignable degree ( likelihood4 ,take an example4 ,! relation 9 :i* a bee /&s to ! ext]nal _w is to a l>ge ext5t a matt] ( obs]vation1 &1 !re=e1 no "o imag9es t ! =mation ( its sci5tifically-con/ruct$ cells is due to any pr(\nd /udy on ! bee's "p4 ,:atev] ! orig9 ( ! cell-mak+ in/9ct may h be51 its nature is c]ta9ly n ! same z x w\ld h be5 9 man1 suppos+ him to h _h occasion to con/ruct honeycombs4 ,x may be said t ! requisite calculations h be5 made = ! bees by ! ,deity2 b1 ev5 if ?is assumption 7 true1 x w\ld be no?+ to ! po9t1 :i* is m]ely t ev5 )9 ! limits ( ! animal k+dom ! relations ( intellig5ce to ! ext]nal _w are s div]se1 t ! same results may be accompli%$ by totally diff]5t intellectual processes4 ,& z ?is example is p>allel to ! case on :i* we are engag$ 9 ev]y?+ save ! obs]vability ( ! relations involv$1 x supplies u ) ! exact measure ( ! probability we are try+ to e/imate4 ,h5ce x is evid5t t s long z we rema9 ignorant ( ! elem5t ess5tial to ! argum5t f design 9 its ,paley]ian =m--viz41 k or presumption ( ! relations subsi/+ betwe5 an hypo!tical ,deity & 8 creation--s long mu/ t argum5t rema91 n only unassignably weak1 b incapable ( be+ /r5g!n$ by any numb] ( examples simil> 9 k9d4 #be4 ,to put ! case 9 ano!r way4 ,! root fallacy 9 ,paley's argum5t consi/$ 9 reason+ f a p>ticul> to an univ]sal4 ,because he knew t design 0 ! cause ( adaptation 9 "s cases1 & because ! ph5om5a ( life exhibit$ m in/ances ( adaptation ?an any o!r class ( ph5om5a 9 nature1 he po9t$ to ^! ph5om5a z af=d+ an exceptional k9d ( pro( ( ! pres5ce 9 nature ( intellig5t ag5cy4 ,yet1 if x is admitt$--& ( ?is1 ev5 9 ,paley's days1 !re 0 a /rong analogical presumption--t ! ph5om5a ( life are ?r\gh\t _! hi/ory z mu* subject to law z are any o!r ph5om5a :atsoev]1--t ! me?od ( ! div9e gov]nm5t1 suppos+ su* to exi/1 is ! same "h z else:]e2 !n no?+ c be cle>] ?an t any am\nt ( obs]vable adaptation ( means to ends )9 ?is class ( ph5om5a _c af=d any diff]5t k9d ( evid5ce ( design ?an is af=d$ by any o!r class ( ph5om5a :atsoev]4 ,ei!r we "k ! relations ( ! ,deity to 8 creation1 or we d n4 ,if we d1 !n we mu/ "k :e!r or n e physical *ange :i* occurs 9 accordance ) law--i4e41 e *ange occurr+ )9 exp]i5ce1 & s1 until contr>y evid5ce is produc$1 presumably e *ange occurr+ beyond exp]i5ce--0 sep>ately plann$ by ! ,deity4 ,if we d n1 !n we h no m reason to suppose t any "o set ( physical *anges r ?an ano!r has be5 sep>ately plann$ by him1 unless we c\ld po9t 7z ,paley virtually po9t$7 to "o p>ticul> set ( *anges & ass]t1 ,^! are n subject to ! same me?od ( div9e gov]nm5t :i* we obs]ve else:]e1 or1 9 o!r words1 to law4 ,if x is retort$ t 9 "s way or o!r all ^! wond]ful adaptations mu/ ultimately h be5 due to intellig5ce1 ?is is m]ely to %ift ! argum5t to a gr\nd :i* we %all pres5tly h to consid]3 all we are n[ engag$ ^u is to %[ t we h no "r to f\nd argum5ts on ! assum$ mode1 mann]1 or process by :i* ! suppos$ intellig5ce is ?\ght to h op]at$4 ,we c "h see1 !n1 m cle>ly :]e ,paley /umbl$4 ,he virtually assum$ t ! relations subsi/+ betwe5 ! ,deity & ! univ]se 7 su*1 t ! exceptional adaptations met ) 9 ! organis$ "p ( ! latt] _c h be5 due to ! same intellectual processes z 0 ! re/ ( ! univ]se--or t1 if !y 71 /ill !y yield$ bett] evid5ce ( hav+ be5 due to ^! processes ?an does ! re/ ( ! univ]se4 ,& x is easy to p]ceive t 8 error arose f 8 pre-=m$ belief 9 special creation4 ,s long z a man reg>ds e liv+ organism :i* he sees z ! l9eal desc5dant ( a precisely simil> organism orig9ally /ruck out by ! imm$iate fiat ( ,deity1 s long is he ju/ifi$ 9 hold+ 8 axiom1 ,contrivance mu/ h _h a contriv]4 ,= adaptation !n becomes to our m9ds ! synonym ( contrivance--x be+ utt]ly inconceivable t ! numb]less adaptations f\nd 9 any liv+ organism c\ld h result$ 9 any o!r way ?an by intellig5t contrivance1 at ! "t :5 ?is organism 0 9 ! fir/ in/ance sudd5ly introduc$ into its complex conditions ( life4 ,/ill1 z an argum5t1 ?is is ( c\rse m]ely reason+ 9 a circle3 we adopt a hypo!sis :i* presupposes ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity z ! fir/ /ep 9 ! pro( ( 8 exi/5ce4 ,i d n say t ,paley committ$ ?is error expressly1 b m]ely t if x _h n be5 = 8 pre-=m$ conviction z to ! tru? ( ! special-creation !ory1 he w\ld probably n h writt5 8 ,natural ,!ology4 #bf4 ,?us let u take a case ( 8 own *oos+1 & ! "o :i* is adduc$ by him z typical ( ! application ( ! argum5t4 ,i "k ( no bett] me?od ( introduc+ s l>ge a subject ?an t ( comp>+ a s+le ?+ ) a s+le ?+2 an eye1 = example1 ) a telescope4 ,z f> z ! exam9ation ( ! in/rum5t goes1 !re is precisely ! same pro( t ! eye 0 made = vision z !re is t ! telescope 0 made = assi/+ x4 ,!y are bo? made ^u ! same pr9ciples1 bo? be+ adju/$ to ! laws by :i* ! transmission & refraction ( rays ( light are regulat$4 ,i speak n ( ! orig9 ( ! laws !mselves2 b ^! laws be+ fix$1 ! con/ruction 9 bo? cases is adapt$ to !m4 ,= in/ance3 ^! laws require1 9 ord] to produce ! same effect1 t ! rays ( light1 9 pass+ ?r\gh wat] into ! eye1 %\ld be refract$ by a m convex surface ?an :5 x passes out ( air into ! eye4 ,accord+ly we f9d t ! eye ( a fi%1 9 t "p ( x call$ ! cry/all9e l5s1 is mu* r\nd] ?an ! eye ( t]re/rial animals4 ,:at pla9] manife/ation ( design c !re be ?an ?is diff]5ce8 ,b :at1 let u ask1 is ! proximate cause ( ?is diff]5ce8 ',! imm$iate volition ( ! ,deity1 manife/$ 9 special creation1' virtually answ]s ,paley2 :ile we ( to-day are able to reply1 ',! ag5cy ( natural laws1 to wit1 inh]itance1 v>iation1 survival ( ! fitte/1 & probably ( o!r laws z yet n discov]$4' ,n[1 ( c\rse1 accord+ to ! =m] ( ^! two premises1 !re c be no m legitimate conclusion ?an t ! diff]5ce 9 "q is due to intellig5t & special design2 b1 accord+ to ! o!r premise1 x is equally cle> t no conclusion c be m unw>rant$2 =1 "u ! latt] view1 ! great] rotundity ( ! cry/all9e l5s 9 a fi%'s eye no m exhibits ! pres5ce ( any special design ?an does ! adaptation ( a riv] to ! b$ :i* x has itself be5 ! means ( excavat+4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,paley goes on to ask3--,h[ is x possible1 "u circum/ances ( su* close aff9ity1 & "u ! op]ation ( equal evid5ce1 to exclude contrivance f ! case ( ! eye1 yet to ackn[l$ge ! pro( ( contrivance hav+ be5 employ$1 z ! pla9e/ & cle>e/ ( all propositions1 9 ! case ( ! telescope8 ! answ] is suffici5tly obvi\s1 namely1 t ! evid5ce 9 ! two cases is n equal2--any m ?an is ! exi/5ce1 say1 ( ! ,nile ( equal value 9 po9t ( evid5ce t x 0 design$ = traffic1 z is ! exi/5ce ( ! ,suez ,canal t x 0 s design$4 ,& ! m]e fact t ! problem ( a*romatism 0 solv$ by ! m9d ( a sagaci\s optician inquir+ h[ ?is matt] 0 manag$ 9 ! eye1 no m proves t ?is c\ld n be 9 ! eye )\t purpose1 :i* sugge/$ to ! optician ! only effectual means ( atta9+ t purpose1 ?an w\ld ! fact1 say1 ( ! w9n[+ ( corn hav+ sugge/$ ! fann+-ma*9e prove t air curr5ts 7 design$ = ! purpose ( elim9at+ *aff f gra94 ,9 %ort1 ! real sub/ance ( ! argum5t f ,design mu/ ev5tually m]ge into t :i* ,paley1 9 ! above-quot$ passage1 expressly passes ov]--viz41 ! orig9 ( ! laws !mselves2 = s long z !re is any reason to suppose t any app>5t adaptation to a c]ta9 set ( fix$ laws is itself due to ! influ5ce ( o!r fix$ laws1 s long h we z little "r to say t ! latt] set ( fix$ laws exhibit any bett] indications ( intellig5t adaptation to ! =m] set1 ?an ! =m] d to t ( ! latt]--! eye to light1 ?an light to ! eye4 ,h5ce ,i conceive t ,mill is entirely wrong :5 he says ( ,paley's argum5t1 ,x surpasses analogy exactly z induction surpasses x1 because ! in/ances *os5 are p>ticul> in/ances ( a circum/ance :i* exp]i5ce %[s to h a real connection ) an intellig5t orig9--! fact ( conspir+ to an end4 ,exp]i5ce %[s z ?is1 b x %[s u m besides2 x %[s u t !re is no necess>y or uni=m connection betwe5 an intellig5t orig9 & ! fact ( app>5t means conspir+ to an app>5t end4 ,if ! read] w take ! tr\ble to comp>e ?is quotation j made f ,mill1 & ! long tra9 ( reason+ t foll[s1 ) an admirable illu/ration 9 ,mr4 ,wallace's ,natural ,selection1 he w be well rew>d$ by f9d+ all ! /eps 9 ,mr4 ,mill's reason+ s closely p>allel$ by ! c>icature1 t b = ! respective dates ( publication1 "o might h ?\ght ! latt] _h an express ref]5ce to ! =m]4#ah ,true1 ,mr4 ,mill closes 8 argum5t ) a brief allusion to ! pr9ciple ( ! survival ( ! fitte/1 obs]v+ t creative =e?\ght is n absolutely ! only l9k by :i* ! orig9 ( ! wond]ful me*anism ( ! eye may be connect$ ) ! fact ( sight4 ,i am surpris$1 h[ev]1 t a man ( ,mr4 ,mill's p5etration did n see t :atev] view we may take z to ! adequacy ( ?is pr9ciple 7i4e41 ,natural ,selection7 to acc\nt = su* truly admirable comb9ations z "s ( ^? 9 nature1 ! argum5t f ,design is n mat]ially affect$4 ,s f> z ?is argum5t is conc]n$1 ! issue is n ,design v]sus ,natural ,selection1 b x is ,design v]sus ,natural ,law4 ,by all means1 leav+ ?is rem>kable speculation 7i4e41 ,mr4 ,d>w9's7 to :atev] fate ! progress ( discov]y may h 9 /ore = x1 & x by no means foll[s t 9 ! pres5t /ate ( k ! adaptations 9 nature af=d a l>ge balance ( probability 9 fav\r ( creation by intellig5ce4 ,= :atev] we may ?9k ( ?is special !ory z to ! mode1 !re c be no long] any reasonable d\bt1 9 ! pres5t /ate ( our k1 z to ! tru? ( ! g5]al !ory ( ,evolution2 & ! latt]1 if accept$1 is z de/ructive to ! argum5t f ,design z w\ld ! =m] be if prov$4 ,9 a ^w1 x is ! fact & n ! me?od ( ,evolution :i* is subv]sive ( ,teleology 9 its ,paley]ian =m4 #bg4 ,we h come !n to ?is3--,app>5t intellectual adaptations are p]fectly valid indications ( design1 s long z _! au?or%ip is kn[n to be conf9$ to human intellig5ce2 = !n we "k f exp]i5ce :at are our relations to ^! laws1 & s 9 any giv5 case c argue po/]iori t su* an adaptation to su* a set ( laws by su* an intellig5ce c only h be5 due to su* a process4 ,b :5 we ov]/ep ! limits ( exp]i5ce1 we are n entitl$ to argue any?+ priori ( any o!r intellig5ce 9 ?is respect1 ev5 suppos+ any su* intellig5ce to exi/4 ,! analogy by :i* ! unkn[n relations are inf]r$ f ! kn[n is inf9itely prec>i\s2 see+ t two ( ! analog\s t]ms--to wit1 ! div9e intellig5ce & ! human--may diff] to an immeasurable ext5t 9 _! prop]ties--nay1 are suppos$ ?us to diff]1 ! "o be+ suppos$ omnisci5t1 omnipot5t1 c41 & ! o!r n4 ,&1 z a f9al /ep1 we may n[ see t ! argum5t f ,design1 9 its la/ resort1 resolves itself into a petitio pr9cipii4 ,=1 ultimately1 ! only po9t :i* ! analogical argum5t 9 "q is adduc$ to prove is1 t ! relations subsi/+ betwe5 an ,unkn[n ,cause & c]ta9 physical =ces are s f> id5tical ) ! relations kn[n to subsi/ betwe5 human intellig5ce & ^! same =ces1 t simil> intellectual processes are requir$ 9 ! two cases to acc\nt = ! production ( simil> effects--& h5ce t ! ,unkn[n ,cause is intellig5t4 ,b x is evid5t t ! analogy itself c h no exi/5ce1 except ^u ! presupposition t ^! two sets ( relations are ?us id5tical4 ,! po9t :i* ! analogy is adduc$ to prove is !re=e po/ulat$ by ! fact ( its be+ adduc$ at all1 & ! :ole argum5t resolves itself into a case ( petitio pr9cipii4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,,iv4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,g5]al ,,laws4 #bh4 ,turn+ n[ to an important error ( ,mr4 ,mill's 9 respect ( omission1 ,i firmly believe t all compet5t writ]s :o h ev] und]tak5 to support ! argum5t f ,design1 h be5 mov$ to d s by _! in/9ctive appreciation ( ! mu* m important argum5t1 :i* ,mill does n m5tion at all & :i* we n[ proce$ to consid]--! argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws4 ,t is to say1 ,i _c ?9k t any "o compet5t writ] ev] s]i\sly believ$1 _h he tak5 "t to analyse 8 beliefs1 t ! cog5cy ( 8 argum5t lay 9 assum+ any k conc]n+ ! process ( div9e ?\ght2 he mu/ h really believ$ t x lay entirely 9 8 obs]vation ( ! product ( div9e ?\ght--or r1 let u say1 ( div9e intellig5ce4 ,n[ ?is is ! :ole diff]5ce betwe5 ! argum5t f ,design & ! argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws4 ,! argum5t f ,design says1 ,!re mu/ be a ,god1 because su* & su* an organic /ructure mu/ h be5 due to su* & su* an intellectual process4 ,! argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws says1 ,!re mu/ be a ,god1 because su* & su* an organic /ructure mu/ 9 "s way or o!r h be5 ultimately due to intellig5ce4 ,nor does ?is argum5t end "h4 ,n only mu/ su* & su* an organic /ructure h be5 ultimately due to intellig5ce1 b e su* /ructure--nay1 e ph5om5on 9 ! univ]se--mu/ h be5 ! same2 = all ph5om5a are alike subject to ! same me?od ( sequ5ce4 ,! argum5t is ?us a cumulative "o2 = z !re is no s+le kn[n exception to ?is univ]sal mode ( exi/5ce1 ! unit$ effect ( s va/ a body ( evid5ce is all b irresi/ible1 & its t5d5cy is cle>ly to po9t u to "s "o explanatory cause4 ,! scope ( ?is argum5t is !re=e co-ext5sive ) ! univ]se2 x draws alike ^u all ph5om5a ) :i* exp]i5ce is acqua9t$4 ,= in/ance1 x conta9s all ! ph5om5a cov]$ by ! ,design argum5t1 j z a g5us conta9s any "o ( its species2 x be+ manife/1 f :at 0 said 9 ! la/ section1 t if ! g5]al doctr9e ( ,evolution is accept$1 ! argum5t f ,design mu/ ( necessity m]ge into t f ,g5]al ,laws4 ,& ?is wide basis1 we may be sure1 mu/ be ! mo/ legitimate "o :]eon to re/ an argum5t 9 fav\r ( ,!ism4 ,if !re is any su* ?+ z su* an argum5t at all1 ! mo/ unassailable field = its display mu/ be ! univ]se z a :ole1 see+ t if we sep>ate any "o section ( ! univ]se f ! re/1 & suppose t we "h discov] a diff]5t k9d ( te/imony to intellig5ce f t :i* we c discov] else:]e1 we may f analogy be abundantly sure t on ! conf9es ( our division !re mu/ be second causes & g5]al laws at "w 7:e!r discov]able or n71 :i* are ! imm$iate ag5ts 9 ! production ( ! obs]v$ results4 ,( c\rse ,i d n d5y t "s classes ( ph5om5a af=d u m & bett] pro(s ( intellectual ag5cy ?an d o!rs1 9 ! s5se ( ! laws 9 op]ation be+ m num]\s1 subtle1 & complex2 b x w be se5 t ?is is a diff]5t int]pretation ( ! evid5ce f t aga9/ :i* ,i am cont5d+4 ,?us1 if !re are tok5s ( div9e int5tion 7z di/+ui%$ f design7 to be met ) 9 ! eye1--if x is inconceivable t s nice & intricate a /ructure %\ld exi/ )\t intellig5ce z its ultimate cause2 !n ! discov]y ( natural selection1 or ( any o!r law1 z ! mann] 9 :i* ?is intellig5ce wr\ght 9 no wise att5uates ! pro( z to ! fact ( an intellig5t cause4 ,on ! contr>y1 x t5ds r to confirm x2 =1 besides ! evid5ce be=e exi/+1 !re is add$ t :i* arises f ! con=mity ( ! me?od to t :i* is obs]vable 9 ! re/ ( ! univ]se4 ,?us1 not)/&+ :at ,hamilton1 ,*alm]s1 & o!rs h said1 ,i _c b feel t ! ubiquit\s action ( g5]al laws is1 ( all facts suppli$ by exp]i5ce1 ! mo/ cog5t 9 its be>+ ^u teleology4 ,if p]petual & un9t]rupt$ uni=mity ( me?od does n indicate ! exi/5ce ( a presid+ intellig5ce1 x becomes a "q :e!r any o!r k9d ( me?od--%ort ( ! intellig5tly miracul\s--c\ld possibly d s2 see+ t ! fur!r ! div9e modus op]&i 7suppos+ su* to exi/7 7 remov$ f absolute uni=mity1 ! great] w\ld be ! room = our int]pret+ x z m]e =tuity4 ,b =asmu* z ! progress ( sci5ce has %[n t )9 exp]i5ce ! me?od ( ! ,supreme ,causality is absolutely uni=m1 ! hypo!sis ( =tuity is r5d]$ irrational2 & let u ?9k ( ?is ,supreme ,causality z we may1 ! fact rema9s t f x !re emanates a directive influ5ce ( un9t]rupt$ consi/5cy1 on a scale ( /up5d\s magnitude & exact precision1 wor?y ( our highe/ possible conceptions ( ,deity4 #bi4 ,_h x be5 my lot to h liv$ 9 ! la/ g5]ation1 ,i d\bt n t ,i %\ld h reg>d$ ! =ego+ consid]ations z f9al3 ,i %\ld h conclud$ t !re 0 an ov]:elm+ balance ( rational probability 9 fav\r ( ,!ism2 & ,i ?9k ,i %\ld also h insi/$ t ?is balance ( rational probability w\ld require to cont9ue z x 0 till ! end ( "t4 ,i %\ld h ma9ta9$1 9 "s su* words z ! foll[+1 9 :i* ! ,rev4 ,bad5 ,p[ell conveys ?is argum5t3--,! v ess5ce ( ! :ole argum5t is ! inv>iable pres]vation ( ! pr9ciple ( ord]3 n necess>ily su* z we c directly recognise1 b ! univ]sal conviction ( ! unfail+ subord9ation ( ev]y?+ to "s gr& pr9ciples ( law1 h[ev] imp]fectly appreh5d$ 9 our p>tial conceptions1 & ! successive subord9ation ( su* laws to o!rs ( /ill high] g5]ality1 to an ext5t transc5d+ our conceptions1 & con/itut+ ! true *a9 ( univ]sal causation :i* culm9ates 9 ! sublime conception ( ! ,,cosmos4 ,x is 9 imm$iate connection ) ?is enl>g$ view ( univ]sal immutable natural ord] t ,i h reg>d$ ! n>r[ notions ( ^? :o obscure ! sublime prospect by imag9+ s unwor?y an idea z t ( occasional int]ruptions 9 ! physical economy ( ! _w4 ,! only in/ance consid]$ 0 t ( ! alleg$ sudd5 sup]natural orig9ation ( new species ( organis$ be+s 9 remote geological epo*s4 ,x is 9 relation to ! broad pr9ciple ( law1 if once rightly appreh5d$1 t su* inf]5ces are se5 to be :olly unw>rant$ by sci5ce1 & su* fancies utt]ly d]ogatory & inadmissible 9 philosophy2 :ile1 ev5 9 ^? in/ances prop]ly und]/ood1 ! real sci5tific conclusions ( ! inv>iable & indissoluble *a9 ( causation /& v9dicat$ 9 ! sublime contemplations ) :i* !y are ?us associat$4 ,to a correct appreh5sion ( ! :ole argum5t1 ! "o ess5tial requisite is to h obta9$ a complete & satisfactory grasp ( ?is "o gr& pr9ciple ( law p]vad+ nature1 or r con/itut+ ! v idea ( nature2--:i* =ms ! vital ess5ce ( ! :ole ( inductive sci5ce1 & ! sole assurance ( ^? high] inf]5ces f ! inductive /udy ( natural causes :i* are ! v9dications ( a supreme intellig5ce & a moral cause4 ,! :ole ( ! ensu+ discussion mu/ /& or fall ) ! admission ( ?is gr& pr9ciple4 ,^? :o are n prep>$ to embrace x 9 its full ext5t may probably n accept ! conclusions2 b !y mu/ be s5t back to ! s*ool ( inductive sci5ce1 :]e alone x mu/ be indep5d5tly imbib$ & ?or\ghly assimilat$ ) ! m9d ( ! /ud5t 9 ! fir/ in/ance4 ,on ! slighte/ consid]ation ( ! nature1 ! f\ndations1 & g5]al results ( inductive sci5ce1444 we recognise ! p[]s ( intellect fitly employ$ 9 ! /udy ( nature1444 pre-em95tly lead+ u to p]ceive 9 nature1 & 9 ! inv>iable & univ]sal con/ancy ( its laws1 ! indications ( univ]sal1 un*angeable1 & recondite arrangem5t1 dep5d5ce1 & connection 9 reason4444 ,we ?us see ! importance ( tak+ a m enl>g$ view ( ! great argum5t ( natural !ology2 & ! necessity = s do+ becomes ! m app>5t :5 we reflect on ! injury to :i* ^! sublime inf]5ces are expos$ f ! n>r[ & unwor?y =m 9 :i* ! reason+ has be5 too (t5 conduct$4444 ,! satisfactory view ( ! :ole case c only be f\nd 9 ^? m enl>g$ conceptions :i* are furni%$ by ! gr& contemplation ( cosmical ord] & unity1 & :i* d n ref] to inf]5ces f ! pa/1 b to pro(s ( ! ev]-pres5t m9d & reason 9 nature4 ,if we read a book :i* x requires mu* ?\ght & ex]cise ( reason to und]/&1 b :i* we f9d discloses m & m tru? & reason z we proce$ 9 ! /udy1 & conta9s cle>ly m ?an we c at pres5t compreh5d1 !n und5iably we prop]ly say t ?\ght & reason exi/ 9 t book irrespectively ( our m9ds1 & equally s ( any "q z to its au?or or orig94 ,su* a book confess$ly exi/s1 & is ev] op5 to u 9 ! natural _w4 ,or1 to put ! case "u a slightly diff]5t =m3--,:5 ! a/ronom]1 ! physici/1 ! geologi/1 or ! naturali/ notes d[n a s]ies ( obs]v$ facts or measur$ dates1 he is n an au?or express+ 8 own ideas1--he is a m]e amanu5sis tak+ d[n ! dictations ( nature3 8 obs]vation book is ! record ( ! ?\ghts ( ano!r m9d3 he has b set d[n lit]ally :at he himself does n und]/&1 or only v imp]fectly4 ,on fur!r exam9ation1 & aft] deep & anxi\s /udy1 he p]haps beg9s to deciph] ! mean+1 by p]ceiv+ "s law :i* gives a signification to ! facts2 & ! fur!r he pursues ! inve/igation up to any m compreh5sive !ory1 ! m fully he p]ceives t !re is a high] reason1 ( :i* 8 own is b ! humbl] int]pret]1 & into ^: dep?s he may p5etrate cont9ually fur!r1 to discov] yet m pr(\nd & inv>iable ord] & sy/em1 always indicat+ /ill deep] & m hidd5 abysses yet unfa?om$1 b ?r\gh\t :i* he is assur$ ! same recondite & immutable arrangem5t ev] prevails4 ,t :i* requires ?\ght & reason to und]/& mu/ be itself ?\ght & reason4 ,t :i* m9d alone c inve/igate or express mu/ be itself m9d4 ,& if ! highe/ conception atta9$ is b p>tial1 !n ! m9d & reason /udi$ is great] ?an ! m9d & reason ( ! /ud5t4 ,if ! m x be /udi$ ! m va/ & complex is ! necess>y connection 9 reason disclos$1 !n ! m evid5t is ! va/ ext5t & compass ( ! intellig5ce ?us p>tially manife/$1 & its reality1 z exi/+ 9 ! immutably connect$ ord] ( objects exam9$1 indep5d5tly ( ! m9d ( ! inve/igator4 ,b consid]ations ( ?is k9d1 j & transc5d5tly important z !y are 9 !mselves1 give u no aid 9 any inquiry into ! orig9 ( ! ord] ( ?+s ?us inve/igat$1 or ! nature or o!r attributes ( ! m9d ev9c$ 9 !m4 ,! real argum5t = univ]sal intellig5ce1 manife/$ 9 ! univ]sality ( ord] & law 9 ! mat]ial _w1 is v diff]5t f any attempt to give a =m to our conceptions1 ev5 by ! language ( analogy1 z to ! nature or mode ( exi/5ce or op]ation ( t intellig5ce i4e41 z ,i h /at$ ! case1 ! argum5t c only re/ on a /udy ( ! products1 z di/+ui%$ f ! processes ( su* intellig5ce3 & /ill m diff]5t f any ext5sion ( our inf]5ce f :at is to :at may h be51 f pres5t ord] to a suppos$ orig9ation1 fir/ adju/m5t1 or plann+ ( t ord]4 ,by keep+ ^! di/9ctions /eadily 9 view1 we appreciate prop]ly bo? ! limits & ! ext5t & compass ( :at we may appropriately call ,,cosmo!ology4#ai ,i h quot$ ^! passages at l5g?1 because !y convey 9 a m =cible1 gu>d$1 & accurate mann] ?an any o!rs ) :i* ,i am acqua9t$1 ! /rictly rational /&+ ( ?is great subject prior to ! date at :i* ! above-quot$ passage 0 writt54 ,!re=e1 z ,i h said1 if x _h be5 my lot to h liv$ 9 ! la/ g5]ation1 ,i %\ld c]ta9ly h re/$ 9 ^! sublime conceptions z 9 an argum5t supreme & irrefutable4 ,i %\ld h felt t ! progress ( physical k c\ld nev] ex]t any o!r influ5ce on ,!ism ?an t ( ev] t5d+ m & m to confirm t magnific5t belief1 by cont9u\sly exp&+ our human ?\ghts into progressively advanc+ conceptions1 ev] gr&] & yet m gr&1 ( t trem5d\s ,orig9 ( ,?+s--! ,m9d ( ,god4 ,su* w\ld h be5 my hope--su* w\ld h be5 my pray]4 ,b n[1 h[ *ang$6 ,nev] 9 ! hi/ory ( man has s t]rific a calamity befall5 ! race z t :i* all :o look may n[ behold advanc+ z a deluge1 black ) de/ruction1 resi/less 9 might1 uproot+ our mo/ *]i%$ hopes1 engulf+ our mo/ preci\s cre$1 & bury+ our highe/ life 9 m9dless desolation4 ,sci5ce1 :om er/:ile we ?\ght a v ,angel ( ,god1 po9t+ to t great b>ri] ( ,law1 & proclaim+ to ! re/less sea ( *ang+ d\bt1 ,hi!rto %alt ?\ come1 b no fur!r1 & "h %all ?y pr\d waves be /ay$1--ev5 ,sci5ce has n[ h]self ?r[n d[n ?is tru/$ b>ri]2 ! flood-gates ( infidelity are op51 & ,a!ism ov]:elm+ is ^u u4 #cj4 ,all & e law foll[s z a necess>y consequ5ce f ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! prim>y qualities ( matt]4#bj ,t ?is mu/ be s is evid5t if we consid] t1 7 x n s1 =ce c\ld n be p]man5t nor matt] con/ant4 ,= in/ance1 if action & reaction 7 n inv>iably equal & opposite1 =ce w\ld n be inv>iably p]si/5t1 see+ t 9 no case c ! =mula fail1 unless "s "o or o!r ( ! =ces conc]n$1 or p>ts ( !m1 disappe>4 ,& z ) a simple law ( ?is k9d1 s ) e o!r natural law & int]-op]ation ( laws1 h[soev] complex su* int]-op]ation may be2 = x is manife/ t if 9 any case simil> antec$5ts did n det]m9e simil> consequ5ts1 on "o or o!r ( ^! occasions "s quantum ( =ce1 or ( matt]1 or ( bo?1 mu/ h disappe>$--or1 :i* is ! same ?+1 ! law ( causation _c h be5 con/ant4 ,e natural law1 !re=e1 may be def9$ z ! =mula ( a sequ5ce1 :i* mu/ ei!r ensue ^u c]ta9 =ces ( a giv5 int5sity imp++ ^u c]ta9 giv5 quantities1 k9ds1 & =ms ( matt]1 or else1 by n ensu+1 prove t ! =ce or ! matt] conc]n$ 7 n ( a p]man5t nature4 #ca4 ,! argum5t1 !n1 :i* 0 elaborat$ 9 #bi1 & :i* has s long & s g5]ally receiv$ ! popul> sanction 9 ! common-s5se epitome1 t 9 ! la/ record !re mu/ be m9d 9 ext]nal nature1 s9ce t :i* x requires ?\ght & reason to und]/& mu/ itself be ?\ght & reason1--?is argum5t1 ,i say1 mu/ n[ = ev] be ab&on$ by reasonable m54 ,no d\bt x w\ld be easy to po9t to sev]al speculative ?9k]s :o h previ\sly combat$ ?is argum5t1#ba & f ?is fact "s read]s w p]haps be incl9$ to judge1 f a false analogy1 t z ! argum5t 9 "q has )/ood previ\s assaults1 x ne$ n necess>ily succumb to ! pres5t "o4 ,be x obs]v$1 h[ev]1 t ! pres5t assault diff]s f all previ\s assaults1 j z demon/ration diff]s f speculation4 ,:at has hi!rto be5 b m]e guess & unw>rantable ass]tion has n[ become a matt] ( ! greate/ c]ta9ty4 ,t ! argum5t f ,g5]al ,laws is a futile argum5t1 is no long] a matt] ( unv]ifiable op9ion3 x is z sure z is ! mo/ fundam5tal axiom ( sci5ce4 ,t ! argum5t w long rema9 9 illogical m9ds1 ,i d\bt n2 b t x is f h5ce=? q inadmissible 9 accurate ?9k+1 !re c be no "q4 ,= ! sake1 h[ev]1 ( impress+ ?is fact /ill m /rongly ^u su* read]s z h be5 accu/om$ to rely ^u ?is argum5t1 & s f9d x difficult ?us abruptly to rev]se ! :ole curr5t ( _! ?\ghts1--= ! sake ( su*1 ,i %all "h add a few rem>ks ) ! view ( facilitat+ ! conception ( an univ]sal ,ord] exi/+ indep5d5tly ( ,m9d4 #cb4 ,int]pret+ ! mazy nexus ( ph5om5a only by ! facts :i* sci5ce has reveal$1 & :at conclusion are we driv5 to accept8 ,cle>ly1 look+ to :at has be5 said 9 ! la/ two sections1 t f ! "t :5 ! process ( evolution fir/ began1--f ! "t be=e ! cond5sation ( ! nebula _h %[$ any signs ( comm5c+1--e subsequ5t *ange or ev5t ( evolution 0 necess>ily b\nd to ensue2 else =ce & matt] h n be5 p]si/5t4 ,h[ !n1 x w be ask$1 did ! va/ nexus ( natural laws :i* is n[ obs]vable ev] beg9 or cont9ue to be8 ,9 ?is way4 ,:5 ! fir/ womb ( ?+s 0 pregnant ) all ! future1 !re w\ld probably h be5 exi/5t at any rate n m ?an "o ( ! =mul :i* we n[ call natural laws4 ,?is "o law1 ( c\rse1 w\ld h be5 ! law ( gravitation4 ,"h we may take our /&4 ,x does n signify :e!r !re ev] 0 a "t :5 gravitation 0 n1--i4e41 if ev] !re 0 a "t :5 matt]1 z we n[ "k x1 0 n 9 exi/5ce2--= if !re ev] 0 su* a "t1 !re is no reason to d\bt1 b e reason to conclude1 t ! evolution ( matt]1 z we n[ "k x1 0 accompli%$ 9 accordance ) law4 ,simil>ly1 we are n conc]n$ ) ! "q z to h[ ! law ( gravitation came to be associat$ ) matt]2 = x is ov]:elm+ly probable1 f ! ext5t ( ! analogy1 t if our k conc]n+ molecul> physics 7 suffici5tly great1 ! exi/5ce ( ! law 9 "q w\ld be f\nd to foll[ z a necess>y d$uction f ! prim>y qualities ( matt] & =ce1 j z we c n[ see t1 :5 pres5t1 its peculi> quantitative action necess>ily foll[s f ! prim>y qualities ( space4 ,/>t+1 !n1 ) ^! data1--matt]1 =ce1 & ! law ( gravitation1--:at mu/ happ58 ,we h ! /ronge/ sci5tific reason to believe t ! matt] ( ! sol> sy/em primordially exi/$ 9 a highly diffus$ or nebul\s =m4 ,by mutual gravitation1 !re=e1 all ! sub/ance ( ! nebula mu/ h begun to conc5trate ^u itself1 or to cond5se4 ,n[1 f ?is po9t onw>ds1 ,i wi% x to be cle>ly und]/ood t ! m]e consid]ation ( ! suppos$ facts n admitt+ ( sci5tific pro(1 or ( sci5tific explanation if true1 9 no wise affects ! c]ta9ty ( ! doctr9e :i* ^! facts are "h adduc$ to e/abli%4 ,fully grant+ t ! alleg$ facts are n beyond dispute1 & t1 ev5 if true1 innum]able o!r unkn[n & unkn[able facts mu/ h be5 associat$ ) !m--fully admitt+1 9 %ort1 t our ideas conc]n+ ! g5esis ( ! sol> sy/em are ( ! crude/ & lea/ tru/wor?y "*2 /ill1 if x be admitt$1 :at at ! pres5t day only ignorance or prejudice c d5y1 viz41 t1 z a :ole1 evolution has be5 ! me?od ( ! univ]se2 !n x foll[s t ! doctr9e "h cont5d$ = is z c]ta9ly true z x w\ld be 7 we fully acqua9t$ ) e cause & e *ange :i* has act$ & ensu$ ?r\gh\t ! :ole process ( ! g5esis ( ?+s4 ,n[1 be>+ ?is caveat 9 m9d1 we h next to obs]ve t :5 once ! nebula began to cond5se1 new relations among its con/itu5t p>ts w\ld1 = ?is reason1 beg9 to be e/abli%$4 ,giv5 a r>e & widely diffus$ mass ( nebul\s matt]1444 :at are ! successive *anges t w take place8 ,mutual gravitation w approximate its atoms1 b _! approximation w be oppos$ by atomic repulsion1 ! ov]com+ ( :i* implies ! evolution ( heat4 ,t is to say1 ! cond5sation ( ! nebula z a :ole ( necessity implies at lea/ ! orig9ation ( ^! new mat]ial & dynamical relations among its con/itu5t p>ts4 ,z fa/ z ?is heat p>tially escapes by radiation1 fur!r approximation w take place1 att5d$ by fur!r evolution ( heat1 & s on cont9u\sly3 ! processes n occurr+ sep>ately1 z "h describ$1 b simultane\sly1 un9t]rupt$ly1 & ) increas+ activity4 ,h5ce ! newly e/abli%$ relations cont9u\sly acquire new increm5ts ( int5sity4 ,b n[ obs]ve a m important po9t4 ,! previ\s ess5tial conditions rema9+ unalt]$--viz41 ! p]si/5ce ( matt] & =ce1 z well z1 or r let u say & consequ5tly1 ! law ( gravitation--^! conditions1 ,i say1 rema9+ con/ant1 & ! newly e/abli%$ relations w\ld necess>ily ( !mselves give orig9 to new laws4 ,= :5ev] two giv5 quantities ( =ce & matt] met 9 "o ( ! novel relations1 !y w\ld ( necessity give rise to novel effects2 & :5ev]1 on any future occasion1 simil> quantities ( =ce & matt] aga9 s met1 precisely simil> effects w\ld ( necessity require to occur3 b ! occurr5ce ( simil> effects "u simil> conditions is all t we mean by a natural law4 ,cont9u+1 !n1 our quotation f ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]'s t]se & lucid exposition ( ! nebul> !ory1 we f9d ?is doctr9e virtually embodi$ 9 ! next s5t5ces3--,ev5tually ?is sl[ movem5t ( ! atoms t[>ds _! common c5tre ( gravity w br+ ab\t ph5om5a ( ano!r ord]4 ,argu+ f ! kn[n laws ( atomic comb9ation1 x w happ5 t1 :5 ! nebul\s mass has rea*$ a p>ticul> /age ( cond5sation--:5 its int]nally situat$ atoms h approa*$ to )9 c]ta9 di/ances1 h g5]at$ a c]ta9 am\nt ( heat1 & are subject to a c]ta9 mutual pressure 7! heat & pressure increas+ z ! aggregation progresses71 "s ( !m w sudd5ly ent] into *emical union4 ,:e!r ! b9>y atoms s produc$ be ( k9ds su* z we "k1 :i* is possible1 or :e!r !y be ( k9ds simpl] ?an any we "k1 :i* is m probable1 matt]s n to ! argum5t4 ,x suffices t molecul> comb9ations ( "s species w f9ally take place4 ,we h1 !n1 "h a new & important *ange ( relations4 ,matt]1 primordially uni=m1 has itself become het]og5e\s2 & 9 z _m places z x has ?us *ang$ its /ate1 x mu/1 9 virtue ( ! fact1 give rise to o!r hi!rto novel relations1 & s1 9 _m cases1 to new laws4#bb ,x w\ld be t$i\s & unnecess>y to trace ?is g5esis ( natural law any fur!r3 inde$1 x w\ld be q impossible s to trace x = any consid]able di/ance )\t feel+ t ! ev]-multiply+ mazes ( relations r5d]s all speculation z to ! actual processes q useless4 ,?is fact1 h[ev]1 z be=e insi/$1 9 no wise affects ! only doctr9e :i* ,i "h enunciate--viz41 t ! self-g5]ation ( natural law is a necess>y coroll>y f ! p]si/5ce ( matt] & =ce4 ,& t ?is mu/ be s is n[1 ,i hope1 suffici5tly evid5t4 ,j z 9 ! fir/ dawn ( ?+s1 :5 ! proto-b9>y comp\nds ( matt] gave rise to new relations toge!r ) _! appropriate laws1 s ?r\gh\t ! :ole process ( evolution1 z (t5 z matt] acquir$ a hi!rto novel /ate1 or 9 "o ( its old /ates ent]$ into hi!rto novel relations1 s (t5 w\ld non-exi/5t or ev5 impossible laws become at once possible & necess>y4 ,& 9 ?is way ,i _c see t !re is any reason to /op until we arrive at all ! m>vell\s complexity ( ?+s z !y are4 ,= aught t speculative reason c ev] f h5ce=? %[ to ! contr>y1 ! evolution ( all ! div]se ph5om5a ( inorganic nature1 ( life1 & ( m9d1 appe>s to be z necess>y & z self-det]m9$ z is ! be+ ( t my/]i\s ,some?+ :i* is ,ev]y?+1--! ,entity we mu/ all believe 91 :i* )\t condition & beyond relation holds its exi/5ce 9 itself4 #cc4 ,does x /ill seem incr$ible t1 not)/&+ x requires m5tal processes to int]pret ext]nal nature1 ext]nal nature may nev]!less be de/itute ( m9d8 ,!n let u look at ! subject on its obv]se aspect4 ,accord+ to ! !ory ( evolution--:i*1 be x always rememb]$1 is no m]e gratuit\s supposition1 b a g5u9e sci5tific !ory--human intellig5ce1 l ev]y?+ else1 has be5 evolv$4 ,n[ 9 :at does ! evolution ( intellig5ce consi/8 ,any "o acqua9t$ ) ! writ+s ( our great philosoph] c h no hesitation 9 answ]+3 ,cle>ly & only 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( m & m num]\s & complex int]nal or psy*ological relations4 ,9 o!r words1 ! law ( intellig5ce be+ t ! /r5g?s ( ! inn] cohesions betwe5 psy*ical /ates mu/ be proportionate to ! p]si/5ces ( ! out] relations symbolis$1 x foll[s t ! developm5t ( intellig5ce is secur$ by ! "o simple pr9ciple t exp]i5ce ( ! out] relations produces inn] cohesions1 & makes ! inn] cohesions /rong 9 proportion z ! out] relations are p]si/5t4 ,n[ ! "q be=e u at pres5t is m]ely ?is3--,mu/ we n inf] t ^! out] relations are regulat$ by m9d1 see+ t ord] is und\bt$ly app>5t among !m1 & t x requires m5tal processes on our "p to int]pret ?is ord]8 ,! only legitimate answ] to ?is "q is1 t ^! out] relations may be regulat$ by m9d1 b t1 9 view ( ! evolution !ory1 we are c]ta9ly n entitl$ to inf] t !y are s regulat$1 m]ely because x requires m5tal processes on our "p to int]pret _! ord]ly "*4 ,= if x is true t ! human m9d 0 itself evolv$ by ^! out] relations--ev] cont9u\sly m\ld$ into con=mity ) !m z ! prime condition ( its exi/5ce--!n its process ( int]pret+ !m is b reflect+ 7z x 77 9 consci\sness ^! out] relations by :i* ! inn] ones 7 orig9ally produc$4 ,grant+ t1 z a matt] ( fact1 an objective macrocosm exi/s1 & if we c prove or r5d] probable t ?is objective macrocosm is ( itself suffici5t to evolve a subjective microcosm1 ,i d n see any ! fa9te/ reason = ! latt] to conclude t a self-consci\s intellig5ce is inh]5t 9 ! =m]1 m]ely because x is able to trace 9 ! macrocosm "s ( ^? ord]ly objective relations by :i* its own correspond+ subjective relations 7 orig9ally produc$4 ,if x is said t x is impossible to conceive h[1 ap>t f m9d1 ! ord]ly objective relations !mselves c ev] h orig9at$1 ,i reply t ?is is m]ely to %ift ! gr\nd ( discussion to t :i* occupi$ u 9 ! la/ section3 all we are n[ engag$ ^u is1--,grant+ t ! exi/5ce ( su* ord]ly relations is actual1 :e!r ) or )\t m9d to acc\nt = !m2 & grant+ also t ^! relations are ( !mselves suffici5t to produce correspond+ subjective relations2 !n ! m]e fact ( our consci\s intellig5ce be+ able to discov] num]\s & complex out] relations answ]+ to ^? :i* !y !mselves h caus$ 9 our intellig5ce1 does n w>rant ! latt] 9 conclud+ t ! causal connection betwe5 intellig5ce & non-intellig5ce has ev] be5 rev]s$--t ^! out] relations 9 turn are caus$ by a simil> consci\s intellig5ce4 ,h[ su* a ?+ z a consci\s intellig5ce is possible is ano!r & :olly unansw]able "q 7?\gh n m s ?an t z to ! exi/5ce ( =ce & matt]1 & w\ld n be r5d]$ less s by m]g+ ! fact 9 a hypo!tical ,deity72 b grant+1 z we mu/1 t su* an entity does exi/1 & suppos+ x to h be5 evolv$ by natural causes1 !n x w\ld appe> inconte/ably to foll[1 t :e!r or n objective exi/5ce is presid$ ov] by objective m9d1 our subjective m9d w\ld alike & equally require to read 9 ! facts ( ! ext]nal _w an indication1 :e!r true or false1 ( "s su* presid+ ag5cy4 ,! subjective m9d be+1 by ! supposition1 b ! obv]se aspect ( ! sum total ( su* among objective relations z h _h a %>e 9 its production1 :51 z 9 obs]vation & reflection1 ?is obv]se aspect is aga9 inv]t$ ^u its die1 x naturally fits m or less exactly into all ! pr9ts4 #cd4 ,?is la/ illu/ration1 h[ev]1 s]ves to introduce u to ano!r po9t4 ,! suppos$ evid5ce f :i* ! exi/5ce ( m9d 9 nature is inf]r$ does n always dep5d ^u su* m9ute correspond5ces betwe5 subjective me?od & objective me?od z ! illu/ration sugge/s4 ,e natural !ologian has exp]i5c$ m or less difficulty 9 expla9+ ! fact1 t :ile !re is a tol]ably g5]al simil>ity betwe5 ! contrivances due to human ?\ght & ! app>5t contrivances 9 nature :i* he reg>ds z due to div9e ?\ght1 ! simil>ity is nev]!less only g5]al4 ,= in/ance1 if a man has occasion to devise any artificial appliance1 he does s ) ! lea/ possible co/ ( lab\r to himself1 & ) ! lea/ possible exp5diture ( mat]ial4 ,yet x is obvi\s t 9 nature z a :ole no su* economic consid]ations obta94 ,d\btless by sup]ficial m9ds ?is ass]tion w be met at fir/ ) an indignant d5ial3 !y h be5 accu/om$ to accumulate in/ances ( ?is v pr9ciple ( economy 9 nature2 p]haps writt5 ab\t x 9 books1 & illu/rat$ x 9 lectures1--totally ignor+ ! fact t ! in/ances ( economy 9 nature be> no proportion at all to ! in/ances ( prodigality4 ,conceive ( ! =ce :i* is be+ q uselessly exp5d$ by all ! w9d-curr5ts :i* are at ?is mom5t bl[+ ov] ! face ( ,europe4 ,imag9e ! en]gy t mu/ h be5 dissipat$ dur+ ! secul> cool+ ( ?is s+le planet4 ,feebly try to ?9k ( :at ! sun is radiat+ into space4 ,if x is retort$ t we are incompet5t to judge ( ! purposes ( ! ,almighty1 ,i reply t ?is is b to ab&on ! argum5t f economy :5ev] x is f\nd unt5able3 we presume to be compet5t judges ( almighty purposes s long z !y appe> to imitate our own2 b s soon z !re is any div]g5ce obs]vable1 we *ange front4 ,by ?us select+ all ! in/ances ( economy 9 nature1 & disreg>d+ all ! va/ly great] in/ances ( reckless wa/e1 we are m]ely lay+ ourselves op5 to ! *>ge ( an unfair eclecticism4 ,& ?is =mal refutation ( ! argum5t f economy admits ( be+ fur!r ju/ifi$ 9 a /rik+ly sub/antial mann]2 = if all ! examples ( economy 9 nature t 7 ev] obs]v$1 or admit be+ obs]v$1 7 collect$ into "o view1 ,i und]take to affirm t1 )\t exception1 !y w\ld be f\nd to m>%al !mselves 9 "o great company--! subjects ^: law is survival ( ! fitte/4 ,"o "q only w ,i "h ask4 ,is x possible at ! pres5t day = any degree ( prejudice1 aft] due consid]ation1 to )/& ! fact t ! solit>y exceptions to ! univ]sal prodigality s pa9fully conspicu\s 9 nature are to be f\nd :]e !re is also to be f\nd a full & adequate physical explanation ( _! occurr5ce8 ,b1 aga91 prodigality is only "o ( sev]al p>ticul>s :]e9 ! modes & ! means ( ! suppos$ div9e intellig5ce diff] f ^? ( its human c\nt]p>t4 ,comp>ative anatomi/s c po9t to organic /ructures :i* are f> f be+ !oretically p]fect3 ev5 ! m9d ( man 9 ^! cases1 not)/&+ its confess$ defici5cies 9 respect bo? ( cognitive & cogitative p[]s1 is compet5t to sugge/ improvem5ts to an intellig5ce suppos$ to be omnisci5t & all-wise6 ,& :at %all we say ( ! num]\s cases 9 :i* ! suppos$ purposes ( ?is intellig5ce c\ld h be5 atta9$ by o!r & less r\ndab\t means8 ,9 %ort1 n ne$lessly to prolong discussion1 x is admitt$1 ev5 by natural !ologians !mselves1 t ! difficulties ( reconcil+1 ev5 approximately1 ! suppos$ processes ( div9e ?\ght ) ! kn[n processes ( human ?\ght are q insup]able4 ,! fact is express$ by su* writ]s 9 v>i\s ways1--e4g41 t x w\ld be presumptu\s 9 man to expect complete con=mity 9 all cases2 t ! c\nsels ( ,god are pa/ f9d+ out2 t 8 ways are n z our ways1 & s on4 ,obs]v+ only1 z be=e1 t 9 ?us ignor+ adv]se cases natural !ologians are guilty ( an unfair eclecticism1 x is evid5t t all su* expressions conc$e ! fact1 t ev5 9 ^? prov9ces ( nature :]e ! evid5ce ( sup]human intellig5ce appe>s mo/ pla91 ! resemblance ( its app>5t products to ^? ( human intellig5ce consi/s 9 a g5]al approximation ( me?od r ?an 9 any precise simil>ity ( p>ticul>s3 ! lik5ess is g5]ic r ?an specific4 ,n[ ?is is exactly :at we %\ld expect to be ! case1 if ! simil>ity 9 "q be due to ! cause :i* ! pres5t section endeav\rs to set =?4 ,if all natural laws are self-evolv$1 & if human intellig5ce is b a subjective photograph ( c]ta9 among _! int]relations1 x seems b natural t :5 ?is photograph comp>es itself ) ! :ole ext]nal _w f p>ts ( :i* x 0 tak51 its subjective lights & %ad[s %\ld be f\nd to correspond ) "s ( ! objective lights & %ad[s mu* m p]fectly ?an ) o!rs4 ,/ill !re w\ld d\btless be suffici5t g5]al con=mity to lead ! ?9k+ photograph to conclude t ! great _w ( objective reality1 in/ead ( be+ ! cause ( su* con=mity z exi/s1 0 itself ! effect ( "s common cause1--t x too 0 ( ! nature ( a picture4 ,dropp+ ! figure1 if x is true t human intellig5ce has be5 evolv$ by natural law1 !n 9 view ( all t has be5 said x mu/ n[1 ,i ?9k1 be tol]ably app>5t1 t z by ! hypo!sis human intellig5ce has always be5 requir$ to ?9k & to act 9 con=mity ) law1 human intellig5ce mu/ at la/ be 9 dang] ( confus+ or id5tify+ ! fact ( action 9 con=mity ) law ) ! exi/5ce & ! action ( a self-consci\s intellig5ce4 ,read+ !n 9 ext]nal nature innum]able examples ( action 9 con=mity ) law1 human intellig5ce falls back ^u ! unw>rantable id5tification1 & out ( ! b>e fact t law exi/s 9 nature concludes t beyond nature !re is an ,intellig5t ,lawgiv]4 #ce4 ,f :at has be5 said 9 ! la/ five sections1 x manife/ly foll[s t all ! v>i$ ph5om5a ( ! univ]se n only may1 b mu/1 dep5d ^u ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! prim>y qualities ( matt]4#bc ,be x rememb]$ t ! object ( ! la/ ?ree sections 0 m]ely to facilitate conception ( ! fact t x does n at all foll[1 because ! ph5om5a ( ext]nal nature admit ( be+ intellig5tly inquir$ into1 !re=e !y are due to an intellig5t cause4 ,! la/ ?ree sections are h5ce 9 a mann] p>5!tical1 & x is ( comp>atively little importance :e!r or n !y h be5 successful 9 _! object2 =1 f :at w5t be=e1 x is abundantly manife/ t1 :e!r or n ! subjective side ( ! "q admits ( satisfactory elucidation1 !re c be no d\bt t ! objective side ( x is z c]ta9 z are ! fundam5tal axioms ( sci5ce4 ,x does n admit ( "o mom5t's que/ion+ t x is z c]ta9ly true t all ! exquisite beauty & melodi\s h>mony ( nature foll[ z necess>ily & z inevitably f ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! prim>y qualities ( matt]1 z x is c]ta9ly true t =ce is p]si/5t1 or t matt] is ext5d$ & imp5etrable4 ,no d\bt ?is g5]alisation is too va/ to be adequately conceiv$1 b !re c be equally little d\bt t x is necess>ily true4 ,if matt] & =ce h be5 et]nal1 s f> z human m9d c so> x c discov] no ne$ ( a sup]ior m9d to expla9 ! v>i$ ph5om5a ( exi/5ce4 ,man has truly become 9 a new s5se ! measure ( ! univ]se1 & 9 ?is ! late/ & mo/ appall+ ( 8 s\nd+s1 indications are return$ f ! inf9ite voids ( space & "t by :i* he is surr\nd$1 t 8 intellig5ce1 ) all its noble capacities = love & adoration1 is yet alone--de/itute ( ki? or k9 9 all ?is univ]se ( be+4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,v4 ,,! ,,logical ,,/&+ ,,( ,,! ,,"q ,,z ,,to ,,! ,,be+ ,,( ,a ,,god4 #cf4 ,b ! discussion mu/ n end "h4 ,inexorable logic has =c$ u to conclude t1 view+ ! "q z to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god only by ! light :i* mod]n sci5ce has %$ ^u x1 !re no long] appe>s to be any semblance ( an argum5t 9 its fav\r4 ,let u !n turn ^u sci5ce h]self1 & "q h] "r to be our sole guide 9 ?is matt]4 ,und\bt$ly we h no alt]native b to conclude t ! hypo!sis ( m9d 9 nature is n[ logically prov$ to be z c]ta9ly sup]flu\s is ! v basis ( all sci5ce is c]ta9ly true4 ,!re c no long] be any m d\bt t ! exi/5ce ( a ,god is :olly unnecess>y to expla9 any ( ! ph5om5a ( ! univ]se1 ?an !re is d\bt t if ,i leave g ( my p5 x w fall ^u ! table4 ,nay1 ! d\bt is ev5 less ?an ?is1 because :ile ! k t my p5 w fall if ,i all[ x to d s is f\nd$ *iefly ^u empirical k 7,i c\ld n pr$ict ) priori c]ta9ty t x w\ld s fall1 = ! p5 might be 9 an electrical /ate1 or subject to "s set ( unkn[n natural laws antagoni/ic to gravity71 ! k t a ,deity is sup]flu\s z an explanation ( any?+1 be+ gr\nd$ on ! doctr9e ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce1 is gr\nd$ on an priori necessity ( reason--i4e41 if ?is fact 7 n s1 our sci5ce1 our ?\ght1 our v exi/5ce itself1 w\ld be sci5tifically impossible4 ,b n[1 hav+ ?us /at$ ! case z /rongly z ,i am able1 x rema9s to "q h[ f> ! au?ority ( sci5ce ext5ds4 ,ev5 our k ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ( ! prim>y qualities ( matt] is b ( relative significance4 ,deep] ?an ! f\ndations ( our exp]i5ce1 deep] ?an demon/ration--deep] ev5 ?an def9ite cognition1--deep z ! v nature ( m9d1#bd are ^! ! mo/ ultimate ( kn[n tru?s2 b :]e f ?is is our w>rant = conclud+ ) c]ta9ty t ^! kn[n tru?s are ev]y:]e & et]nally true8 ,x w be said t !re is a /rong analogical probability4 ,p]haps s1 b ( ?is next3 ,i am n n[ speak+ ( probability2 ,i am speak+ ( c]ta9ty2 & unless we d5y ! doctr9e ( ! relativity ( k1 we _c b conclude t !re is no absolute c]ta9ty 9 ?is case4 ,z ,i deem ?is consid]ation "o ( great importance1 ,i %all proce$ to develop x at "s l5g?4 ,x w be obs]v$1 !n1 t ! consid]ation really am\nts to ?is3--,al?\gh x mu/ on all h&s be admitt$ t ! fact ( ! !i/ic hypo!sis n be+ requir$ to expla9 any ( ! ph5om5a ( nature is a fact :i* has be5 demon/rat$ sci5tifically1 nev]!less x mu/ likewise on all h&s be admitt$ t ?is fact has n1 & _c be1 demon/rat$ logically4 ,or ?us1 al?\gh x is unque/ionably true t s f> z sci5ce c p5etrate %e _c disc]n any speculative necessity = a ,god1 x may nev]!less be true t if sci5ce c\ld p5etrate fur!r %e might disc]n "s su* necessity4 ,n[ ! pres5t discussion w\ld cle>ly be incomplete if x neglect$ to def9e z c>efully ?is ! logical /&+ ( our subject1 z x has hi!rto endeav\r$ to def9e its sci5tific /&+4 ,z a f9al /ep 9 our analysis1 !re=e1 we mu/ altoge!r quit ! region ( exp]i5ce1 &1 ignor+ ev5 ! v f\ndations ( sci5ce & s all ! mo/ c]ta9 ( relative tru?s1 pass into ! transc5d5tal region ( purely =mal consid]ations4 ,9 ?is region !i/ & a!i/ mu/ alike cons5t to =ego all _! individual pr$ilections1 &1 aft] reg>d+ ! subject z x 7 9 ! ab/ract & by ! light ( pure logic alone1 f9ally come to an agreem5t z to ! transc5d5tal probability ( ! "q be=e !m4 ,disreg>d+ ! actual probability :i* !y sev]ally feel to exi/ 9 relation to _! own individual intellig5ces1 !y mu/ apply !mselves to asc]ta9 ! probability :i* exi/s 9 relation to ^? fundam5tal laws ( ?\ght :i* preside ov] ! intellig5ce ( our race4 ,9 f9e1 x w n[1 ,i hope1 be und]/ood t1 z we h hi!rto be5 endeav\r+ to det]m9e1 by d$uctions drawn f ! v f\ndations ( all possible sci5ce1 ! relative probability z to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 s we %all next apply ourselves to ! task ( asc]ta9+ ! absolute probability ( su* exi/5ce--or1 m correctly1 :at is ! /rictly =mal probability ( su* exi/5ce :5 its possibility is contemplat$ 9 an absolute s5se4 #cg4 ,to beg9 !n4 ,9 ! la/ resort1 ! value ( e probability is fix$ by ratioc9ation4 ,9 endeav\r+1 !re=e1 to fix ! degree ( /rictly =mal probability t is pres5t 9 any giv5 case1 our me?od ( proc$ure %\ld be1 fir/ to asc]ta9 ! ultimate ratios on :i* ! probability dep5ds1 & !n to e/imate ! comp>ative value ( ^! ratios4 ,n[ ,i ?9k !re c be no d\bt t ! value ( any probability 9 ?is its la/ analysis is det]m9$ by ! numb]1 ! importance1 & ! def9it5ess ( ! relations kn[n1 z comp>$ ) ^? ( ! relations unkn[n2 &1 consequ5tly1 t 9 all cases :]e ! sum ( ! unkn[n relations is l>g]1 or m important1 or m indef9ite ?an is ! sum ( ! kn[n relations1 x is an ess5tial pr9ciple t ! value ( ! probability decreases 9 exact proportion to ! decrease 9 ! simil>ity betwe5 ! two sets ( relations1 :e!r ?is decrease consi/s 9 ! numb]1 9 ! importance1 or 9 ! def9it5ess ( ! relations involv$4 ,?is rule or canon is self-evid5t z soon z po9t$ out1 & has be5 =mulat$ by ,pr(essor ,ba9 9 8 ,logic :5 treat+ ( ,analogy1 b n ) suffici5t precision2 =1 :ile recognis+ ! elem5ts ( numb] & importance1 he has ov]look$ t ( def9it5ess4 ,?is elem5t1 h[ev]1 is a v ess5tial "o--inde$ ! mo/ ess5tial ( ! ?ree2 = !re are _m analogical inf]5ces 9 :i* ei!r ! "* or ! ext5t ( ! unkn[n relations is q indef9ite2 & x is obvi\s t1 :5ev] ?is is ! case1 ! value ( ! analogy is proportionably dim9i%$1 & dim9i%$ 9 a mu* m mat]ial p>ticul> ?an x is :5 ! dim9ution ( value arises f a m]e excess ( ! unkn[n relations ov] ! kn[n ones 9 respect ( _! numb] or ( _! importance4 ,= x is evid5t t1 9 ! latt] case1 h[ev] little value ! analogy may possess1 ! exact degree ( su* value admits ( be+ det]m9$2 :ile x is no less evid5t t1 9 ! =m] case1 we are preclud$ f e/imat+ ! value ( ! analogy at all1 & ?is j 9 proportion to ! indef9it5ess ( ! unkn[n relations4 #ch4 ,n[ ! p>ticul> in/ance ) :i* we are conc]n$ is some:at peculi>4 ,not)/&+ we h ! entire sph]e ( human exp]i5ce f :i* to argue1 we are /ill unable to gauge ! /rictly logical probability ( any argum5t :atsoev]2 = ! unkn[n relations 9 ?is case are s :olly indef9ite1 bo? z to _! "* & ext5t1 t any attempt to in/itute a def9ite comp>ison betwe5 !m & ! kn[n relations is felt at once to be absurd4 ,! "q discuss$1 be+ ! mo/ ultimate ( all possible que/ions1 mu/ ev5tually conta9 9 itself all t is to man unkn[n & unkn[able2 ! :ole orbit ( human k is "h insuffici5t to obta9 a p>allax :]eby to in/itute ! requir$ measurem5ts4 #ci4 ,i ?9k x is desirable to insi/ ^u ?is tru? at some:at great] l5g?1 &1 = ! sake ( impress+ x /ill m deeply1 ,i %all pres5t x 9 ano!r =m4 ,no "o c = a s+le mom5t d5y t1 beyond & ar\nd ! sph]e ( ! ,kn[able1 !re exi/s ! unfa?omable abyss ( ! ,unkn[able4 ,i d n "h use ?is latt] ^w z embody+ any !ory3 ,i m]ely wi% x to /ate ! und\bt$ fact1 :i* all mu/ admit1 viz41 t b5ea? all our possible explanations !re lies a great ,inexplicable4 ,n[ let u see :at is ! effect ( mak+ ?is necess>y admission4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x cle>ly foll[s t1 :ile our conceptions z to :at ! ,unkn[able conta9s may or may n repres5t ! tru?1 x is c]ta9 t we c nev] discov] :e!r or n !y d4 ,fur!r1 x is impossible = u to det]m9e ev5 a def9ite probability z to ! exi/5ce 7mu* less ! nature7 ( any?+ :i* we may suppose ! ,unkn[able to conta94 ,we may1 ( c\rse1 p]ceive t su* & su* a supposition is m conceivable ?an su* & su*2 b1 z already indicat$1 ! fact does n %[ t ! "o is 9 itself m def9itely probable ?an ! o!r1 unless x has be5 previ\sly %[n1 ei!r t ! capacity ( our conceptions is a fully adequate measure ( ! ,possible1 or t ! proportion betwe5 su* capacity & ! ext5t ( ! ,possible is a proportion t c be det]m9$4 ,9 ei!r ( ^! cases1 ! ,conceivable w\ld be a fair measure ( ! ,possible3 9 ! =m] case1 an exact equival5t 7e4g41 9 any in/ance ( contradictory propositions1 ! mo/ conceivable w\ld c]ta9ly be true72 9 ! latt] case1 a measure any degree less ?an an exact equival5t--! degree dep5d+ ^u ! !n asc]ta9able disp>ity betwe5 ! ext5t ( ! ,possible & ! ext5t ( ! ,conceivable4 ,n[ ! ,unkn[able 7includ+ ( c\rse ! ,inconceivable ,exi/5t7 is a species ( ! ,possible1 & 9 its "n c>ries ! decl>ation t ! disp>ity betwe5 its ext5t & ! ext5t ( ! ,conceivable 7i4e41 ! o!r species ( ! ,possible7 is a disp>ity t _c be det]m9$4 ,we are h5ce driv5 to ! conclusion t ! mo/ app>5tly probable ( all propositions1 if pr$icat$ ( any?+ )9 ! ,unkn[able1 may n 9 reality be a :it m s ?an is ! mo/ app>5tly improbable proposition :i* x is possible to make2 = if x is admitt$ 7z ( c\rse x mu/ be7 t we are necess>ily preclud$ f comp>+ ! ext5t ( ! ,conceivable ) t ( ! ,unkn[able1 !n x necess>ily foll[s t 9 no case :atev] are we compet5t to judge h[ f> an app>5t probability relat+ to ! latt] prov9ce is an actual probability4 ,9 o!r words1 did we "k ! proportion subsi/+ betwe5 ! ,conceivable & ! ,unkn[able 9 respect ( relative ext5t & "*1 & s ( inh]5t probabilities1 we %\ld !n be able to e/imate ! actual value ( any app>5t probability relat+ to ! latt] prov9ce2 b1 z x is1 our ability to make ?is e/imate v>ies inv]sely z our inability to e/imate our ignorance 9 ?is p>ticul>4 ,& z our ignorance 9 ?is p>ticul> is total--i4e41 s9ce we _c ev5 approximately det]m9e ! proportion t subsi/s betwe5 ! ,conceivable & ! ,unkn[able1--! result is t our ability to make ! requir$ e/imate 9 any giv5 case is absolutely nil4 #dj4 ,i h purposely r5d]$ ?is pres5tation 9 t]ms ( ! highe/ ab/raction1 p>tly to avoid ! possibility ( any "o1 :atev] 8 !ory ( ?+s may be1 f9d+ any?+ at :i* to object1 & p>tly 9 ord] t my mean+ may be und]/ood to include all ?+s :i* are beyond ! range ( possible k4 ,mo/ ( all1 !re=e1 mu/ ?is pres5tation 7if x conta9s any?+ ( tru?7 apply to ! "q reg>d+ ! exi/5ce ( ,deity2 = ! ,ens ,realissimum mu/ ( all ?+s be fur!/ remov$ f ! range ( possible k4 ,h5ce1 if ?is pres5tation conta9s any?+ ( tru?--& ( its rigidly accurate tru? ,i ?9k !re c be no "q--! ass]tion t ! ,self-exi/+ ,sub/ance is a ,p]sonal & ,intellig5t ,be+1 & ! ass]tion t ?is ,sub/ance is an ,imp]sonal & ,non-,intellig5t ,be+1 are alike ass]tions :olly de/itute ( any assignable degree ( logical probability1 ,i say assignable degree ( logical probability1 because t "s degree ( su* probability may exi/ ,i d n und]take to d5y4 ,all ,i ass]t is1 t if we are "h able to in/itute any su* probability at all1 we are unable logically to assign to x any det]m9ate degree ( value4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 al?\gh we may e/abli% "s probability 9 a s5se relative to ourselves1 we are unable to "k h[ f> ?is probability is a probability 9 an absolute s5se4 ,or aga91 ! case is n z ?\gh we 7 altoge!r unacqua9t$ ) ! ,possible4 ,exp]i5ce und\bt$ly af=ds u "s in=mation reg>d+ ?is1 al?\gh1 comp>atively speak+1 we are unable to "k h[ mu*4 ,consequ5tly1 we mu/ suppose t1 9 any giv5 case1 x is m likely t ! ,conceivable %\ld be ,possible ?an t ! ,inconceivable %\ld be s1 & t ! ,conceivably ,probable %\ld exi/ ?an t ! ,conceivably ,improbable %\ld d s3 9 nei!r case1 h[ev]1 c we "k :at degree ( su* likelihood is pres5t4 #da4 ,f ! =ego+ consid]ations1 !n1 x w\ld appe> t ! only attitude :i* 9 /rict logic x is admissible to adopt t[>ds ! "q conc]n+ ! be+ ( a ,god is t ( susp5d$ judgm5t4 ,=mally speak+1 x is alike illegitimate to affirm or to d5y ,intellig5ce z an attribute ( ! ,ultimate4 ,& "h ,i w\ld desire x to be obs]v$1 t ?is is ! attitude :i* ! majority ( sci5tifically-tra9$ philosoph]s actually h adopt$ ) reg>d to ?is matt]4 ,i am n aw>e1 h[ev]1 t any "o has yet endeav\r$ to =mulate ! ju/ification ( ?is attitude2 & z ,i ?9k !re c be no d\bt t ! above pres5tation conta9s 9 a logical %ape ! :ole ( su* ju/ification1 ,i _c b ?9k t "s important ends w h be5 secur$ by x4 ,= we are "h 9 possession1 n m]ely ( a vague & g5]al impression t ! ,ultimate is sup]-sci5tific1 & s beyond ! range ( legitimate pr$iction2 b we are also 9 possession ( a logical =mula :]eby at once to v9dicate ! rationality ( our op9ion1 & to measure ! precise degree ( its te*nical value4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,,vi4 ,,! ,,argum5t ,,f ,,metaphysical ,,teleology4 #db4 ,let u n[ proce$ to exam9e ! effect ( ! =mal consid]ations :i* h be5 adduc$ 9 ! la/ *apt] on ! sci5tific consid]ations :i* 7 dealt ) 9 ! previ\s *apt]s4 ,9 ^! previ\s *apt]s ! proposition 0 cle>ly e/abli%$ t1 j z c]ta9ly z ! fundam5tal data ( sci5ce are true1 s c]ta9ly is x true t ! !ory ( ,!ism 9 any %ape is1 sci5tifically consid]$1 sup]flu\s2 = ^! *apt]s h cle>ly %[n t1 if !re is a ,god1 8 exi/5ce1 consid]$ z a cause ( ?+s1 is z c]ta9ly unnecess>y z x is c]ta9ly true t =ce is p]si/5t & t matt] is inde/ructible4 ,b aft] ?is proposition _h be5 c>efully ju/ifi$1 x rema9$ to %[ t ! doctr9e ( ! relativity ( k compell$ u to c>ry our discussion into a region ( yet high] ab/raction4 ,= al?\gh we obs]v$ t ! ess5tial qualities ( matt] & ( =ce are ! mo/ ultimate data ( human k1 & al?\gh1 by %[+ h[ f> ! "q ( ,!ism dep5d$ on ^! data1 we c>ri$ ! discussion ( t "q to ! utmo/ possible limits ( sci5tific ?\ght1 x /ill devolv$ on u to contemplate ! fact t ev5 ^! ! mo/ ultimate data ( sci5ce are only kn[n to be ( relative significance4 ,& ! be>+ ( ?is fact to ! "q ( ,!ism 0 se5 to be mo/ important4 ,=1 )\t wait+ to recapitulate ! sub/ance ( a *apt] s rec5tly conclud$1 x w be rememb]$ t its effect 0 to e/abli% ?is position beyond all controv]sy--viz41 t :5 ideas :i* h be5 =m$ by our exp]i5ce )9 ! region ( ph5om5al actuality are project$ into ! region ( ontological possibility1 !y become utt]ly wor?less2 see+ t we c nev] h any means :]eby to te/ ! actual value ( :atev] transc5d5tal probabilities !y may appe> to e/abli%4 ,!re=e x is t ev5 ! mo/ ultimate ( relative tru?s ) :i*1 z we h se51 ! "q ( ,!ism is s vitally associat$1 is almo/ )\t mean+ :5 contemplat$ 9 an absolute s5se4 ,:at1 !n1 is ! effect ( ^! metaphysical consid]ations on ! position ( ,!ism z we h se5 x to be left by ! highe/ g5]alisations ( physical sci5ce8 ,let u contemplate ?is "q ) ! c>e :i* x des]ves4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x is evid5t t ! effect ( ^! purely =mal consid]ations is to r5d] all reason+s on ! subject ( ,!ism equally illegitimate1 unless x is con/antly borne 9 m9d t su* reason+s c only be ( relative signification4 ,?us1 z a matt] ( pure logic1 ^! consid]ations are de/ructive ( all assignable validity ( any su* reason+ :atsoev]4 ,/ill1 ev5 a /rictly relative probability is1 9 "s undef9able degree1 ( m value ?an no probability at all1 z we h se5 ^! same =mal consid]ations to %[ 7see #dj72 &1 moreov]1 ev5 7 ?is n s1 ! human m9d w nev] re/ until x atta9s to ! fur!/ probability :i* to its p[]s is accessible4 ,!re=e1 if we d n =get ! m]ely relative nature ( ! consid]ations :i* are ab\t to be adduc$1 by adduc+ !m we may at ! same "t satisfy our own m9ds & ab/a9 f violat+ ! conditions ( s\nd logic4 ,! %ape1 !n1 to :i* ! subject has n[ be5 r$uc$ is simply ?is3--,see+ t ! !ory ( ,evolution 9 its l>ge/ s5se has %[n ! !ory ( ,!ism to be sup]flu\s 9 a sci5tific s5se1 does x n foll[ t ! !ory ( ,!ism is ?us %[n to be sup]flu\s 9 any s5se8 ,= x w\ld seem f ! discussion1 s f> z x has hi!rto gone1 t ! only rational basis on :i* ! !ory ( ,!ism c re/ is a basis ( teleology2 & if1 z has be5 cle>ly %[n1 ! !ory ( evolution1 by d$uc+ ! g5esis ( natural law f ! prim>y data ( sci5ce1 irrevocably de/roys ?is basis1 does x n foll[ t ! !ory ( evolution has likewise de/roy$ ! !ory :i* re/$ on t basis8 ,n[ ,i conclude1 z /at$ at ! close ( ,*apt] ,,iv41 t ! "q "h put mu/ c]ta9ly be answ]$ 9 ! affirmative1 s f> z its sci5tific aspect is conc]n$4 ,b :5 we consid] ! "q 9 its purely logical aspect1 z we h done 9 ,*apt] ,v41 ! case is o!rwise4 ,= al?\gh1 s f> z ! utmo/ rea* ( sci5tific vision enables u to see1 we c disc]n no evid5ce ( ,deity1 x does n !re=e foll[ t beyond ! range ( su* vision ,deity does n exi/4 ,sci5ce inde$ has prov$ t if !re is a ,div9e ,m9d 9 nature1 & if by ! hypo!sis su* a ,m9d ex]ts any causative influ5ce on ! ph5om5a ( nature1 su* influ5ce is ex]t$ beyond ! sph]e ( exp]i5ce4 ,& ?is a*ievem5t ( sci5ce1 be x nev] =gott51 is an a*ievem5t ( prodigi\s importance1 effectually de/roy+1 z x does1 all ve/iges ( a sci5tific teleology4 ,b be x n[ c>efully obs]v$1 al?\gh all ve/iges ( a sci5tific teleology are ?us completely & p]man5tly ru9$1 ! =mal consid]ations adduc$ 9 ! la/ *apt] supply ! conditions = con/ruct+ :at may be t]m$ a metaphysical teleology4 ,i use ^! t]ms advis$ly1 because ,i ?9k !y w s]ve to br+ out ) great cle>ness ! condition to :i* our analysis ( ! teleological argum5t has n[ be5 r$uc$4 #dc4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 let x be und]/ood t ,i employ ! t]ms sci5tific & metaphysical 9 ! conv5i5t s5se 9 :i* !y are employ$ by ,mr4 ,lewes1 viz41 z respectively designat+ a !ory t is v]ifiable & a !ory t is n4 ,consequ5tly1 by ! t]m sci5tific teleology ,i mean to d5ote a =m ( teleology :i* admits ei!r ( be+ prov$ or disprov$1 :ile by ! t]m metaphysical teleology ,i mean to d5ote a =m ( teleology :i* does n admit ei!r ( be+ prov$ or ( be+ disprov$4 ,n[1 ) ^! significations cle>ly und]/ood1 x w be se5 t ! =ms ( teleology :i* we h hi!rto consid]$ belong entirely to ! sci5tific class4 ,t ! ,paley]ian =m ( ! argum5t did s is manife/1 fir/ because ?is argum5t itself treats ! problem ( ,!ism z a problem t is susceptible ( sci5tific demon/ration1 & next because we h se5 t ! advance ( sci5ce has prov$ ?is argum5t susceptible ( sci5tific refutation4 ,9 o!r words1 f ! suppos$ axiom1 ,!re _c be app>5t design )\t a design]1 adaptations 9 nature become logically available z purely sci5tific evid5ce ( an intellig5t cause2 & t ,paley himself reg>d$ !m exclusively 9 ?is light is manife/1 bo? f 8 own /atem5t ( ! argum5t1 & f ! "* ( ! evid5ce by :i* he seeks to e/abli% ! argum5t :5 /at$--witness ! typical passage be=e quot$ 7 #bf74 ,on ! o!r h&1 we h cle>ly se5 t ?is ,paley]ian sy/em ( natural !ology has be5 effectually demoli%$ by ! sci5tific !ory ( natural selection--! fundam5tal axiom ( ! =m] hav+ be5 %[n by ! latt] to be sci5tifically untrue4 ,h5ce ! t]m sci5tific teleology is )\t "q applicable to ! ,paley]ian sy/em4 ,nor is ! case ess5tially diff]5t ) ! m ref9$ =m ( ! teleological argum5t :i* we h _h to consid]--! argum5t1 namely1 f ,g5]al ,laws4 ,= "h1 likewise1 we h cle>ly se5 t ! inf]5ce f ! ubiquit\s op]ation ( ,g5]al ,laws to ! exi/5ce ( an omnisci5t ,law-mak] is q z illegitimate z is ! inf]5ce f app>5t ,design to ! exi/5ce ( a ,supreme ,design]4 ,9 o!r words1 sci5ce1 by e/abli%+ ! doctr9e ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! inde/ructibility ( matt]1 has effectually disprov$ ! hypo!sis t ! pres5ce ( ,law 9 nature is ( itself suffici5t to prove ! exi/5ce ( an intellig5t ,law-giv]4 ,?us x is t sci5tific teleology 9 any =m is n[ & = ev] obsolete4 ,b n s ) :at ,i h t]m$ metaphysical teleology4 ,= z we h se5 t ! doctr9e ( ! relativity ( k precludes u f ass]t+1 or ev5 f inf]r+1 t beyond ! region ( ! ,kn[able ,m9d does n exi/1 x rema9s logically possible to in/itute a metaphysical hypo!sis t beyond ?is region ( ! ,kn[able ,m9d does exi/4 ,!re be+ a necess>y abs5ce ( any positive in=mation :]eby to refute ?is metaphysical hypo!sis1 any "o :o *ooses to adopt x is fully ju/ifi$ 9 do+ s1 provid$ only he rememb]s t ! purely metaphysical quality :]eby ! hypo!sis is ensur$ aga9/ dispro(1 likewise1 & 9 ! same degree1 precludes x f ! possibility ( pro(4 ,he mu/ rememb] t x is no long] op5 to him to po9t to any p>ticul> set ( g5]al laws & to ass]t1 ^! proclaim ,intellig5ce z _! cause2 = we h repeat$ly se5 t ! kn[n /ates ( matt] & =ce !mselves af=d suffici5t explanation ( ! facts to :i* he po9ts4 ,& he mu/ rememb] t ! only reason :y 8 hypo!sis does n conflict ) any ( ! tru?s kn[n to sci5ce1 is because he has be5 c>eful to re/ t hypo!sis ^u a basis ( purely =mal consid]ations1 :i* lie beyond ev5 ! mo/ fundam5tal tru?s ( :i* sci5ce is cognisant4 ,?us1 = example1 he may pres5t 8 metaphysical !ory ( ,!ism 9 "s su* t]ms z ^!3--',fully conc$+ :at reason %[s mu/ be conc$$1 & !re /ill rema9s ?is possible supposition--viz41 t !re is a presid+ ,m9d 9 nature1 :i* ex]ts its causative influ5ce beyond ! sph]e ( exp]i5ce1 ?us r5d]+ x impossible = u to obta9 sci5tific evid5ce ( its action4 ,= su* a ,m9d1 ex]t+ su* an influ5ce beyond exp]i5ce1 may direct affairs )9 exp]i5ce by me?ods conceivable or inconceivable to u--produc+1 possibly1 innum]able & highly v>i$ results1 :i* 9 turn may produce _! effects )9 exp]i5ce1 _! introduction be+ !n1 ( c\rse1 9 ! ord9>y way ( natural law4 ,= in/ance1 !re c be no "q t by ! intellig5t creation or dissipation ( en]gy1 all ! ph5om5a ( cosmic evolution might h be5 direct$1 &1 = aught t sci5ce c %[ to ! contr>y1 ?us only r5d]$ possible4 ,h5ce !re is at lea/ "o nameable way 9 :i*1 ev5 9 accordance ) obs]v$ facts1 a ,supreme ,m9d c\ld be compet5t to direct ! ph5om5a ( obs]vable nature4 ,b we are n necess>ily re/rict$ to ! limits ( ! nameable 9 ?is matt]1 s t x is ( no argum5tative importance :e!r or n ?is sugge/$ me?od is ! me?od :i* ! suppos$ ,m9d actually adopts1 see+ t !re may /ill be o!r possible me?ods1 :i*1 nev]!less1 we are unable to sugge/4' ,d\btless ! hypo!sis ( ,!ism1 z ?us pres5t$1 w be deem$ by _m p]sons b ( v sl5d] probability4 ,i am n1 h[ev]1 conc]n$ ) :atev] "* ( probability x may be suppos$ to exhibit4 ,i am m]ely engag$ 9 c>efully pres5t+ ! only hypo!sis :i* c be pres5t$1 if ! !ory z to an ,intellig5t ,au?or ( nature is any long] to be ma9ta9$ on gr\nds ( a rational teleology4 ,no d\bt1 sci5tifically consid]$1 ! hypo!sis 9 "q is purely gratuit\s2 =1 s f> z ! light ( sci5ce c p5etrate1 !re is no ne$ ( any su* hypo!sis at all4 ,?us x may well seem1 at fir/ sight1 t no hypo!sis c\ld well h less to recomm5d x2 &1 s f> z ! pres5tation has yet gone1 x is !re=e fully legitimate = an a!i/ to reply3--',all t ?is s-call$ metaphysical !ory am\nts to is a :olly gratuit\s assumption4 ,no d\bt x is always difficult1 & usually impossible1 logically or unequivocally to prove a negative4 ,if my adv]s>y *ose to imag9e t nature is presid$ ov] by a demon ) horns & ho(s1 or by a dragon ) claws & tail1 ,i %\ld be z unable to disprove ?is 8 suppos$ !ory z ,i am n[ unable to disprove 8 actual !ory4 ,b 9 all cases reasonable m5 ought to be guid$ 9 _! beliefs by su* positive evid5ce z is available2 & if1 z 9 ! pres5t case1 ! alt]native belief is :olly gratuit\s--adopt$ n only )\t any evid5ce1 b aga9/ all t great body ( evid5ce :i* ! sum-total ( sci5ce supplies--surely we ought n to hesitate = "o mom5t 9 ! *oice ( our cre$8' ,n[ all ?is is q s\nd 9 pr9ciple1 provid$ only t ! metaphysical !ory ( ,!ism is :olly gratuit\s1 9 ! s5se ( be+ utt]ly de/itute ( evid5tial support4 ,t x is de/itute ( all sci5tific support1 we h already & repeat$ly se52 b ! "q rema9s z to :e!r x is simil>ly de/itute ( metaphysical support4 #dd4 ,to ?is "q1 !n1 let u next address ourselves4 ,f ! !i/ic plead+ :i* we h j he>d1 x is abundantly manife/ t ! =mal conditions ( a metaphysical teleology are pres5t3 ! "q n[ be=e u is z to :e!r or n any actual evid5ce exi/s 9 fav\r ( su* a !ory4 ,9 ord] to discuss ?is "q1 let u beg9 by all[+ ! !i/ to cont9ue 8 plead+4 ',y h %[n me1' he may say1 't a sci5tific or demon/rable sy/em ( teleology is no long] possible1 &1 !re=e1 z ,i h already conc$$1 ,i mu/ take my /& on a metaphysical or non-demon/rable sy/em4 ,b ,i reflect t ! latt] t]m is a loose "o1 see+ t x embraces all possible degrees ( evid5ce %ort ( actual pro(4 ,! "q1 !re=e1 ,i conceive to be1 ,:at am\nt ( evid5ce is !re 9 fav\r ( ?is metaphysical sy/em ( teleology8 ,& ?is "q ,i answ] by ! foll[+ consid]ations3--,z g5]al laws sep>ately h all be5 %[n to be ! necess>y outcome ( ! prim>y data ( sci5ce1 x c]ta9ly foll[s t g5]al laws collectively mu/ be ! same--i4e41 t ! :ole sy/em ( g5]al laws mu/ be1 s f> z ! lights ( our sci5ce c p5etrate1 ! necess>y outcome ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! inde/ructibility ( matt]4 ,b y h also de>ly %[n me t ^! lights are ( ! feeble/ conceivable "* :5 !y are br\ght to illum9ate ! f9al my/]y ( ?+s4 ,i !re=e feel at lib]ty to ass]t1 t if !re is any "o pr9ciple to be obs]v$ 9 ! collective op]ation ( g5]al laws :i* _c conceivably be expla9$ by any cause o!r ?an t ( intellig5t guidance1 ,i am /ill free to fall back on su* a pr9ciple & to ma9ta9--,al?\gh ! collective op]ation ( g5]al laws foll[s z a necess>y consequ5ce f ! prim>y data ( sci5ce1 ?is "o pr9ciple :i* p]vades _! unit$ action1 & :i* _c be conceivably expla9$ by any hypo!sis o!r ?an t ( intellig5t guidance1 is a pr9ciple :i* /ill rema9s to be acc\nt$ =2 & z x _c conceivably be acc\nt$ = on gr\nds ( physical sci5ce1 ,i may legitimately acc\nt = x on gr\nds ( metaphysical teleology4 ,n[ ,i _c op5 my eyes )\t p]ceiv+ su* a pr9ciple ev]y:]e *>act]is+ ! collective op]ation ( g5]al laws4 ,univ]sally ,i behold 9 nature1 ord]1 beauty1 h>mony1--t is1 a p]fect correlation among g5]al laws4 ,b ?is ubiquit\s correlation among g5]al laws1 consid]$ z ! cause ( cosmic h>mony1 itself requires "s explanatory cause su* z ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! inde/ructibility ( matt] _c conceivably be made to supply4 ,= unless we po/ulate "s "o integrat+ cause1 ! great] ! numb] ( g5]al laws 9 nature1 ! less likelihood is !re ( su* laws be+ s correlat$ z to produce h>mony by _! comb9$ action4 ,& =asmu* z ! only cause t ,i am able to imag9e z compet5t to produce su* effects is t ( intellig5t guidance1 ,i accept ! metaphysical hypo!sis t beyond ! sph]e ( ! ,kn[able !re exi/s an ,unkn[n ,god4#be ',if x is retort$ t ! above argum5t involves an absurd contradiction1 9 t :ile x sets out ) an explicit av[al ( ! fact t ! collective op]ation ( g5]al laws foll[s z a necess>y consequ5ce f ! prim>y data ( physical sci5ce1 x nev]!less aft]w>ds proce$s to expla9 an effect ( su* collective op]ation by a metaphysical hypo!sis2 ,i answ] t x 0 expressly = ! purpose ( elicit+ ?is retort t ,i ?rew my argum5t into ! above =m4 ,= ! position :i* ,i wi% to e/abli% is ?is1 t fully accept+ ! logical cog5cy ( ! reason+ :]eby ! action ( e law is d$uc$ f ! prim>y data ( sci5ce1 ,i wi% to %[ t :5 ?is tra9 ( reason+ is foll[$ to its ultimate t]m1 x leads u into ! pres5ce ( a fact = :i* x is inadequate to acc\nt4 ,if1 !n1 my cont5tion be grant$--viz41 t to human faculties x is n conceivable h[1 9 ! abs5ce ( a direct+ intellig5ce1 g5]al laws c\ld be s correlat$ z to produce univ]sal h>mony--!n ,i h br\ght ! matt] to ?is issue3--,not)/&+ ! sci5tific tra9 ( argum5t be+ complete 9 itself1 x /ill leaves u 9 ! pres5ce ( a fact :i* x _c conceivably expla92 & x is ?is unexpla9$ residuum--?is total product ( ! op]ation ( g5]al laws--t ,i appeal to z ! logical ju/ification = a sy/em ( metaphysical teleology--a sy/em :i* (f]s ! only conceivable explanation ( ?is /up5d\s fact4 ',& "h ,i may fur!r obs]ve1 t ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+ is ( ! k9d :i* embodies :at ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c] calls symbolic conceptions ( ! illegitimate ord]4#bf ,t is to say1 we c see h[ su* simple laws z t action & reaction are equal & opposite may h be5 self-evolv$1 & f ?is fact we g on g5]alis+ & g5]alis+1 until we l& ourselves 9 :olly symbolic &--a p>adox is "h legitimate--inconceivable conceptions4 ,n[ ! f>!r we travel into ?is region ( unrealisable ideas1 ! less tru/wor?y is ! report t we are able to br+ back4 ,! me?od is 9 a s5se sci5tific2 b :5 ev5 sci5tific me?od is project$ into a region ( really sup]-sci5tific possibility1 x ceases to h t "* ( und\bt$ c]ta9ty :i* x enjoys :5 deal+ ) v]ifiable subjects ( inquiry4 ,! demon/rations are =mal1 b !y are n real4 ',!re=e1 look+ to ?is necess>ily suspici\s "* ( ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+1 & !n obs]v+ t1 ev5 if accept$1 x leaves ! fact ( cosmic h>mony unexpla9$1 ,i ma9ta91 t :atev] probability ! ph5om5a ( nature may 9 =m] times h be5 ?\ght to e/abli% 9 fav\r ( ! !ory z to an intellig5t ,au?or ( nature1 t probability has be5 9 no wise annihilat$--nor app>5tly c x ev] be annihilat$--by ! advance ( sci5ce4 ,& n only s1 b ,i "q :e!r ?is probability has be5 ev5 s]i\sly impair$ by su* advance1 see+ t al?\gh ?is advance has reveal$ a speculative raison d'tre ( ! me*anical precision ( nature1 x has at ! same "t %[n ! baffl+ complexity ( nature2 & !re=e1 9 view ( :at has j be5 said1 leaves ! balance ( probability conc]n+ ! exi/5ce ( a ,god v mu* :]e x always 04 ,= /ay a:ile to contemplate ?is a/\nd+ complexity ( h>moni\s nature6 ,?9k ( h[ mu* we already "k ( its innum]able laws & processes1 & !n ?9k t ?is k only s]ves to reveal1 9 a glimm]+ way1 ! huge imm5sity ( ! unkn[n4 ,try to picture ! me%work ( cont5d+ rhy?ms :i* mu/ h be5 be=e organic nature 0 built up1 & !n let u ask1 ,is x conceivable1 is x cr$ible1 t all ?is c h be5 ! "w ( bl9d fate8 ,mu/ we n feel t _h !re n be5 intellig5t ag5cy at "w some:]e1 o!r & less t]rifically intricate results w\ld h ensu$8 ,& if we fur!r try to symbolise 9 ?\ght ! unimag9able complexity ( ! mat]ial & dynamical *anges 9 virtue ( :i* t ?\ght itself exi/s1--if we !n ext5d our symbols to repres5t all ! hi/ory ( all ! ord]ly *anges :i* mu/ h tak5 place to evolve human intellig5ce into :at x is1--& if we /ill fur!r ext5d our symbols to try if x be possible1 ev5 9 ! language ( symbols1 to express ! numb] & ! subtlety ( ^? natural laws :i* n[ preside ov] ! human w2--9 ! face ( s va/ an assumption z t all ?is has be5 self-evolv$1 ,i am cont5t /ill to re/ 9 ! fai? ( my =efa!rs4' #de4 ,n[ ,i ?9k x mu/ be admitt$ t we h "h a valid argum5t4 ,t is to say1 ! consid]ations :i* we h j adduc$ mu/1 ,i ?9k1 9 fairness be all[$ to h e/abli%$ ?is position3--,t ! sy/em ( metaphysical teleology = :i* we h suppos$ a c&id !i/ to plead1 is some?+ m ?an a purely gratuit\s sy/em--t x does n belong to ! same category ( baseless imag9+s z t to :i* ! a!i/ at fir/ sight1 & 9 view ( ! sci5tific d$uctions alone1 might be incl9$ to assign x4 ,= we h se5 t our suppos$ !i/1 :ile fully admitt+ ! =mal cog5cy ( ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+1 is nev]!less able to po9t to a fact :i*1 9 8 op9ion1 lies )\t t tra9 ( reason+4 ,= he decl>es t x is beyond 8 p[]s ( conception to reg>d ! complex h>mony ( nature o!rwise ?an z a product ( "s "o integrat+ cause2 & t ! only cause ( :i* he is able to conceive z adequate to produce su* an effect is t ( a consci\s ,intellig5ce4 ,po9t+1 !re=e1 to ?is complex h>mony ( nature z to a fact :i* _c to 8 m9d be conceivably expla9$ by any d$uctions f physical sci5ce1 he feels t he is ju/ifi$ 9 expla9+ ?is fact by ! aid ( a metaphysical hypo!sis4 ,& 9 s do+ he is 9 my op9ion p]fectly ju/ifi$1 at any rate to ?is ext5t--t 8 antagoni/ _c fairly dispose ( ?is metaphysical hypo!sis z a purely gratuit\s hypo!sis4 ,h[ f> x is a probable hypo!sis is ano!r "q1 & to ?is "q we %all n[ address ourselves4 #df4 ,if x is true t ! d$uctions f physical sci5ce _c be conceiv$ to expla9 "s among ! obs]v$ facts ( nature1 & if x is true t ^! p>ticul> facts admit ( be+ conceivably expla9$ by ! metaphysical hypo!sis 9 "q1 !n1 beyond all controv]sy1 ?is metaphysical hypo!sis mu/ be provisionally accept$4 ,let u !n c>efully exam9e ! premises :i* are ?us adduc$ to ju/ify acceptance ( ?is hypo!sis z _! conclusion4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x is n--_c--be d5i$1 ev5 by a !i/1 t ! d$uctions f physical sci5ce d embrace ! fact ( cosmic h>mony 9 _! explanation1 see+ t1 z !y expla9 ! op]ation ( g5]al laws collectively1 !y mu/ be reg>d$ z also expla9+ e effect ( su* op]ation4 ,& ?is1 z we h se51 is a consid]ation to :i* our imag9>y !i/ 0 n bl9d4 ,h[ !n did he meet x8 ,he met x by ! consid]ations--#a/4 ,t ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+ evolv$ ?is conclusion only by employ+1 9 a :olly unre/rict$ mann]1 symbolic conceptions ( ! illegitimate ord]2 &1 #b;d4 ,t :5 ! conclusion ?us illegitimately evolv$ 0 directly confront$ ) ! fact ( cosmic h>mony :i* x pr(esses to expla91 he f\nd x to be beyond ! p[]s ( human ?\ght to conceive ( su* an effect z due to su* a cause4 ,n[1 z already obs]v$1 ,i consid] ^! /rictures on ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+ to be ?or\ghly valid4 ,!re c be no "q t ! highly symbolic "* ( ! conceptions :i* t tra9 ( reason+ is compell$ to adopt1 is a s\rce ( s]i\s weakness to ! conclusions :i* x ultimately evolves2 :ile !re c1 ,i ?9k1 be equally little d\bt t !re does n live a human be+ :o w\ld v5ture hone/ly to affirm1 t he c really conceive ! fact ( cosmic h>mony z exclusively due to ! causes :i* ! sci5tific tra9 ( reason+ assigns4 ,b freely conc$+ ?is mu*1 & an a!i/ may reply1 t al?\gh ! objections ( 8 antagoni/ aga9/ ?is symbolic me?od ( reason+ are und\bt$ly valid1 yet1 f ! nature ( ! case1 ?is is ! only me?od ( sci5tific reason+ :i* is available4 ,if1 !re=e1 he expresses 8 obligations to 8 antagoni/ = po9t+ out a s\rce ( weakness 9 ?is me?od ( reason+--a s\rce ( weakness1 be x obs]v$1 :i* r5d]s x impossible = him to e/imate ! actual1 z di/+ui%$ f ! app>5t1 probability ( ! conclusion atta9$--?is is all t he c be expect$ to d3 he _c be expect$ to ab&on ! only sci5tific me?od ( reason+ available1 9 fav\r ( a metaphysical me?od :i* only escapes ! *>ge ( symbolism by leap+ ) a s+le b\nd f a kn[n cause 7human intellig5ce7 to ! inf]5ce ( an unkn[able cause 7,div9e ,intellig5ce74 ,= ! a!i/ may well po9t out t1 h[ev] objectionable 8 sci5tific me?od ( reason+ may be on acc\nt ( ! symbolism :i* x involves1 x mu/ at any rate be pref]able to ! metaphysical me?od1 9 t its symbols ?r\gh\t ref] to kn[n causes4#bg ,) reg>d1 !n1 to ?is /ricture on ! sci5tific me?od ( reason+1 ,i conclude t al?\gh ! caveat :i* x conta9s %\ld nev] be lo/ sight ( by a!i/s1 x is n ( suffici5t cog5cy to ju/ify !i/s 9 ab&on+ a sci5tific 9 fav\r ( a metaphysical mode ( reason+4 ,h[ !n does x f>e ) ! o!r /ricture1 or ! consid]ation t1 :5 ! conclusion ?us illegitimately#bh evolv$ is confront$ ) ! fact ( cosmic h>mony :i* x pr(esses to expla91 we f9d x to be beyond ! p[]s ( human ?\ght to conceive ( su* an effect z due to su* a cause8 ,! a!i/ may answ]1 9 ! fir/ place1 t a great deal "h turns on ! precise mean+ :i* we assign to ! ^w conceive4 ,= we h j se5 t1 by employ+ symbolic conceptions1 we are able to frame :at we may t]m a =mal conception ( univ]sal h>mony z due to ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! prim>y qualities ( matt]4 ,t is to say1 we h se5 t su* univ]sal h>mony z nature pres5ts mu/ be reg>d$ z an effect ( ! collective op]ation ( g5]al laws2 & we h previ\sly arriv$ at a =mal conception ( g5]al laws z s+ly & collectively ! product ( self-evolution4 ,consequ5tly1 ! ^w conceive1 z us$ 9 ! !i/ic argum5t1 mu/ be tak5 to mean our ability to frame :at we may t]m a mat]ial conception1 or a repres5tation 9 ?\ght ( ! :ole hi/ory ( cosmic evolution1 :i* repres5tation %all be 9 "s satisfactory degree intellectually realisable4 ,obs]v+1 !n1 ?is important diff]5ce betwe5 an inconceivability :i* arises f an impossibility ( e/abli%+ relations 9 ?\ght betwe5 c]ta9 ab/ract or symbolic conceptions1 & an inconceivability :i* arises f a m]e failure to realise 9 imag9ation ! results :i* mu/ foll[ among ext]nal relations if ! symbolically conceivable comb9ations among !m ev] took place1 an a!i/ may "h argue z foll[s2 & x does n appe> t !re is any legitimate escape f 8 reason+s4 ',i fir/ consid] ! und\bt$ fact t ! exi/5ce ( a ,supreme ,m9d 9 nature is1 sci5tifically consid]$1 unnecess>y2 &1 !re=e1 t ! only reason we require to ent]ta9 ! supposition ( any su* exi/5ce at all is1 t ! complexity ( nature be+ s great1 we are unable adequately to conceive ( its self-evolution--not)/&+ our reason tells u pla9ly t1 giv5 a self-exi/+ univ]se ( =ce & matt]1 & su* self-evolution becomes ab/ract$ly possible4 ,i !n reflect t ?is is a negative & n a positive gr\nd ( belief4 ,if ! hypo!sis ( self-evolution is true1 we %\ld priori expect t by ! "t evolution _h advanc$ suffici5tly f> to admit ( ! production ( a reason+ intellig5ce1 ! complexity ( nature mu/ be s great t ! nasc5t reason+ p[]s w\ld be completely baffl$ 9 _! attempts to compreh5d ! v>i\s processes go+ on ar\nd !m4 ,?is seems to be ab\t ! /ate ( ?+s :i* we n[ exp]i5ce4 ,/ill1 z reason advances m & m1 we may expect1 bo? f g5]al priori pr9ciples & f p>ticul> hi/orical analogies1 t m & m ( ! processes ( nature w admit ( be+ int]pret$ by reason1 & t 9 proportion z our ability to und]/& ! frame & ! con/itution ( ?+s progresses1 s our ability to conceive ( !m z all naturally & necess>ily evolv$ w likewise & concurr5tly progress4 ,?us1 = example1 h[ va/ a numb] ( ! mo/ intricate & delicate correlations 9 nature h be5 r5d]$ at once intelligible & conceivably due to non-intellig5t causes1 by ! discov]y ( a s+le pr9ciple 9 nature--! pr9ciple ( natural selection4 ',9 ! adv]se argum5t1 conceivability is aga9 made ! unconditional te/ ( tru?1 j z x 0 9 ! argum5t aga9/ ! possibility ( matt] ?9k+4 ,we reject ! hypo!sis ( self-evolution1 n because x is ! m remote "o1 b simply because we exp]i5ce a subjective incapacity adequately to frame ! requisite g5]alisations 9 ?\ght1 or to frame !m ) z mu* cle>ness z we c\ld wi%4 ,yet our reason tells u z pla9ly z x tells u any g5]al tru? :i* is too l>ge to be pres5t$ 9 detail1 t !re is no?+ 9 ! nature ( ?+s !mselves1 z f> z we c see1 antagoni/ic to ! supposition ( _! hav+ be5 self-evolv$4 ,only on ! gr\nd1 !re=e1 ( our own intellectual defici5cies2 only because z yet1 by ! self-evolution>y hypo!sis1 ! inn] ord] does n completely answ] to ! out] ord]2 only because ! numb] & complexity ( subjective relations h n yet be5 able to rival ^? ( ! objective relations produc+ !m2 only on ?is gr\nd d we refuse to ass5t to ! obvi\s d$uctions ( our reason4#bi ',& "h ,i may obs]ve1 fur!r1 t ! presumption 9 fav\r ( a!ism :i* ^! d$uctions e/abli% is consid]ably =tifi$ by c]ta9 po/]iori consid]ations :i* we _c af=d to ov]look4 ,9 p>ticul>1 ,i reflect t1 z a matt] ( fact1 ! !i/ic !ory is born ( highly suspici\s p>5tage1--t ,feti*ism1 or ! crude/ =m ( ! !ory ( p]sonal ag5cy 9 ext]nal nature1 admits ( be+ easily trac$ to ! laws ( a primitive psy*ology2 t ! /ep f ?is to ,poly!ism is easy2 & t ! /ep f ?is to ,mono!ism is necess>y4 ,if x is object$ to ?is view t x does n foll[ t because "s !ories ( p]sonal ag5cy h prov$ !mselves false1 !re=e all su* !ories mu/ be s--,i answ]1 ,unque/ionably n2 b ! above consid]ations are n adduc$ 9 ord] to negative ! !i/ic !ory3 !y are m]ely adduc$ to %[ t ! human m9d has hi!rto und\bt$ly exhibit$ an undue & a vici\s t5d5cy to int]pret ! objective processes ( nature 9 t]ms ( its own subjective processes2 & z we c see q well t ! curr5t !ory ( p]sonal ag5cy 9 nature1 :e!r or n true1 is a necess>y outcome ( intellectual evolution1 ,i ?9k t ! fact ( s abundant an hi/orical analogy ought to be all[$ to l5d a c]ta9 degree ( antec$5t suspicion to ?is !ory--al?\gh1 ( c\rse1 ! suspicion is ( a k9d :i* w\ld admit ( imm$iate de/ruction be=e any satisfactory positive evid5ce 9 fav\r ( ! !ory4#cj ',b :at is '! satisfactory positive evid5ce' t is (f]$ me8 ,no?+1 save an alleg$ subjective incapacity on ! "p ( my oppon5t adequately to conceive ( ! fact ( cosmic h>mony z due to physical causation alone4 ,n[ ,i h already comm5t$ on ! weakness ( 8 position2 b z my oppon5t w d\btless resort to ! consid]ation t inconceivability ( an opposite is1 aft] all1 ! be/ crit]ion ( tru? :i* at any giv5 /age ( intellectual evolution is available1 ,i w n[ conclude my ov]?r[ by po9t+ out t1 ev5 if we take ! argum5t f teleology 9 its wide/ possible s5se--! argum5t1 ,i mean1 f ! g5]al ord] & beauty ( nature1 z well z ! gross con/itu5t "p ( x f design--ev5 tak+ ?is argum5t 9 its wide/ s5se & ^u its own gr\nd 7:i* gr\nd1 ,i presume1 x is n[ suffici5tly obvi\s c only be t ( ! inconceivability ( its negation71 ,i w conclude my exam9ation ( ?is argum5t by %[+ t x is q z inconceivable to pr$icate cosmic h>mony an effect ( ,intellig5ce1 z x is to pr$icate x an effect ( ,non-intellig5ce2 & !re=e t ! argum5t f inconceivability admits ( be+ turn$ ) q z t]rible a =ce ^u ,!ism z x c be made to ex]t ^u ,a!ism4 ',9 metaphysical controv]sy1 _m ( ! propositions prop\nd$ & accept$ z q believable are absolutely inconceivable4 ,!re is a p]petual confus+ ( actual ideas ) :at are no?+ b pseud-ideas4 ,no di/9ction is made betwe5 propositions t conta9 real ?\ghts & propositions t are only ! =ms ( ?\ghts4 ,a ?9kable proposition is "o ( :i* ! two t]ms c be br\ght toge!r 9 consci\sness "u ! relation said to exi/ betwe5 !m4 ,b v (t51 :5 ! subject ( a proposition has be5 ?\ght ( z some?+ kn[n1 & :5 ! pr$icate ( a proposition has be5 ?\ght ( z some?+ kn[n1 & :5 ! relation alleg$ betwe5 !m has be5 ?\ght ( z a kn[n relation1 x is suppos$ t ! proposition itself has be5 ?\ght4 ,! ?9k+ sep>ately ( ! elem5ts ( a proposition is mi/ak5 = ! ?9k+ ( !m 9 ! comb9ation :i* ! proposition affirms4 ,& h5ce x cont9ually happ5s t propositions :i* _c be r5d]$ into ?\ght at all are suppos$ to be n only ?\ght b believ$4 ,! proposition t ,evolution is caus$ by ,m9d is "o ( ?is nature4 ,! two t]ms are sep>ately intelligible2 b !y c be reg>d$ 9 ! relation ( effect & cause only s long z no attempt is made to put !m toge!r 9 ?is relation4 ',! only ?+ :i* any "o kn[s z ,m9d is ! s]ies ( 8 own /ates ( consci\sness2 & if he ?9ks ( any m9d o!r ?an 8 own1 he c ?9k ( x only 9 t]ms d]iv$ f 8 own4 ,if ,i am ask$ to frame a notion ( ,m9d dive/$ ( all ^? /ructural traits "u :i* alone ,i am consci\s ( m9d 9 myself1 ,i _c d x4 ,i "k no?+ ( ?\ght save z c>ri$ on 9 ideas orig9ally traceable to ! effects wr\ght by objects on me4 ,a m5tal act is an un9telligible phrase if ,i am n to reg>d x z an act 9 :i* /ates ( consci\sness are sev]ally kn[n z l o!r /ates 9 ! s]ies t has gone by1 & 9 :i* ! relations betwe5 !m are sev]ally kn[n z l pa/ relations 9 ! s]ies4 ,if1 !n1 ,i h to conceive evolution z caus$ by an 'orig9at+ ,m9d1' ,i mu/ conceive ?is ,m9d z hav+ attributes ak9 to ^? ( ! only m9d ,i "k1 & )\t :i* ,i _c conceive m9d at all4 ',i w n dwell on ! _m incongruities h5ce result+1 by ask+ h[ ! 'orig9at+ ,m9d' is to be ?\ght ( z hav+ /ates produc$ by ?+s objective to x1 z discrim9at+ among ^! /ates1 & class+ !m z l & unlike2 & z pref]r+ "o objective result to ano!r4 ,i w simply ask1 ,:at happ5s if we ascribe to ! 'orig9at+ ,m9d' ! "* absolutely ess5tial to ! conception ( m9d1 t x consi/s ( a s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness8 ,put a s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness z cause & ! evolv+ univ]se z effect1 & !n endeav\r to see ! la/ z fl[+ f ! fir/4 ,i f9d x possible to imag9e 9 "s dim way a s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness s]v+ z antec$5t to any "o ( ! movem5ts ,i see go+ on2 = my own /ates ( consci\sness are (t5 indirectly ! antec$5ts to su* movem5ts4 ,b h[ if ,i attempt to ?9k ( su* a s]ies z antec$5t to all actions ?r\gh\t ! univ]se--to ! motions ( ! multitud9\s />s ?r\gh\t space1 to ! revolutions ( all _! planets r\nd !m1 to ! gyrations ( all ^! planets on _! axes1 to ! inf9itely multipli$ physical processes go+ on 9 ea* ( ^! suns & planets8 ,i _c ?9k ( a s+le s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness z caus+ ev5 ! relatively small gr\ps ( actions go+ on ov] ! e>?'s surface4 ,i _c ?9k ( x ev5 z antec$5t to all ! v>i\s w9ds & ! dissolv+ cl\ds !y be>1 to ! curr5ts ( all ! riv]s1 & ! gr9d+ actions ( all ! glaci]s2 /ill less c ,i ?9k ( x z antec$5t to ! inf9ity ( processes simultane\sly go+ on 9 all ! plants t cov] ! globe1 f scatt]$ pol> li*5s to cr[d$ tropical palms1 & 9 all ! millions ( quadrup$s t roam among !m1 & ! millions ( millions ( insects t buzz ab\t !m4 ,ev5 a s+le small set ( ^! multitud9\s t]re/rial *anges ,i _c conceive z antec$5t a s+le s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness--_c1 = in/ance1 ?9k ( x z caus+ ! hundr$ ?\s& break]s t are at ?is in/ant curl+ ov] on ! %ores ( ,engl&4 ,h[1 !n1 is x possible = me to conceive an 'orig9at+ ,m9d1' :i* ,i mu/ repres5t to myself z a s+le s]ies ( /ates ( consci\sness1 work+ ! inf9itely multipli$ sets ( *anges simultane\sly go+ on 9 worlds too num]\s to c\nt1 disp]s$ ?r\gh\t a space t baffles imag9ation8 ',if1 to acc\nt = ?is inf9itude ( physical *anges ev]y:]e go+ on1 ',m9d mu/ be conceiv$ z !re' '"u ! guise ( simple ,dynamics1' !n ! reply is1 t1 to be s conceiv$1 ,m9d mu/ be dive/$ ( all attributes by :i* x is di/+ui%$2 & t1 :5 ?us dive/$ ( its di/+ui%+ attributes1 ! conception disappe>s--! ^w ,m9d /&s = a blank4444 ',cle>ly1 !re=e1 ! proposition t an 'orig9at+ ,m9d' is ! cause ( evolution is a proposition t c be ent]ta9$ s long only z no attempt is made to unite 9 ?\ght its two t]ms 9 ! alleg$ relation4 ,t x %\ld be accept$ z a matt] ( fai? may be a def5sible position1 provid$ good cause is %[n :y x %\ld be s accept$2 b t x %\ld be accept$ z a matt] ( und]/&+--z a /atem5t mak+ ! ord] ( ! univ]se compreh5sible--is a q indef5sible position4'#ca #dg4 ,we h n[ he>d ! plead+ on bo? sides ( ! ultimate issue to :i* x is possible t ! argum5t f teleology c ev] be r$uc$4 ,x !re=e devolves on u v briefly to adjudicate ^u ! cont5d+ op9ions4 ,& ?is x is n difficult to d2 = ?r\gh\t ! plead+ on bo? sides ,i h be5 c>eful to exclude all argum5ts & consid]ations :i* are n logically valid4 ,x is !re=e impossible = me n[ to pass any criticisms on ! plead+ ( ei!r side :i* h n already be5 pass$ by ! plead+ ( ! o!r4 ,b nev]!less1 9 my capacity ( an imp>tial judge1 ,i feel x desirable to conclude ?is *apt] ) a few g5]al consid]ations4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,i ?9k t ! !i/'s antec$5t objection to a sci5tific mode ( reason+ on ! score ( its symbolism1 may be reg>d$ z fairly balanc$ by ! a!i/'s antec$5t objection to a metaphysical mode ( reason+ on ! score ( its po/ulat+ an unkn[able cause4 ,& x mu/ be all[$ t ! =ce ( ?is antec$5t objection is consid]ably increas$ by ! reflection t ! k9d ( unkn[able cause :i* is ?us po/ulat$ is t :i* ! human m9d has always %[n an ov]we5+ t5d5cy to po/ulate z a cause ( natural ph5om5a4 ,i ?9k1 !re=e1 t nei!r disputant has ! "r to reg>d ! priori /&+ ( 8 oppon5t's !ory z mu* m suspici\s ?an t ( 8 own2 = x is obvi\s t nei!r disputant has ! means :]eby to e/imate ! actual value ( ^! antec$5t objections4 ,) reg>d1 !n1 to ! po/]iori evid5ce 9 fav\r ( ! rival !ories1 ,i ?9k t ! f9al te/ ( _! validity--i4e41 ! inconceivability ( _! respective negations--fails equally 9 ! case ( bo? !ories2 = 9 ! case ( ea* !ory any proposition :i* embodies x mu/ itself conta9 an inf9ite1 i4e41 an inconceivable--t]m4 ,?us1 :e!r we speak ( an ,inf9ite ,m9d z ! cause ( evolution1 or ( evolution z due to an inf9ite duration ( physical processes1 we are alike op5 to ! *>ge ( employ+ un?9kable propositions4 ,h5ce1 two un?9kables are pres5t$ to our *oice2 "o ( :i* is an et]nity ( matt] & ( =ce1#cb & ! o!r an ,inf9ite ,m9d1 s t 9 ?is respect aga9 ! two !ories are tol]ably p>allel2 & !re=e1 all t c be conclud$ ) rigor\s c]ta9ty ^u ! subject is1 t nei!r !ory has any?+ to ga9 u aga9/ ! o!r f an appeal to ! te/ ( inconceivability4 ,yet we h se5 t ?is is a te/ ?an :i* none c be m ultimate4 ,:at !n %all we say is ! f9al outcome ( ?is discussion conc]n+ ! rational /&+ ( ! teleological argum5t8 ,! answ]1 ,i ?9k1 to ?is "q is1 t 9 /rict reason+ ! teleological argum5t1 9 its e %ape1 is inadequate to =m a basis ( ,!ism2 or1 9 o!r words1 t ! logical cog5cy ( ?is argum5t is insuffici5t to ju/ify a :olly imp>tial m9d 9 accept+ ! !ory ( ,!ism on s insecure a f\ndation4 ,nev]!less1 if ! fur!r "q 7 directly put to me1 ',aft] hav+ he>d ! plead+ bo? = & aga9/ ! mo/ ref9$ expression ( ! argum5t f teleology1 ) :at degree ( /rictly rational probability d y accr$it x8'--,i %\ld reply z foll[s3--',! "q :i* y put ,i take to be a "q :i* x is :olly impossible to answ]1 & ?is = ! simple reason t ! degree ( ev5 rational probability may "h legitimately v>y ) ! "* ( ! m9d :i* contemplates x4' ,?is /atem5t1 no d\bt1 s\nds p>adoxical2 b ,i ?9k x is ju/ifi$ by ! foll[+ consid]ations4 ,:5 we say t "o proposition is m conceivable ?an ano!r1 we may mean ei!r ( two v diff]5t ?+s1 & ?is q ap>t f ! di/9ction previ\sly drawn betwe5 symbolic conceptions & realisable conceptions4 ,= we may mean t "o ( ! two propositions pres5ts t]ms :i* _c possibly be r5d]$ into ?\ght at all 9 ! relation :i* ! proposition alleges to subsi/ betwe5 !m2 or we may mean t "o ( ! two propositions pres5ts t]ms 9 a relation :i* is m congru\s ) ! habitual t5or ( our ?\ghts ?an does ! o!r proposition4 ,?us1 z an example ( ! =m] usage1 we may say1 ,x is m conceivable t two & two %\ld make f\r ?an t two & two %\ld make five2 &1 z an example ( ! latt] usage1 we may say1 ,x is m conceivable t a man %\ld be able to walk ?an t he %\ld be able to fly4 ,n[1 = ! sake ( di/9ction1 ,i %all call ! fir/ ( ^! usages ! te/ ( absolute inconceivability1 & ! second ! te/ ( relative inconceivability4 ,d\btless1 :5 ! ^w inconceivability is us$ 9 ! s5se ( relative inconceivability1 x is incorrectly us$1 unless x is qualifi$ 9 "s way2 because1 if us$ )\t qualification1 !re is dang] ( its be+ confus$ ) inconceivability 9 its absolute s5se4 ,nev]!less1 if us$ ) "s qualify+ epi!t1 x becomes q unexceptionable4 ,= ! process ( conception be+ 9 all cases ! process ( e/abli%+ relations 9 ?\ght1 we may prop]ly say1 ,x is relatively m conceivable t a man %\ld walk ?an t a man %\ld fly1 s9ce x is m easy to e/abli%1 ! necess>y relations 9 ?\ght 9 ! case ( ! =m] ?an 9 ! case ( ! latt] proposition4 ,! only diff]5ce1 !n1 betwe5 :at ,i h call$ absolute inconceivability & :at ,i h call$ relative inconceivability consi/s 9 ?is--t :ile ! latt] admits ( degrees1 ! =m] does n4#cc ,) ?is di/9ction cle>ly und]/ood1 ,i may n[ proce$ to obs]ve t 9 ev]yday life we con/antly apply ! te/ ( relative inconceivability z a te/ ( tru?4 ,& 9 ! va/ majority ( cases ?is te/ ( relative inconceivability is1 = all practical purposes1 z valid a te/ ( tru? z is ! te/ ( absolute conceivability4 ,= z e man is m or less 9 h>mony ) 8 environm5t1 8 habits ( ?\ght ) reg>d to 8 environm5t are = ! mo/ "p /]eotyp$ correctly2 s t ! mo/ ready & ! mo/ tru/wor?y gauge ( probability t he has is an imm$iate appeal to consci\sness z to :e!r he feels ! probability4 ,?us e man le>ns = himself to end[ 8 own s5se ( probability ) a c]ta9 undef9$ b massive weight ( au?ority4 ,n[ x is ?is te/ ( relative conceivability :i* all m5 apply 9 v>y+ degrees to ! "q ( ,!ism4 ,= if1 f education & organis$ habits ( ?\ght1 ! probability 9 ?is matt] appe>s to a man to incl9e 9 a c]ta9 direction1 :5 ?is probability is call$ 9 "q1 ! :ole body ( ?is organis$ sy/em ( ?\ght rises 9 opposition to ! que/ion+1 & be+ individually consci\s ( ?is /rong feel+ ( subjective opposition1 ! man decl>es ! sceptical propositions to be m inconceivable to him ?an are ! c\nt]-propositions4 ,& 9 s say+ he is1 ( c\rse1 p]fectly "r4 ,h5ce ,i conceive t ! acceptance or ! rejection ( metaphysical teleology z probable w dep5d entirely ^u individual habits ( ?\ght4 ,! te/ ( absolute inconceivability mak+ equally = & aga9/ ! doctr9e ( ,!ism1 disputants are compell$ to fall back on ! te/ ( relative inconceivability2 & z ! direction 9 :i* ! m inconceivable proposition w "h seem to lie w be det]m9$ by previ\s habits ( ?\ght1 x foll[s t :ile to a !i/ metaphysical teleology w appe> a probable argum5t1 to an a!i/ x w appe> an improbable "o4 ,?us to a !i/ x w no d\bt appe> m conceivable t ! ,supreme ,m9d %\ld be su* t 9 "s ( its attributes x resembles ! human m9d1 :ile 9 o!r ( its attributes--among :i* he w place omnipres5ce1 omnipot5ce1 & directive ag5cy--x transc5ds ! human m9d z greatly z ! latt] transc5ds me*anical motion2 & !re=e t al?\gh x is true1 z a matt] ( logical t]m9ology1 t we ought to designate su* an entity ,n m9d or ,blank1 /ill1 z a matt] ( psy*ology1 we may come ne>] to ! tru? by assimilat+ 9 ?\ght ?is entity ) ! ne>e/ analogies :i* exp]i5ce supplies1 ?an by assimilat+ x 9 ?\ght ) any o!r entity--su* z =ce or matt]--:i* are felt to be 9 all likelihood /ill m remote f x 9 nature4 ,on ! o!r h&1 to an a!i/ x w no d\bt appe> m conceivable1 because m simple1 to accept ! dogma ( an et]nal self-exi/5ce ( some?+ :i* we call =ce & matt]1 & ) ?is dogma to accept ! implication ( a necess>y self-evolution ( cosmic h>mony1 ?an to resort to ! additional & no less inconceivable supposition ( a self-exi/+ ,ag5t :i* mu/ be reg>d$ bo? z ,m9d & z ,n-m9d at ! same "t4 ,b 9 bo? cases1 9 :atev] degree ?is te/ ( relative inconceivability ( a negative is held by ! disputants to be valid 9 solv+ ! problem ( ,!ism1 9 t degree is ea* man entitl$ to 8 respective e/imate ( ! probability 9 "q4 ,& ?us we arrive at ! judgm5t t ! rational probability ( ,!ism legitimately v>ies ) ! "* ( ! m9d :i* contemplates x4 ,=1 z ! te/ ( absolute inconceivability is equally annihilative 9 :i*ev] direction x is appli$1 ! te/ ( relative inconceivability is ! only "o t rema9s2 & z ! =mal conditions ( a metaphysical teleology are und\bt$ly pres5t on ! "o h&1 & ! =mal conditions ( a physical explanation ( cosmic h>mony are no less und\bt$ly pres5t on ! o!r h&1 x foll[s t a !i/ & an a!i/ h an equal "r to employ ?is te/ ( relative inconceivability4 ,& z !re is no m ultimate c\rt ( appeal :]eby to decide ! "q ?an ! univ]se z a :ole1 ea* man has "h an equal argum5tative "r to abide by ! decision :i* t c\rt aw>ds to him individually--to accept :atev] probability ! sum-total ( ph5om5a appe>s to pres5t to 8 p>ticul> und]/&+4 ,& x is ne$less to say t exp]i5ce %[s1 ev5 among well-in=m$ & accurate reason]s1 h[ l>ge an all[ance mu/ ?us be made = p]sonal equations4 ,to "s m5 ! facts ( ext]nal nature seem to proclaim a ,god ) cl>ion voice1 :ile to o!r m5 ! same facts br+ no :isp] ( su* a message4 ,all1 !re=e1 t a logician c "h d is to rem>k1 t ! individuals 9 ea* class--provid$ !y be> 9 m9d ! /rictly relative "* ( _! belief--h a simil> "r to be reg>d$ z hold+ a rational cre$3 ! gr\nds ( belief 9 ?is case logically v>y ) ! natural disposition & ! subsequ5t tra9+ ( diff]5t m9ds4#cd ,x only rema9s to %[ t disputants on ei!r side are apt to end[ ?is te/ ( relative inconceivability ) f> m ?an its real logical wor?4 ,be+ accu/om$ to apply ?is te/ ( tru? 9 daily life1 & !re f9d+ x a tru/wor?y te/1 mo/ m5 are apt to =get t its value z a te/ mu/ cle>ly dim9i% 9 proportion to ! di/ance f exp]i5ce at :i* x is appli$4 ,?is1 inde$1 we saw to be ! case ev5 ) ! te/ ( absolute inconceivability 7see ,*apt] ,v471 b mu* m mu/ x be ! case ) ?is te/ ( relative inconceivability4 ,=1 )\t comm5t1 x is manife/ t our acquir$ s5se ( probability1 z di/+ui%$ f our innate s5se ( possibility1 ) reg>d to any p>ticul> "q ( a transc5d5tal nature1 _c be at all comp>able ) its value 9 ! case ( ord9>y que/ions1 ) respect to :i* our s5se ( probability is be+ always rectifi$ by ext]nal facts4 ,al?\gh1 !re=e1 x is true t bo? ^? :o reject & ^? :o reta9 a belief 9 ,!ism on gr\nds ( relative conceivability are equally entitl$ to be reg>d$ z display+ a rational attitude ( m9d1 9 :atev] degree ei!r p>ty consid]s _! belief z ( a high] validity ?an ! gr\nds ( psy*ology f :i* x takes its rise1 9 t degree mu/ ! memb]s ( t p>ty be deem$ irrational4 ,9 o!r words1 n only mu/ a man be c>eful n to confuse ! te/ ( relative inconceivability ) t ( absolute conceivability--n to suppose t 8 s5se ( probability 9 ?is matt] is det]m9$ by an innate psy*ological inability to conceive a proposition1 :5 9 reality x is only det]m9$ by ! difficulty ( dissociat+ ideas :i* h long be5 habitually associat$2--b he mu/ also be c>eful to rememb] t ! te/ ( relative inconceivability 9 ?is matt] is only valid z ju/ify+ a belief ( ! mo/ diffid5t possible k9d4 ,& f ?is ! practical d$uction is--tol]ance4 ,let no man ?9k t he has any argum5tative "r to expect t ! m]e subjective habit or tone ( 8 own m9d %\ld ex]t any influ5ce on t ( 8 fell[2 b r let him always rememb] t ! only legitimate weapons ( 8 intellectual w>f>e are ^? ! mat]ial ( :i* is d]iv$ f ! ext]nal _w1 & only ! =m ( :i* is due to ! =g+ process ( 8 own m9d4 ,& if 9 battle su* weapons seem to be unduly blunt$ on ! h>d5$ arm\ry ( traditional beliefs1 or on ! no less h>d5$ arm\ry ( confirm$ scepticism1 let him rememb] fur!r t he mu/ n too confid5tly inf] t ! fault does n lie 9 ! "* ( 8 own weapons4 ,to drop ! figure1 let none ( u =get 9 h[ mu* ne$ we all /& ( ?is caution3--,kn[+ h[ greatly ! value ( argum5ts is affect$1 ev5 to ! mo/ imp>tial among u1 by ! frame ( m9d 9 :i* we reg>d !m1 let all ( u be jeal\sly c>eful n to ov]-e/imate ! c]ta9ty t our frame or habit ( m9d is actually sup]ior to t ( our neighb\r4 ,&1 9 conclusion1 x is surely ne$less to insi/ on ! yet great] ne$ !re is = mo/ ( u to be> 9 m9d ?is fur!r caution3--,kn[+ ) :at great subjective opposition argum5ts are met :5 !y conflict ) our e/abli%$ modes ( ?\ght1 let u all be jeal\sly c>eful to gu>d ! sanctu>y ( our judgm5t f ! pollut+ tyranny ( habit4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,*apt] ,,vii4 ,,g5]al ,,summ>y ,,& ,,conclusions4 #dh4 ,our analysis is n[ at an end1 & a v few words w "h suffice to convey an epitomis$ recollection ( ! num]\s facts & conclusions :i* we h f\nd x necess>y to contemplate4 ,we fir/ dispos$ ( ! conspicu\sly absurd supposition t ! orig9 ( ?+s1 or ! my/]y ( exi/5ce1 admits ( be+ expla9$ by ! !ory ( ,!ism 9 any fur!r degree ?an by ! !ory ( ,a!ism4 ,next x 0 %[n t ! argum5t ,our he>t requires a ,god is invalid1 see+ t su* a subjective necessity1 ev5 if made out1 c\ld n be suffici5t to prove--or ev5 to r5d] probable--an objective exi/5ce4 ,& ) reg>d to ! fur!r argum5t t ! fact ( our !i/ic aspirations po9t to ,god z to _! explanatory cause1 x became necess>y to obs]ve t ! argum5t c\ld only be admissible aft] ! possibility ( ! op]ation ( natural causes _h be5 exclud$4 ,simil>ly ! argum5t f ! suppos$ intuitive necessity ( individual ?\ght 0 f\nd to be unt5able1 fir/1 because1 ev5 if ! suppos$ necessity 7 a real "o1 x w\ld only possess an individual applicability2 & second1 t1 z a matt] ( fact1 x is extremely improbable t ! suppos$ necessity is a real necessity ev5 = ! individual :o ass]ts x1 :ile x is absolutely c]ta9 t x is n su* to ! va/ majority ( ! race4 ,! argum5t f ! g5]al cons5t ( mank9d1 be+ s obvi\sly fallaci\s bo? z to facts & pr9ciples1 0 pass$ ov] )\t comm5t2 :ile ! argum5t f a fir/ cause 0 f\nd to involve a logical suicide4 ,la/ly1 ! argum5t t1 z human volition is a cause 9 nature1 !re=e all causation is probably volitional 9 "*1 0 %[n to consi/ 9 a /ret* ( inf]5ce s outrage\s t ! argum5t _h to be pron\nc$ wor?less4 ,proce$+ next to exam9e ! less sup]ficial argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism1 x 0 fir/ %[n t ! syllogism1 ,all kn[n m9ds are caus$ by an unkn[n m9d2 our m9d is a kn[n m9d2 !re=e our m9d is caus$ by an unkn[n m9d1--is a syllogism t is inadmissible = two reasons4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x does n acc\nt = m9d 79 ! ab/ract7 to ref] x to a prior m9d = its orig92 & !re=e1 al?\gh ! hypo!sis1 if admitt$1 w\ld be an explanation ( kn[n m9d1 x is useless z an argum5t = ! exi/5ce ( ! unkn[n m9d1 ! assumption ( :i* =ms ! basis ( t explanation4 ,aga91 9 ! next place1 if x be said t m9d is s f> an entity sui g5]is t x mu/ be ei!r self-exi/+ or caus$ by ano!r m9d1 !re is no assignable w>rant = ! ass]tion4 ,& ?is is ! second objection to ! above syllogism2 = any?+ )9 ! :ole range ( ! possible may1 = aught t we c tell1 be compet5t to produce a self-consci\s intellig5ce4 ,?us an objector to ! above syllogism ne$ n hold any !ory ( ?+s at all2 b ev5 z oppos$ to ! def9ite !ory ( mat]ialism1 ! above syllogism has n s valid an argum5tative basis to /& ^u4 ,we "k t :at we call matt] & =ce are to all appe>ance et]nal1 :ile we h no correspond+ evid5ce ( a m9d t is ev5 app>5tly et]nal4 ,fur!r1 )9 exp]i5ce m9d is inv>iably associat$ ) highly diff]5tiat$ collocations ( matt] & di/ributions ( =ce1 & _m facts g to prove1 & none to negative1 ! conclusion t ! grade ( intellig5ce inv>iably dep5ds ^u1 or at lea/ is associat$ )1 a correspond+ grade ( c]ebral developm5t4 ,!re is ?us bo? a qualitative & a quantitative relation betwe5 intellig5ce & c]ebral organisation4 ,& if x is said t matt] & motion _c produce consci\sness because x is inconceivable t !y %\ld1 we h se5 at "s l5g? t ?is is no conclusive consid]ation z appli$ to a subject ( a confess$ly transc5d5tal nature1 & t 9 ! pres5t case x is p>ticul>ly inconclusive1 because1 z x is speculatively c]ta9 t ! sub/ance ( m9d mu/ be unkn[able1 x seems priori probable t1 :atev] is ! cause ( ! unkn[able reality1 ?is cause %\ld be m difficult to r5d] into ?\ght 9 t relation ?an w\ld "s o!r hypo!tical sub/ance :i* is imag9$ z m ak9 to m9d4 ,& if x is said t ! m conceivable cause is ! m probable cause1 we h se5 t x is 9 ?is case impossible to e/imate ! validity ( ! rem>k4 ,la/ly1 ! /atem5t t ! cause mu/ conta9 actually all t its effects c conta91 0 se5 to be inadmissible 9 logic & contradict$ by ev]yday exp]i5ce2 :ile ! argum5t f ! suppos$ fre$om ( ! w & ! exi/5ce ( ! moral s5se 0 negativ$ bo? d$uctively by ! !ory ( evolution1 & inductively by ! doctr9e ( utilit>ianism4 ,on ! :ole1 !n1 ) reg>d to ! argum5t f ! exi/5ce ( ! human m9d1 we 7 compell$ to decide t x is de/itute ( any assignable weight1 !re be+ no?+ m to lead to ! conclusion t our m9d has be5 caus$ by ano!r m9d1 ?an to ! conclusion t x has be5 caus$ by any?+ else :atsoev]4 ,) reg>d to ! argum5t f ,design1 x 0 obs]v$ t ,mill's pres5tation ( x is m]ely a resuscitation ( ! argum5t z pres5t$ by ,paley1 ,bell1 & ,*alm]s4 ,& inde$ we saw t ! fir/-nam$ writ] treat$ ?is :ole subject ) a feebl5ess & inaccuracy v surpris+ 9 him2 = :ile he has fail$ to assign any?+ l due weight to ! inductive evid5ce ( organic evolution1 he did n hesitate to ru% into a sup]natural explanation ( biological ph5om5a4 ,moreov]1 he has fail$ signally 9 8 analysis ( ! ,design argum5t1 see+ t1 9 common ) all previ\s writ]s1 he fail$ to obs]ve t x is utt]ly impossible = u to "k ! relations 9 :i* ! suppos$ ,design] /&s to ! ,design$1--mu* less to argue f ! fact t ! ,supreme ,m9d1 ev5 suppos+ x to exi/1 caus$ ! obs]vable products by any p>ticul> intellectual process4 ,9 o!r words1 all advocates ( ! ,design argum5t h fail$ to p]ceive t1 ev5 if we grant nature to be due to a creat+ ,m9d1 /ill we h no %ad[ ( a "r to conclude t ?is ,m9d c only h ex]t$ its creative p[] by means ( su* & su* cogitative op]ations4 ,h[ absurd1 !re=e1 mu/ x be to raise ! suppos$ evid5ce ( su* cogitative op]ations into evid5ces ( ! exi/5ce ( a creat+ ,m9d6 ,if a !i/ retorts t x is1 aft] all1 ( v little importance :e!r or n we are able to div9e ! me?ods ( creation1 s long z ! facts are !re to atte/ t1 9 "s way or o!r1 ! obs]vable ph5om5a ( nature mu/ be due to ,intellig5ce ( "s k9d z _! ultimate cause1 !n ,i am ! fir/ to endorse ?is rem>k4 ,x has always appe>$ to me "o ( ! mo/ unacc\ntable ?+s 9 ! hi/ory ( speculation t s _m compet5t writ]s c h insi/$ ^u ,design z an argum5t = ,!ism1 :5 !y mu/ all h kn[n p]fectly well t !y h no means ( asc]ta9+ ! subjective psy*ology ( t ,supreme ,m9d ^: exi/5ce ! argum5t is adduc$ to demon/rate4 ,! tru? is1 t ! argum5t f teleology mu/1 & c only1 re/ ^u ! obs]vable facts ( nature1 )\t ref]5ce to ! intellectual processes by :i* ^! facts may be suppos$ to h be5 accompli%$4 ,b1 look+ to ! pres5t /ate ( our k1 ?is is m]ely to *ange ! teleological argum5t f its gross ,paley]ian =m1 into ! argum5t f ! ubiquit\s op]ation ( g5]al laws4 ,& we saw t ?is trans=mation is n[ a rational necessity4 ,h[ f> ! great pr9ciple ( natural selection may h be5 in/rum5tal 9 ! evolution ( organic =ms1 is n "h1 z ,mill errone\sly imag9$1 ! "q2 ! "q is simply z to :e!r we are to accept ! !ory ( special creation or ! !ory ( organic evolution4 ,& =asmu* z no compet5t judge at ! pres5t "t c hesitate = "o mom5t 9 answ]+ ?is "q1 ! argum5t f a proximate teleology mu/ be reg>d$ z no long] hav+ any rational exi/5ce4 ,h[ !n does x f>e ) ! la/ ( ! argum5ts--! argum5t f an ultimate teleology8 ,d\btless at fir/ sight ?is argum5t seems a v p[]ful "o1 inasmu* z x is a g5]ic argum5t1 :i* embraces n only biological ph5om5a1 b all ! ph5om5a ( ! univ]se4 ,b nev]!less we are con/ra9$ to ackn[l$ge t its app>5t p[] dw9dles to no?+ 9 view ( ! indisputable fact t1 if =ce & matt] h be5 et]nal1 all & e natural law mu/ h result$ by way ( necess>y consequ5ce4 ,x w be rememb]$ t ,i dwelt at consid]able l5g? & ) mu* e>ne/ness ^u ?is tru?1 n only because ( its enorm\s importance 9 its be>+ ^u our subject1 b also because no "o has hi!rto consid]$ x 9 t relation4 ,! next /ep1 h[ev]1 0 to mitigate ! sev]ity ( ! conclusion t 0 liable to be =m$ ^u ! utt] & hopeless collapse ( all ! possible argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism4 ,hav+ fully demon/rat$ t !re is no %ad[ ( a positive argum5t 9 support ( ! !i/ic !ory1 !re arose ! dang] t "s p]sons might errone\sly conclude t = ?is reason ! !i/ic !ory mu/ be untrue4 ,x !re=e became necess>y to po9t out1 t al?\gh1 z f> z we c see1 nature does n require an ,intellig5t ,cause to acc\nt = any ( h] ph5om5a1 yet x is possible t1 if we c\ld see f>!r1 we %\ld see t nature c\ld n be :at %e is unless %e _h ow$ h] exi/5ce to an ,intellig5t ,cause4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 ! probability !re is t an ,intellig5t ,cause is unnecess>y to expla9 any ( ! ph5om5a ( nature1 is only equal to ! probability !re is t ! doctr9e ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce is ev]y:]e & et]nally true4 ,z a f9al /ep 9 our analysis1 !re=e1 we altoge!r quitt$ ! region ( exp]i5ce1 & ignor+ ev5 ! v f\ndations ( sci5ce1 & s all ! mo/ c]ta9 ( relative tru?s1 we c>ri$ ! discussion into ! transc5d5tal region ( purely =mal consid]ations4 ,& "h we laid d[n ! canon1 t ! value ( any probability1 9 its la/ analysis1 is det]m9$ by ! numb]1 ! importance1 & ! def9it5ess ( ! relations kn[n1 z comp>$ ) ^? ( ! relations unkn[n2 &1 consequ5tly1 t 9 cases :]e ! unkn[n relations are m num]\s1 m important1 or m indef9ite ?an are ! kn[n relations1 ! value ( our inf]5ce v>ies inv]sely z ! diff]5ce 9 ^! respects betwe5 ! relations comp>$4 ,f :i* canon x foll[$1 t z ! problem ( ,!ism is ! mo/ ultimate ( all problems1 & s conta9s 9 its unkn[n relations all t is to man unkn[n & unkn[able1 ^! relations mu/ be pron\nc$ ! mo/ indef9ite ( all relations t x is possible = man to contemplate2 &1 consequ5tly1 t al?\gh we h "h ! entire range ( exp]i5ce f :i* to argue1 we are unable to e/imate ! real value ( any argum5t :atsoev]4 ,! unkn[n relations 9 our attempt$ induction be+ :olly indef9ite1 bo? 9 respect ( _! numb] & importance1 z comp>$ ) ! kn[n relations1 x is impossible = u to det]m9e any def9ite probability ei!r = or aga9/ ! be+ ( a ,god4 ,!re=e1 al?\gh x is true t1 s f> z human sci5ce c p5etrate or human ?\ght inf]1 we c p]ceive no evid5ce ( ,god1 yet we h no "r on ?is acc\nt to conclude t !re is no ,god4 ,! probability1 !re=e1 t nature is devoid ( ,deity1 :ile x is ( ! /ronge/ k9d if reg>d$ sci5tifically--am\nt+1 9 fact1 to a sci5tific demon/ration1--is nev]!less :olly wor?less if reg>d$ logically4 ,not)/&+ x is z true z is ! fundam5tal basis ( all sci5ce & ( all exp]i5ce t1 if !re is a ,god1 8 exi/5ce1 consid]$ z a cause ( ! univ]se1 is sup]flu\s1 x may nev]!less be true t1 if !re _h nev] be5 a ,god1 ! univ]se c\ld nev] h exi/$4 ,h5ce ^! =mal consid]ations prov$ conclusively t1 no matt] h[ great ! probability ( ,a!ism might appe> to be 9 a relative s5se1 we h no means ( e/imat+ su* probability 9 an absolute s5se4 ,f :i* position !re em]g$ ! possibility ( ano!r argum5t 9 fav\r ( ,!ism--or r let u say1 ( a reappe>ance ( ! teleological argum5t 9 ano!r =m4 ,= x may be said1 see+ t ^! =mal consid]ations exclude legitimate reason+ ei!r = or aga9/ ,deity 9 an absolute s5se1 :ile !y d n exclude su* reason+ 9 a relative s5se1 if !re yet rema9 any !i/ic d$uctions :i* may prop]ly be drawn f exp]i5ce1 ^! may n[ be adduc$ to balance ! a!i/ic d$uctions f ! p]si/5ce ( =ce4 ,= al?\gh ! latt] d$uctions h cle>ly %[n ! exi/5ce ( ,deity to be sup]flu\s 9 a sci5tific s5se1 ! =mal consid]ations 9 "q h no less cle>ly op5$ up beyond ! sph]e ( sci5ce a possible locus = ! exi/5ce ( ,deity2 s t if !re are any facts suppli$ by exp]i5ce = :i* ! a!i/ic d$uctions appe> insuffici5t to acc\nt1 we are /ill free to acc\nt = !m 9 a relative s5se by ! hypo!sis ( ,!ism4 ,&1 x may be urg$1 we d f9d su* an unexpla9$ residuum 9 ! correlation ( g5]al laws 9 ! production ( cosmic h>mony4 ,x signifies no?+1 ! argum5t may run1 t we are unable to conceive ! me?ods :]eby ! suppos$ ,m9d op]ates 9 produc+ cosmic h>mony2 nor does x signify t its op]ation mu/ n[ be relegat$ to a sup]-sci5tific prov9ce4 ,:at does signify is t1 tak+ a g5]al view ( nature1 we f9d x impossible to conceive ( ! ext5t & v>iety ( h] h>moni\s processes z o!r ?an products ( intellig5t causation4 ,n[ ?is sublimat$ =m ( ! teleological argum5t1 x w be rememb]$1 ,i d5ot$ a metaphysical teleology1 9 ord] %>ply to di/+ui% x f all previ\s =ms ( t argum5t1 :i*1 9 contradi/9ction ,i d5ot$ sci5tific teleologies4 ,& ! di/9ction1 x w be rememb]$1 consi/$ 9 ?is--t :ile all previ\s =ms ( teleology1 by re/+ on a basis :i* 0 n beyond ! possible rea* ( sci5ce1 laid !mselves op5 to ! possibility ( sci5tific refutation1 ! metaphysical sy/em ( teleology1 by re/+ on a basis :i* is cle>ly beyond ! possible rea* ( sci5ce1 c nev] be susceptible ( sci5tific refutation4 ,& t ?is metaphysical sy/em ( teleology does re/ on su* a basis is indisputable2 = :ile x accepts ! mo/ ultimate tru?s ( :i* sci5ce c ev] be cognisant--viz41 ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! consequ5tly necess>y g5esis ( natural law1--x nev]!less ma9ta9s t ! necessity ( reg>d+ ,m9d z ! ultimate cause ( ?+s is n on ?is acc\nt remov$2 &1 !re=e1 t if sci5ce n[ requires ! op]ation ( a ,supreme ,m9d to be posit$ 9 a sup]-sci5tific sph]e1 !n 9 a sup]-sci5tific sph]e x ought to be posit$4 ,no d\bt ?is hypo!sis at fir/ sight seems gratuit\s1 see+ t1 s f> z sci5ce c p5etrate1 !re is no ne$ ( any su* hypo!sis at all--cosmic h>mony result+ z a physically necess>y consequ5ce f ! comb9$ action ( natural laws1 :i* 9 turn result z a physically necess>y consequ5ce ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! prim>y qualities ( matt]4 ,b al?\gh x is ?us indisputably true t metaphysical teleology is :olly gratuit\s if consid]$ sci5tifically1 x may n be true t x is :olly gratuit\s if consid]$ psy*ologically4 ,9 o!r words1 if x is m conceivable t ,m9d %\ld be ! ultimate cause ( cosmic h>mony ?an t ! p]si/5ce ( =ce %\ld be s1 !n x is n irrational to accept ! m conceivable hypo!sis 9 pref]5ce to ! less conceivable "o1 provid$ t ! *oice is made ) ! diffid5ce :i* is requir$ by ! consid]ations adduc$ 9 ,*apt] ,v4 ,i conclude1 !re=e1 t ! hypo!sis ( metaphysical teleology1 al?\gh 9 a physical s5se gratuit\s1 may be 9 a psy*ological s5se legitimate4 ,b z aga9/ ! fundam5tal position on :i* alone ?is argum5t c re/--viz41 ! position t ! fundam5tal po/ulate ( ,a!ism is m inconceivable ?an is ! fundam5tal po/ulate ( ,!ism--we h se5 two important objections to lie4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 ! s5se 9 :i* ! ^w inconceivable is "h us$ is t ( ! impossibility ( fram+ realisable relations 9 ! ?\ght2 n t ( ! impossibility ( fram+ ab/ract relations 9 ?\ght4 ,9 ! same s5se1 ?\gh 9 a l[] degree1 x is true t ! complexity ( ! human organisation & its functions is inconceivable2 b 9 ?is s5se ! ^w inconceivable has mu* less weight 9 an argum5t ?an x has 9 its true s5se4 ,&1 )\t wait+ aga9 to dispute 7z we did 9 ! case ( ! speculative /&+ ( ,mat]ialism7 h[ f> ev5 ! g5u9e te/ ( inconceivability ought to be all[$ to make aga9/ an inf]5ce :i* !re is a body ( sci5tific evid5ce to sub/antiate1 we w5t on to ! second objection aga9/ ?is fundam5tal position ( metaphysical teleology4 ,?is objection1 x w be rememb]$1 01 t x is z impossible to conceive ( cosmic h>mony z an effect ( ,m9d1 z x is to conceive ( x z an effect ( m9dless evolution4 ,! argum5t f inconceivability1 !re=e1 admits ( be+ turn$ ) q z t]rible an effect on ,!ism1 z x c possibly be made to ex]t on ,a!ism4 ,h5ce ?is m ref9$ =m ( teleology :i* we are consid]+1 & :i* we saw to be ! la/ ( ! possible argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism1 is met on its own gr\nd by a v cru%+ opposition3 by its metaphysical "* x has escap$ ! opposition ( physical sci5ce1 only to enc\nt] a new opposition 9 ! region ( pure psy*ology to :i* x fl$4 ,z a conclusion to our :ole inquiry1 !re=e1 x devolv$ on u to det]m9e ! relative magnitudes ( ^! oppos+ =ces4 ,& 9 do+ ?is we fir/ obs]v$ t1 if ! support]s ( metaphysical teleology object$ priori to ! me?od :]eby ! g5esis ( natural law 0 d$uc$ f ! datum ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce1 9 t ?is me?od involv$ an unre/rict$ use ( illegitimate symbolic conceptions2 !n x is no less op5 to an a!i/ to object priori to ! me?od :]eby a direct+ ,m9d 0 inf]r$ f ! datum ( cosmic h>mony1 9 t ?is me?od involv$ ! population ( an unkn[able cause1--& ?is ( a "* :i* ! :ole hi/ory ( human ?\ght has prov$ ! human m9d to exhibit an ov]we5+ t5d5cy to po/ulate z ! cause ( natural ph5om5a4 ,on ^! gr\nds1 !re=e1 ,i conclud$ t1 s f> z _! respective /&+ priori is conc]n$1 bo? !ories may be reg>d$ z ab\t equally suspici\s4 ,& simil> ) reg>d to _! /&+ po/]iori2 = z bo? !ories require to embody at lea/ "o inf9ite t]m1 !y mu/ ea* alike be pron\nc$ absolutely inconceivable4 ,b1 f9ally1 if ! "q 7 put to me :i* ( ! two !ories ,i reg>d$ z ! m rational1 ,i obs]v$ t ?is is a "q :i* no "o man c answ] = ano!r4 ,= z ! te/ ( absolute inconceivability is equally de/ructive ( bo? !ories1 if a man wi%es to *oose betwe5 !m1 8 *oice c only be det]m9$ by :at ,i h designat$ relative inconceivability--i4e41 9 accordance ) ! v]dict giv5 by 8 individual s5se ( probability z det]m9$ by 8 previ\s habits ( ?\ght4 ,& =asmu* z ! te/ ( relative inconceivability may be held 9 ?is matt] legitimately to v>y ) ! "* ( ! m9d :i* applies x1 ! /rictly rational probability ( ! "q to :i* x is appli$ v>ies 9 l mann]4 ,or1 o!rwise pres5t$1 ! only alt]native = any man 9 ?is matt] is ei!r to discipl9e himself into an attitude ( pure scepticism1 & ?us to refuse 9 ?\ght to ent]ta9 ei!r a probability or an improbability conc]n+ ! exi/5ce ( a ,god2 or else to incl9e 9 ?\ght t[>ds an affirmation or a negation ( ,god1 accord+ z 8 previ\s habits ( ?\ght h r5d]$ su* an incl9ation m facile 9 ! "o direction ?an 9 ! o!r4 ,& al?\gh1 "u su* circum/ances1 ,i %\ld consid] t man ! m rational :o c>efully susp5d$ 8 judgm5t1 ,i conclude t if ?is c\rse is dep>t$ f1 nei!r ! metaphysical teleologi/ nor ! sci5tific a!i/ has any p]ceptible advantage ov] ! o!r 9 respect ( rationality4 ,= z ! =mal conditions ( a metaphysical teleology are und\bt$ly pres5t on ! "o h&1 & ! =mal conditions ( a speculative a!ism are z und\bt$ly pres5t on ! o!r1 !re is ?us 9 bo? cases a logical vacuum suppli$ :]e9 ! p5dulum ( ?\ght is free to sw+ 9 :i*ev] direction x may be made to sw+ by ! mom5tum ( preconceiv$ ideas4 ,su* is ! outcome ( our inve/igation1 & consid]+ ! ab/ract nature ( ! subject1 ! imm5se div]g5ce ( op9ion :i* at ! pres5t "t is manife/$ ) reg>d to x1 z well z ! confus+ am\nt ( good1 bad1 & indiff]5t lit]ature on bo? sides ( ! controv]sy :i* is extant2--consid]+ ^! ?+s1 ,i d n ?9k t ! result ( our inquiry c be ju/ly compla9$ ( on ! score ( its lack+ precision4 ,at a "t l ! pres5t1 :5 traditional beliefs respect+ ,!ism are s g5]ally accept$ & s commonly conclud$1 z a matt] ( c\rse1 to h a l>ge & valid basis ( induction :]eon to re/1 ,i _c b feel t a p]usal ( ?is %ort essay1 by %[+ h[ v concise ! sci5tific /atus ( ! subject really is1 w d m to settle ! m9ds ( mo/ read]s z to ! exact /&+ at ! pres5t "t ( all ! probabilities ( ! "q1 ?an c\ld a p]usal ( all ! re/ ( ! lit]ature ^u ?is subject4 ,&1 look+ to ! pres5t condition ( speculative philosophy1 ,i reg>d x z ( ! utmo/ importance to h cle>ly %[n t ! advance ( sci5ce has n[ entitl$ u to ass]t1 )\t ! lea/ hesitation1 t ! hypo!sis ( ,m9d 9 nature is z c]ta9ly sup]flu\s to acc\nt = any ( ! ph5om5a ( nature1 z ! sci5tific doctr9e ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! inde/ructibility ( matt] is c]ta9ly true4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if any "o is incl9$ to compla9 t ! logical aspect ( ! "q has n prov$ itself s unequivocally def9ite z has ! sci5tific1 ,i mu/ ask him to consid] t1 9 any matt] :i* does n admit ( actual demon/ration1 "s m>g9 mu/ ( necessity be left = v>iations ( individual op9ion4 ,&1 if he be>s ?is consid]ation 9 m9d1 ,i feel sure t he _c prop]ly compla9 ( my n hav+ done my utmo/ 9 ?is case to def9e z %>ply z possible ! "* & ! limits ( ?is m>g94 #di4 ,& n[1 9 conclusion1 ,i feel x is desirable to /ate t any antec$5t bias ) reg>d to ,!ism :i* ,i individually possess is unque/ionably on ! side ( traditional beliefs4 ,x is !re=e ) ! utmo/ sorr[ t ,i f9d myself compell$ to accept ! conclusions "h work$ out2 & no?+ w\ld h induc$ me to publi% !m1 save ! /r5g? ( my conviction t x is ! duty ( e memb] ( society to give 8 fell[s ! b5efit ( 8 lab\rs = :atev] !y may he wor?4 ,j z ,i am confid5t t tru? mu/ 9 ! end be ! mo/ pr(itable = ! race1 s ,i am p]suad$ t e individual endeav\r to atta9 x1 provid$ only t su* endeav\r is unbiass$ & s9c]e1 ought )\t hesitation to be made ! common prop]ty ( all m51 no matt] 9 :at direction ! results ( its promulgation may appe> to t5d4 ,& s f> z ! ru9ation ( individual happ9ess is conc]n$1 no "o c h a m lively p]ception ?an myself ( ! possibly disa/r\s t5d5cy ( my "w4 ,s f> z ,i am individually conc]n$1 ! result ( ?is analysis has be5 to %[ t1 :e!r ,i reg>d ! problem ( ,!ism on ! l[] plane ( /rictly relative probability1 or on ! high] plane ( purely =mal consid]ations1 x equally becomes my obvi\s duty to /ifle all belief ( ! k9d :i* ,i conceive to be ! noble/1 & to discipl9e my intellect ) reg>d to ?is matt] into an attitude ( ! pure/ scepticism4 ,& =asmu* z ,i am f> f be+ able to agree ) ^? :o affirm t ! twilight doctr9e ( ! new fai? is a desirable sub/itute = ! wan+ spl5d\r ( ! old1 ,i am n a%am$ to confess t ) ?is virtual negation ( ,god ! univ]se to me has lo/ its s\l ( lovel9ess2 & al?\gh f h5ce=? ! precept to "w :ile x is day w d\btless b ga9 an int5sifi$ =ce f ! t]ribly int5sifi$ mean+ ( ! words t ! night come? :5 no man c "w1 yet :5 at times ,i ?9k1 z ?9k at times ,i mu/1 ( ! appall+ contra/ betwe5 ! hall[$ glory ( t cre$ :i* once 0 m9e1 & ! lonely my/]y ( exi/5ce z n[ ,i f9d x1--at su* times ,i %all ev] feel x impossible to avoid ! %>pe/ pang ( :i* my nature is susceptible4 ,= :e!r x be due to my intellig5ce n be+ suffici5tly advanc$ to meet ! requirem5ts ( ! age1 or :e!r x be due to ! memory ( ^? sacr$ associations :i* to me at lea/ 7 ! sweete/ t life has giv51 ,i _c b feel t = me1 & = o!rs :o ?9k z ,i d1 !re is a dreadful tru? 9 ^? words ( ,hamilton1--,philosophy hav+ become a m$itation1 n m]ely ( dea?1 b ( annihilation1 ! precept "k ?yself has become trans=m$ into ! t]rific oracle to ,o$ipus-- ,maye/ ?\ ne'er "k ! tru? ( :at ?\ art4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,app5dix ,,& ,,supplem5t>y ,,essays4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,app5dix4 99 99 99 99 99 ,a ,,critical ,,exposition ,,( ,a ,,fallacy ,,9 ,,locke',s ,,use ,,( ,,! ,,argum5t ,,aga9/ ,,! ,,possibility ,,( ,,matt] ,,?9k+ ,,on ,,gr\nds ,,( ,,its ,,be+ ,,inconceivable ,,t ,,x ,,%\ld4 ,le/ x %\ld be ?\ght t ,i am do+ inju/ice to ! views ( ?is illu/ri\s !i/1 ,i "h quote 8 own words3--,we h ! ideas ( matt] & ?9k+1 b possibly %all nev] be able to "k :e!r any m]e mat]ial be+ ?9ks or no1 x be+ impossible = u1 by ! contemplation ( our own ideas1 )\t revelation1 to discov] :e!r omnipot5cy has n giv5 to "s sy/ems ( matt] fitly dispos$ a p[] to p]ceive & ?9k1 or else jo9$ & fix$ to matt] s dispos$ a ?9k+ immat]ial sub/ance2 x be+1 9 respect ( our notions1 n mu* m remote f our compreh5sion to conceive t ,god c1 if ,he pleases1 sup]add to matt] a faculty ( ?9k+1 ?an t ,he %\ld sup]add to x ano!r sub/ance ) a faculty ( ?9k+2 s9ce we "k n :]e9 ?9k+ consi/s1 nor to :at sort ( sub/ance ! ,almighty has be5 pleas$ to give t p[]1 :i* _c be 9 any creat$ be+1 b m]ely by ! good pleasure & b\nty ( ! ,creator4 ,= ,i see no contradiction 9 x t ! fir/ et]nal ?9k+ be+ %\ld1 if he pleas$1 give to c]ta9 sy/ems ( creat$ s5seless matt]1 put toge!r z he ?9ks fit1 "s degrees ( s5se1 p]ception1 & ?\ght3 ?\gh1 z ,i ?9k1 ,i h prov$1 lib4 iv41 *4 #aj & #ad1 c41 x is no less ?an a contradiction to suppose matt] 7:i* is evid5tly 9 its own nature void ( s5se & ?\ght7 %\ld be t et]nal fir/-?9k+ be+4 ,:at c]ta9ty ( k c any "o h t "s p]ceptions1 su* z1 e4g41 pleasure & pa91 %\ld n be 9 "s bodies !mselves1 aft] a c]ta9 mann] modifi$ & mov$1 z well z t !y %\ld be 9 an immat]ial sub/ance ^u ! motion ( ! p>ts ( body8 ,body1 z f> z we c conceive1 be+ able only to /rike & affect body2 & motion1 accord+ to ! utmo/ rea* ( our ideas1 be+ able to produce no?+ b motion3 s t :5 we all[ x to produce pleasure or pa91 or ! idea ( a col\r or s\nd1 we are fa9 to quit our reason1 g beyond our ideas1 & attribute x :olly to ! good pleasure ( our ,mak]4 ,= s9ce we mu/ all[ ,he has annex$ effects to motion :i* we c no way conceive motion able to produce1 :at reason h we to conclude t ,he c\ld n ord] !m z well to be produc$ 9 a subject we _c conceive capable ( !m1 z well z 9 a subject we _c conceive ! motion ( matt] c any way op]ate ^u8 ,i say n ?is1 t ,i w\ld any way less5 ! belief ( ! s\l's immat]iality1 c4444 ,x is a po9t :i* seems to me to be put out ( ! rea* ( our k2 & he :o w give himself leave to consid] freely1 & look into ! d>k & intricate "p ( ea* hypo!sis1 w sc>ce f9d 8 reason able to det]m9e him fix$ly = or aga9/ ! s\l's mat]iality4 ,s9ce on :i* side soev] he views x1 ei!r z an unext5d$ sub/ance or z a ?9k+ ext5d$ matt]1 ! difficulty to conceive ei!r w1 :il/ ei!r alone is 9 8 ?\ghts1 /ill drive him to ! contr>y side4 ,an unfair way :i* "s m5 take ) !mselves1 :o1 because ( ! inconceivabl5ess ( some?+ !y f9d 9 "o1 ?r[ !mselves viol5tly into ! contr>y hypo!sis1 ?\gh altoge!r z un9telligible to an unbiass$ und]/&+4 ,?is passage1 ,i d n hesitate to say1 is "o ( ! mo/ rem>kable 9 ! :ole range ( philosophical lit]ature1 9 respect ( %[+ h[ ev5 ! /ronge/ & mo/ c&id intellect may h its reason+ faculty impair$ by ! =ce ( a pre=m$ conviction4 ,"h we h a m9d ( unsurpass$ p5etration & c&\r1 :i* has left u side by side two p>allel tra9s ( reason+4 ,9 ! "o1 ! object is to %[ t ! au?or's pre=m$ conviction z to ! be+ ( a ,god is ju/ifiable on gr\nds ( reason2 9 ! o!r1 ! object is to %[ t1 grant+ ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 & x is n impossible t he may h end[$ matt] ) ! faculty ( ?9k+4 ,n[1 9 ! =m] tra9 ( reason+1 ! :ole pro( re/s entirely ^u ! fact t x is impossible to conceive t ev] b>e incogitative matt] %\ld produce a ?9k+ intellig5t be+4 ,cle>ly1 if ?is proposition is true1 x mu/ de/roy "o or o!r ( ! tra9s ( reason+2 = x is common to !m bo?1 & 9 "o ( !m x is made ! sole gr\nd = conclud+ t matt] _c ?9k1 :ile 9 ! o!r x is made compatible ) ! supposition t matt] may ?9k4 ,?is extraord9>y inconsi/5cy no d\bt arose f ! fact t ! au?or 0 antec$5tly p]suad$ ( ! exi/5ce ( an ,omnipot5t ,m9d1 & hav+ be5 long accu/om$ 9 8 intellectual symbols to reg>d x presumptu\s 9 him to impose any limitations on ?is almighty p[]1 :5 he ask$ himself :e!r x w\ld be possible = ?is almighty p[]1 if x s will$1 to end[ matt] ) ! faculty ( ?9k+1 he argu$ t x might be possible1 not)/&+ 8 be+ unable to conceive ! possibility4 ,b :5 he bani%$ f 8 m9d ! idea ( ?is p]sonal & almighty p[]1 & ) t idea bani%$ all its associations1 he !n felt t he _h a "r to argue m freely1 & =?) made 8 conceptive faculty a te/ ( ab/ract possibility4 ,yet ! sum total ( ab/ract possibility1 9 relation to him1 mu/ h be5 ! same 9 ! two cases2 s t 9 :i*ev] ( ! two tra9s ( reason+ 8 argum5t 0 s\nd1 9 ! o!r x mu/ c]ta9ly h be5 null4 ,we may well feel amaz$ t s able a ?9k] c h fall5 into s obvi\s an error1 & aft]w>ds h p]si/$ 9 x ?r\gh pages & pages ( 8 "w4 ,x w be in/ructive1 h[ev]1 to ^? :o rely ^u ,locke's exposition ( ! argum5t f ,inconceivability to see h[ effectually he has himself de/roy$ x4 ,= ?is purpose1 !re=e1 ,i %all make "s fur!r quotations f ! same tra9 ( reason+4 ,! /atem5t ( ,locke's op9ion t ! ,almighty c\ld end[ matt] ) ! faculty ( ?9k+ if ,he s will$1 call$ d[n "s remon/rances & rebukes f ! !n ,bi%op ( ,worce/]4 ,locke's reply 0 a v l5g?y "o1 & f x ! foll[+ extracts are tak54 ,i m]ely reque/ ! read] ?r\gh\t to sub/itute = ! words ,god1 ,creator1 ,almighty1 ,omipot5cy1 c41 ! words ,summum g5us ( ,possibility4 ,b x is fur!r urg$ t we _c conceive h[ matt] c ?9k4 ,i grant x1 b to argue f !nce t ,god !re=e _c give to matt] a faculty ( ?9k+ is to say ,god's omnipot5cy is limit$ to a n>r[ compass because man's und]/&+ is s1 & br+s d[n ,god's inf9ite p[] to ! size ( our capacities4444 ,if ,god c give no p[] to any p>ts ( matt] b :at m5 c acc\nt = f ! ess5ce ( matt] 9 g5]al2 if all su* qualities & prop]ties mu/ de/roy ! ess5ce1 or *ange ! ess5tial prop]ties ( matt]1 :i* are to our conceptions above x1 & we _c conceive to be ! natural consequ5ce ( t ess5ce2 x is pla9 t ! ess5ce ( matt] is de/roy$1 & its ess5tial prop]ties *ang$1 9 mo/ ( ! s5sible p>ts ( ?is our sy/em4 ,= x is visible t all ! planets h revolutions ab\t c]ta9 remote c5tres1 :i* ,i w\ld h any "o expla9 or make conceivable by ! b>e ess5ce1 or natural p[]s dep5d+ on ! ess5ce ( matt] 9 g5]al1 )\t some?+ add$ to t ess5ce :i* we _c conceive2 = ! mov+ ( matt] 9 a crook$ l9e1 or ! attraction ( matt] by matt]1 is all t c be said 9 ! case2 ei!r ( :i* x is above our rea* to d]ive f ! ess5ce ( matt] or body 9 g5]al1 ?\gh "o ( ^! two mu/ unavoidably be all[$ to be sup]add$1 9 ?is in/ance1 to ! ess5ce ( matt] 9 g5]al4 ,! omnipot5t ,creator advis$ n ) u 9 ! mak+ ( ! _w1 & ,8 ways are n ! less excell5t because !y are pa/ f9d+ out4444 ,9 all su* cases1 ! sup]9ducem5t ( great] p]fections & nobl] qualities de/roys no?+ ( ! ess5ce or p]fections t 7 !re be=e1 unless !re c be %[$ a manife/ repugnancy betwe5 !m2 b all ! pro( (f]$ = t is only t we _c conceive h[ matt]1 )\t su* sup]add$ p]fections1 c produce su* effects2 :i* is1 9 tru?1 no m ?an to say matt] 9 g5]al1 or e "p ( matt]1 z matt]1 has !m n1 b is no reason to prove t ,god1 if ,he pleases1 _c sup]add !m to "s p>ts ( matt]1 unless x c be prov$ to be a contradiction t ,god %\ld give to "s p>ts ( matt] qualities & p]fections :i* matt] 9 g5]al has n1 ?\gh we _c conceive h[ matt] is inve/$ ) !m1 or h[ x op]ates by virtue ( ^? new end[m5ts2 nor is x to be wond]$ t we _c1 :il/ we limit all its op]ations to ^? qualities x _h be=e1 & w\ld expla9 !m by ! kn[n prop]ties ( matt] 9 g5]al1 )\t any su* induc$ p]fections4 ,= if ?is be a "r rule ( reason+1 to d5y a ?+ to be because we _c conceive ! mann] h[ x comes to be1 ,i %all desire !m :o use x to /ick to ?is rule1 & see :at "w x w make bo? 9 div9ity z well z philosophy1 & :e!r !y c advance any?+ m 9 fav\r ( scepticism4 ,= to keep )9 ! pres5t subject ( ! p[] ( ?9k+ & self-motion be/[$ by omnipot5t p[] 9 "s p>ts ( matt]3 ! objection to ?is is1 ,i _c conceive h[ matt] %\ld ?9k4 ,:at is ! consequ5ce8 ,ergo1 ,god _c give x a p[] to ?9k4 ,let ?is /& = a good reason1 & !n proce$ 9 o!r cases by ! same4 ,y _c conceive h[ matt] c attract matt] at any di/ance1 mu* less at ! di/ance ( #a1jjj1jjj miles2 ergo1 ,god _c give x su* a p[]3 y _c conceive h[ matt] %\ld feel or move itself1 or affect any mat]ial be+1 or be mov$ by x2 ergo1 ,god _c give x su* p[]s3 :i* is 9 effect to d5y gravity1 & ! revolution ( ! planets ab\t ! sun2 to make brutes m]e ma*9es1 )\t s5se or spontane\s motion2 & to all[ man nei!r s5se nor volunt>y motion4 ,let u apply ?is rule "o degree f>!r4 ,y _c conceive h[ an ext5d$ solid sub/ance %\ld ?9k1 !re=e ,god _c make x ?9k3 c y conceive h[ y\r own s\l or any sub/ance ?9ks8 ,y f9d1 inde$1 t y d ?9k1 & s d ,i2 b ,i want to be told h[ ! action ( ?9k+ is p]=m$3 ?is1 ,i confess1 is beyond my conception2 & ,i w\ld be glad any "o :o conceives x w\ld expla9 x to me4 ,god1 ,i f9d1 has giv5 me ?is faculty2 & s9ce ,i _c b be conv9c$ ( ,8 p[] 9 ?is in/ance1 :i*1 ?\gh ,i e mom5t exp]i5ce 9 myself1 yet ,i _c conceive ! mann] (1 :at w\ld x be less ?an an insol5t absurdity to d5y ,8 p[] 9 o!r l cases1 only = ?is reason1 because ,i _c conceive ! mann] h[8444 ,t ,omnipot5cy _c make a sub/ance to be solid & n solid at ! same "t1 ,i ?9k ) due rev]5ce diffid5ce8#ce we may say2 b t a solid sub/ance may n h qualities1 p]fections1 & p[]s1 :i* h no natural or visibly necess>y connection ) solidity & ext5sion1 is too mu* = u 7:o are b ( ye/]day1 & "k no?+7 to be positive 94 ,if ,god _c jo9 ?+s toge!r by connections inconceivable to u1 we mu/ d5y ev5 ! consi/5cy & be+ ( matt] itself2 s9ce e p>ticle ( x hav+ "s bulk1 has its p>ts connect$ by ways inconceivable to u4 ,s t all ! difficulties t are rais$ aga9/ ! ?9k+ ( matt]1 f our ignorance or n>r[ conceptions1 /& n at all 9 ! way ( ! p[] ( ,god1 if ,he pleases to orda9 x s2 nor prove any?+ aga9/ ,8 hav+ actually end[$ "s p>cels ( matt]1 s dispos$ z ,he ?9ks fit1 ) a faculty ( ?9k+1 till x c he %[n t x conta9s a contradiction to suppose x4 ,?\gh to me s5sation be compreh5d$ "u ?9k+ 9 g5]al1 9 ! =ego+ disc\rse ,i h spoke ( s5se 9 brutes z di/9ct f ?9k+2 because y\r lord%ip1 z ,i rememb]1 speaks ( s5se 9 brutes4 ,b "h ,i take lib]ty to obs]ve1 t if y\r lord%ip all[s brutes to h s5sation1 x w foll[1 ei!r t ,god c & do? give to "s p>cels ( matt] a p[] ( p]ception & ?9k+1 or t all animals h immat]ial1 & consequ5tly1 accord+ to y\r lord%ip1 immortal s\ls1 z well z m52 & to say t fleas & mites1 c41 h immortal s\ls z well z m51 w possibly be look$ on z go+ a great way to s]ve an hypo!sis4444 ,x is true1 ,i say1 ',t bodies op]ate by impulse1 & no?+ else1' & s ,i ?\ght :5 ,i writ x1 & c yet conceive no o!r way ( _! op]ation4 ,b ,i am s9ce conv9c$1 by ! judici\s ,mr4 ,newton's incomp>able book1 t x is too bold a presumption to limit ,god's p[] 9 ?is po9t by my n>r[ conceptions4 ,! gravitation ( matt] t[>ds matt]1 by way unconceivable to me1 is n only a demon/ration t ,god c1 if ,he pleases1 put into bodies p[]s & ways ( op]ation above :at c be d]iv$ f our idea ( body1 or c be expla9$ by :at we "k ( matt]1 b also an unque/ionable & ev]y:]e visible in/ance t ,he has done s4 ,& !re=e1 9 ! next edition ( my book1 ,i w take c>e to h t passage rectifi$4444 ,z to self-consci\sness1 y\r lord%ip asks1 ',:at is !re l self-consci\sness 9 matt]8' ,no?+ at all 9 matt] z matt]4 ,b t ,god _c be/[ on "s p>cels ( matt] a p[] ( ?9k+1 & ) x self-consci\sness1 w nev] be prov$ by ask+ h[ is x possible to appreh5d t m]e body %\ld p]ceive t x do? p]ceive8 ,! weakness ( our appreh5sion ,i grant 9 ! case3 ,i confess z mu* z y please1 t we _c conceive h[ an unsolid creat$ sub/ance ?9ks2 b ?is weakness ( our appreh5sion rea*es n ! p[] ( ,god1 ^: weakness is /rong] ?an any?+ 9 man4 ,la/ly1 ,locke turns ^u 8 oppon5t ! p[] ( ! odium !ologicum4 ,let x be z h>d a matt] z x w to give an acc\nt :at x is t %\ld keep ! p>ts ( a mat]ial s\l toge!r aft] x is sep>at$ f ! body1 yet x w be always z easy to give an acc\nt ( x z to give an acc\nt :at x is t %all keep toge!r a mat]ial & immat]ial sub/ance4 ,& yet ! difficulty t !re is to give an acc\nt ( t1 ,i hope1 does n1 ) y\r lord%ip1 weak5 ! cr$ibility ( ! insep>able union ( s\l & body to et]nity2 & ,i p]suade myself t ! m5 ( s5se1 to :om y\r lord%ip appeals 9 ?is case1 d n f9d _! belief ( ?is fundam5tal po9t mu* weak5$ by t difficulty4444 ,b y w say1 y speak only ( ! s\l2 & y\r words are1 t x is no easy matt] to give an acc\nt h[ ! s\l %\ld be capable ( immortality unless x be a mat]ial sub/ance4 ,i grant x1 b crave leave to say1 t !re is n any "o ( ^! difficulties t are or c be rais$ ab\t ! mann] h[ a mat]ial s\l c be immortal1 :i* d n z well rea* ! immortality ( ! body4444 ,b y\r lord%ip1 z ,i guess f y\r foll[+ words1 w\ld argue t a mat]ial sub/ance _c be a free ag5t2 :]eby ,i suppose y only mean t y _c see or conceive h[ a solid sub/ance %\ld beg91 /op1 or *ange its own motion4 ,to :i* give me leave to answ]1 t :5 y c make x conceivable h[ any creat$1 f9ite1 dep5d5t sub/ance c move itself1 ,i suppose y w f9d x no h>d] = ,god to be/[ ?is p[] on a solid ?an an unsolid creat$ sub/ance4444 ,b ?\gh y _c see h[ any creat$ sub/ance1 solid or n solid1 c be a free ag5t 7p>don me1 my "l1 if ,i put 9 bo?1 till y\r lord%ip please to expla9 x ( ei!r1 & %[ ! mann] h[ ei!r ( !m c ( itself move itself or any?+ else71 yet ,i d n ?9k y w s f> d5y m5 to be free ag5ts1 f ! difficulty !re is to see h[ !y are free ag5ts1 z to d\bt :e!r !re be f\ndation en\gh = ! day ( judgm5t4 ,let u n[1 = ! sake ( contra/1 turn to "s passages :i* occur 9 ! o!r tra9 ( reason+4 ,if we suppose only matt] & motion fir/ or et]nal1 ?\ght c nev] beg9 to be4 ,= x is impossible to conceive t matt]1 ei!r ) or )\t motion1 c\ld h orig9ally 9 & f itself s5se1 p]ception1 & k2 z is evid5t f h5ce1 t !n s5se1 p]ception1 & k mu/ be a prop]ty et]nally insep>able f matt] & e p>ticle ( x4 ,!re is a d\ble fallacy "h4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 conceivability is made ! unconditional te/ ( possibility2 &1 9 ! next place1 x is ass]t$ t unless e p>ticle ( matt] c ?9k1 no collocation ( su* p>ticles c possibly d s4 ,?is latt] fallacy is fur!r insi/$ ^u ?us3--,if !y w n all[ matt] z matt]1 t is1 e p>ticle ( matt]1 to be z well cogitative z ext5d$1 !y w h z h>d a task to make out to _! own reasons a cogitative be+ out ( incogitative p>ticles1 z an ext5d$ be+ out ( unext5d$ p>ts1 if ,i may s speak4444 ,e p>ticle ( matt]1 z matt]1 is capable ( all ! same figures & motions ( any o!r1 & ,i *all5ge any "o 9 8 ?\ghts to add any?+ else to "o above ano!r4 ,n[1 z we h se51 ,locke himself has %[n 9 8 o!r tra9s ( argum5t t ?is *all5ge is ?or\ghly futile z a refutation ( possibilities2 b ! po9t to :i* ,i n[ wi% to draw att5tion is ?is--,x does n foll[ because c]ta9 & highly complex collocations ( mat]ial p>ticles may be suppos$ capable ( ?9k+1 t !re=e e p>ticle ( matt] mu/ be reg>d$ z hav+ ?is attribute4 ,we h innum]able analogies 9 nature ( a c]ta9 collocation ( matt] & =ce produc+ c]ta9 results :i* ano!r some:at simil> collocation c\ld n produce3 9 su* cases we d n assume t all ! result+ attributes ( ! "o collocation mu/ be pres5t$ also by ! o!r--/ill less t ^! result+ attributes mu/ belong to ! prim>y qualities ( matt] & =ce4 ,h5ce1 x is n fair to assume t ?\ght mu/ ei!r be inh]5t 9 e p>ticle ( matt]1 or else n producible by any possible collocation ( su* p>ticles1 unless x has previ\sly be5 %[n t s to produce x by any possible collocation is 9 ! nature ( ?+s impossible4 ,b no "o c\ld refute ?is fallacy bett] ?an ,locke himself has done 9 "s ( ! passages already quot$ f 8 o!r tra9 ( reason+4 ,b to cont9ue ! quotation3--,if1 !re=e1 x be evid5t t some?+ necess>ily mu/ exi/ f et]nity1 x is also z evid5t t t some?+ mu/ necess>ily be a cogitative be+2 = x is z impossible inconceivable t incogitative matt] %\ld produce a cogitative be+1 z t no?+1 or ! negation ( all be+1 %\ld produce a positive be+ or matt]4 ,aga91--,= un?9k+ p>ticles ( matt]1 h[ev] put toge!r1 c h c be taught to h no?+ !reby add$ to !m1 b a new relation ( position1 :i* x is impossible inconceivable %\ld give ?\ght & k to !m4 ,x is unnecess>y to multiply ^! quotations1 =1 9 effect1 !y w\ld all be m]ely repetitions ( "o ano!r4 ,x is en\gh to h se5 t ?is able au?or und]takes to demon/rate ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 & t 8 :ole demon/ration resolves itself into ! unw>rantable inf]5ce1 t z we are unable to conceive h[ ?\ght c be a prop]ty ( matt]1 !re=e a prop]ty ( matt] ?\ght _c be4 ,t su* an errone\s inf]5ce %\ld occur 9 any writ+s ( s old a date z ^? ( ,locke is n 9 itself surpris+4 ,:at is surpris+ is ! fact1 t 9 ! same writ+s1 & 9 ! c\rse ( ! same discussion1 ! fallacy ( ?is v inf]5ce is repeat$ly po9t$ out & insi/$ ^u 9 a great v>iety ( ways2 & x has be5 *iefly = ! sake ( %[+ ! p]nici\s influ5ce :i* pre=m$ op9ion may ex]t--viz41 ev5 to bl9d+ ! eyes ( "o ( ! mo/ cle>-sight$ & ?\ghtful m5 t ev] liv$ to a gl>+ contradiction repeat$ ov] & ov] aga9 9 ! c\rse ( a few pages1--x has be5 *iefly = ?is reason t ,i h ext5d$ ?is ,app5dix to s great a l5g?4 ,i %all n[ conclude x by quot+ "s s5t5ces :i* occur on ! v next page aft] t f :i* ! la/ quot$ s5t5ces 7 tak54 ,our au?or "h aga9 returns to 8 def5ce ( ! omnipot5cy ( ,god2 & z he n[ aga9 ?us p]sonifies ! sum total ( possibility1 8 m9d abruptly rev]ts to all its o!r class ( associations4 ,9 ?is case ! transition is p>ticul>ly int]e/+1 n only on acc\nt ( its sudd5ness1 b also because ! correlations contemplat$ happ5 to be exactly ! same 9 ! two cases--viz41 matt] z ! cause ( m9d1 & m9d z ! cause ( matt]4 ,rememb] t on ! la/ page ?is great philosoph] suppos$ he _h demon/rat$ ! ab/ract impossibility ( matt] be+ ! cause ( m9d on ! gr\nd ( a causal connection be+ inconceivable1 let u n[ obs]ve :at he says ^u ?is page reg>d+ ! ab/ract possibility ( m9d be+ ! cause ( matt]4 ,nay1 possibly1 if we w\ld emancipate ourselves f vulg> notions1 & raise our ?\ghts z f> z !y w\ld rea* to a clos] contemplation ( ?+s1 we might be able to aim at "s dim & seem+ conception h[ matt] might at fir/ be made & beg9 to exi/ by ! p[] ( t et]nal fir/ be+4444 ,b y w say1 ,is x n impossible to admit ( ! mak+ any?+ out ( no?+1 s9ce we _c possibly conceive x8 ,i answ]--,no2 because x is n reasonable to d5y ! p[] ( an inf9ite be+ ?is phrase1 9 ! abs5ce ( hypo!sis1 i4e41 9 ,locke's o!r tra9 ( reason+1 is ( c\rse equival5t to ! sum-total ( possibility because we _c compreh5d its op]ations4 ,we d n d5y o!r effects ^u ?is gr\nd1 because we _c possibly conceive ! mann] ( _! production4 ,we _c conceive h[ any?+ b impulse ( body c move body2 & yet t is n a reason suffici5t to make u d5y x possible1 aga9/ ! con/ant exp]i5ce we h ( x 9 ourselves1 9 all our volunt>y motions1 :i* are produc$ 9 u only by ! free action or ?\ght ( our m9ds1 & are n1 nor c be1 ! effects ( ! impulse or det]m9ation ( ! bl9d matt] 9 or ^u our own bodies2 = !n x c\ld n be 9 our p[] or *oice to alt] x4 ,= example1 my "r h& writes1 :il/ my left h& is /ill3 :at causes re/ 9 "o & motion 9 ! o!r8 ,no?+ b my w1 a ?\ght 9 my m9d2 my ?\ght only *ang+1 ! "r h& re/s1 & ! left h&s moves4 ,?is is matt] ( fact1 :i* _c be d5i$3 expla9 ?is & make x intelligible1 & !n ! next /ep w be to und]/& creation4#cf 99 99 99 99 99 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essays4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i4 ,,cosmic ,,!ism4#cg ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]'s doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able is a doctr9e ( s mu* speculative importance1 t x behoves all /ud5ts ( philosophy to h cle> views respect+ its "* & implications4 ,mr4 ,sp5c] has himself s fully expla9$ ! "* ( ?is doctr9e1 t no att5tive read] c fail to und]/& x2 b conc]n+ ^? ( its implications :i* may be t]m$ !ological--z di/+ui%$ f religi\s--,mr4 ,sp5c] is sil5t4 ,)9 ! la/ two or ?ree ye>s1 h[ev]1 !re has appe>$ a valuable "w by an able expon5t ( ! new philosophy2 & 9 ?is "w ! writ]1 adopt+ 8 ma/]'s tea*+ ( ! ,unkn[able1 proce$s to develop x into a def9ite sy/em ( :at may be t]m$ sci5tific !ology4 ,& n only s1 b he assures ! _w t ?is sy/em ( sci5tific !ology is ! highe/1 ! pure/1 & ! mo/ ennobl+ =m ( religion t mank9d has ev] be5 privileg$ to "k 9 ! pa/1 or1 f ! nature ( ! case1 c ev] be de/9$ to "k 9 ! future4 ,x is a sy/em1 we are told1 :]e9 ! mo/ fundam5tal tru?s ( ,!ism are taught z necess>y d$uctions f ! highe/ tru?s ( ,sci5ce2 x is a sy/em :]e9 no s+le doctr9e appeals = its acceptance to any pr9ciple ( bl9d or cr$ul\s fai?1 b :]e9 e doctr9e c be fully ju/ifi$ by ! se>*+ light ( reason2 x is a sy/em :]e9 ! noble/ ( our aspirations & ! mo/ sublime ( our emotions are able to f9d an object f> m wor?y & mu* m glori\s ?an has ev] be5 suppli$ to !m by any ( ! old] =ms ( ,!ism2 & x is a sy/em1 !re=e1 9 :i*1 ) a greatly enl>g$ & int5sifi$ mean+1 we may wor%ip ,god1 & all t is )9 u bless ,8 holy "n4 ,assur$ly a proclamation su* z ?is1 emanat+ f ! mo/ au?oritative exp\nd]s ( mod]n ?\ght1 z ! highe/ & ! greate/ result to :i* a rigor\s philosophic syn!sis has l$1 is a proclamation :i* _c fail to arre/ our mo/ s]i\s att5tion4 ,nay1 may x n d m ?an ?is8 ,may x n appeal to he>ts :i* long h ceas$ to wor%ip8 ,may x n once m revive a hope--long bani%$1 p]haps1 b /ill ! de>e/ :i* our poor natures h exp]i5c$--t some:]e1 sometime1 or 9 "s way1 x may yet be possible to feel t ,god is n f> f any "o ( u8 ,= to ^? :o h kn[n ! angui% ( a %att]$ fai?1 x w n seem s *ildi% t our he>ts %\ld beat ! quick] :5 we once m he> a voice ann\nc+ to a _w ( sup]/iti\s idolat]s--,:om ye ignorantly wor%ip1 ,him decl>e ,i unto y4 ,b if1 :5 we h li/5$ to ! glad tid+s ( ! new gospel1 we f9d t ! prea*]1 ?\gh app>5tly 9 e>ne/1 is n wor?y to be he>d aga9 on ?is matt]2 & if1 z we turn away1 our eyes gr[ dim ) ! memory ( a vani%$ dream1 surely we may feel t ! prea*] is des]v+ ( our blame = obtrud+ ?us ^u ! mo/ sacr$ ( our sorr[s4 ,mr4 ,john ,fiske is1 z is well kn[n1 an au?or :o unites 9 himself ! qualities ( a well-read /ud5t ( philosophy1 a cle> & accurate ?9k]1 a ?or\gh ma/] ( ! pr9ciples :i* 9 8 rec5t "w he und]takes to expla9 & to ext5d1 & a writ] gift$ 9 a rem>kable degree ) ! p[] ( lucid exposition4 ,su* be+ ! intellectual calibre ( ! man :o elaborates ?is new sy/em ( sci5tific !ology1 ,i confess t1 on fir/ see+ 8 "w1 ,i exp]i5c$ a fa9t hope t1 9 ! high] dep>tm5ts ( ! ,philosophy ( ,evolution z conceiv$ by ,mr4 ,sp5c] & elaborat$ by 8 disciple1 !re might be f\nd "s rational ju/ification = an att5uat$ =m ( ,!ism4 ,b on exam9ation ,i f9d t ! bread :i* ^! fa!rs h (f]$ u turns out to be a /one2 & ?9k+ t x is desirable to w>n o!r ( ! *ildr5--:e!r ( ! family ,philosophical or ,!ological--aga9/ swall[+ on tru/ a morsel s injuri\s1 ,i %all endeav\r to po9t out :at ,i conceive to be ! true nature ( ,cosmic ,!ism4 ,/>t+ f ! doctr9e ( ! ,relativity ( ,k1 ,mr4 ,fiske1 foll[+ ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 proce$s to %[ h[ ! doctr9e implies t !re mu/ be a mode ( ,be+ to :i* human k is non-relative4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 he %[s t ! po/ulation ( ph5om5a necessitates ! fur!r po/ulation ( n\m5a ( :i* ph5om5a are ! manife/ations4 ,n[ :at may we affirm ( n\m5a )\t dep>t+ f a sci5tific or objective mode ( philosophis+8 ,we may affirm at lea/ ?is mu* ( n\m5a1 t !y con/itute a mode ( exi/5ce :i* ne$ n necess>ily vani% 7 our consci\sness to p]i%2 &1 !re=e1 t !y n[ /& out ( necess>y relation to our consci\sness4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 s f> z human consci\sness is conc]n$1 n\m5a mu/ be reg>d$ z absolute4 ,b n[1 :at d we mean by ?is affirmation ( absolute reality indep5d5t ( ! conditions ( ! process ( kn[+8 ,d we mean to 444 affirm1 9 language sav\r+ /rongly ( s*ola/icism1 t b5ea? ! ph5om5a :i* we call subjective !re is an occult sub/ratum ,m9d1 & b5ea? ! ph5om5a :i* we call objective !re is an occult sub/ratum ,matt]8 ,our conclusion _c be /at$ 9 any su* =m4444 ,our conclusion is simply ?is1 t no !ory ( ph5om5a1 ext]nal or int]nal1 c be fram$ )\t po/ulat+ an ,absolute ,exi/5ce ( :i* ph5om5a are ! manife/ations4 ,& n[ let u c>efully note :at foll[s4 ,we _c id5tify ?is ,absolute ,exi/5ce ) ,m9d1 s9ce :at we "k z ,m9d is a s]ies ( ph5om5al manife/ations4444 ,nor c we id5tify ?is ,absolute ,exi/5ce ) ,matt]1 s9ce :at we "k z ,matt] is a s]ies ( ph5om5al manife/ations4444 ,absolute ,exi/5ce1 !re=e1--! ,reality :i* p]si/s indep5d5tly ( u1 & ( :i* ,m9d & ,matt] are ! ph5om5al manife/ations1--_c be id5tifi$ ei!r ) ,m9d or ) ,matt]4 ,?us is ,mat]ialism includ$ 9 ! same condemnation ) ,idealism4444 ,see !n h[ f> we h travell$ f ! s*ola/ic !ory ( occult sub/rata und]ly+ ea* gr\p ( ph5om5a4 ,^! sub/rata 7 b ! gho/s ( ! ph5om5a !mselves2 beh9d ! tree or ! m\nta9 a sort ( phantom tree or m\nta91 :i* p]si/s aft] ! body ( p]ception has gone away ) ! dep>ture ( ! p]cipi5t m9d4 ,cle>ly ?is is no sci5tific int]pretation ( ! facts1 b is r a specim5 ( nave b>b>ic ?\ght surviv+ 9 metaphysics4 ,! tree or m\nta9 be+ gr\ps ( ph5om5a1 :at we ass]t z p]si/+ indep5d5tly ( ! p]cipi5t m9d is a some?+ :i* we are unable to condition ei!r z tree or z m\nta94 ,& n[ we come d[n to ! v bottom ( ! problem4 ,s9ce we d po/ulate ,absolute ,exi/5ce1 & d n po/ulate a p>ticul> occult sub/ance und]ly+ ea* gr\p ( ph5om5a1 are we to be und]/ood z imply+ t !re is a s+le ,be+ ( :i* all ph5om5a1 int]nal & ext]nal to consci\sness1 are manife/ations8 ,su* mu/ seem to be ! inevitable conclusion1 s9ce we are able to c>ry on ?9k+ at all only "u ! relations ( ,diff]5ce & ,no-diff]5ce4444 ,x may seem t1 s9ce we _c attribute to ! ,absolute ,reality any relations ( ,diff]5ce1 we mu/ positively ascribe to x ,no-diff]5ce4 ,or1 :at is ! same ?+1 9 refus+ to pr$icate multiplicity ( x1 d we n virtually pr$icate ( x unity8 ,we d1 simply because we _c ?9k )\t s do+4#ch ,a s+le ,absolute ,reality be+ ?us posit$1 our au?or proce$s1 t[>ds ! close ( 8 "w1 to argue t z ?is ,reality _c be conceiv$ z limit$ ei!r 9 space or "t1 x con/itutes a ,be+ :i* corresponds ) our ess5tial conception ( ,deity4 ,true x is devoid ( c]ta9 accessory attributes1 su* z p]sonality1 intellig5ce1 & volition2 b = ?is v reason1 x is insi/$1 ! !i/ic ideal z ?us pres5t$ is a pur]1 & !re=e a bett]1 ideal ?an has ev] be5 pres5t$ be=e4 ,nay1 x is ! highe/ possible =m ( ?is ideal1 z ! foll[+ consid]ations w %[4 ,9 :at has consi/$ t cont9u\s purification ( ,!ism :i* ! hi/ory ( ?\ght %[s to h be5 effect$1 f ! grosse/ =m ( belief 9 sup]natural ag5cy z exhibit$ 9 ,feti*ism1 ?r\gh its m ref9$ =m z exhibit$ 9 ,poly!ism1 to its /ill m ref9$ =m z exhibit$ 9 ,mono!ism8 ,9 no?+ b 9 a cont9u\s process ( :at ,mr4 ,fiske calls dean?ropomorphisation4 ,consequ5tly1 mu/ we n conclude t :5 we c>ry ?is process yet "o /ep fur!r1 & dive/ our conception ( ,deity ( all ! yet l+]+ remnants ( an?ropomorphism :i* occur 9 ! curr5t conceptions ( ,deity1 we are b /ill fur!r purify+ t conception8 ,assur$ly1 ! attributes ( p]sonality1 intellig5ce1 & s =?1 are only kn[n z attributes ( ,humanity1 & !re=e to ascribe !m to ,deity is b to fo/]1 9 a m ref9$ =m1 ! an?ropomorphic tea*+s ( previ\s religions4 ,b if we c>efully refuse to limit ,deity by ! ascription ( any human attributes :atev]1 & if ! only attributes :i* we d ascribe are su* z on gr\nds ( pure reason alone we are compell$ to ascribe1 mu/ we n conclude t ! =m ( ,!ism :i* results is ! pure/ & ! mo/ ref9$ =m 9 :i* x is possible = ,!ism to exi/8 ,f ! an?ropomorphic po9t ( view x w q naturally be urg$ 9 objection1 t ?is app>5tly desirable result is rea*$ ?r\gh ! degradation ( ,deity f an 'intellig5t p]sonality' to a 'bl9d =ce1' & is !re=e 9 reality an undesirable & p]haps quasi-a!i/ic result4#ci ,b ! "q :i* really pres5ts itself is1 !ologically phras$1 :e!r ! creature is to be tak5 z a measure ( ! ,creator4 ,sci5tifically phras$1 ! "q is :e!r ! highe/ =m ( ,be+ z yet sugge/$ to "o petty race ( creatures by its ephem]al exp]i5ce ( :at is go+ on 9 "o t9y corn] ( ! univ]se1 is necess>ily to be tak5 z ! equival5t ( t absolutely highe/ =m ( ,be+ 9 :i* all ! possibilities ( exi/5ce are alike compreh5d$4#dj ,!re=e1 9 conclusion1 :e!r or n x is true t1 )9 ! b\nds ( ! ph5om5al univ]se ! highe/ type ( exi/5ce is t :i* we "k z humanity1 ! conclusion is 9 e way =c$ ^u u t1 q indep5d5tly ( limit+ conditions 9 space or "t1 !re is a =m ( ,be+ :i* c nei!r be assimilat$ to humanity nor to any l[] type ( exi/5ce4 ,we h no alt]native1 !re=e1 b to reg>d x z high] ?an humanity1 ev5 'z ! heav5s are high] ?an ! e>?1' & except = ! intellectual arrogance :i* ! argum5ts ( !ologians %[ lurk+ b5ea? _! expressions ( humility1 !re is no reason :y ?is admission %\ld n be made unres]v$ly1 )\t ! an?ropomorphic qualifications by :i* its effect is commonly nullifi$4 ,! "t is surely com+ :5 ! sl[ness ( m5 9 accept+ su* a conclusion w be m>vell$ at1 & :5 ! v inadequacy ( human language to express ,div9ity w be reg>d$ z a reason = a deep] fai? & m solemn adoration4#da ,i h n[ suffici5tly detail$ ! lead+ pr9ciples ( ,cosmic ,!ism to r5d] a cle> & j conception ( ^? fundam5tal p>ts ( ! sy/em :i* ,i am ab\t to criticise2 b x is ne$less to say t1 = all m9or details ( ?is sy/em1 ,i mu/ ref] ^? :o may n already h p]us$ !m to ,mr4 ,fiske's some:at elaborate essays4 ,9 n[ beg9n+ my criticisms1 x may be well to /ate at ! outset1 t !y are to be re/rict$ to ! philosophical aspect ( ! subject4 ,) matt]s ( s5tim5t ,i d n int5d to deal1--p>tly because to d s w\ld be unduly to ext5d ?is essay1 & p>tly also because ,i believe t1 s f> z ! acceptance or ! rejection ( ,cosmic ,!ism is to be det]m9$ by s5tim5t1 mu*1 if n all1 w dep5d on individual habits ( ?\ght4 ,= :e!r or n ,cosmic ,!ism is to be reg>d$ z a religion adapt$ to ! ne$s ( any individual man1 w dep5d on :at ^! ne$s are felt to be by t man himself3 we _c ass]t magi/]ially t ?is religion mu/ be adapt$ to 8 ne$s because we h f\nd x to be adapt$ to our own4 ,& if x is retort$ t1 human nature be+ ev]y:]e ! same1 a =m ( religion t is adapt$ to "o man mu/ on ?is acc\nt be adapt$ to ano!r1 ,i reply t x is n s4 ,= if a man :o is :at ,mr4 ,fiske calls an ,an?ropomorphic ,!i/ f9ds f exp]i5ce t 8 sy/em ( religion--say ,*ri/ianity--creates & su/a9s a class ( emotions & g5]al habits ( ?\ght :i* he feels to be ! highe/ & ! be/ ( :i* he is capable1 x is useless = a ,cosmic ,!i/ to (f] su* a man ano!r sy/em ( religion1 9 :i* ! conditions ess5tial to ! exi/5ce ( ^! p>ticul> emotions & habits ( ?\ght are manife/ly abs5t4 ,= su* a man _c b feel t ! pr(f]$ sub/itution w\ld be tantam\nt1 if accept$1 to an utt] de/ruction ( all t he reg>ds z ess5tially religi\s4 ,he w tell u t he f9ds x p]fectly easy to und]/& & to appreciate ^? feel+s ( vague awe & wor%ip ( ! sil5t k9d :i* ! ,cosmic ,!i/ decl>es to be fo/]$ by ,cosmic ,!ism2 b he w also tell u t ^? feel+s1 :i* he has exp]i5c$ ) equal vividness "u 8 own sy/em ( ,an?ropomorphic ,!ism1 are to him b z non-religi\s dross comp>$ ) ! unspeakable felicity ( hold+ def9ite commune ) ! ,almighty & ,mo/ ,m]ciful1 or ( r5d]+ wor%ip t is a glad hosanna--a fe>less %\t ( joy4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ,i believe t x is possible = philosophic habits ( ?\ght s to discipl9e ! m9d t ! feel+s ( vague awe & sil5t wor%ip 9 ! pres5ce ( an appall+ ,my/]y become m deep & /eady ?an a !i/ prop] c well believe4 ,x is !re=e impossible t ei!r p>ty c fully appreciate ^? s5tim5ts ( ! o!r :i* !y h nev] fully exp]i5c$ !mselves2 = ev5 9 ^? cases :]e an an?ropomorphic !i/ has be5 compell$ to ab&on 8 cre$1 z ! *ange mu/ take place 9 mature life1 8 tone ( m9d has be5 det]m9$ be=e x does take place2 & !re=e 9 s5tim5t1 ?\gh n 9 fai?1 he is m or less ( a !i/ = ! re/ ( 8 life3 ! only effect ( ! *ange is to create a tr\bl$ int]f]5ce betwe5 8 desires & 8 beliefs4 ,h[ev]1 ,i d n int5d to develop ?is bran* ( ! subject fur!r ?an ?us to po9t out1 9 a g5]al way1 t religion-mong]s z a class are apt to %[ too little reg>d = ! s5tim5ts1 z di/+ui%$ f ! beliefs1 ( ^? to :om !y (f] _! w>es4 ,b al?\gh ,i d n int5d to con/itute myself a *ampion ( !ology by po9t+ out ! defects ( ,cosmic ,!ism 9 ! aspect :i* x pres5ts to curr5t modes ( ?\ght1 !re is "o su* defect :i* ,i mu/ "h dwell ^u1 because we %all aft]w>ds h occasion to ref] to x4 ,a !ologian may v naturally make ?is objection to ,cosmic ,!ism z pres5t$ by ,mr4 ,fiske--viz41 t ! argum5t on :i* ?is philosoph] ?r\gh\t relies z a self-evid5t demon/ration t ! new sy/em ( ,!ism is a fur!r & a f9al improvem5t on all ! previ\s sy/ems ( ,!ism1 is a fallaci\s argum5t4 ,z we h already se51 ?is argum5t is1 t z ! progress 9 ! purification ( ,!ism has ?r\gh\t consi/$ 9 a process ( dean?ropomorphisation1 !re=e ! t]m9al phase 9 ?is process1 :i* ,cosmic ,!ism introduces1 mu/ be /ill 9 ! direction ( t progress4 ,b to ?is argum5t a !ologian may n unreasonably object1 t ?is t]m9al phase diff]s f all ! previ\s phases 9 "o all-important feature--viz41 9 effect+ a total abolition ( ! an?ropomorphic elem5t4 ,be=e1 !re=e1 x c be %[n t ?is t]m9al phase is a fur!r developm5t ( ,!ism1 x mu/ he %[n t ,!ism /ill rema9s ,!ism aft] ?is hi!rto *>act]i/ic elem5t has be5 remov$4 ,if x is true1 z ,mr4 ,fiske v prop]ly insi/s1 t all ! v>i\s =ms ( belief 9 ,god h ?us f> _h ?is z a common factor1 t !y ascrib$ to ,god ! attributes ( ,man2 x becomes a "q :e!r we may prop]ly ab/ract ?is hi!rto inv>iable factor ( a belief1 & /ill call t belief by ! same "n4 ,or1 to put ! matt] 9 ano!r light1 z cosmi/s ma9ta9 t ,!ism1 9 all ! phases ( its developm5t1 has be5 ! product ( a probably errone\s !ory ( p]sonal ag5cy 9 nature1 :5 ?is !ory is expressly disc>d$--z x is by ! doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able--is x philosophically legitimate = cosmi/s to r5d] _! !ory ( ?+s 9 t]ms :i* belong to ! totally diff]5t !ory :i* !y disc>d8 ,no d\bt x is true t ! progressive ref9em5t ( ,!ism has ?r\gh\t consi/$ 9 a progressive disc>d+ ( an?ropomorphic qualities2 b ?is fact does n t\* ! consid]ation t1 :5 we proce$ to /rip (f ! la/ remnants ( ^! qualities1 we are committ+ an act :i* diff]s toto coelo f all ! previ\s acts :i* are cit$ z prec$5ts2 = by ?is t]m9al act we are n1 z h]et(ore1 ref9+ ! !ory ( ,!ism--we are completely trans=m+ x by remov+ an elem5t :i*1 bo? g5etically & hi/orically1 w\ld seem to con/itute ! v ess5ce ( ,!ism4 ,or ! case may be pres5t$ 9 yet ano!r light4 ,! only use ( t]ms1 :e!r 9 daily talk or 9 philosophical disquisition1 is t ( designat+ c]ta9 ?+s or attributes to :i* by g5]al cu/om we agree to affix !m2 s t if anyone applies a t]m to "s ?+ or attribute :i* g5]al cu/om does n w>rant him 9 s apply+1 he is m]ely lay+ himself op5 to ! *>ge ( abus+ t t]m4 ,n[ apply ^! elem5t>y pr9ciples to ! case be=e u4 ,we h b to ?9k ( ! disgu/ ) :i* ! va/ majority ( liv+ p]sons w\ld reg>d ! s5se 9 :i* ,mr4 ,fiske uses ! t]m ,!ism1 to p]ceive h[ intimate is ! association ( t t]m ) ! idea ( a ,p]sonal ,god4 ,su* p]sons w feel /rongly t1 by ?is f9al act ( purification1 ,mr4 ,fiske has simply purifi$ ! ,deity altoge!r out ( exi/5ce4 ,& ,i sc>cely ?9k x is "h compet5t to reply t all previ\s acts ( purification 7 at fir/ simil>ly reg>d$ z de/ructive1 because x is evid5t t none ( ^! previ\s acts affect$1 z ?is "o does1 ! c5tral core ( ,!ism4 ,&1 la/ly1 if x %\ld be /ill fur!r object$1 t by decl>+ ! !ory ( ,p]sonal ,ag5cy ! c5tral core ( ,!ism1 ,i am begg+ ! "q z to ! appropriat5ess ( ,mr4 ,fiske's use ( ! ^w ,!ism1--see+ he appe>s to reg>d ! ess5tial mean+ ( ?is ^w to be t ( a po/ulation ( m]ely ,causal ,ag5cy1--,i answ]1 ,m ( ?is anon2 b mean:ile let x be obs]v$ t any *>ge ( "q-begg+ lies r at ! door ( ,mr4 ,fiske1 9 t he assumes1 )\t any express$ ju/ification1 t ! ess5ce ( ,!ism does consi/ 9 su* a po/ulation & 9 no?+ m4 ,& z he unque/ionably has aga9/ him ! pres5t _w ( !i/s no less ?an ! hi/ory ( ,!ism 9 ! pa/1 ,i d n see h[ he is to meet ?is *>ge except by confess+ to an abuse ( ! t]m 9 "q4 ,i w n[ proce$ to exam9e ! /ructure ( ,cosmic ,!ism4 ,we are all1 ,i suppose1 at "o 9 all[+ t !re are only ?ree v]bally intelligible !ories ( ! univ]se1--viz41 t x is self-exi/5t1 or t x is self-creat$1 or t x has be5 creat$ by "s o!r & ext]nal ,be+4 ,x is usual to call ! fir/ ( ^! !ories ,a!ism1 ! second ,pan!ism1 & ! ?ird ,!ism4 ,n[ z !re are "h ?ree di/9ct nameable !ories1 x is necess>y1 if ! t]m ,cosmic ,!ism is to be ju/ifi$ z an appropriate t]m1 t ! p>ticul> !ory :i* x designates %\ld be %[n to be 9 its ess5ce !i/ic--i4e41 t ! !ory %\ld pres5t ^? di/+ui%+ features 9 virtue ( :i* ,!ism diff]s f ,a!ism on ! "o h&1 & f ,pan!ism on ! o!r4 ,n[ :at are ^! features8 ,! po/ulate ( an ,et]nal ,self-exi/+ ,some?+ is common to ,!ism & to ,a!ism4 ,"h ,a!ism ends4 ,!ism1 h[ev]1 is g5]ally said to assume ,p]sonality1 ,intellig5ce1 & ,creative ,p[] z attributes ( ! s+le self-exi/+ sub/ance4 ,la/ly1 ,pan!ism assumes ! ,some?+ n[ exi/+ to h be5 self-creat$4 ,to :i*1 !n1 ( ^! di/9ct !ories is ,cosmic ,!ism mo/ ne>ly alli$8 ,= ! purpose ( answ]+ ?is "q1 ,i %all r5d] t !ory 9 t]ms ( a =mula :i* ,mr4 ,fiske pres5ts z a full & complete /atem5t ( ! !ory3--,!re exi/s a ,,p[]1 to :i* no limit 9 space or "t is conceivable1 ( :i* all ph5om5a1 z pres5t$ 9 consci\sness1 are manife/ations1 b :i* we c only "k ?r\gh ^! manife/ations4 ,b al?\gh ! ^w ,p[] is "h s /rongly emphasis$1 we are else:]e told t x is n to be reg>d$ z hav+ m ?an a /rictly relative or symbolic mean+2 s t1 9 po9t ( fact1 "s m neutral ^w1 su* z ,some?+1 ,be+1 or ,sub/ance1 ought 9 /rictness to be "h sub/itut$ = ! ^w ,p[]4 ,well1 if ?is is done1 we h ! po/ulation ( a ,be+ :i* is self-exi/+1 inf9ite1 & et]nal--relatively1 at all ev5ts1 to our p[]s ( conception4 ,?us f>1 !re=e1 x w\ld seem t we are /ill on ! common /&+-gr\nd ( ,a!ism1 ,pan!ism1 & ,!ism2 = z x is n1 s f> z ,i c see1 incumb5t on ,pan!ism to affirm t ?\ght is a measure ( ?+s1 ! app>5t or relative et]nity :i* ! ,primal ,some?+ mu/ be suppos$ to pres5t may n be actual or absolute et]nity4 ,nev]!less1 z ,mr4 ,fiske1 by pr$icat+ ,div9ity ( ! ,primal ,some?+1 implicitly attributes to x ! quality ( an et]nal self-exi/5ce1 ,i inf] t ,cosmic ,!ism may be conclud$ at ?is po9t to "p company ) ,pan!ism4 ,!re rema91 !n1 ,!ism & ,a!ism4 ,n[ und\bt$ly1 at fir/ sight1 ,cosmic ,!ism appe>s to diff] f ,a!ism 9 "o all-important p>ticul>4 ,= we h se5 t1 by means ( a subtle ?\gh p]fectly logical argum5t1 ,cosmic ,philosophy has evolv$ ?is conclusion--t all ph5om5a z pres5t$ 9 consci\sness are manife/ations ( a n improbable ,s+le ,self-exi/+ ,p[]1 ( ^: exi/5ce ^! manife/ations alone c make u cognisant4 ,f :i* x app>5tly foll[s1 t ?is hypo!tical ,p[] mu/ be reg>d$ z exi/+ out ( necess>y relation to ! ph5om5al univ]se2 t x is1 !re=e1 beyond "q ,absolute ,be+2 & t1 z su*1 we are entitl$ to call x ,deity4 ,b 9 ! tra9 ( reason+ ( :i* ?is is a v cond5s$ epitome1 x is evid5t t ! legitimacy ( d5om9at+ ?is ,absolute ,be+ ,deity1 mu/ dep5d on ! exact mean+ :i* we atta* to ! ^w ,absolute--& ?is1 be x obs]v$1 q ap>t f ! "q1 be=e t\*$ ^u1 z to :e!r ,p]sonality & ,intellig5ce are n to be consid]$ z attributes ess5tial to ,deity4 ,9 :at s5se1 !n1 is ! ^w ,absolute us$8 ,x is us$ 9 ?is s5se4 ,z f ! relativity ( k we _c "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 b only symbolical repres5tations ( su* ?+s1 !re=e ?+s 9 !mselves are absolute to consci\sness3 b analysis %[s t we _c conceivably pr$icate ,diff]5ce among ?+s 9 !mselves1 s t we are at lib]ty1 ) due diffid5ce1 to pr$icate ( !m ,no-diff]5ce3 h5ce ! n\m5a ( ! s*oolm5 admit ( be+ collect$ into a summum g5us ( n\m5al exi/5ce2 & s9ce1 be=e _! colligation n\m5a 7 sev]ally absolute1 aft] _! colligation !y become collectively absolute3 !re=e x is legitimate to designate ?is sum-total ( n\m5al exi/5ce1 ,absolute ,be+4 ,n[ !re is cle>ly no exception to be tak5 to ! =mal accuracy ( ?is reason+2 ! only "q is z to :e!r ! ,absolute ,be+ :i* x evolves is absolute 9 ! s5se requir$ by ,!ism4 ,i confess t to me ?is ,be+ appe>s to be absolute 9 a widely diff]5t s5se f t 9 :i* ,deity mu/ be reg>d$ z absolute4 ,= ?is ,be+ is ?us se5 to be absolute 9 no o!r s5se ?an z hold+--to quote f ,mr4 ,fiske--exi/5ce indep5d5t ( ! conditions ( ! process ( kn[+4 ,9 o!r words1 x is absolute only z /&+ out ( necess>y relation to human consci\sness4 ,b ,!ism requires1 z an ess5tial feature1 t ,deity %\ld be absolute z /&+ out ( necess>y relation to all else4 ,be=e1 !re=e1 ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ,cosmism c be %[n1 by ! reason+ adopt$1 to des]ve1 ev5 9 "p1 ! appellation ( ,deity1 x mu/ be %[n t !re is no o!r mode ( ,be+ 9 exi/5ce save our own subjective consci\sness & ! ,absolute ,reality :i* becomes objective to x ?r\gh ! _w ( ph5om5a4 ,b any attempt to e/abli% ?is position w\ld involve a disreg>d ( ! doctr9e t k is relative2 & to d ?is1 x is ne$less to say1 w\ld be to de/roy ! basis ( ! argum5t :]eby ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ,cosmism 0 posit$4 ,or1 to /ate ?is "p ( ! criticism 9 o!r words1 z ! fir/ /ep 9 ju/ify+ ! pr$ication ( ,deity1 x mu/ be %[n t ! ,be+ ( :i* ! pr$ication is made is absolute1 & ?is n m]ely z indep5d5t ( human consci\sness1 b z indep5d5t ( ! :ole n\m5al univ]se--,deity itself alone except$4 ,t is1 ! ,be+ ( :i* ,deity is pr$icat$ mu/ be ,uncondition$4 ,h5ce x is incumb5t on ,cosmic ,!ism to prove1 ei!r t ! ,causal ,ag5t :i* x d5om9ates ,deity is itself ! :ole n\m5al univ]se1 or t x creat$ ! re/ ( a n\m5al univ]se2 else !re is no?+ to %[ t ?is ,causal ,ag5t 0 n itself creat$--see+ t1 ev5 if we assume ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 !re is no?+ to indicate t ! ,causal ,ag5t ( ,cosmism is t ,god4 ,x w\ld appe> !re=e f ?is1 t :atev] else ! ,cosmi/'s !ory ( ?+s may be1 x c]ta9ly is n ,!ism2 & ,i ?9k t clos] inspection w t5d to confirm ?is judgm5t4 ,to ?is !n let u proce$4 ,mr4 ,fiske is v h>d on ! a!i/s1 & s w probably repudiate ) scorn any ins9uations to ! effect t 8 !ory ( ?+s is quasi-a!i/ic4 ,nev]!less1 x seems to me t he is v unju/ to ! a!i/s1 9 t :ile he sp>es no pa9s to purify & ref9e ! !ory ( ! !i/s1 s z at la/ to leave no?+ b :at he reg>ds z ! di/ill$ ess5ce ( ,!ism beh9d2 he habitually leaves ! !ory ( ! a!i/s z he f9ds x1 )\t mak+ any attempt ei!r to purify x by remov+ its weak & unnecess>y +r$i5ts1 or to ref9e x by add+ su* sublimat$ +r$i5ts z mod]n speculation has suppli$4 ,?us1 :ile he despises ! a!i/s ( ! eighte5? c5tury = _! irrationality 9 believ+ 9 ! self-exi/5ce ( a ph5om5al univ]se1 & reviles !m = _! irreligion 9 d5y+ t ! religi\s s5tim5t ne$$ satisfaction2 he does n wait to inquire :e!r1 9 its ess5tial sub/ance1 ! !ory ( ^! m5 is n ! "o t has prov$ itself be/ able to )/& ! gr9d+ action ( m rec5t ?\ght4 ,b let u 9 fairness ask1 ,:at 0 ! ess5tial sub/ance ( t !ory8 ,app>5tly x 0 ! b>e /atem5t ( ! un?9kable fact t ,some?+ ,is4 ,x !re=e seems to me useless 9 ,mr4 ,fiske to lay s mu* /ress on ! fact t ?is ,some?+ 0 orig9ally id5tifi$ by a!i/s ) ! ph5om5al univ]se4 ,x seems useless to d ?is1 because su* id5tification is cle>ly no "p ( ! ess5ce ( ,a!ism1 :i*1 z j /at$1 ,i take to consi/ 9 ! s+le dogma ( self-exi/5ce z itself suffici5t to con/itute a !ory ( ?+s4 ,&1 if s1 x is a matt] ( sc>cely any mom5t1 z reg>ds t !ory1 :e!r we are imm$iately cognisant ( t :i* is self-exi/5t1 or only become s ?r\gh ! _w ( ph5om5a--! vital po9t ( ! !ory be+1 t ,self-exi/5ce1 :]ev] posit$1 is itself ! only admissible explanation ( ph5om5a4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 x does n seem t !re is any?+ 9 ! a!i/ic !ory1 z su*1 :i* is incompatible ) ! doctr9e ( ! ,relativity ( ,k2 s t :atev] cog5cy !re may be 9 ! tra9 ( reason+ :]eby a s+le ,causal ,ag5t is d$uc$ f t doctr9e1 x w\ld seem t an a!i/ has z mu* "r to ! b5efit ( ?is reason+ z a !i/2 & !re is ?us no m app>5t reason :y ?is s+le ,causal ,ag5t %\ld be appropriat$ z ! ,god ( ,!ism1 ?an t x %\ld be appropriat$ z ! ,self-exi/+ ,x ( ,a!ism4 ,inde$1 !re seems to be less reason4 ,= an a!i/ ( to-day may v prop]ly argue3--',s f> f behold+ any?+ div9e 9 ?is ,s+le ,be+ absolute to human consci\sness1 x is j precisely ! =m ( ,be+ :i* my !ory po/ulates z ! ,self-exi/+ ,all4 ,9 ord] to con/itute su* a ,be+ ,god1 x mu/ be %[n1 z we h already se51 to be some?+ m ?an a m]ely ,causal ,ag5t :i* is absolute 9 ! grotesquely re/rict$ s5se ( be+ indep5d5t ( '"o petty race ( creatures ) an ephem]al exp]i5ce ( :at is go+ on 9 "o t9y corn] ( ! univ]se2' x mu/ be %[n to be some?+ m ?an absolute ev5 9 ! :olly unre/rict$ s5se ( be+ ,uncondition$2 x mu/ be %[n to possess su* o!r attributes z are di/9ctive ( ,deity4 ,= ,i ma9ta9 t ev5 ,uncondition$ ,be+1 m]ely z su*1 w\ld only !n h a "r to ! "n ( ,god :5 x has be5 %[n t ! !ory ( ,!ism has a "r to monopolise ! doctr9e ( ,relativity4' ,9 ?us endeav\r+ to purify ! !ory ( ,a!ism1 by dive/+ x ( all sup]flu\s accessories1 & lay+ b>e :at ,i conceive to be its ess5tial sub/ance2 x may be well to /ate t1 ev5 ap>t f _! irreligi\s "*1 ,i h no sympa?y ) ! a!i/s ( ! pa/ c5tury4 ,i mean1 t ^! m5 d n seem to me to des]ve any cr$it = advanc$ p[]s ( speculation m]ely because !y adopt$ a !ory ( ?+s :i* 9 its ess5tial features n[ promises to be ! mo/ endur+4 ,= x is evid5t t ! /r5g? ( ?is !ory n[ lies 9 its simplicity1--9 its und]tak+ to expla91 s f> z explanation is possible1 ! sum-total ( ph5om5a by ! s+le po/ulate ( self-exi/5ce4 ,b x seems to me t 9 ! la/ c5tury !re 7 no suffici5t data = r5d]+ su* a !ory ( ?+s a rational !ory2 = s long z ! quality ( self-exi/5ce 0 suppos$ to reside 9 ph5om5a !mselves1 ! v simplicity ( ! !ory1 z express$ 9 words1 mu/ h seem$ to r5d] x inapplicable z a reasonable !ory ( ?+s4 ,! a/\nd+ v>iety1 complexity1 & h>mony :i* are ev]y:]e s conspicu\s 9 ! _w ( ph5om5a mu/ h seem$ to necessitate z an explanation "s "o integrat+ cause2 & x is impossible t 9 ! eighte5? c5tury any su* integrat+ cause c h be5 conceivable o!r ?an ,intellig5ce4 ,!re=e ,i ?9k1 ) ,mr4 ,fiske1 t ! a!i/s ( ! eighte5? c5tury 7 irrational 9 apply+ _! s+le po/ulate ( self-exi/5ce z alone a suffici5t explanation ( ?+s4 ,b ( c\rse ! aspect ( ! case is n[ completely *ang$1 :5 we reg>d x 9 all ! flood ( light :i* has be5 %$ on x by rec5t sci5ce1 physical & speculative4 ,= ! demon/ration ( ! fact t en]gy is inde/ructible1 c\pl$ ) ! coroll>y t e s-call$ natural law is a physically necess>y consequ5ce ( t fact1 cle>ly supply u ) a completely novel datum z ! ultimate s\rce ( exp]i5ce--& a datum1 moreov]1 :i* is z diff]5t z c well be imag9$ f ! ev]-*ang+1 ev]-fleet+1 _w ( ph5om5a4 ,we h1 !re=e1 b to apply ! po/ulate ( self-exi/5ce to ?is s+le ultimate datum1 & we h a !ory ( ?+s z rational z ! ,a!ism ( ! la/ c5tury 0 irrational4 ,nev]!less1 t ?is !ory is m ak9 to ! ,a!ism ( ! la/ c5tury ?an to any o!r !ory ( t "t1 is1 ,i ?9k1 unque/ionable2 = :ile we reta9 ! c5tral doctr9e ( self-exi/5ce z alone a sci5tifically admissible1 or non-gratuit\s1 explanation ( ?+s1 we only *ange ! orig9al !ory by transf]r+ ! application ( ?is doctr9e f ! _w ( manife/ations to t :i* causes ! manife/ations3 we d n resort to any ( ! additional doctr9es :]eby ! o!r !ories ( ! univ]se 7 di/+ui%$ f ! !ory ( ,a!ism 9 its orig9al =m4 ,h[ev]1 z by our recognition ( ! relativity ( k we are preclud$ f dogmatically d5y+ any !ory ( ! univ]se t may be propos$1 x w\ld cle>ly be errone\s to id5tify ! doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able ) ! !ory ( ,a!ism3 all we c say is1 t1 s f> z speculative ?\ght c so>1 ! p]man5t self-exi/5ce ( an inconceivable ,some?+1 :i* manife/s itself to consci\sness z =ce & matt]1 con/itutes ! only datum t c be %[n to be requir$ = ! purposes ( a rational ontology4 ,to sum up4 ,9 ! !ory :i* ,mr4 ,fiske calls ,cosmic ,!ism1 :ile ,i am able to disc]n ! elem5ts :i* ,i ?9k may prop]ly be reg>d$ z common to ,!ism & to ,a!ism1 ,i am n able to disc]n any s+le elem5t t is specifically di/9ctive ( ,!ism4 ,/ill ,i am f> f conclud+ t ! !ory 9 "q is ! !ory ( ,a!ism4 ,all ,i wi% to insi/ ^u is ?is--t z ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ,cosmism pres5ts no o!r qualities ?an su* z are requir$ by ! r5ovat$ !ory ( ,a!ism1 its po/ulation supplies a basis1 n = ,!ism1 b = ,non-!ism3 a man ) su* a po/ulate ought 9 /rictness to ab/a9 f ei!r affirm+ or d5y+ ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,& ?is1 ,i may obs]ve1 appe>s to be ! position :i* ,mr4 ,sp5c] himself has adopt$ z ! only logical outcome ( 8 doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able--a position :i*1 9 my op9ion1 x is mo/ undesirable to obscure by endeav\r+ to give x a quasi-!i/ic int]pretation4 ,i may fur!r obs]ve1 t we "h seem to h a philosophical ju/ification ( ! !ological s5tim5t previ\sly allud$ to--! s5tim5t1 namely1 t by 8 attempt at a f9al purification ( ,!ism1 ,mr4 ,fiske has de/roy$ ^? ess5tial features ( ! !ory 9 virtue ( :i* alone x exi/s z ,!ism4 ,= see+ x is impossible1 f ! relativity ( k1 t ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ,cosmism c ev] be %[n absolute 9 ! s5se requir$ by ,!ism1 &1 ev5 if x c\ld1 t x w\ld /ill be b ! ,uncondition$ ,be+ ( ,a!ism2 x foll[s t if ?is ,absolute ,be+ is to be %[n ev5 9 "p to des]ve ! appellation ( ,deity1 x mu/ be %[n to possess ! only rema9+ attributes :i* are di/9ctive ( ,deity--to wit1 p]sonality & intellig5ce4 ,b =asmu* z ! f9al act ( purify+ ! conception ( ,deity consi/s1 accord+ to ,mr4 ,fiske1 9 expressly remov+ ^! p>ticul> attributes f ! object ( t conception1 does x n foll[ t ! conception :i* rema9s is1 z ,i h said1 n !i/ic1 b non-!i/ic8 ,"h my criticism might prop]ly h end$1 7 x n t ,mr4 ,fiske1 aft] hav+ dive/$ ! ,deity ( all 8 psy*ical attributes1 =?) proce$s to %[ h[ x may be dimly possible to re9ve/ him ) attributes t are quasi-psy*ical4 ,mr4 ,fiske is1 ( c\rse1 f> too subtle a ?9k] n to see t 8 previ\s argum5t f relativity precludes him f assign+ mu* weight to ! ontological speculations 9 :i* he "h indulges1 see+ t 9 :atev] degree ! relativity ( k r5d]s legitimate ! non-ascription to ,deity ( kn[n psy*ical attributes1 9 "s su* degree at lea/ mu/ x r5d] illegitimate ! ascription to ,deity ( unkn[n psy*ical attributes4 ,b 9 ! "p ( 8 "w 9 :i* he treats ( ! quasi-psy*ical attributes1 ,mr4 ,fiske is m]ely engag$ 9 %[+ t ! speculative /&+ ( ! mat]iali/s is inf]ior to t ( ! spirituali/s2 s t1 z ?is is a subject di/9ct f ,!ism1 he is n op5 to ! *>ge ( inconsi/5cy4 ,well1 feeble z ^! speculations und\bt$ly are 9 ! support :i* !y r5d] to ,!ism1 x nev]!less seems desirable to consid] !m be=e clos+ ?is review4 ,! speculations 9 "q are quot$ f ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 & are z foll[s3-- ,m9d1 z kn[n to ! possessor ( x1 is a circumscrib$ aggregate ( activities2 & ! cohesion ( ^! activities1 "o ) ano!r1 ?r\gh\t ! aggregate1 compels ! po/ulation ( a some?+ ( :i* !y are ! activities4 ,b ! same exp]i5ces :i* make him aw>e ( ?is coh]5t aggregate ( m5tal activities1 simultane\sly make him aw>e ( activities t are n includ$ 9 x--outly+ activities :i* become kn[n by _! effects on ?is aggregate1 b :i* are exp]im5tally prov$ to be n coh]5t ) x1 & to be coh]5t ) "o ano!r 7,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 #dc1 #dd74 ,z1 by ! def9ition ( !m1 ^! ext]nal activities _c be br\ght )9 ! aggregate ( activities di/+ui%$ z ^? ( ,m9d1 !y mu/ = ev] rema9 to him no?+ m ?an ! unkn[n correlatives ( _! effects on ?is aggregate2 & c be ?\ght ( only 9 t]ms furni%$ by ?is aggregate4 ,h5ce1 if he reg>ds 8 conceptions ( ^! activities ly+ beyond ,m9d z con/itut+ k ( !m1 he is delud+ himself3 he is b repres5t+ ^! activities 9 t]ms ( ,m9d1 & c nev] d o!rwise4 ,ev5tually he is oblig$ to admit t 8 ideas ( ,matt] & ,motion1 m]ely symbolic ( unkn[able realities1 are complex /ates ( consci\sness built out ( units ( feel+4 ,b if1 aft] admitt+ ?is1 he p]si/s 9 ask+ :e!r units ( feel+ are ( ! same nature z ! units ( =ce di/+ui%$ z ext]nal1 or :e!r ! units ( =ce di/+ui%$ z ext]nal are ( ! same nature z units ( feel+2 !n ! reply1 /ill sub/antially ! same1 is t we may g fur!r t[>ds conceiv+ units ( ext]nal =ce to be id5tical ) units ( feel+1 ?an we c t[>ds conceiv+ units ( feel+ to be id5tical ) units ( ext]nal =ce4 ,cle>ly1 if units ( ext]nal =ce are reg>d$ z absolutely unkn[n & unkn[able1 !n to translate units ( feel+ into !m is to translate ! kn[n into ! unkn[n1 :i* is absurd4 ,& if !y are :at !y are suppos$ to be by ^? :o id5tify !m ) _! symbols1 !n ! difficulty ( translat+ units ( feel+ into !m is insurm\ntable3 if ,=ce z x objectively exi/s is absolutely ali5 9 nature f t :i* exi/s subjectively z ,feel+1 !n ! trans=mation ( ,=ce into ,feel+ is un?9kable4 ,ei!r way1 !re=e1 x is impossible to int]pret inn] exi/5ce 9 t]ms ( out] exi/5ce4 ,b if1 on ! o!r h&1 units ( ,=ce z !y exi/ objectively are ess5tially ! same 9 nature ) ^? manife/$ subjectively z units ( ,feel+1 !n a conceivable hypo!sis rema9s op54 ,e elem5t ( t aggregate ( activities con/itut+ a consci\sness is kn[n z belong+ to consci\sness only by its cohesion ) ! re/4 ,beyond ! limits ( ?is coh]5t aggregate ( activities exi/ activities q indep5d5t ( x1 & :i* _c be br\ght into x4 ,we may imag9e1 !n1 t by _! exclusion f ! circumscrib$ activities con/itut+ consci\sness1 ^! out] activities1 ?\gh ( ! same intr9sic nature1 become anti!tically oppos$ 9 aspect4 ,be+ disconnect$ f consci\sness1 or cut (f by its limits1 !y are !reby r5d]$ =eign to x4 ,n be+ incorporat$ ) its activities1 or l9k$ ) ^! z !y are ) "o ano!r1 consci\sness _c1 z x 71 run ?r\gh !m2 & s !y come to be figur$ z unconsci\s--are symbolis$ z hav+ ! nature call$ mat]ial1 z oppos$ to t call$ spiritual4 ,:ile1 h[ev]1 x ?us seems an imag9able possibility t units ( ext]nal ,=ce may be id5tical 9 nature ) units ( ! =ce kn[n z ,feel+1 yet we _c by s repres5t+ !m get any ne>] to a compreh5sion ( ext]nal ,=ce4 ,=1 z already %[n1 suppos+ all =ms ( ,m9d to be compos$ ( homog5e\s units ( feel+ v>i\sly aggregat$1 ! resolution ( !m into su* units leaves u z unable z be=e to ?9k ( ! sub/ance ( ,m9d z x exi/s 9 su* units2 & ?us1 ev5 c\ld we really figure to ourselves all units ( ext]nal ,=ce z be+ ess5tially l units ( ! =ce kn[n z ,feel+1 & z s con/itut+ a univ]sal s5ti5cy1 we %\ld be z f> z ev] f =m+ a conception ( t :i* is univ]sally s5ti5t4#db ,n[ :ile ,i agree ) ,mr4 ,fiske t we h "h ! mo/ subtle conclusion n[ )9 ! k5 ( ! sci5tific speculator1 rea*$ )\t any disreg>d ( ! canons prescrib$ by ! doctr9e ( relativity1 ,i w\ld l to po9t out to m9ds less cle>-sight$ ?an 81 t ?is same doctr9e ( relativity effectually deb>s u f us+ ?is conclusion z an argum5t ( any assignable value 9 fav\r ( ,!ism4 ,= ! value ( conceivability z a te/ ( tru?1 on :i* ?is conclusion is f\nd$1 is "h vitiat$ by ! consid]ation t1 :atev] ! nature ( ,=ce-units may be1 we c cle>ly p]ceive x to be a subjective necessity ( ! case t !y %\ld admit ( be+ m easily conceiv$ by u to be ( ! nature ( ,feel+-units ?an to be ( any o!r nature4 ,= z units ( ,feel+ are ! only entities ( :i* we are1 or c be1 consci\s1 !y are ! entities into :i* units ( ,=ce mu/ be1 s to speak1 subjectively translat$ be=e we c cognise _! exi/5ce at all4 ,!re=e1 :atev] ! real nature ( ,=ce-units may be1 ultimate analysis mu/ %[ t x is m conceivable to id5tify !m 9 ?\ght ) ! only units ( :i* we are cognisant1 ?an x is to ?9k ( !m z units ( :i* we are n cognisant1 & conc]n+ :i*1 !re=e1 conception is necess>ily impossible4 ,or ?us1 ! only alt]native ) respect to ! classify+ ( ,=ce-units lies betwe5 refus+ to classify !m at all1 or classify+ !m ) ! only ultimate units ) :i* we are acqua9t$4 ,b ?is re/riction1 = aught t c ev] be %[n to ! contr>y1 arises only f ! subjective conditions ( our own consci\sness2 !re is no?+ to indicate t1 9 objective reality1 units ( ,=ce are 9 any wise ak9 to units ( ,feel+4 ,conceivability1 !re=e1 z a te/ ( tru?1 is 9 ?is p>ticul> case ( no assignable degree ( value2 = z ! entities to :i* x is appli$ are respectively ! highe/ kn[n ab/ractions ( subjective & objective exi/5ce1 ! te/ ( conceivability is neutralis$ by directly enc\nt]+ ! inconceivable relation t subsi/s betwe5 subject & object4 ,i ?9k1 !re=e1 x is evid5t t ^! ontological speculations pres5t no suffici5t w>rant = an inf]5ce1 ev5 ( ! sl5d]e/ k9d1 t ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ,cosmism possesses attributes ( a nature quasi-psy*ical2 &1 if s1 x foll[s t ^! speculations are incompet5t to =m ! basis ( a !ory :i*1 ev5 by ! greate/ /ret* ( c\rtesy1 c 9 any legitimate s5se be t]m$ quasi-!i/ic4#dc ,on ! :ole1 !n1 ,i conclude t ! t]m ,cosmic ,!ism is n an appropriate t]m :]eby to d5ote ! !ory ( ?+s set =? 9 ,cosmic ,philosophy2 & t x w\ld !re=e be m judici\s to leave ! doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able z ,mr4 ,sp5c] has left x--t is1 )\t !ological implications ( any k9d4 ,b 9 n[ tak+ leave ( ?is subject1 ,i %\ld l x to be und]/ood t ! only reason :y ,i h v5tur$ ?us to take exception to a "p ( ,mr4 ,fiske's "w is because ,i regret t a treatise :i* displays s mu* ( lit]>y excell5ce & philosophic p[] %\ld l5d itself to promot+ :at ,i reg>d z mi/ak5 views conc]n+ ! ontological t5d5cies ( rec5t ?\ght1 & ?is ) no o!r app>5t motive ?an t ( unwor?ily reta9+ 9 ! new philosophy a religi\s t]m ! di/9ctive connotations ( :i* are consid]$ by t philosophy to h become obsolete4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,ii4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,essay ,,9 ,,reply ,,to ,a ,,rec5t ,,"w ,,on ,,!ism4#dd ,on p]us+ my ma9 essay sev]al ye>s aft] its completion1 x occurr$ to me t ano!r v effectual way ( demon/rat+ ! imm5se diff]5ce betwe5 ! nature ( all previ\s attacks ^u ! teleological argum5t & ! nature ( ! pres5t attack1 w\ld be briefly to review ! reasonable objections to :i* all ! previ\s attacks 7 op54 ,v opportunely a "w on ,!ism has j be5 publi%$ :i* /ates ^! objections ) great lucidity1 & answ]s !m ) mu* ability4 ,! "w to :i* ,i allude is by ! ,rev4 ,pr(essor ,fl9t1 & z x is *>act]is$ by temp]ate c&\r 9 tone & logical c>e 9 exposition1 ,i felt on read+ x t ! "w 0 p>ticul>ly well suit$ = display+ ! enorm\s *ange 9 ! speculative /&+ ( ,!ism :i* ! =ego+ consid]ations mu/ be rationally deem$ to h effect$4 ,i !re=e det]m9$ on ?r[+ my supplem5t>y essay1 :i* ,i _h previ\sly int5d$ to write1 into ! =m ( a criticism on ,pr(essor ,fl9t's treatise1 & ,i adopt$ ?is c\rse ! m will+ly because !re are sev]al o!r po9ts dwelt ^u 9 t treatise :i* x seems desirable = me to consid] 9 ! pres5t "o1 al?\gh1 = ! sake ( concis5ess1 ,i ab/a9$ f discuss+ !m 9 my previ\s essay4 ,) ^! two objects 9 view1 !re=e1 ,i und]took ! foll[+ criticism4#de ,9 ! fir/ place1 x is ne$ful to prote/ aga9/ an argum5t :i* our au?or adopts on ! au?ority ( ,pr(essor ,cl>k ,maxwell4 ,! argum5t is n[ a well-kn[n "o1 & is ?us /at$ by ,pr(essor ,maxwell 9 8 presid5tial address be=e ! ,briti% ,association = ! ,advancem5t ( ,sci5ce1 #ahgj3--,none ( ! processes ( nature1 s9ce ! "t :5 nature began1 h produc$ ! slighte/ diff]5ce 9 ! prop]ties ( any molecule4 ,we are !re=e unable to ascribe ei!r ! exi/5ce ( ! molecules or ! id5tity ( _! prop]ties to ! op]ation ( any ( ! causes :i* we call natural4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! exact quality ( ea* molecule to all o!rs ( ! same k9d gives x1 z ,sir ,john ,h]s*el has well said1 ! ess5tial "* ( a manufactur$ article1 & precludes ! idea ( its be+ et]nal & self-exi/5t4 ,?us we h be5 l$ along a /rictly sci5tific pa?1 v ne> to ! po9t at :i* sci5ce mu/ /op4 ,n t sci5ce is deb>r$ f /udy+ ! ext]nal me*anism ( a molecule :i* %e _c take to pieces1 any m ?an f inve/igat+ an organism :i* %e _c put toge!r4 ,b 9 trac+ back ! hi/ory ( matt]1 sci5ce is arre/$ :5 %e assures h]self1 on ! "o h&1 t ! molecule has be5 made1 &1 on ! o!r1 t x has n be5 made by any ( ! processes we call natural4 ,n[ x is obvi\s t we h "h no real argum5t1 s9ce x is obvi\s t sci5ce c nev] be 9 a position to ass]t t atoms1 ! v exi/5ce ( :i* is hypo!tical1 7 nev] made by any ( ! processes we call natural4 ,! m]e fact t 9 ! univ]se1 z we n[ "k x1 ! evolution ( mat]ial atoms is n obs]v$ to be tak+ place by any ( ! processes we call natural1 _c possibly be tak5 z pro(1 or ev5 z presumption1 t !re ev] 0 a "t :5 ! mat]ial atoms n[ 9 exi/5ce 7 creat$ by a sup]natural cause4 ,! fact _c be tak5 to ju/ify any su* inf]5ce = ! foll[+ reasons4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 assum+ ! atomic !ory to be true1 & !re is no?+ 9 ! argum5t to %[ t ! n[-exi/+ atoms are n self-exi/+ atoms1 end[$ ) _! peculi> & sev]ally di/9ctive prop]ties f all et]nity4 ,d\btless ! argum5t is1 t z !re appe> to be "s sixty or m elem5t>y atoms con/itut+ ! raw mat]ial ( ! obs]vable univ]se1 x is incr$ible t !y c all h ow$ _! correlat$ prop]ties to any cause o!r ?an t ( a design+ & manufactur+ intellig5ce4 ,b1 9 ! next place--& "h comes ! demoli%+ =ce ( ! criticism--sci5ce is n 9 a position to ass]t t ^! sixty or m elem5t>y atoms are 9 any real s5se ( ! t]m elem5t>y4 ,! m]e fact t *emi/ry is z yet 9 too undevelop$ a condition to pron\nce :e!r or n all ! =ms ( matt] kn[n to h] are modifications ( "s small] numb] ( elem5ts1 or ev5 ( a s+le elem5t1 _c possibly be tak5 z a w>rant = s huge an inf]5ce z t !re are really m ?an sixty elem5ts all end[$ ) absolutely di/9ctive prop]ties by a sup]natural cause4 ,n[ ?is consid]ation1 :i* arises imm$iately f ! doctr9e ( ! relativity ( k1 is alone amply suffici5t to de/roy ! pres5t argum5t4 ,b we mu/ n on ?is acc\nt lose sight ( ! fact t1 ev5 to our /rictly relative sci5ce 9 its pres5t embryonic condition1 we are n )\t decid$ indications1 n only t ! s-call$ elem5ts are probably = ! mo/ "p comp\nds1 b ev5 t matt] z a :ole is "o sub/ance1 :i* is itself probably b "s modification ( en]gy4 ,inde$1 ! :ole t5d5cy ( rec5t sci5tific speculation is t[>ds ! view t ! univ]se consi/s ( "s "o sub/ance1 :i*1 :e!r self-exi/+ or creat$1 is div]se only 9 its relation to ignorance4 ,& if ?is view is correct1 h[ obvi\s is ! inf]5ce :i* ,i h elaborat$ 9 #cb1 t all ! div]se =ms ( matt]1 z we "k !m1 7 probably evolv$ by natural causes4 ,s obvi\s1 inde$1 is ?is inf]5ce1 t to resort to any sup]natural hypo!sis to expla9 ! div]se prop]ties ( ! v>i\s *emical elem5ts appe>s to me a mo/ gl>+ violation ( ! law ( p>cimony--z mu* m gl>+1 = in/ance1 ?an ! violation ( ?is law by ,paley1 z ! numb] & v>iety ( organic species are great] ?an ! numb] & v>iety ( *emical species4 ,& if x 0 illegitimate 9 ,paley to use a m]e abs5ce ( k z to h[ ! transmutation ( app>5tly fix$ species ( animals 0 effect$ z equival5t to ! possession ( k t su* transmutation _h n be5 effect$1 h[ mu* m illegitimate mu/ x be to commit a simil> s9 aga9/ logic 9 ! case ( ! *emical elem5ts1 :]e our classification is confess$ly beset ) numb]less difficulties1 & :5 we beg9 to disc]n t 9 all probability x is a classification ess5tially artificial4 ,la/ly1 ! m]e fact t ! transmutation ( *emical species & ! evolution ( *emical atoms are processes :i* we d n n[ obs]ve z occurr+ 9 nature1 is surely a consid]ation ( a f> m feeble k9d ?an x is ev5 9 ! case ( biological species & biological evolution2 see+ t nature's laboratory mu/ be n[ s inconceivably diff]5t f :at x 0 dur+ ! cond5sation ( ! nebula4 ,:at an atroci\s piece ( arrogance1 !re=e1 x is to ass]t t none ( ! processes ( nature1 s9ce ! "t :5 nature began1 h produc$ ! slighte/ diff]5ce 9 ! prop]ties ( any molecule6 ,no "o c ent]ta9 a high] respect = ,pr(essor ,cl>k ,maxwell ?an ,i d2 b a s+le s5t5ce ( su* a k9d z ?is _c leave two op9ions 9 any imp>tial m9d conc]n+ 8 compet5cy to deal ) su* subjects4 ,i am !re=e sorry to see ?is absurd argum5t approv+ly incorporat$ 9 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w4 ,he says1 ,i believe t no reply to ^! words ( ,pr(essor ,cl>k ,maxwell is possible f any "o :o holds ! ord9>y view ( sci5tific m5 z to ! ultimate con/itution ( matt]4 ,!y mu/ suppose e atom1 e molecule1 to be ( su* a nature1 to be s relat$ to o!rs & to ! univ]se g5]ally1 t ?+s may be su* z we see !m to be2 b ?is _! fitness to be built up into ! /ructure ( ! univ]se is a pro( t !y h be5 made fit1 & s9ce natural =ces c\ld n h act$ on !m :ile n yet exi/5t1 a sup]natural p[] mu/ h creat$ !m1 & creat$ !m ) a view to _! manifold uses4 ,"h ! inf]5ce s confid5tly drawn w\ld h be5 a weak "o ev5 7 we n able to see t ! doctr9e ( natural evolution probably applies to inorganic nature no less ?an to organic4 ,= ! inf]5ce is drawn f consid]ations ( a "* s transc5d5tal & s remote f sci5ce1 t unless we wi% to be deceiv$ by a m]ely v]bal argum5t1 we mu/ feel t ! possibilities ( error 9 ! inf]5ce are s num]\s & indef9ite1 t ! inf]5ce itself is well-nigh wor?less z a basis ( belief4 ,b :5 we add t 9 ,*apt] ,,iv4 ( ! =ego+ essay x has be5 %[n to be )9 ! legitimate scope ( sci5tific reason+ to conclude t mat]ial atoms h be5 progressively evolv$ p>i passu ) ! natural laws ( *emical comb9ation1 x is evid5t t any =ce :i* ! pres5t argum5t c\ld ev] h _h mu/ n[ be pron\nc$ z neutralis$4 ,natural causes h be5 %[n1 s f> z sci5tific inf]5ce c ext5d1 z n improbably suffici5t to produce ! obs]v$ effects2 & !re=e we are no long] free to invoke ! hypo!tical action ( any sup]natural cause4 ,! same obs]vations apply to ,pr(essor ,fl9t's !i/ic argum5t drawn f rec5t sci5tific speculations z to ! vortex-r+ con/ruction ( matt]4 ,if ^! speculations are s\nd1 _! only influ5ce on ,!ism w\ld be t ( supply+ a sci5tific demon/ration ( ! sub/antial id5tity ( ,=ce & ,matt]1 & s ( supply+ a /ill m valid basis = ! !ory z to ! natural g5esis ( matt] f a s+le primordial sub/ance1 9 ! mann] sket*$ out 9 ,*apt] ,,iv4 ,= ! argum5t adduc$ by ,pr(essor ,fl9t1 t z ! mann] 9 :i* ! vorticial motion ( a r+ is orig9at$ has n z yet be5 sugge/$1 !re=e its orig9ation mu/ h be5 due to a ,div9e impulse1 is an argum5t :i* aga9 uses ! abs5ce ( k z equival5t to its possession4 ,we are 9 ! pres5ce ( a v novel & highly ab/ruse !ory1 or r hypo!sis1 9 physics1 :i* 0 orig9ally sugge/$ by1 & has hi!rto be5 ma9ly indebt$ to1 empirical exp]im5ts z di/+ui%$ f ma!matical calculations2 & f ! m]e fact t1 9 ! case ( su* a hypo!sis1 ma!maticians h n z yet be5 able to det]m9e ! physical conditions requir$ to orig9ate vorticial motion1 we are expect$ to inf] t no su* conditions c ev] h exi/$1 & !re=e t e su* vortex sy/em1 if x exi/s1 is a miracle6 ,& sub/antially ! same criticism applies to ! argum5t :i* ,pr(essor ,fl9t adduces--! argum5t also on :i* ,pr(essors ,balf\r & ,tait lay s mu* /ress 9 _! "w on ! ,unse5 ,univ]se--! argum5t1 namely1 z to ! non-et]nal "* ( heat4 ,! calculations on :i* ?is argum5t dep5ds w\ld only be valid z su/a9+ ?is argum5t if !y 7 bas$ ^u a k ( ! univ]se z a :ole2 & !re=e1 z be=e1 ! abs5ce ( requisite k mu/ n be us$ z equival5t to its possession4 ,^!1 h[ev]1 are ! weake/ p>ts ( ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w4 ,i !re=e gladly turn to ^? p>ts :i* are exce$+ly cog5t z writt5 f 8 /&po9t1 b :i*1 9 view ( ! /rictures on ! teleological argum5t t ,i h adduc$ 9 ,*apt]s ,,iv4 & ,,vi41 ,i submit to be n[ :olly valueless4 ,h[ c\ld matt] ( itself produce ord]1 ev5 if x 7 self-exi/5t & et]nal8 ,x is f> m unreasonable to believe t ! atoms or con/itu5ts ( matt] produc$ ( !mselves1 )\t ! action ( a ,supreme ,m9d1 ?is wond]ful univ]se1 ?an t ! lett]s ( ! ,engli% alphabet produc$ ! plays ( ,%akespe>e1 )\t ! slighte/ assi/ance f ! human m9d kn[n by t fam\s "n4 ,^! atoms might1 p]haps1 n[ & !n1 "h & !re1 at great di/ances & long int]vals1 produce by a *ance contact "s curi\s collocation or comp\nd2 b nev] c\ld !y produce ord] or organisation on an ext5sive scale1 or ( a durable "*1 unless ord]$1 arrang$1 & adju/$ 9 ways ( :i* intellig5ce alone c be ! ultimate explanation4 ,to believe t ^! =tuit\s & indirect$ movem5ts c\ld orig9ate ! univ]se1 & all ! h>monies & utilities & beauties :i* ab\nd 9 x1 ev9ces a cr$ulity f> m extravagant ?an has ev] be5 display$ by ! mo/ sup]/iti\s ( religioni/s4 ,yet no consi/5t mat]iali/ c refuse to accept ?is colossal *ance hypo!sis4 ,all ! explanations ( ! ord] ( ! univ]se :i* mat]iali/s1 f ,democritus & ,epicurus to ,did]ot & ,lange1 h devis$1 re/ on ! assumption t ! elem5ts ( matt]1 be+ et]nal1 mu/ pass ?r\gh inf9ite comb9ations1 & t "o ( ^! mu/ be our pres5t _w--a special collocation among ! c\ntless millions ( collocations1 pa/ & future4 ,?r[ ! lett]s ( ! ,greek alphabet1 x has be5 said1 an inf9ite numb] ( times1 & y mu/ produce ! ',iliad' & all ! ,greek books4 ,! !ory ( probabilities1 ,i ne$ h>dly say1 requires u to believe no?+ s absurd4444 ,b :at is ! ',iliad' to ! hymn ( creation & ! drama ( provid5ce8 c4 ,n[ ?is ,i conceive to h be5 a fully valid argum5t at ! "t x 0 publi%$1 & inde$ ! mo/ conv9c+ ( all ! argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism4 ,b1 z already s frequ5tly po9t$ out1 ! consid]ations adduc$ 9 ,*apt] ,,iv4 ( ! pres5t "w are utt]ly de/ructive ( ?is argum5t4 ,= ?is argum5t assumes1 rightly en\gh1 t ! only alt]native we h 9 *oos+ our hypo!sis conc]n+ ! f9al explanation ( ?+s is ei!r to reg>d t explanation z ,intellig5ce or z ,=tuity4 ,?is1 ,i say1 0 a legitimate argum5t a few mon?s ago1 because up to t "t no "o _h %[n t /rictly natural causes1 z di/+ui%$ f *ances1 c\ld conceivably be able to produce a cosmos2 & al?\gh ! sev]al previ\s writ]s to :om ,pr(essor ,fl9t alludes--& he might h allud$ to o!rs 9 ?is connection--ent]ta9$ a dim anticipation ( ! fact t natural causes might alone be suffici5t to produce ! obs]v$ univ]se1 /ill ^! dim anticipations 7 wor?less z argum5ts s long z x rema9$ impossible to sugge/ any natural pr9ciple :]eby su* a result c\ld h be5 conceivably effect$ by su* causes4 ,b x is evid5t t ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "t-hon\r$ argum5t is n[ completely ov]?r[n1 unless x c be prov$ t !re is "s radical error 9 ! reason+ :]eby ,i h endeav\r$ to %[ t natural causes n only may1 b mu/1 h produc$ exi/+ ord]4 ,! ov]?r[ is complete1 because ! v gr\ndwork ( ! argum5t 9 "q is knock$ away2 a ?ird possibility1 ( ! nature ( a necessity1 is introduc$1 & !re=e ! alt]native is no long] betwe5 ,intellig5ce & ,=tuity1 b betwe5 ,intellig5ce & ,natural ,causation4 ,:]eas ! ov]:elm+ /r5g? ( ! argum5t f ,ord] has hi!rto consi/$ 9 ! supposition ( ,intellig5ce z ! "o & only conceivable cause ( ! integration ( ?+s1 my exposition 9 ,*apt] ,,iv4 has %[n t su* integration mu/ h be5 due1 at all ev5ts 9 a relative or proximate s5se1 to a /rictly physical cause--! p]si/5ce ( =ce & ! consequ5t self-evolution ( natural law4 ,& ! "q z to :e!r or n ,intellig5ce may n h be5 ! absolute or ultimate cause is manife/ly a "q altoge!r ali5 to ! argum5t f ,ord]2 = if exi/+ ord] admits ( be+ acc\nt$ =1 9 a relative or proximate s5se1 by m]ely physical causes1 ! argum5t f a relative or proximate ord] is n at lib]ty to inf] or to assume ! exi/5ce ( any high] or m ultimate cause4 ,al?\gh1 !re=e1 9 ,*apt] ,v41 ,i h be5 c>eful to po9t out t ! fact ( exi/+ ord] hav+ be5 due to proximate or natural causes does n actually disprove ! possible exi/5ce ( an ultimate & sup]natural cause1 /ill x mu/ be c>efully obs]v$ t ?is negative fact _c possibly ju/ify any positive inf]5ce to ! exi/5ce ( su* a cause4 ,?us1 ^u ! :ole1 x may be said1 )\t dang] ( reasonable dispute1 t z ! argum5t f ,ord] has hi!rto d]iv$ its imm5se weight entirely f ! fact t ,intellig5ce appe>$ to be ! "o & only cause suffici5t to produce ! obs]v$ integration ( ! cosmos1 ?is imm5se weight has n[ be5 completely c\nt]pois$ by ! demon/ration t o!r causes ( a /rictly physical k9d mu/ h be5 in/rum5tal1 if n !mselves alone suffici5t1 to produce ?is integration1 ,s t1 j z 9 ! case ( ,a/ronomy ! demon/ration ( ! "o natural pr9ciple ( gravity 0 suffici5t to classify "u "o physical explanation sev]al obs]v$ facts :i* _m p]sons _h previ\sly attribut$ to sup]natural causes2 & j z 9 ! m complex sci5ce ( ,geology ! demon/ration ( ! "o pr9ciple ( uni=mit>ianism 0 suffici5t to expla91 )\t ! aid ( sup]naturalism1 a /ill great] numb] ( facts2 &1 la/ly1 j z 9 ! case ( ! /ill m complex sci5ce ( ,biology ! demon/ration ( ! "o pr9ciple ( natural selection 0 suffici5t to m>%al "u "o sci5tific1 or natural1 hypo!sis an almo/ incalculable numb] ( facts :i* 7 previ\sly expla9$ by ! metaphysical hypo!sis ( sup]natural design2 s 9 ! sci5ce :i* includes all o!r sci5ces1 & :i* we may t]m ! sci5ce ( ,cosmology1 ,i ass]t ) confid5ce t 9 ! "o pr9ciple ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce we h a demon/rably h>monis+ pr9ciple1 :]eby all ! facts )9 our exp]i5ce admit ( be+ collocat$ "u "o natural explanation1 )\t !re be+ ! smalle/ reason to attribute ^! facts to any sup]natural cause4 ,b p]haps ! imm5se *ange :i* ^! consid]ations mu/ logically be reg>d$ z hav+ produc$ 9 ! speculative /&+ ( ! argum5t f teleology w be bett] appreciat$ if ,i cont9ue to quote f ,pr(essor ,fl9t's v =cible & ?or\ghly logical exposition ( ! previ\s /&+ ( ?is argum5t4 ,he says3-- ,to ascribe ! orig9ation ( ord] to law is a manife/ evasion ( ! real problem4 ,law is ord]4 ,law is ! v ?+ to be expla9$4 ,! "q is--,has law a reason1 or is x )\t a reason8 ,! unp]v]t$ human m9d _c believe x to be )\t a reason4 ,i d n "k :]e a m t]se & accurate /atem5t ( ! case c\ld be f\nd2 & to my m9d ! "q s lucidly put admits ( ! direct answ]--,law cle>ly has a reason ( a purely physical k9d4 ,& !re=e ,i submit t ! foll[+ quotation :i* ,pr(essor ,fl9t makes f ,pr(essor ,jevons1 logical z x 0 :5 writt51 mu/ n[ be reg>d$ z embody+ an argum5t :i* is obsolete4 ,z an unlimit$ numb] ( atoms c be plac$ 9 unlimit$ space 9 an unlimit$ numb] ( modes ( di/ribution1 !re mu/1 ev5 grant+ matt] to h _h all its laws f et]nity1 h be5 at "s mom5t 9 "t1 out ( ! unlimit$ *oices & di/ributions possible1 t "o *oice & di/ribution :i* yield$ ! fair & ord]ly univ]se t n[ exi/s4 ,only out ( rational *oice c ord] h come4 ,b cle>ly ! alt]native is n[ no long] "o betwe5 *ance & *oice4 ,if natural laws arise by way ( necess>y consequ5ce f ! p]si/5ce ( a s+le self-exi/+ sub/ance1 x becomes a matt] ( sci5tific 7?\gh n ( logical7 demon/ration t ! fair & ord]ly univ]se t n[ exi/s is ! "o & only univ]se t1 9 ! nature ( ?+s1 c exi/4 ,b to cont9ue ?is int]e/+ passage f ,dr4 ,fl9t's "w--int]e/+ n only because x sets =? ! previ\s /&+ ( ?is subject ) s mu* cle>ness1 b also because ! "w is ( su* v rec5t publication4 ,! mo/ common mode1 p]haps1 ( evad+ ! problem :i* ord] pres5ts to reason is ! indication ( ! process by :i* ! ord] has be5 realis$4 ,f ,democritus to ! late/ ,d>w9ian !re h be5 m5 :o suppos$ !y _h completely expla9$ away ! evid5ces ( design 9 nature :5 !y _h describ$ ! physical antec$5ts ( ! arrangem5ts appeal$ to z evid5ces4 ,ari/otle %[$ ! absurdity ( ?is supposition m ?an #bbjj ye>s ago4 ,n[ ?is is a p]fectly valid criticism on all su* previ\s non-!i/ical argum5ts z 7 drawn f an indication ( ! process by :i* ! ord] has be5 realis$2 = 9 all ^! previ\s argum5ts !re 0 an abs5ce ( any physical explanation ( ! ultimate cause ( ! process contemplat$1 & s long z ?is ultimate cause rema9$ obscure1 al?\gh ! evid5ce ( design might by ^! argum5ts h be5 exclud$ f p>ticul> processes1 ! evid5ce ( design c\ld n be simil>ly exclud$ f ! ultimate cause ( ^! processes4 ,?us1 = in/ance1 x is d\btless illogical1 z ,pr(essor ,fl9t po9ts out1 9 any ,d>w9ian to argue t because 8 !ory ( natural selection supplies him ) a natural explanation ( ! process :]eby organisms h be5 adapt$ to _! surr\nd+s1 !re=e ?is process ne$ n itself h be5 design$4 ,t is to say1 9 g5]al t]ms1 z insi/$ ^u 9 ! =ego+ essay1 ! discov]y ( a natural law or ord]ly process _c ( itself ju/ify ! inf]5ce t ?is law or me?od ( ord]ly proc$ure is n itself a product ( sup]natural ,intellig5ce2 b1 on ! contr>y1 ! v exi/5ce ( su* ord]ly processes1 consid]$ only 9 relation to _! products1 mu/ prop]ly be reg>d$ z evid5ce ( ! be/ possible k9d 9 fav\r ( sup]natural ,intellig5ce1 provid$ t no natural cause c be sugge/$ z adequate to expla9 ! orig9 ( ^! processes4 ,b ?is is precisely :at ! p]si/5ce ( =ce1 consid]$ z a natural cause1 mu/ be pron\nc$ z necess>ily compet5t to a*ieve2 = we c cle>ly see t all ^! processes obvi\sly mu/ & actually d d]ive _! orig9 f ?is "o causative pr9ciple4 ,& :e!r or n beh9d ?is "o causative pr9ciple ( natural law !re exi/s a /ill m ultimate cause 9 ! =m ( a sup]natural ,intellig5ce1 ?is is a "q altoge!r =eign to any argum5t f teleology1 see+ t teleology1 9 s f> z x is teleology1 c only re/ ^u ! obs]v$ facts ( ! cosmos2 & if ^! facts admit ( be+ expla9$ by ! action ( a s+le causative pr9ciple inh]5t 9 ! cosmos itself1 teleology is n free to assume ! action ( any causative pr9ciple ( a m ultimate "*4 ,/ill1 z ,i h repeat$ly insi/$1 ^! consid]ations d n entitle u dogmatically to d5y ! exi/5ce ( "s su* m ultimate pr9ciple2 all t ^! consid]ations d is to remove any rational argum5t f teleological s\rces t any su* m ultimate pr9ciple exi/s4 ,!re=e ,i am1 ( c\rse1 q at "o ) ,pr(essor ,fl9t :5 he says ,pr(essor ,huxley admits t ! mo/ ?or\ghgo+ evolutioni/ mu/ at lea/ assume 'a primordial molecul> arrangem5t ( :i* all ! ph5om5a ( ! univ]se are ! consequ5ces1' & 'is !reby at ! m]cy ( ! !ologi/1 :o c defy him to disprove t ?is primordial molecul> arrangem5t 0 n int5d$ to involve ! ph5om5a ( ! univ]se4' ,grant+ ?is mu*1 he is logically b\nd to grant m4 ,if ! entire evolution ( ! univ]se may h be5 int5d$1 ! sev]al /ages ( its evolution may h be5 int5d$1 & !y may h be5 int5d$ = _! own sakes z well z = ! sake ( ! collective evolution or its f9al result4 ,n[ t su* may h be5 ! case1 ,i h be5 c>eful to insi/ 9 ,*apt] ,v42 all ,i am n[ conc]n$ ) is to %[ t1 9 view ( ! consid]ations adduc$ 9 ,*apt] ,,iv41 !re is no long] any evid5ce to prove1 or ev5 to indicate1 t su* has be5 ! case4 ,& ) ref]5ce to ?is opportune quotation f ,pr(essor ,huxley ,i may rem>k1 t ! ?or\ghgo+ evolutioni/ is n[ no long] at ! m]cy ( ! !ologian to any fur!r ext5t ?an t ( n be+ able to disprove a purely metaphysical hypo!sis1 :i* is z c]ta9ly sup]flu\s1 9 any sci5tific s5se1 z ! fundam5tal data ( sci5ce are c]ta9ly true4 ,x may seem almo/ unnecess>y to ext5d ?is po/script by pursu+ fur!r ! criticism on ,pr(essor ,fl9t's exposition 9 ! light ( a s+le new reason 444 = ! d5ial ( design :i* he *all5ges2 b !re are nev]!less "o or two o!r po9ts :i* x seems desirable to consid]4 ,pr(essor ,fl9t writes3-- ,m4 ,comte imag9es t he has %[n ! inf]5ce f design1 f ! ord] & /ability ( ! sol> sy/em1 to be unw>rant$1 :5 he has po9t$ out ! physical conditions ?r\gh :i* t ord] & /ability are secur$1 & ! process by :i* !y h be5 obta9$4444 ,n[ ! ass]tion t ! peculi>ities :i* make ! sol> sy/em /able & ! e>? habitable h fl[$ naturally & necess>ily f ! simple mutual gravity ( ! sev]al p>ts ( nebul\s matt] is "o :i* greatly requires pro(1 b :i* has nev] receiv$ x4 ,9 say+ ?is1 we d n *all5ge ! pro( ( ! nebul> !ory itself4 ,t !ory may or may n be true4 ,we are q will+ to suppose x true--to grant t x has be5 sci5tifically e/abli%$4 ,:at we ma9ta9 is1 t ev5 if we admit unres]v$ly t ! e>? & ! :ole sy/em to :i* x belongs once exi/$ 9 a nebul\s /ate1 f :i* !y 7 gradually evolv$ into _! pres5t condition con=mably to physical laws1 we are 9 no degree entitl$ to inf] f ! admission ! conclusion :i* ,comte & o!rs h drawn4 ,! man :o fancies t ! nebul> !ory implies t ! law ( gravitation1 or any o!r physical law1 has ( itself det]m9$ ! c\rse ( cosmical evolution1 s t !re is no ne$ = believ+ 9 ! exi/5ce & op]ation ( a div9e m9d1 proves m]ely t he is n exempt f reason+ v illogically4 ,! sol> sy/em c\ld only h be5 evolv$ out ( its nebul\s /ate into t :i* x n[ pres5ts if ! nebula possess$ a c]ta9 size1 mass1 =m1 & con/itution1 if x 0 nei!r too fluid nor too t5aci\s--if its atoms 7 all numb]$1 its elem5ts all weigh$1 its con/itu5ts all dispos$ 9 due relation to "o ano!r2 t is to say1 only if ! nebula 0 9 reality z mu* a sy/em ( ord]1 :i* ,intellig5ce alone c\ld acc\nt =1 z ! worlds :i* h be5 develop$ f x4 ,! orig9 ( ! nebula ?us pres5ts itself to reason z a problem :i* dem&s solution no less ?an ! orig9 ( ! planets4 ,all ! prop]ties & laws ( ! nebula require to be acc\nt$ =4 ,:at orig9 are we to give !m8 ,x mu/ be ei!r reason or unreason4 ,we may g back z f> z we please1 b1 at e /ep & /age ( ! regress we mu/ f9d ourselves confront$ ) ! same "q1 ! same alt]native--intellig5t purpose or colossal *ance4 ,n[1 s f> z ,comte is "h guilty ( ! fallacy ,i h already dwelt ^u ( build+ a de/ructive argum5t ^u a demon/ration ( m]e ord]ly processes 9 nature1 z di/+ui%$ f a demon/ration ( ! natural cause ( ^! processes1 x is n = me to def5d him4 ,all we c say ) reg>d to him 9 ?is connection is1 t1 hav+ a sort ( sci5tific pres5tim5t t if ! k ( 8 day 7 suffici5tly advanc$ x w\ld prove de/ructive ( sup]naturalism 9 ! high] & m ab/ruse prov9ces ( physical speculation1 z x _h previ\sly prov$ 9 ! l[] & less ab/ruse ( ^! prov9ces1 ,comte all[$ 8 inf]5ces to outrun _! legitimate basis4 ,be+ necess>ily ignorant ( ! "o g5]at+ cause ( ord]ly processes 9 nature1 he improp]ly all[$ himself to f\nd conclusions on ! basis ( ^! processes alone1 :i* c\ld only be prop]ly f\nd$ on ! basis ( _! cause4 ,b freely grant+ ?is mu* to ,pr(essor ,fl9t1 & ! re/ ( 8 rem>ks 9 ?is connection w be f\nd1 9 view ( ! alt]$ /&+ ( ?is subject1 to be op5 to am5dm5t4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 no "o ne$ n[ resort to ! illogical supposition t ! law ( gravitation or any o!r physical law has ( itself det]m9$ ! c\rse ( cosmical evolution4 ,:at we may argue1 & :at mu/ be conc$$ to u1 is1 t ! common sub/ratum ( all physical laws 0 at "o "t suffici5t to produce ! simple/ physical laws1 & t ?r\gh\t ! :ole c\rse ( evolution ?is common sub/ratum has always be5 suffici5t to produce ! m complex laws 9 ! asc5d+ s]ies ( _! ev]-increas+ numb] & v>iety4 ,& h5ce x becomes obvi\s t ! orig9 ( ! nebula pres5ts a difficulty nei!r great] nor less ?an ! orig9 ( ! planets1 s9ce1 if we may g back z f> z we please1 we c ent]ta9 no sci5tific d\bt t we %\ld come to a "t1 prior ev5 to ! nebula1 :5 ! sub/ance ( ! sol> sy/em exi/$ m]ely z su*--i4e41 9 an almo/ or 9 a :olly undiff]5tiat$ =m1 ! product1 no d\bt1 ( endless cycles ( previ\s evolutions & dissolutions ( =mal diff]5tiations4 ,!re=e1 al?\gh x is und\bt$ly true t ! sol> sy/em c\ld only h be5 evolv$ out ( its nebul\s /ate into t :i* x n[ pres5ts if ! nebula possess$ ^? p>ticul> attributes :i* 7 necessity to ! evolution ( su* a product1 ?is consid]ation is cle>ly depriv$ ( all its =ce f our pres5t po9t ( view4 ,= unless x c be %[n t !re is "s indep5d5t reason = believ+ ^! p>ticul> attributes--:i* mu/ h be5 ( a m & m simple a "* ! fur!r we rec$e 9 "t--to h be5 miracul\sly impos$1 ! analogy is ov]:elm+ t !y all progressively arose by way ( natural law4 ,& if s1 ! univ]se :i* has be5 ?us produc$ is ! only univ]se 9 ?is p>ticul> po9t ( space & "t :i* c\ld h be5 ?us produc$4 ,t x is an ord]ly univ]se we h se5 ad nauseam to be no argum5t 9 fav\r ( its hav+ be5 a design$ univ]se1 s long z ! cause ( its ord]--g5]al laws--c be se5 to admit ( a natural explanation4 ,?us !re is cle>ly no?+ to be ga9$ on ! side ( teleology by go+ back to ! dim & dismal bir? ( ! nebula2 = no ?or\ghgo+ evolutioni/ w\ld = "o mom5t ent]ta9 ! supposition t natural law 9 ! simple/ phases ( its developm5t p>took any m ( a miracul\s "* ?an x does 9 its m rec5t & va/ly m complex phases4 ,! abs5ce ( k mu/ n be us$ z equival5t to its pres5ce2 & if analogy c be held to ju/ify any inf]5ce :atsoev]1 surely we may conclude ) confid5ce t if exi/+ g5]al laws admit ( be+ conceivably attribut$ to a natural g5esis1 ! primordial laws ( a cond5s+ nebula mu/ h be5 ! same4 ,!re is ano!r passage 9 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w to :i* x seems desirable to ref]4 ,x beg9s ?us3 ,!re is ! law ( h]$ity3 l produces l4 ,b :y is !re su* a law8 ,:y does l produce l8444 ,physical sci5ce _c answ] ^! que/ions2 b t is no reason :y !y %\ld n bo? be ask$ & answ]$4 ,i c conceive ( no o!r intellig5t answ] be+ giv5 to !m ?an t !re is a ,god ( wisdom1 :o design$ t ! _w %\ld be = all ages ! abode ( life1 c4 ,n[ "h we h 9 ano!r =m t same vici\s t5d5cy to take refuge 9 ! m obscure cases ( physical causation z pro(s ( sup]natural design--! obscurity 9 ?is case aris+ f ! complexity ( ! causes & "w1 z 9 ! =m] case x arose f _! remot5ess 9 "t4 ,b 9 bo? cases ! same answ] is pat5t1 viz41 t al?\gh physical sci5ce _c answ] ^! que/ions by po9t+ out ! precise sequ5ce ( causes & effects1 physical sci5ce is nev]!less q z c]ta9 t ?is precise sequ5ce arises 9 its la/ resort f ! p]si/5ce ( =ce1 z %e w\ld be 7 %e able to trace ! :ole process4 ,& !re=e1 9 view ( ! consid]ations set =? 9 ,*apt] ,,iv4 ( ?is "w1 x is no long] op5 to ,pr(essor ,fl9t or to any o!r writ] logically to ass]t--,i c conceive ( no o!r intellig5t answ] be+ giv5 to su* que/ions ?an t !re is a ,god ( wisdom4 ,! same answ] awaits ?is au?or's fur!r disquisition on o!r biological laws1 s x is ne$less to make any fur!r quotations 9 ?is connection4 ,b !re is "o o!r pr9ciple embodi$ 9 "s ( ^! passages :i* x seems undesirable to ov]look4 ,x is said1 = in/ance1 ,natural selection might h _h no mat]ials1 or altoge!r insuffici5t mat]ials1 to "w )1 or ! circum/ances might h be5 su* t ! l[e/ organisms 7 ! be/ end[$ = ! /ruggle = life4 ,if ! e>? 7 cov]$ ) wat]1 fi% w\ld survive & high] creatures w\ld p]i%4 ,n[ ! pr9ciple "h embodi$--viz41 t _h ! conditions ( evolution be5 o!r ?an !y 71 ! results w\ld h be5 diff]5t--is1 ( c\rse1 true2 b cle>ly1 on ! view t all natural laws spr+ f ! p]si/5ce ( =ce1 no o!r conditions ?an ^? :i* actually occurr$1 or are n[ occurr+1 c\ld ev] h occurr$1--! :ole c\rse ( evolution mu/ h be51 9 all its phases & 9 all its processes1 an unconditional necessity4 ,b if x is said1 ,h[ =tunate t ! outcome1 be+ unconditionally necess>y1 has happ5$ to be s good z x is2 ,i answ] t ! rem>k is legitimate en\gh if x is n int5d$ to convey an implication t ! g5]al quality ( ! outcome po9ts to b5efic5t design z to its cause4 ,su* an implication w\ld n be legitimate1 because1 9 ! fir/ place1 we h no means ( kn[+ 9 h[ _m cases1 :e!r 9 planets1 />s1 or sy/ems1 ! c\rse ( evolution has fail$ to produce life & m9d--! "o kn[n case ( ?is e>?1 :e!r or n x is ! "o success out ( millions ( abortions1 be+ ( necessity ! only kn[n case4 ,9 h[ va/ly great] a numb] ( cases ! c\rse ( evolution may h be51 s to speak1 deflect$ by "s ev5 slight1 ?\gh /rictly necess>y1 cause f produc+ self-consci\s intellig5ce1 x is impossible to conjecture4 ,b ?is consid]ation1 be x obs]v$1 is n "h adduc$ 9 ord] to disprove ! ass]tion t telluric evolution has be5 effect$ by ,intellig5ce2 x is m]ely adduc$ to prove t su* an ass]tion _c re/ on ! s+le kn[n result ( telluric evolution1 s long z an inf9ite numb] ( ! results ( evolution else:]e rema9 unkn[n4 ,& n[1 la/ly1 x mu/ be obs]v$ t ev5 9 ! "o case ) :i* we are acqua9t$1 ! net product ( evolution is n su* z c ( itself po9t u to b5efic5t design4 ,pr(essor ,fl9t1 inde$1 9 common ) !ologians g5]ally1 argues t x does4 ,i w !re=e briefly criticise 8 rem>ks on ?is subject1 believ+1 z ,i d1 t !y =m a v admirable illu/ration ( :at ,i conceive to be a g5]al pr9ciple--viz41 t m9ds :i* already believe 9 ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity are1 z a rule1 n 9 a position to view ?is "q ( b5efic5ce 9 nature 9 a p]fectly imp>tial mann]4 ,= if ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity is presuppos$1 a m9d ) any p>ticle ( t mo/ noble quality--rev]5ce--w naturally hesitate to draw conclusions t p>take ( ! nature ( blasphemy2 & !re=e1 unconsci\sly p]haps to !mselves1 !y endeav\r 9 v>i\s ways to evade ! evid5ce :i*1 if hone/ly & imp>tially consid]$1 c sc>cely fail to negative ! argum5t f b5efic5ce 9 ! univ]se4 ,pr(essor ,fl9t argues t ! law ( ov]-production1 & ! consequ5t /ruggle = exi/5ce1 be+ ! reason :y ! _w is s wond]fully ri* 9 ! mo/ v>i$ =ms ( life1 is a means to an end wor?y ( ,div9e ,wisdom4 ,al?\gh involv+ privation1 pa91 & conflict1 its f9al result is ord] & beauty4 ,all ! p]fections ( s5ti5t creatures are repres5t$ z due to x4 ,?r\gh x ! lion has ga9$ its /r5g?1 ! de] its spe$1 & ! dog its sagacity4 ,! inf]5ce seems natural t ^! p]fections 7 design$ to be atta9$ by x2 t ?is /ate ( /ruggle 0 orda9$ = ! sake ( ! advantages :i* x is actually se5 to produce4 ,! suff]+ :i* ! conflict involves may indicate t ,god has made ev5 animals = "s high] end ?an happ9ess--t he c>es = animal p]fection z well z = animal enjoym5t2 b x af=ds no reason = d5y+ t ! ends :i* ! conflict actually s]ves x 0 int5d$ to s]ve4 ,n[1 :atev] may be ?\ght ( su* an argum5t z an attempt$ ju/ification ( b5efic5t design already on indep5d5t gr\nd believ$ to exi/1 x is manife/ly no argum5t at all z e/abli%+ any presumption 9 fav\r ( su* design1 unless x c\ld be %[n t ! ,deity is s f> limit$ 9 8 p[] ( adapt+ means to ends t ! p>ticul> me?od adopt$ 9 ?is case 0 ! be/1 all ?+s consid]$1 t he 0 able to adopt4 ,= suppos+ ! ,deity to be1 :at ,pr(essor ,fl9t ma9ta9s t he is--viz41 omnipot5t--& !re c be no inf]5ce m transp>5t ?an t su* :olesale suff]+1 = :atev] ends design$1 exhibits an incalculably great] defici5cy ( b5efic5ce 9 ! div9e "* ?an t :i* we "k 9 any1 ! v wor/1 ( human *>act]s4 ,= let u pause = "o mom5t to ?9k ( :at suff]+ 9 nature means4 ,"s hundr$s ( millions ( ye>s ago "s millions ( millions ( animals mu/ be suppos$ to h be5 s5ti5t4 ,s9ce t "t till ! pres5t1 !re mu/ h be5 millions & millions ( g5]ations ( millions ( millions ( individuals4 ,& ?r\gh\t all ?is p]iod ( incalculable duration1 ?is inconceivable ho/ ( s5ti5t organisms h be5 9 a /ate ( unceas+ battle1 dread1 rav91 pa94 ,look+ to ! outcome1 we f9d t m ?an half ( ! species :i* h surviv$ ! ceaseless /ruggle are p>asitic 9 _! habits1 l[] & ins5ti5t =ms ( life fea/+ on high] & s5ti5t =ms2 we f9d tee? & talons :ett$ = slaught]1 hooks & suck]s m\ld$ = torm5t--ev]y:]e a reign ( t]ror1 hung]1 & sickness1 ) ooz+ blood & quiv]+ limbs1 ) gasp+ brea? & eyes ( innoc5ce t dimly close 9 dea?s ( brutal torture6 ,is x said t !re are comp5sat+ enjoym5ts8 ,i c>e n to /rike ! balance2 ! enjoym5ts ,i pla9ly p]ceive to be z physically necess>y z ! pa9s1 & ?is :e!r or n evolution is due to design4 ,!re=e all ,i am conc]n$ ) is to %[1 t if su* a /ate ( ?+s is due to omnipot5t design1 ! omnipot5t design] mu/ be conclud$1 s f> z reason c inf]1 to be non-b5efic5t4 ,& ?is x is n difficult to %[4 ,:5 ,i see a rabbit pant+ 9 ! iron jaws ( a spr+-trap1 ,i abhor ! devili% nature ( ! be+ :o1 ) full p[]s ( realis+ :at pa9 means1 c delib]ately employ 8 noble faculties ( inv5tion 9 contriv+ a ?+ s hide\sly cruel4 ,b if ,i c\ld believe t !re is a be+ :o1 ) yet high] faculties ( ?\ght & k1 & ) an unlimit$ *oice ( means to secure 8 ends1 has contriv$ untold ?\s&s ( me*anisms no less diabolical ?an a spr+-trap2 ,i %\ld call t be+ a fi5d1 7 all ! _w besides to call him ,god4 ,am ,i told t ?is is arrogance8 ,x is no?+ ( ! k9d2 x is pla9 morality1 & to say o!rwise w\ld be to hide our eyes f murd] because we dread ! ,murd]]4 ,am ,i told t ,i am n compet5t to judge ! purposes ( ! ,almighty8 ,i answ] t if ^! are purposes1 ,i am able to judge ( !m s f> z ,i c see2 & if ,i am expect$ to judge ( 8 purposes :5 !y appe> to be b5efic5t1 ,i am 9 consi/5cy oblig$ also to judge ( !m :5 !y appe> to be malevol5t4 ,& x c be no possible ext5uation ( ! latt] to po9t to ! f9al result z ord] & beauty1 s long z ! means adopt$ by ! ,omnipot5t ,design] are kn[n to h be5 s revolt+4 ,all t we c\ld legitimately ass]t 9 ?is case w\ld be1 t s f> z obs]vation c ext5d1 he c>es = animal p]fection to ! exclusion ( animal enjoym5t1 & ev5 to ! total disreg>d ( animal suff]+4 ,b to ass]t ?is w\ld m]ely be to d5y b5efic5ce z an attribute ( ,god4 ,! dilemma1 !re=e1 :i* ,epicurus has /at$ ) great lucidity1 & :i* ,pr(essor ,fl9t quotes1 appe>s to me s obvi\s z sc>cely to require /atem5t4 ,! dilemma is1 t1 look+ to ! facts ( organic nature1 !i/s mu/ ab&on _! belief1 ei!r 9 ! div9e omnipot5ce1 or 9 ! div9e b5efic5ce4 ,& yet1 su* is ! w>p+ effect ( pre=m$ beliefs on ! m9d1 t ev5 s c&id a writ] z ,pr(essor ,fl9t c ?us write ( ?is mo/ obvi\s tru?3-- ,! late ,mr4 ,john ,/u>t ,mill1 = no bett] reason ?an t nature sometimes dr[ns m5 & burns !m1 & t *ildbir? is a pa9ful process1 ma9ta9$ t ,god c\ld n possibly be inf9ite4 ,i %all n say :at ,i ?9k ( ! %all[ness & self-conceit display$ by su* an argum5t4 ,:at x proves is n ! f9it5ess ( ,god1 b ! littl5ess ( man4 ,! m9d ( man nev] %[s itself s small z :5 x tries to measure ! attributes & limit ! greatness ( its ,creator4 ,b ! argum5t--or r ! truism--9 "q is an attempt to d nei!r ! "o nor ! o!r2 x simply ass]ts ! pat5t fact t1 if ,god is omnipot5t1 & s _h an unlimit$ *oice ( means :]eby to accompli% ! ends ( animal p]fection1 animal enjoym5t1 & ! re/2 !n ! fact ( 8 hav+ *os5 to adopt ! means :i* he has adopt$ is a fact :i* is :olly incompatible ) 8 b5efic5ce4 ,& on ! o!r h&1 if he is b5efic5t1 ! fact ( 8 hav+ adopt$ ^! means 9 ord] t ! sum ( ultimate enjoym5t might exce$ ! sum ( concomitant pa91 is a fact :i* is :olly incompatible ) 8 omnipot5ce4 ,to a man :o already believes1 on indep5d5t gr\nds1 9 an omnipot5t & b5efic5t ,deity1 x is no d\bt possible to avoid fac+ ?is dilemma1 & to re/ cont5t ) ! assumption t1 9 a s5se beyond ! rea* ( human reason1 or ev5 ( human conception1 ! two horns ( ?is dilemma mu/ be unit$ 9 "s transc5d5tal reconciliation2 b if a man und]takes to reason on ! subject at all1 z he mu/ & ought :5 ! "q is z to ! exi/5ce ( su* a ,deity1 !n cle>ly he has no alt]native b to all[ t ! dilemma is a hopeless "o4 ,) inv]t$ mean+1 !re=e1 may we quote ,pr(essor ,fl9t's words aga9/ himself3--,! m9d ( man nev] %[s itself s small z :5 x tries to measure ! attributes 444 ( its ,creator2 = c]ta9ly1 if ,pr(essor ,fl9t's usually c&id m9d has _h a ,creator1 x n[h]e displays ! littl5ess ( prejudice 9 s m>k$ a degree z x does :5 measur+ 8 attributes4 ,?us 9 a subsequ5t *apt] he deals at great] l5g? ) ?is difficulty ( ! app>5t failure ( b5efic5ce 9 nature1 argu+1 9 effect1 t z pa9 & suff]+ s]ve _m good ends 9 ! way ( w>n+ animals ( dang] to life1 c41 !re=e we ought to conclude t1 if we c\ld see f>!r1 we %\ld see pa9 & suff]+ to be unmitigat$ good1 or ne>ly s4 ,n[ ?is argum5t1 z ,i h previ\sly said1 may possibly be admissible z betwe5 ,*ri/ians or o!rs :o already believe 9 ! exi/5ce & 9 ! b5efic5ce ( ,god2 b x is only ! bl9de/ prejudice :i* c fail to p]ceive t ! argum5t is q )\t relevancy :5 ! "q is z to ! evid5ces ( su* exi/5ce & ! evid5ces ( su* "*4 ,= :]e ! fact ( su* an exi/5ce & "* is ! "q 9 dispute1 x cle>ly c be no argum5t to /ate its b>e assumption by say+ t if we knew m ( nature we %\ld f9d ! relative prepond]ance ( good ov] evil to be immeasurably great] ?an t :i* we n[ p]ceive4 ,! plat=m ( argum5t on :i* ! "q ( ,!ism mu/ be discuss$ is t ( ! obs]vable ,cosmos2 & if1 z ,dr4 ,fl9t is con/ra9$ to admit1 !re is a fe>ful spectacle ( mis]y pres5t$ by ?is ,cosmos1 x becomes m]e "q-begg+ to gloss ov] ?is aspect ( ! subject by any vague assumption t ! mis]y mu/ h "s unobs]vable ends ( s transc5d5tally b5efic5t a nature1 t 7 !y kn[n !y w\ld ju/ify ! means4 ,inde$1 ?is k9d ( discussion seems to me worse ?an useless = ! purposes :i* ! ,pr(essor has 9 view2 = x only s]ves by contra/ to ?r[ out into /rong] relief ! natural & ! un/ra9$ "* ( ! adv]se int]pretation ( ! facts4 ,accord+ to ?is adv]se int]pretation1 s5ti5cy has be5 evolv$ by natural selection to secure ! b5efits :i* are po9t$ out by ,pr(essor ,fl9t2 & !re=e ! fact ( ?is1 its cause1 hav+ be5 a m9dless cause1 cle>ly implies t ! re/riction ( pa9 & suff]+ _c be an active pr9ciple1 or a v]a causa1 z betwe5 species & species1 ?\gh x mu/ be su* )9 ! limits ( ! same organism1 & to a less] ext5t )9 ! limits ( ! same species4 ,& ?is is j :at we f9d to be ! case4 ,!re=e1 )\t ! ne$ ( resort+ to :olly arbitr>y assumptions conc]n+ transc5d5tal reconciliations betwe5 app>5tly ne$less suff]+ & a suppos$ almighty b5efic5ce1 ! non-!i/ic hypo!sis is sav$ by m]ely op5+ our eyes to ! obs]vable facts ar\nd u1 & !re see+ t pa9 & mis]y1 alike 9 ! b5efits :i* !y br+ & 9 ! frightful excesses :i* !y manife/1 play j t "p 9 nature :i* ?is hypo!sis w\ld lead u to expect4 ,!re=e1 to sum up ^! consid]ations on physical suff]+1 ! case betwe5 a !i/ & a sceptic z to ! "q ( div9e b5efic5ce is se5 to be a case ( extreme simplicity4 ,! !i/ believes 9 su* b5efic5ce by purposely conceal+ f 8 m9d all adv]se evid5ce--feel+1 on ! "o side1 t to ent]ta9 ! d\bt to :i* ?is evid5ce po9ts w\ld be to hold dalliance ) blasphemy1 &1 on ! o!r side1 t ! subject is ( s transc5d5tal a nature t1 9 view ( s great a risk1 x is bett] to avoid imp>tial reason+ ^u x4 ,a sceptic1 on ! o!r h&1 is "u no su* obligation to preconceiv$ ideas1 & is !re=e free to draw unbiass$ inf]5ces z to ! "* ( ,god1 if he exi/s1 to ! ext5t :i* su* "* is indicat$ by ! sph]e ( obs]vable nature4 ,&1 z ,i h said1 :5 ! subject is s view$1 ! inf]5ce is unavoidable t1 s f> z human reason c p5etrate1 ,god1 if he exi/s1 mu/ ei!r be non-inf9ite 9 8 res\rces1 or non-b5efic5t 9 8 designs4 ,!re=e x is evid5t t :5 ! be+ ( ,god1 z di/+ui%$ f 8 "*1 is ! subject 9 dispute1 ,!ism c ga9 no?+ by an appeal to evid5ces ( b5efic5t designs4 ,if su* evid5ces 7 unequivocal1 !n inde$ ! argum5t :i* !y w\ld e/abli% to an intellig5t cause ( nature w\ld be almo/ irresi/ible2 = ! fact ( ! ext]nal _w be+ 9 h>mony ) ! moral nature ( man w\ld be unacc\ntable except on ! supposition ( bo? hav+ d]iv$ _! orig9 f a common moral s\rce2 & morality implies intellig5ce4 ,b z x is1 all ! s-call$ evid5ce ( div9e b5efic5ce 9 nature is1 )\t any exception ( a k9d t is wor?less z prov+ design2 = all ! facts admit ( be+ expla9$ equally well on ! supposition ( _! hav+ be5 due to purely physical processes1 act+ ?r\gh ! v>i\s biological laws :i* we are n[ only beg9n+ to und]/&4 ,& fur!r ?an ?is1 s f> are ^! facts f prov+ ! exi/5ce ( a moral cause1 t1 9 view ( ! alt]native j /at$1 !y ev5 gr\nd a positive argum5t to its negation4 ,=1 z we h se51 all ^! facts are j ( su* a k9d z we %\ld expect to be ! facts1 on ! supposition ( _! hav+ be5 due to natural causes--i4e41 causes :i* c\ld h _h no moral solicitude = animal happ9ess z su*4 ,let u n[1 9 conclusion1 dwell on ?is anti!sis at some:at great] l5g?4 ,if natural selection has play$ any l>ge %>e 9 ! process ( organic evolution1 x is evid5t t animal enjoym5t1 be+ an important factor 9 ?is natural cause1 mu/ always h be5 fur!r$ to ! ext5t 9 :i* x 0 necess>y = ! adaptation ( organisms to _! environm5t t x %\ld4 ,& su* we inv>iably f9d to be ! limits )9 :i* animal enjoym5ts are conf9$4 ,on ! o!r h&1 s long z ! adaptations 9 "q are n complete1 s long mu/ m or less ( suff]+ be entail$--! capacity = suff]+1 z = enjoym5t1 be+ no d\bt itself a product ( natural selection4 ,b z all specific types are p]petually /ruggl+ toge!r1 x is manife/ t ! competition mu/ prev5t any consid]able numb] ( types f becom+ s f> adapt$ to _! environm5t ( o!r types z to become exempt f suff]+ z a result ( ?is competition4 ,!re be+ no "o integrat+ cause ( an intellig5t or moral nature to supply ! conditions ( happ9ess to ea* organic type )\t ! mis]y ( ?is competition1 su* happ9ess z animals h is d]iv$ f ! heavy exp5diture ( pa9 suff]$ by !mselves & by _! ance/ry4 ,?us1 :e!r we look to animal pleasures or to animal pa9s1 ! result is alike j :at we %\ld expect to f9d on ! supposition ( ^! pleasures & pa9s hav+ be5 due to necess>y & physical1 z di/+ui%$ f intellig5t & moral1 antec$5ts2 = h[ diff]5t is t :i* is f t :i* might h be56 ,n only might b5efic5t selection h elim9at$ ! c\ntless species ( p>asites :i* n[ de/roy ! heal? & happ9ess ( all ! high] organisms2 n only might survival ( ! fitte/1 9 a moral s5se1 h det]m9$ t rapaci\s & c>nivor\s animals %\ld yield _! places 9 ! _w to h>mless & g5tle ones2 n only might life h be5 )\t sickness & dea? )\t pa92--b h[ might ! exig5ces & ! welf>e ( species h be5 consult$ by ! /ructures & ! habits ( "o ano!r6 ,b no6 ,amid all ! millions ( me*anisms & habits 9 organic nature1 all ( :i* are s beautifully adapt$ to ! ne$s ( ! species pres5t+ !m1 !re is no s+le in/ance ( any me*anism or habit occurr+ 9 "o species = ! exclusive b5efit ( ano!r species--al?\gh1 z we %\ld expect on ! non-!i/ic !ory1 !re are "s comp>atively few cases ( a me*anism or a habit :i* is ( b5efit to its possessor be+ also utilis$ by o!r species4 ,yet1 on ! b5efic5t-design !ory1 x is impossible to und]/& :y1 :5 all me*anisms & habits 9 ! same species are inv>iably correlat$ = ! b5efit ( t species1 !re %\ld nev] be any su* correlation betwe5 me*anisms & habits ( diff]5t species4 ,= h[ magnific5t1 h[ sublime a display ( supreme b5efic5ce w\ld nature h af=d$ if all h] s5ti5t animals _h be5 s int]-relat$ z to m9i/] to ea* o!r's happ9ess6 ,organic species might !n h be5 lik5$ to a c\ntless multitude ( voices1 all s++ to _! ,creator 9 "o h>moni\s psalm ( praise4 ,b1 z x is1 we see no ve/ige ( su* correlation2 e species is = itself1 & = itself alone--an outcome ( ! always & ev]y:]e fi]cely rag+ /ruggle = life4 ,s mu*1 !n1 = ! case ( physical evil2 b ,dr4 ,fl9t also treats ( ! case ( moral evil4 ,let u see :at ?is well-equipp$ writ] c make ( ?is old problem 9 ! pres5t ye> ( grace4 ,he says--,b x w be object$1 c\ld n ,god h made moral creatures :o w\ld be c]ta9 always to *oose :at is "r1 always to acquiesce 9 ,8 holy w8444 ,well1 f> be x f me to d5y t ,god c\ld h orig9at$ a s9less moral sy/em4444 ,b if que/ion$ z to :y ,he has n done bett]1 ,i feel no %ame 9 confess+ my ignorance4 ,x seems to me t :5 y h resolv$ ! problem ( ! orig9 ( moral evil into ! "q1 ,:y has ,god n orig9at$ a moral univ]se 9 :i* ! l[e/ moral be+ w\ld be z excell5t z ! ar*angels are8 y h at once %[n x to be speculatively incapable ( solution italics m9e1 & practically )\t importance64 ,! "q is "o :i* w\ld obvi\sly give rise to ano!r1 ,:y has ,god n creat$ only moral be+s z mu* sup]ior to ! ar*angels z !y are sup]ior to ! l[e/ ,au/ralian aborig9es8 ,b no complete answ] c be giv5 to a "q :i* may be foll[$ by a s]ies ( simil> que/ions to :i* !re is no end4 ,we h1 besides1 nei!r ! facts nor ! faculties to answ] su* que/ions4#df ,n[ ,i confess t ?is argum5t pres5ts to my m9d m ( subtlety ?an s5se4 ,i _h previ\sly imag9$ t ! ar*angels 7 suppos$ to enjoy a condition ( moral exi/5ce :i* might fairly be ?\ght to remove !m f any association ) t ( ! ,au/ralian aborig9es4 ,b z ?is "q is "o t belongs to ,div9ity1 ,i am "h q prep>$ to b[ to ,pr(essor ,fl9t's au?ority--hop+1 h[ev]1 t he is prep>$ to take ! responsibility %\ld ! ar*angels ev] c>e to accuse me ( calumny4 ,b1 z a logician1 ,i mu/ be p]mitt$ to obs]ve1 t if ,i ask1 ,:y am ,i n bett] ?an ,i am8 x is no answ] to tell me1 ,because ! ar*angels are n bett] ?an !y are4 ,= aught t ,i "k to ! contr>y1 ! ar*angels may be morally p]fect--z an au?ority 9 su* matt]s has told u t ev5 j m5 may become1--& !re=e1 = aught t ,i "k to ! contr>y1 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's regress ( moral degrees ad inf9itum1 may be an ontological absurdity4 ,b grant+1 = ! sake ( argum5t1 t ar*angels fall inf9itely %ort ( moral p]fection1 & ,i %\ld only be able to see 9 ! fact a hopeless aggravation ( my previ\s difficulty4 ,if x is h>d to reconcile ! supreme goodness ( ,god ) ! moral turpitude ( man1 mu* m w\ld x be h>d to d s if 8 v angels are deprav$4 ,!re=e1 if ! reasonable "q :i* ,i orig9ally put may be foll[$ by a s]ies ( simil> que/ions to :i* !re is no end1 ! goodness ( ,god mu/ simply be pron\nc$ a delusion4 ,= ! "q :i* ,i orig9ally put 0 no m]e flimsy "q ( a /upidly unreal description4 ,my own moral depravity is a matt] ( pa9ful c]ta9ty to me1 & ,i want to "k :y1 if !re is a ,god ( inf9ite p[] & goodness1 he %\ld h made me ?us4 ,& 9 answ] ,i am told t my "q is practically )\t importance1 because !re may be an endless s]ies ( be+s :o1 9 _! sev]al degrees1 are 9 a simil> pr$icam5t to myself4 ,p]haps !y are2 b if s1 ! moral evil ) :i* ,i am directly acqua9t$ is made all ! black] by ! fact t x is ?us b a drop 9 an inf9ite ocean ( moral imp]fection4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,pr(essor ,fl9t goes on to say1 ,we ought to be cont5t if we c %[ t :at ,god has done is wise & "r1 & n p]plex ourselves z to :y ,he has n done an inf9ity ( o!r ?+s1 ,i answ]1 ,mo/ c]ta9ly2 b c we %[ t :at ,god has done is wise & "r8 ,unque/ionably n4 ,t :at he has done may be wise & "r1 c\ld we see 8 :ole s*eme ( ?+s1 no c>eful ?9k] w d5y2 b to suppose x c be %[n t he has done ?is1 is an in/ance ( purbl9d fanaticism :i* is mo/ />tl+ 9 a "w on ,!ism4 ,! be/ _w1 we may be assur$1 t our fancies c feign1 w\ld 9 reality be f> inf]ior to ! _w ,god has made1 :atev] imp]fections we may ?9k we see 9 x4 ,are we lead+ a s]mon on ! datum ,god is love8 ,no2 b a "w on ! que/ions1 ,is !re a ,god8 &1 if s1 ,is he a ,god ( love8 ,& yet ! "w is writt5 by a man :o evid5tly tries to argue fairly4 ,:at %all we say ( ! despotism ( pre=m$ beliefs8 ,may we n say at lea/ ?is mu*--t ^? :o endeav\r to reconcile _! !ories ( div9e goodness ) ! facts ( human evil might well appropriate to !mselves ! words above quot$1 ,we h nei!r ! facts nor ! faculties to answ] su* que/ions8 ,= ! facts inde$ are abs5t1 & ! faculties ( imp>tial ?\ght mu/ be abs5t also1 if ?is obvi\s tru? _c be se5--t ^! que/ions only d]ive _! speculatively unansw]able "* f ! rational falsity ( ! mann] by :i* x is s\ght to answ] !m4 ,! facts ( our moral nature1 s f> z hone/ reason c p]ceive1 belie ! hypo!sis ( ,!ism2 & al?\gh ! faculties ( man may be =c$ by prejudice into an acceptance ( contradictory propositions1 ! tru? is obvi\s t only by ! hypo!sis ( ,evolution c t old-ti$ knot be cut--! ,orig9 ( ,evil4 ,! =m ( ,!ism = :i* ,dr4 ,fl9t is argu+ is ! curr5t =m1 viz41 t !re is a ,god :o comb9es 9 himself ! attributes ( inf9ite p[] & p]fect goodness--a ,god at once omnipot5t & :olly moral4 ,b1 9 view ( ! fact t moral evil exi/s 9 man1 ! proposition t ,god is omnipot5t & ! proposition t he is :olly moral become contradictory2 & !re=e ! fact ( moral evil c only be met1 ei!r by ab&on+ "o or o!r ( ^! propositions1 or by altoge!r reject+ ! hypo!sis ( ,!ism4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,iii4 ,,! ,,speculative ,,/&+ ,,( ,,mat]ialism4 ,z a cont9uation ( my criticism on ,mr4 ,fiske's views1 ,i ?9k x is desirable to add a few words conc]n+ ! speculative annihilation ) :i* he supposes ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s doctr9es to h visit$ ,mat]ialism4 ,( c\rse x is a self-evid5t truism t ! doctr9e ( ,relativity is de/ructive ( ,mat]ialism1 if by ,mat]ialism we mean a !ory :i* ignores t doctr9e4 ,9 o!r words1 ! doctr9e ( ,relativity1 if accept$1 cle>ly excludes ! doctr9e t ,matt]1 z kn[n ph5om5ally1 is at all likely to be a true repres5tative ( :atev] ?+-9-itself x may be t con/itutes ,m9d4 ,b ?is position is fully e/abli%$ by ! doctr9e ( ,relativity alone1 & is !re=e n 9 ! lea/ affect$1 ei!r by way ( confirmation or o!rwise1 by ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s ext5d$ doctr9e ( ! ,unkn[able--x be+ only because ! latt] doctr9e presupposes ! doctr9e ( ,relativity t x is exclusive ( ,mat]ialism 9 ! s5se :i* has j be5 /at$4 ,s f>1 !re=e1 ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s writ+s _c be held to h any special be>+ on ! doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism4 ,su* a special be>+ is only ex]t$ by ^! writ+s :5 !y proce$ to %[ t x seems an imag9able possibility t units ( ext]nal =ce may be id5tical 9 nature ) ! units ( ! =ce kn[n z feel+4 ,let u !n asc]ta9 h[ f> x is true t ! argum5t already quot$1 & :i* leads to ?is conclusion1 is utt]ly de/ructive ( ,mat]ialism4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,i may obs]ve t ?is argum5t diff]s 9 sev]al in/ructive p>ticul>s f ! anti-mat]iali/ic argum5t ( ,locke1 :i* we h already _h occasion to consid]4 ,= :ile ,locke errone\sly imag9$ t ! te/ ( inconceivability is ( equival5t value :]ev] x is appli$1 save only :]e x conflicts ) preconceiv$ ideas on ! subject ( ,!ism 7see ,app5dix ,a471 ,sp5c]1 ( c\rse1 is mu* too c>eful a ?9k] to fall into s obvi\s a fallacy4 ,b aga91 x is curi\s to obs]ve t 9 ! anti-mat]iali/ic argum5t ( ,sp5c] ! te/ ( inconceivability is us$ 9 a mann] ! precise opposite ( t 9 :i* x is us$ 9 ! anti-mat]iali/ic argum5t ( ,locke4 ,= :ile ! gr\nd ( ,locke's argum5t is t ,mat]ialism mu/ be untrue because x is inconceivable t ,matt] 7& ,=ce7 %\ld be ( a psy*ical nature2 ! gr\nd ( ,sp5c]'s argum5t is t :at we "k z ,=ce 7& ,matt]7 may n inconceivably be ( a psy*ical nature4 ,= my own "p1 ,i ?9k t ,sp5c]'s argum5t is1 psy*ologically speak+1 ! m valid ( ! two2 b nev]!less ,i ?9k t1 logically speak+1 x is likewise invalid to a p]ceptibly great1 & to a fur!r indef9ite1 degree4 ,= ! argum5t sets out ) ! reflection t we c only "k ,matt] & ,=ce z symbols ( consci\sness1 :ile we "k consci\sness directly1 & !re=e t we c g fur!r 9 conceivably translat+ ,matt] & ,=ce into t]ms ( ,m9d ?an vice v]sa4 ,& ?is is true1 b x does n !re=e foll[ t ! tru? is m likely to lie 9 ! direction t ?\ght c mo/ easily travel4 ,= al?\gh ,i am at "o ) ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 :om ,mr4 ,fiske foll[s1 9 reg>d+ 8 te/ ( tru?--viz41 inconceivability ( a negation--z ! mo/ ultimate te/ )9 our rea*1 ,i _c agree ) him t 9 ?is p>ticul> case x is ! mo/ tru/wor?y te/ )9 our rea*4 ,i _c d s because ! reflection is =c$ ^u me t1 z ! t]ms :i* are contemplat$ 9 ?is p>ticul> case are respectively ! highe/ ab/ractions ( objective & ( subjective exi/5ce1 ! te/ ( tru? 9 "q is neutralis$ by directly enc\nt]+ ! inconceivable relation t exi/s betwe5 subject & object4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 z be=e /at$1 :atev] ! cause ( ,m9d may be1 we c cle>ly p]ceive x to be a subjective necessity ( ! case t1 9 ultimate analysis1 we %\ld f9d x m easy to conceive ( ?is cause z resembl+ ,m9d--! only entity ( :i* we are directly consci\s--?an to conceive ( x z any o!r entity ( :i* we are only indirectly consci\s4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,mr4 ,sp5c] argues t x is impossible to int]pret inn] exi/5ce 9 t]ms ( out] exi/5ce1 :ile x is n s impossible to int]pret out] exi/5ce 9 t]ms ( inn] exi/5ce1 ! fact is m]ely :at we %\ld 9 any case expect priori to be ! fact1 & !re=e z a fact x is n a v surpris+ discov]y po/]iori4 ,s t :5 ,mr4 ,fiske proce$s to make ?is fact ! basis ( 8 argum5t1 t because we c m conceivably reg>d objective exi/5ce z l 9 k9d to subjective exi/5ce ?an conv]sely1 !re=e we %\ld conclude t !re is a correspond+ probability 9 fav\r ( ! m conceivable proposition1 ,i demur to 8 argum5t4 ,=1 fully accept+ ! fact on :i* ! argum5t re/s1 & x seems to me1 9 view ( :at ,i h said1 t ! latt] assigns an altoge!r disproportionate value to ! te/ ( inconceivability 9 ?is case4 ,f> f end[+ ?is te/ ) s great an au?ority 9 ?is case1 ,i %\ld reg>d x n only z p]ceptibly ( v small validity1 b1 z ,i h said1 invalid to a degree :i* we h no means ( asc]ta9+4 ,if x be ask$1 ,:at o!r gauge ( probability c we h 9 ?is matt] o!r ?an su* a direct appeal to consci\sness8 ,i answ]1 t ?is appeal be+ "h priori invalid1 we are left to fall back ^u ! =mal probability :i* is e/abli%$ by an application ( sci5tific canons to objective ph5om5a4 7,see footnote 9 #ad47 ,=1 be x c>efully obs]v$1 ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 & 8 disciple ,mr4 ,fiske1 are n ideali/s4 ,7 ?is ! case1 ( c\rse ! te/ ( an imm$iate appeal to consci\sness w\ld be to !m ! only te/ available4 ,b1 on ! contr>y1 z all ! _w kn[s1 ,mr4 ,sp5c] ass]ts ! exi/5ce ( an unkn[n ,reality1 ( :i* all ph5om5a are ! manife/ations4 ,consequ5tly1 :at we call ,=ce & ,matt] are1 accord+ to ?is doctr9e1 ph5om5al manife/ations ( ?is objective ,reality4 ,t is to say1 = aught t we c "k1 ,=ce & ,matt] may be any?+ )9 ! :ole range ( ! possible2 & ! only limitation t c be assign$ to !m is1 t !y are modes ( exi/5ce :i* are indep5d5t (1 or objective to1 our individual consci\sness1 b :i* are uni=mly translat$ into consci\sness z ,=ce & ,matt]4 ,n[ x does n signify "o iota = ! purposes ( ,mat]ialism :e!r ^! our symbolical repres5tations ( ,=ce & ,matt] are accurate or inaccurate repres5tations ( _! correspond+ realities1--unless1 ( c\rse1 "s indep5d5t reason c\ld be %[n = suppos+ t 9 _! reality !y resemble ,m9d4 ,call ,=ce x & ,matt] y1 & s long z we are agre$ t x & y are objective realities :i* are uni=mly translat$ into consci\sness z ,=ce & ,matt]1 ! mat]iali/ic d$uctions rema9 unaffect$ by ?is m]e *ange 9 our t]m9ology2 ^! ess5tial facts are all[$ to rema9 sub/antially z be=e1 namely1 t !re is an ext]nal some?+ or ext]nal some?+s--,matt] & ,=ce1 or x & y--:i* !mselves display no obs]vable tok5s ( consci\sness1 b :i* are inv>iably associat$ ) consci\sness 9 a highly di/9ctive mann]4 ,i dwell at l5g? ^u ?is subject1 because al?\gh ,mr4 ,sp5c] himself does n appe> to atta* mu* weight to 8 argum5t1 ,mr4 ,fiske1 z we h se51 elevates x into a basis = ,cosmic ,!ism4 ,yet s f> is ?is argum5t f rul+ out1 z ,mr4 ,fiske ass]ts1 ! ess5tial doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism--i4e41 ! doctr9e t :at we "k z ,m9d is an effect ( c]ta9 collocations & di/ributions ( :at we "k z ,matt] & ,=ce--t ! argum5t might be employ$ ) almo/ ! same degree ( effect1 or abs5ce ( effect1 to disprove any in/ance ( recognis$ causation4 ,?us1 = example1 ! doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism is no m rul$ out by ! reflection t :at we cognise z c]ebral matt] is only cognis$ relatively1 ?an w\ld ! doctr9e ( *emical equival5ts be rul$ out by ! p>allel reflection t :at we cognise z *emical elem5ts are only cognis$ relatively4 ,i say advis$ly1 ) almo/ ! same degree ( effect1 because1 to be /rictly accurate1 we ought n altoge!r to ignore ! indef9itely sl5d] presumption :i* ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s subjective te/ ( inconceivability e/abli%es on ! side ( ,spiritualism1 z aga9/ ! objective evid5ce ( causation on ! side ( ,mat]ialism4 ,z ?is is an important subject1 ,i w be a little m explicit4 ,we are agre$ t ,=ce & ,matt] are entities ext]nal to consci\sness1 ( :i* we c possess only symbolical k4 ,!re=e1 z we h said1 ,=ce & ,matt] may be any?+ )9 ! :ole range ( ! possible4 ,b we "k t ,m9d is a possible entity1 :ile we h no c]ta9 k ( any o!r possible entity4 ,h5ce we are ju/ifi$ 9 say+1 ,x is possible t ,=ce & ,matt] may be id5tical ) ! only entity :i* we "k z c]ta9ly possible2 b =asmu* z we d n "k ! sum ( possible entities1 we h no means ( calculat+ ! *ances !re are t :at we "k z ,=ce & ,matt] are id5tical 9 nature ) ,m9d4 ,/ill1 t !re is a *ance we _c dispute2 all we c ass]t is1 t we are unable to det]m9e its value1 & t x w\ld be a mi/ake to suppose we c d s1 ev5 9 ! l[e/ degree1 by ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s te/ ( inconceivability4 ,nev]!less1 ! fact t !re is su* a *ance r5d]s x 9 "s indet]m9ate degree m probable t :at we "k z ,=ce & ,matt] are id5tical ) :at we "k z ,m9d1 ?an t :at we "k z oxyg5 & hydrog5 are id5tical ) :at we "k z wat]4 ,s t to ?is ext5t ! ess5tial doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism is rul$ out 9 a fur!r degree by ! philosophy ( ! ,unkn[able ?an is ! *emical doctr9e ( equival5ts4 ,b1 ( c\rse1 ?is indef9ite possibility ( :at we "k z ,=ce & ,matt] be+ id5tical ) :at we "k z ,m9d does n neutralise1 9 any det]m9able degree1 ! consid]ations :]eby ,mat]ialism 9 its pres5t %ape inf]s t :at we "k z ,=ce & ,matt] are probably di/9ct f :at we "k z ,m9d4 ,b ,i see no reason :y ,mat]ialism %\ld be re/rict$ to ?is its pres5t %ape4 ,ev5 if we admit to ! fulle/ ext5t ! validity ( ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s argum5t1 & conclude ) ,pr(essor ,clif=d z a matt] ( probability t ! univ]se consi/s entirely ( ,m9d-/uff1 ,i d n see t ! admission w\ld affect ,mat]ialism 9 any ess5tial respect4 ,= "h aga9 ! admission w\ld am\nt to little else1 s f> z ,mat]ialism is directly conc]n$1 ?an a *ange ( t]m9ology3 in/ead ( call+ objective exi/5ce ,matt]1 we call x ,m9d-/uff4 ,i say to little else1 because no d\bt 9 "o p>ticul> !re is "h "s *ange introduc$ 9 ! speculative /&+ ( ! subject4 ,s long z ,matt] & ,m9d1 x & y1 are held to be anti!tically oppos$ 9 sub/ance1 s long mu/ ,mat]ialism suppose t a connection ( causality subsi/s betwe5 ! two1 su* t ! =m] sub/ance is produc$ 9 "s unacc\ntable way by ! latt]4 ,b :5 ,matt] & ,m9d1 x & y1 are suppos$ to be id5tical 9 sub/ance1 ! ne$ = any additional supposition z to a causal connection is exclud$4 ,b unless we hold1 :at seems to me an uncall$-= op9ion1 t ! ess5tial feature ( ,mat]ialism consi/s 9 a po/ulation ( a causal connection betwe5 x & y1 x w\ld appe> t ! only effect ( suppos+ x & y to be really b "o sub/ance z1 mu/ be t ( /r5g!n+ ! ess5tial doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism--! doctr9e1 namely1 t consci\s intellectual exi/5ce is necess>ily associat$ ) t =m ( exi/5ce :i* we "k ph5om5ally z ,matt] & ,motion4 ,if x is true t a a mov+ molecule ( inorganic matt] does n possess m9d or consci\sness1 b x possesses a small piece ( ,m9d-/uff1 !n assur$ly ! c5tral position ( ,mat]ialism is %[n to be impregnable4 ,= :ile x rema9s z true z ev] t m9d & consci\sness c only em]ge :5 :at we "k ph5om5ally z ,matt] takes ! complex =m ( a liv+ bra91 we h aboli%$ ! necessity = assum+ ev5 a causal connection betwe5 ! sub/ance ( :at we "k ph5om5ally z ,matt] & ! sub/ance ( :at we "k ph5om5ally z ,m9d3 we h f\nd t1 9 ! la/ resort1 ! ph5om5al connection betwe5 :at we "k z ,matt] & :at we "k z ,m9d is actually ev5 m intimate ?an a connection ( causality2 we h f\nd t x is a sub/antial id5tity4 ,to sum up ?is discussion4 ,we h consid]$ ! be>+ ( mod]n speculation on ! doctr9e ( ,mat]ialism 9 ?ree successive /ages ( argum5t4 ,fir/1 we _h to consid] ! be>+ on ,mat]ialism ( ! simple doctr9e ( ,relativity4 ,"h we saw t ,mat]ialism 0 only affect$ to ! ext5t ( be+ compell$ to all[ t :at we "k z ,matt] & ,motion are n kn[n z !y are 9 !mselves4 ,b we also saw t1 z ! inscrutable realities are uni=mly translat$ into consci\sness z ,matt] & ,motion1 x /ill rema9s z true z ev] t :at we "k z ,matt] & ,motion may be ! causes ( :at we "k z ,m9d4 ,ev51 !re=e1 if ! supposition ( causality is tak5 to be an ess5tial feature ( ,mat]ialism1 ,mat]ialism w\ld be 9 no wise affect$ by sub/itut+ = ! words ,matt] & ,motion ! symbols x & y4 ,! second ( ! ?ree /ages consi/$ 9 %[+ t ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s argum5t z to ! possible id5tity ( ,=ce & ,feel+ is n 9 itself suffici5t to ov]?r[ ! doctr9e t :at we "k z ,matt] & ,motion may be ! cause ( :at we "k z ,m9d4 ,= ! m]e fact ( its be+ m conceivable t units ( ,=ce %\ld resemble units ( ,feel+ ?an conv]sely1 is no w>rant = conclud+ t 9 reality any correspond+ probability obta9s4 ,! te/ ( conceivability1 al?\gh ! mo/ ultimate te/ t is available1 is "h r5d]$ vague & valueless by ! priori consid]ation t :atev] ! cause ( ,m9d may be 7if x has a cause71 we mu/ f9d x m easy to conceive ( ?is cause z resembl+ ,m9d ?an to conceive ( x z resembl+ any o!r entity ( :i* we are only consci\s indirectly4 ,la/ly1 9 ! ?ird place1 we saw t ev5 if ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s argum5t 7 fully subscrib$ to1 & ,m9d 9 its sub/antial ess5ce 7 conc$$ to be causeless1 ! c5tral position ( ,mat]ialism w\ld /ill rema9 unaffect$4 ,= ,mr4 ,sp5c] does n suppose t 8 units ( ,=ce are !mselves end[$ ) consci\sness1 any m ?an ,pr(essor ,clif=d supposes 8 mov+ molecules ( inorganic matt] to be ?us end[$4 ,s t ! only *ange :i* ^! possibilities1 ev5 if conc$$ to be actualities1 produce 9 ! speculative /&+ ( ,mat]ialism1 is to %[ t ! raw mat]ial ( consci\sness1 in/ead ( requir+ to be caus$ by o!r sub/ances--,matt] & ,=ce1 x & y1--occurs ready made z ^? sub/ances4 ,b ! ess5tial feature ( ,mat]ialism rema9s unt\*$--namely1 t :at we "k z ,m9d is dep5d5t 7:e!r by way ( causality or n is immat]ial7 on highly complex =ms ( :at we "k z ,matt]1 9 association ) highly peculi> di/ributions ( :at we "k z ,=ce4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,iv4 ,,! ,,f9al ,,my/]y ,,( ,,?+s4 ,"s physici/s are incl9$ to dispute ! fundam5tal proposition 9 :i* ! :ole ( ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s sy/em ( philosophy may be said to re/--! proposition1 namely1 t ! fact ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce con/itutes ! ultimate basis ( sci5ce4 ,= my own "p1 ,i _c b believe t any disagreem5t on ?is matt] only arises f "s want ( mutual und]/&+2 &1 !re=e1 9 ord] to anticipate any criticisms to :i* ! pres5t "w may be op5 on ?is score1 ,i app5d ?is explanatory note4 ,i readily grant t ! t]m p]si/5ce ( =ce is n a happy "o1 see+ t ! ^w =ce1 z us$ by physici/s1 does n at ! pres5t "t convey ! full mean+ :i* ,mr4 ,sp5c] desires x to convey4 ,b ,i ?9k t any imp>tial physici/ w be prep>$ to admit t1 9 ! pres5t /ate ( 8 sci5ce1 we are entitl$ to conclude t en]gy ( position is m]ely ! result ( en]gy ( motion2 or1 9 o!r words1 t pot5tial en]gy is m]ely an expression ( ! fact t ! univ]se1 z a :ole1 is replete ) actual en]gy1 ^: ess5tial *>act]i/ic is t x is inde/ructible4 ,& ?is may be conclud$ )\t committ+ ourselves to any p>ticul> !ory z to ! physical explanation ( gravity2 all we ne$ ass]t is1 t 9 "s way or o!r gravity is ! result ( ubiquit\s en]gy4 ,& ?is1 x seems to me1 we mu/ ass]t1 or else conclude t gravity c nev] admit ( a physical explanation4 ,= all t we mean by a physical explanation is ! prov$ e/abli%m5t ( an equation betwe5 two quantities ( en]gy2 s t if en]gy ( position does n admit ( be+ int]pret$ 9 t]ms ( en]gy ( motion1 we mu/ conclude t x does n admit ( be+ int]pret$ at all--at lea/ n 9 any physical s5se4 ,?r\gh\t ! =ego+ essays1 !re=e1 ,i h assum$ t all =ms ( en]gy are b relatively v>y+ expressions ( ! same fact--! fact1 namely1 :i* ,mr4 ,sp5c] means to express :5 he says t =ce is p]si/5t4 ,& x seems to me almo/ ne$less to %[ t ?is fact is really ! basis ( all sci5ce4 ,= unless ?is fact is assum$ z a po/ulate1 n only w\ld sci5tific inquiry become impossible1 b all exp]i5ce w\ld become *aotic4 ,! physici/ c\ld n prosecute 8 rese>*es unless he presuppos$ t ! =ces :i* he measures are ( a p]man5t nature1 any m ?an c\ld ! *emi/ prosecute 8 rese>*es unless he presuppos$ t ! mat]ials :i* he e/imates by en]gy-units are likewise ( a p]man5t nature4 ,& simil>ly ) all ! o!r sci5ces1 z well z ) e judgm5t 9 our daily exp]i5ce4 ,if1 !re=e1 any "o %\ld be hyp]critical en\gh to dispute ! position t ! doctr9e ( ! cons]vation ( en]gy con/itutes ! ultimate datum ( sci5ce1 ,i ?9k x w be en\gh to obs]ve t if ?is is n ! ultimate datum ( sci5ce1 sci5ce c h no ultimate datum at all4 ,= any datum m ultimate ?an p]man5t exi/5ce is manife/ly impossible1 :ile any su* datum z non-p]man5t exi/5ce w\ld cle>ly r5d] sci5ce impossible4 ,ev51 !re=e1 if su* hyp]criticism _h a valid basis ( app>5tly adv]se fact :]eon to /&1 ,i %\ld feel myself ju/ifi$ 9 neglect+ x on priori gr\nds2 b ! only basis on :i* su* hyp]criticism c re/ is1 n ! k ( any adv]se facts1 b ! ignorance ( c]ta9 facts :i* we mu/ ei!r conclude to be facts or else conclude t sci5ce c h no ultimate datum :]eon to re/4 ,9 ! =ego+ essays1 !re=e1 ,i h n scrupl$ to ma9ta9 t ! ultimate datum ( sci5ce is de/ructive ( teleology z a sci5tific argum5t = ,!ism2 because1 unless we d5y ! possibility ( any su* ultimate datum1 & s l& ourselves 9 hopeless scepticism1 we mu/ conclude t !re c be no datum m ultimate ?an ?is--,p]man5t ,exi/5ce2 & ?is is j ! datum :i* we h se5 to be de/ructive ( teleology z a sci5tific argum5t = ,!ism4 ,x may be well to po9t out t f ?is ultimate datum ( sci5ce--or r1 let u say1 ( exp]i5ce--!re foll[s a d$uctive explanation ( ! law ( causation4 ,= ?is law1 :5 /ripp$ ( all ! metaphysical corruptions ) :i* x has be5 s cumb]somely clo!d1 simply means t a giv5 collocation ( antec$5ts unconditionally produces a c]ta9 consequ5t4 ,b ?is fact1 o!rwise /at$1 am\nts to no?+ m ?an a re-/atem5t ( ! ultimate datum ( exp]i5ce--! fact t en]gy is inde/ructible4 ,= if ?is latt] fact be grant$1 x is obvi\s t ! s-call$ law ( causation foll[s z a d$uctive necessity--or r1 z ,i h said1 t ?is law becomes b ano!r way ( express+ ! same fact4 ,?is is obvi\s if we reflect t ! only means we h ( asc]ta9+ t en]gy is n de/ructible1 is by obs]v+ t simil> antec$5ts d inv>iably det]m9e simil> consequ5ts4 ,x is z a va/ induction f all ^? p>ticul> cases ( sequ5ce-*anges :i* collectively we call causation t we conclude en]gy to be inde/ructible4 ,&1 obv]sely1 hav+ conclud$ en]gy to be inde/ructible1 we c pla9ly see t 9 any p>ticul> cases ( its manife/ation 9 sequ5ce-ph5om5a1 ! unconditional resemblance betwe5 effects due to simil> causes :i* is =mulat$ by ! law ( causation is m]ely ! direct expression ( ! fact :i* we _h previ\sly conclud$4 ,x seems to me1 !re=e1 t ! old-/&+ "q conc]n+ ! nature ( causation ought n[ prop]ly to be consid]$ z obsolete4 ,d\btless !re w long rema9 a sort ( h]$it>y t5d5cy 9 metaphysical m9ds to look ^u cause-connection z a my/]i\s tie betwe5 antec$5t & consequ5t2 b h5ce=? !re is no ne$ = sci5tific m9ds to reg>d ?is tie z my/]i\s 9 any o!r s5se ?an ! exi/5ce ( en]gy is my/]i\s4 ,to /ate ! law ( causation is m]ely to /ate ! fact t en]gy is inde/ructible4 ,& f ?is !re also arises at once ! explanation & ! ju/ification ( our belief 9 ! uni=mity ( nature4 ,if en]gy is1 9 its relation to u1 ubiquit\s & p]si/5t1 x cle>ly foll[s t 9 all its manife/ations :i* collectively we call nature1 simil> prec$+ manife/ations mu/ always det]m9e simil> succe$+ manife/ations2 = o!rwise ! en]gy conc]n$ w\ld require on "o or on bo? ( ! occasions1 ei!r to h become augm5t$ by creation1 or dissipat$ by annihilation4 ,?us our belief 9 ! uni=mity ( nature1 z 9 ! validity ( ! law ( causation1 is m]ely an expression ( our belief 9 ! ubiquit\s & inde/ructible "* ( en]gy4 ,su* be+ ! case1 we may fairly conclude t all ^! old-/&+ my/]ies are n[ m]g$ 9 ! "o my/]y ( exi/5ce4 ,& deep] ?an ?is x is manife/ly impossible t !y c be m]g$2 = x is manife/ly impossible t ,exi/5ce 9 ! ab/ract c ev] admit ( :at we call explanation4 ,h5ce we c cle>ly see t1 9 a sci5tific s5se1 !re mu/ always rema9 a f9al my/]y ( ?+s4 ,b al?\gh we c ?us see t1 f ! v mean+ ( :at we call explanation1 x foll[s t at ! base ( all our explanations !re mu/ lie a great ,inexplicable1 ,i ?9k t ! my/]y ( ,exi/5ce 9 ! ab/ract may be r5d]$ less appall+ if we reflect t1 z oppos$ to ,exi/5ce1 !re is only "o logical alt]native--,non-exi/5ce4 ,suppos+1 !n1 our physical explanations to h rea*$ _! highe/ limits by resolv+ all modes ( ,exi/5ce into "o mode--=ce1 matt]1 life1 & m9d1 be+ %[n b diff]5t manife/ations ( ! same ,inf9ite ,exi/5ce--! f9al my/]y ( ?+s w\ld !n become resolv$ into ! simple "q1 ,:y is !re ,exi/5ce8--,:y is !re n ,no?+8 ,let u !n fir/ ask1 ,:at is ,no?+8 ,is x a m]e ^w1 :i* pres5ts no mean+ z correspond+ to any objective reality1 or has ! ^w a mean+ not)/&+ its be+ an inconceivable "o8 ,or1 o!rwise phras$1 is ,no?+ possible or impossible8 ,n[1 al?\gh 9 ord9>y conv]sation x is g5]ally tak5 = grant$ t ,no?+ is possible1 !re is c]ta9ly no m gr\nd = ?is supposition ?an !re is = its conv]se--viz41 t ,no?+ is m]ely a ^w :i* signifies ! negation ( possibility4 ,= analysis w %[ t ! *oice betwe5 ^! two c\nt]-suppositions c only be made 9 ! pres5ce ( k :i* is necess>ily abs5t--! k :e!r ! univ]se ( ,exi/5ce is f9ite or inf9ite4 ,if ! univ]se z a :ole is f9ite1 ! ^w ,no?+ w\ld /& z a symbol to d5ote an un?9kable blank ( :i* a f9ite univ]se is ! cont5t4 ,& =asmu* z ,some?+ & ,no?+ w\ld !n become actual1 z di/+ui%$ f nom9al correlatives1 we c\ld h no gu>antee t1 9 an absolute or transc5d5tal s5se1 x may n be possible1 al?\gh x is inconceivable1 = ,some?+ to become ,no?+ or ,no?+ ,some?+4 ,h5ce1 if ,exi/5ce is f9ite1 ,no-exi/5ce becomes possible2 & ! doctr9e ( ! inde/ructibility ( ,exi/5ce becomes1 = aught t we c tell1 ( a m]ely relative signification4 ,b1 on ! o!r h&1 if ,exi/5ce is inf9ite1 ,no-exi/5ce becomes impossible2 & ! doctr9e ( ! inde/ructibility ( ,exi/5ce becomes1 9 a logical s5se1 ( an absolute signification4 ,= x is manife/ t if ! univ]se ( ,exi/5ce is )\t end 9 space & "t1 ! possibility ( ,no-exi/5ce is ( necessity exclud$1 & ! ^w ,no?+ ?us becomes a m]e negation ( possibility4#dg ,?us1 if x be conc$$ t ! univ]se z a :ole is inf9ite bo? 9 space & "t1 ! concession am\nts to an abolition ( ! f9al my/]y ( ?+s4 ,= all t we mean by a my/]y is some?+ t requires an explanation1 & ! :ole ( ! f9al my/]y ( ?+s is !re=e embodi$ 9 ! "q1 ,:y is !re ,exi/5ce8--,:y is !re n ,no?+8 ,b if ! univ]se ( ,exi/5ce be conc$$ inf9ite1 ?is "q is suffici5tly met by ! answ]1 ,because ,exi/5ce is1 & ,no?+ is n4 ,if x is retort$1 ,b ?is is no real answ]2 ,i reply1 ,x is z real z ! "q4 ,= to ask1 ,:y is !re ,exi/5ce8 is1 ^u ! supposition :i* has be5 conc$$1 equival5t to ask+1 ,:y is ! possible possible8 ,& if su* que/ions _c be answ]$1 x is sc>cely "r to say t on ?is acc\nt !y embody a my/]y2 because ! que/ions are really n rational que/ions1 & !re=e ! fact ( _! n admitt+ ( any rational answ] _c be held to %[ t ! que/ions embody any rational my/]y4 ,t !re is a rational my/]y1 9 ! s5se ( !re be+ some?+ :i* c nev] be expla9$1 ,i d n dispute2 all ,i ass]t is1 t ?is my/]y is inexplicable1 only because !re is no?+ to expla92 ! my/]y be+ ultimate1 to ask = an explanation ( t :i*1 be+ ultimate1 requires no explanation1 is irrational4 ,or1 to /ate ! case 9 ano!r way1 if x is ask$1 ,:y is !re n ,no?+8 x is a suffici5t answ]1 on supposition ( ! univ]se be+ inf9ite1 to say1 ,because ,no?+ is no?+2 x is m]ely a ^w :i* pres5ts no mean+1 & :i*1 s f> z any?+ c be conceiv$ to ! contr>y1 nev] c pres5t any mean+4 ,! above discussion has proce$$ on ! supposition ( ,exi/5ce be+ inf9ite2 b practically ! same result w\ld foll[ on ! c\nt]-supposition ( ,exi/5ce be+ f9ite4 ,= al?\gh 9 ?is case1 z we h se51 ,non-entity w\ld /ill be includ$ )9 ! range ( possibility1 x w\ld /ill be no m conceivable z su* ?an is ,entity2 & h5ce ! "q1 ,:y is !re n ,no?+8 w\ld /ill be irrational1 see+ t1 ev5 if ! possibility :i* ! "q supposes 7 realis$1 x w\ld 9 no wise t5d to expla9 ! my/]y ( ,some?+4 ,& ev5 if x c\ld1 ! f9al my/]y w\ld n be ?us exclud$2 x w\ld m]ely be transf]r$ f ! my/]y ( ,exi/5ce to ! my/]y ( ,non-exi/5ce4 ,?us "u e conceivable supposition we arrive at ! same t]m9ation--viz41 t 9 ! la/ resort !re mu/ be a f9al my/]y1 :i*1 z =m+ ! basis ( all possible explanations1 _c itself receive any explanation1 & :i* !re=e is really n1 9 any prop] s5se ( ! t]m1 a my/]y at all4 ,x is m]ely a fact :i* itself requires no explanation1 because x is a fact ?an :i* none c be m ultimate4 ,s t ev5 if we suppose ?is ultimate fact to be an ,intellig5t ,be+1 x is cle>ly impossible t he %\ld be able to expla9 8 own exi/5ce1 s9ce ! possibility ( any su* explanation w\ld imply t 8 exi/5ce c\ld n be ultimate4 ,9 ! s5se1 !re=e1 ( n admitt+ ( any explanation1 8 exi/5ce w\ld require to be a my/]y to himself1 r5d]+ x impossible = him to /ate any?+ fur!r ) reg>d to x ?an ?is--,i am t ,i am4 ,i d n d\bt t ?is way ( look+ at ! subject w be deem$ unsatisfactory at fir/ sight1 because x seems to be1 z x 71 a m]ely logical way ( *eat+ our intellig5ce out ( an intuitively felt ju/ification = its own curiosity 9 ?is matt]4 ,b ! fault really lies 9 ?is intuitive feel+ ( ju/ification n be+ itself ju/ifiable4 ,= ?is p>ticul> "q1 x w be obs]v$1 diff]s f all o!r possible que/ions ) :i* ! m9d has to deal4 ,all o!r que/ions be+ que/ions conc]n+ manife/ations ( exi/5ce presuppos$ z exi/+1 x is p]fectly legitimate to seek = an explanation ( "o s]ies ( manife/ations 9 ano!r--i4e41 to ref] a less kn[n gr\p to a gr\p bett] kn[n4 ,b ! case is manife/ly q o!rwise :51 hav+ m]g$ "o gr\p ( manife/ations into ano!r gr\p1 & ?is into ano!r = an indef9ite numb] ( /ages1 we sudd5ly make a leap to ! la/ possible /age & ask1 ,into :at gr\p are we to m]ge ! basis ( all our previ\s gr\ps1 & ( all gr\ps :i* c possibly be =m$ 9 ! future8 ,h[ are we to classify t :i* conta9s all possible classes8 ,:]e are we to look = an explanation ( ,exi/5ce8 ,:5 ?us cle>ly /at$1 ! "q1 is1 z ,i h said1 manife/ly irrational2 b ! po9t ) :i* ,i am n[ conc]n$ is ?is--,:5 9 pla9 reason ! "q is se5 to be irrational1 :y 9 intuitive s5tim5t %\ld x n be felt to be s8 ,! answ]1 ,i ?9k1 is1 t ! int]rogative faculty be+ usually occupi$ ) que/ions :i* admit ( rational answ]s1 we acquire a sort ( intellectual habit ( presuppos+ e :]e=e to h a !re=e1 & ?us1 :5 ev5tually we arrive at ! la/ ( all possible :]e=es1 :i* itself supplies ! basis ( all possible !re=es1 we fail at fir/ to recognise ! exceptional "* ( our position4 ,we fail at fir/ to p]ceive t1 f ! v nature ( ?is p>ticul> case1 our :]e=e is depriv$ ( ! rational mean+ :i* x _h 9 all ! previ\s cases1 :]e ! possibility ( a correspond+ !re=e 0 presuppos$4 ,& fail+ fully to p]ceive ?is tru?1 our organis$ habit ( expect+ an answ] to our "q ass]ts itself1 & we exp]i5ce ! same s5se ( intellectual unre/ 9 ! pres5ce ( ?is :olly mean+less & absurd "q1 z we exp]i5ce 9 ! pres5ce ( que/ions significant & rational4 ,,! ,,end4 99 99 99 99 99 ,notes #a ,! above 0 writt5 be=e ,mr4 ,mill's essay on ,!ism 0 publi%$4 ,le/1 !re=e1 my refutation may be deem$ too curt1 ,i supplem5t x ) ,mr4 ,mill's rem>ks ^u ! same subject4 ,x may /ill be ma9ta9$ t ! feel+s ( morality make ! exi/5ce ( ,god em95tly desirable4 ,no d\bt !y d1 & t is ! great reason :y we f9d t good m5 & wom5 cl+ to ! belief1 & are pa9$ by its be+ que/ion$4 ,b1 surely1 x is n legitimate to assume t1 9 ! ord] ( ! univ]se1 :atev] is desirable is true4 ,optimism1 ev5 :5 a ,god is already believ$ 91 is a ?orny doctr9e to ma9ta91 & _h to be tak5 by ,leibnitz 9 ! limit$ s5se1 t ! univ]se be+ made by a good be+1 is ! be/ univ]se possible1 n ! be/ absolutely3 t ! ,div9e p[]1 9 %ort1 0 n equal to mak+ x m free f imp]fections ?an x is4 ,b optimism1 prior to belief 9 a ,god1 & z ! gr\nd ( t belief1 seems "o ( ! odde/ ( all speculative delusions4 ,no?+1 h[ev]1 ,i believe1 contributes m to keep up ! belief 9 ! g5]al m9d ( humanity ?an ! feel+ ( its desirabl5ess1 :i*1 :5 clo!d1 z x v (t5 is1 9 ! =m ( an argum5t1 is a naive expression ( ! t5d5cy ( ! human m9d to believe :atev] is agreeable to x4 ,positive value ! argum5t ( c\rse has none4 ,= ,mill's rem>ks on ! v]sion ( ! argum5t dealt ) 9 #e1 see 8 ,?ree ,essays1 p4 #bjd4 #b ,! words or n conceivable1 are "h us$ 9 ! s5se ( n relatively conceivable1 z expla9$ 9 ,*ap4 vi4 #c ,= ! full discussion f :i* ! above is an extract1 see ,sy/em ( ,logic1 vol4 i4 pp4 #dji-dbf 7#h? ed474 ,b1 sub/itut+ psy*ical = volitional1 see also1 = "s mitigation ( ! sev]ity ( ! above /atem5t1 ! clos+ p>agraphs ( my supplem5t>y essay on ,cosmic ,!ism4 #d ,essay on ,und]/&+--,exi/5ce ( ,god4 #e ,locke1 loc4 cit4 #f ,see ,app5dix ,a4 #g ,viz41 ! con/ant association )9 exp]i5ce ( m9d ) c]ta9 highly peculi> mat]ial =ms2 ! con/ant proportion :i* is f\nd to subsi/ betwe5 ! quantity ( c]ebral matt] & ! degree ( intellectual capacity--a proportion :i* may be cle>ly trac$ ?r\gh\t ! asc5d+ s]ies ( v]tebrat$ animals1 & :i* is v g5]ally manife/$ 9 individuals ( ! human species2 ! effects ( c]ebral anmia1 an/hetics1 /imulants1 n>cotic poisons1 & lesions ( c]ebral sub/ance4 ,!re c1 9 %ort1 be no "q t ! :ole s]ies ( obs]vable facts be>+ ^u ! subject are precisely su* z !y ought to be ^u supposition ( ! mat]iali/ic !ory be+ true2 :ile1 contr>iwise1 !re is a total abs5ce ( any kn[n facts t5d+ to negative t !ory4 ,at ! same "t x mu/ be c>efully not$1 t ! obs]v$ facts 7& any additional numb] ( ! l k9d7 d n logically w>rant u 9 conclud+ t m5tal /ates are necess>ily dep5d5t ^u mat]ial *anges4 ,nev]!less1 x mu/ also be not$1 t1 9 ! abs5ce ( positive pro( ( causation1 x is c]ta9ly 9 accordance ) sci5tific proc$ure1 to yield our provisional ass5t to an hypo!sis :i* und\bt$ly connects a l>ge ord] ( con/ant accompanim5ts1 r ?an to an hypo!sis :i* is confess$ly fram$ to meet b a s+le "o ( ! facts4 ,pr(essor ,clif=d1 9 a lecture on ,body & ,m9d :i* he deliv]$ at ,/4 ,george's ,hall1 & aft]w>ds publi%$ 9 ! ,=tnightly ,review1 argues aga9/ ! exi/5ce ( ,god on ! gr\nd t1 z ,m9d is always associat$ ) ,matt] )9 exp]i5ce1 !re arises a presumption aga9/ ,m9d exi/+ any:]e )\t be+ ?us associat$1 s t unless we c trace 9 ! disposition ( ! heav5ly bodies "s resemblance to ! con=mation ( c]ebral /ructure1 we are to conclude t !re is a consid]able balance ( probability 9 fav\r ( ,a!ism4 ,n[1 z ?is argum5t--if we rid x ( ! grotesque allusion to ! heav5ly bodies--is "o t is frequ5tly met )1 x seems desirable 9 ?is place briefly to analyse x4 ,fir/ ( all1 !n1 ! validity ( ! argum5t dep5ds ^u ! probability !re is t ! con/ant associat$ ( ,m9d ) ,matt] )9 exp]i5ce is due to a causal connection2 = if ! association 9 "q is m]ely an association & no?+ m1 ! orig9 ( kn[n m9d is z f> f be+ expla9$ z x w\ld be 7 ,m9d nev] kn[n z associat$ ) ,matt]4 ,b1 9 ! next place1 suppos+ ! con/ant association 9 "q to be due to a causal connection1 x by no means foll[s t because ,m9d is due to ,matt] )9 exp]i5ce1 !re=e ,m9d _c exi/ 9 any o!r mode beyond exp]i5ce4 ,d\btless1 f analogy1 !re is a presumption aga9/ ! hypo!sis t ! same entity %\ld exi/ 9 m ?an "o mode at ! same "t2 b cle>ly 9 ?is case we are q unable to e/imate ! value ( ?is presumption4 ,consequ5tly1 ev5 assum+ a causal connection betwe5 ,matt] & ,human ,m9d1 if !re is any1 ! slighte/1 indications suppli$ by any o!r facts ( exp]i5ce po9t+ to ! exi/5ce ( a ,div9e ,m9d1 su* indications %\ld be all[$ z mu* argum5tative weight z !y w\ld h _h 9 ! abs5ce ( ! presumption we are consid]+4 ,h5ce ,pr(essor ,clif=d's conclusion _c be reg>d$ z valid until all ! o!r argum5ts 9 fav\r ( ,!ism h be5 sep>ately refut$4 ,d\btless ,pr(essor ,clif=d w be ! fir/ to recognise ! cog5cy ( ?is criticism--if inde$ x has n already occurr$ to him2 = z ,i "k t he is mu* too cle> a ?9k] n to p]ceive ! validity ( ^! consid]ations1 ,i am will+ to believe t ! sub/ance ( !m 0 omitt$ f 8 essay m]ely = ! sake ( brevity2 b1 = ! sake ( less ?\ghtful p]sons1 ,i h deem$ x desirable to /ate ?us cle>ly t ! problem ( ,!ism _c be solv$ on gr\nds ( ,mat]ialism alone4 ,?is note 0 writt5 be=e ,i _h ! advantage ( ,pr(essor ,clif=d's acqua9tance1 b n[ ,i leave x1 z ,i leave all o!r p>ts ( ?is essay--viz41 z x 0 orig9ally writt54--#ahgh4 #h ,to avoid burd5+ ! text1 ,i h omitt$ ano!r criticism :i* may be made on ,locke's argum5t4 ,triangle is a ^w by :i* we designate a c]ta9 figure1 "o ( ! prop]ties ( :i* is t ! sum ( its angles is equal to two "r angles4 ,9 o!r words1 any figure :i* does n exhibit ?is prop]ty is n t figure :i* we designate a triangle4 ,h5ce1 :5 ,locke says he _c conceive ( a triangle :i* does n pres5t ?is prop]ty1 x may be answ]$ t 8 inability arises m]ely f ! fact t any figure :i* fails to pres5t ?is prop]ty is n a figure to :i* ! t]m triangle c apply4 ,?us view$1 h[ev]1 ! illu/ration w\ld obvi\sly be absurd1 = ! same reason t ! "q ( ! cl[n is absurd1 ,c y ?9k ( a horse t is j l a c[8 ,:at ,locke evid5tly means is1 t we _c conceive ( any geometrical figure :i* pres5ts all ! o!r prop]ties ( a triangle )\t also pres5t+ ! prop]ty 9 "q4 ,n[1 ev5 admitt+1 ) ,locke1 t x is z inconceivable t ! entity kn[n to u z ,matt] %\ld possess ! prop]ty ( caus+ ?\ght z x is t ! figure :i* we t]m a triangle %\ld posses ! prop]ty ( conta9+ m ?an two "r angles1 /ill x rema9s1 = ! purposes ( ,locke's suppos$ !i/ic demon/ration1 to prove t x is an inconceivable = ! entity :i* we call ,m9d n to be due to ano!r ,m9d1 z x is = a triangle n to conta91 o!r ?an two "r angles4 ,b1 fur!r1 ev5 if x 7 possible to prove ?is1 ! demon/ration w\ld make z mu* aga9/ ,!ism z 9 fav\r ( x2 = if1 z ! illu/ration ( ! triangle implies1 we re/rict ! mean+ ( ! ^w ,m9d to an entity "o ( ^: ess5tial qualities is t x %\ld be caus$ by ano!r ,m9d1 ! words ,supreme & ,uncaus$ ,m9d involve a contradiction 9 t]ms1 j z mu* z w\ld ! words ,a squ>e triangle hav+ f\r "r angles4 ,x w\ld1 !re=e1 seem t if we adh]e to ,locke's argum5t1 & pursue x to its conclusion1 ! only logical outcome w\ld be ?is3--,see+ t by ! ^w ,m9d1 ,i expressly connote ! quality ( d]ivation f a prior ,m9d1 z a quality belong+ no less ess5tially to ,m9d ?an ! quality ( pres5t+ two "r angles belongs to a triangle2 !re=e1 :atev] o!r attributes ,i ascribe to ! ,fir/ ,cause1 ,i mu/ cle>ly exclude ! attribute ,m9d2 & h5ce1 :atev] else su* a ,cause may be1 x foll[s f my argum5t t x c]ta9ly is--,n ,m9d4 #i ,hamilton4 #aj ,lectures on ,metaphysics1 vol4 i4 pp4 #be-ca4 #aa ,lectures on ,metaphysics1 vol4 ii4 p4 #edb4 #ab ,loc4 cit41 p4 #edc4 #ac ,app5dix to ,discussions1 pp4 #fad1 #afe4 #ad ,mill1 9 ! l5g?y *apt] :i* he devotes to ! fre$om ( ! w 9 8 ,exam9ation1 does n notice ?is po9t4 #ae ,if m evid5ce c be want$1 x is suppli$ 9 "s sugge/ive facts ( ,psy*ology4 ,= example1 ,f our e>lie/ *ildhood1 ! idea ( do+ wrong 7t is1 ( do+ :at is =bidd51 or :at is injuri\s to o!rs7 & ! idea ( puni%m5t are pres5t$ to ! m9d toge!r1 & ! int5se "* ( ! impressions causes ! association betwe5 !m to atta9 ! highe/ degree ( clos5ess & intimacy4 ,is x /range1 or unlike ! usual processes ( ! human m9d1 t 9 ^! circum/ances we %\ld reta9 ! feel+ & =get ! reason on :i* x is gr\nd$8 ,b :y d ,i speak ( =gett+8 ,9 mo/ cases ! reason has nev]1 9 our e>ly education1 be5 pres5t$ to ! m9d4 ,! only ideas pres5t$ h be5 ^? ( wrong & puni%m5t1 & an insep>able association has be5 creat$ betwe5 ^! directly1 )\t ! help ( any int]v5+ idea4 ,?is is q en\gh to make ! spontane\s feel+s ( mank9d reg>d puni%m5t & a wrong-do] z naturally fitt$ to ea* o!r--z a conjunction appropriate 9 itself1 indep5d5tly ( any consequ5ces1 c4--,mill1 ,exam9ation ( ,hamilton1 p4 #eii4 #af ,gramm> ( ,ass5t1 pp4 #ajf1 #ajg4 #ag ,?r\gh\t ^! consid]ations ,i h conf9$ myself to ! positive side ( ! subject4 ,my argum5t be+ ( ! nature ( a criticism on ! errone\s inf]5ces :i* are drawn f ! good qualities ( our moral nature1 ,i ?\ght x desirable1 = ! sake ( cle>ness1 n to burd5 t argum5t by ! additional "o z to ! s\rce ( ! evil qualities ( t nature4 ,?is additional argum5t1 h[ev]1 w be f\nd briefly /at$ at ! close ( my supplem5t>y essay on ,pr(essor ,fl9t's ,!ism4 ,on read+ t additional argum5t1 ,i ?9k t any c&id & unbiass$ m9d mu/ conclude t1 alike 9 :at x is n z well z 9 :at x is1 our moral nature po9ts to a natural g5esis1 z di/+ui%$ f a sup]natural cause4 #ah ,! illu/ration to :i* ,i ref] is t ( ! wat]%$ ( a c\ntry be+ precisely adapt$ to dra9+ purposes4 ,! riv]s j fit _! own p>ticul> b$s3 ! latt] occupy ! l[e/ gr\nds1 & get broad] & deep] z !y advance2 pebbles1 gravel1 & s& all occupy ! be/ teleological situations1 c41 c4 #ai ,ord] ( ,nature1 by ! ,rev4 ,bad5 ,p[ell1 ,m4,a41 ,f4,r4,s41 c41 #ahei1 pp4 #bbh-bda4 #bj ,i ?9k x desirable to /ate t ,i p]ceiv$ ?is great tru? be=e ,i 0 aw>e t x _h be5 p]ceiv$ also by ,mr4 ,sp5c]4 ,8 /atem5t ( x n[ occurs 9 ! %ort *apt] ( ,fir/ ,pr9ciples entitl$ ,relations betwe5 ,=ces4 ,s f> z ,i an able to asc]ta91 no "o has hi!rto consid]$ ?is important doctr9e 9 its imm$iate relation to ! "q ( ,!ism4 ,9 us+ ! t]m p]si/5ce ( =ce1 ,i am aw>e t ,i am us+ a t]m :i* is n unop5 to criticism4 ,b z ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s writ+s h br\ght ?is t]m into su* g5]al use among speculative ?9k]s1 x seem$ to me undesirable to modify x4 ,que/ions ( m]e t]m9ology are )\t any importance 9 a discussion ( ?is k9d1 provid$ t ! t]ms are univ]sally und]/ood to mean :at !y are int5d$ to mean2 & ,i ?9k t ! signification :i* ,mr4 ,sp5c] atta*es to 8 t]m1 p]si/5ce ( =ce1 is suffici5tly precise4 ,!re=e1 adopt+ 8 usage1 :5ev] ?r\gh\t ! foll[+ pages ,i speak ( =ce z p]si/+1 :at ,i int5d to be und]/ood is1 t !re is a some?+--call x =ce1 or en]gy1 or x--:i*1 s f> z exp]i5ce or imag9ation c ext5d1 is1 9 its relation to u1 ubiquit\s & illimitable2 or1 9 o!r words1 t x univ]sally pres5ts ! prop]ty ( p]man5ce4 7,see1 = a m detail$ explanation1 supplem5t>y essay1 ,on ! ,f9al ,my/]y ( ,?+s47 #ba ,hamilton may "h be especially notic$1 because he w5t s f> z to ma9ta9 t ! ph5om5a ( ! ext]nal _w1 tak5 by !mselves1 w\ld gr\nd a valid argum5t to ! negation ( ,god4 ,al?\gh ,i _c b ?9k t ?is position 0 a conspicu\sly irrational "o = any compet5t ?9k] to occupy be=e ! sci5tific doctr9e ( ! correlation ( ! =ces _h be5 enunciat$1 nev]!less ,i _c lose ! opportunity ( allud+ to ?is rem>kable feature 9 ,sir ,william ,hamilton's philosophy1 %[+ z x does t same prophetic =e/all+ ( ! results :i* h s9ce foll[$ f ! discov]y ( ! cons]vation ( en]gy1 z 0 %[n by 8 no less rem>kable !ory ( causation4 7,see supplem5t>y essay ,on ! ,f9al ,my/]y ( ,?+s47 #bb ,mr4 ,n4 ,locky]'s "w is n[ supply+ important evid5ce on ^! po9ts4--#ahgh4 #bc ,x w ( c\rse be obs]v$ t if matt] & =ce are id5tical1 ! unification is complete4 #bd ,h]b]t ,sp5c]4 #be ,x may "h be obs]v$ t ! above discussion w\ld n be affect$ by ! view ( ,pr(essor ,clif=d & o!rs1 t natural law is to be reg>d$ z hav+ a subjective r ?an an objective signification--t :at we call a natural law is m]ely an arbitr>y selection made by ourselves ( c]ta9 among natural processes4 ,! discussion w\ld n be affect$ by ?is view1 because ! argum5t is really bas$ ^u ! exi/5ce ( a cosmos z di/+ui%$ f a *aos2 & !re=e x w\ld be r an int5sification ( ! argum5t ?an o!rwise to po9t out t1 = ! ma9t5ance ( a cosmos1 natural laws1 z conceiv$ by u1 w\ld be inadequate4 ,& ?is seems a fitt+ place to make ! almo/ sup]flu\s rem>k1 t ?r\gh\t ?is pres5t essay ,i h us$ ! words ,natural ,law1 ,supreme ,law-giv]1 c41 9 an app>5tly ungu>d$ s5se1 m]ely 9 ord] to avoid ne$less obscurity4 ,fully s5sible z ,i am ( ! mislead+ nature ( ! analogy :i* ^! words embody1 ,i h yet adopt$ !m = ! sake ( p]spicuity--be+ c>eful1 h[ev]1 nev] to all[ ! false analogy :i* !y express to ent] into an argum5t on ei!r side ( ! "q4 ,?us1 ev5 :]e x is said t ! exi/5ce ( ,natural ,law po9ts to ! exi/5ce ( a ,supreme ,law-mak]1 ! argum5t might equally well be phras$3 ,! exi/5ce ( an ord]ly cosmos po9ts to ! exi/5ce ( a dispos+ m9d4 #bf ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 pp4 #bg-bi4 #bg ,x may be "h obs]v$ t ?is quality ( indef9it5ess on ! "p ( su* reason+ is m]ely a practical outcome ( ! !oretical consid]ations adduc$ 9 ,*apt] ,v4 ,= z we !re saw t ! ratio betwe5 ! kn[n & ! unkn[n is 9 ?is case :olly indef9ite1 x foll[s t any symbols d]iv$ f ! region ( ! kn[n--ev5 ?\gh su* symbols be ! highe/ g5]alities :i* ! latt] region af=ds--mu/ be :olly indef9ite :5 project$ into ! region ( ! unkn[n4 ,or r let u say1 t z ! region ( ! unkn[n is b a progressive cont9uation ( ! region ( ! kn[n1 ! det]m9ate value ( symbols ( ?\ght v>ies inv]sely z ! di/ance--or1 n improbably1 z ! squ>e ( ! di/ance--f ! sph]e ( ! kn[n at :i* !y are appli$4 #bh i4e41 illegitimate 9 a relative s5se4 ,! conclusion is legitimate en\gh 9 a =mal s5se1 & z e/abli%+ a probability ( "s unassignable degree ( value4 ,b x w\ld be illegitimate if ?is quality ( indef9it5ess 7 disreg>d$1 & ! conclusion suppos$ to possess ! same "* ( actual probability z x has ( =mal def9ition4 #bi ,9 ord] n to burd5 ! text ) details1 ,i h pres5t$ ^! reflections 9 _! mo/ g5]al t]ms4 ,?us1 if x be grant$ t cosmic h>mony results f ! comb9$ action ( g5]al laws1 & t ^! laws are ! necess>y result ( ! prim>y qualities ( =ce & matt]1 ?is ! mo/ g5]al /atem5t ( ! a!i/ic position includes all m special consid]ations z a g5us includes its species2 & !re=e x w\ld n signify1 = ! purposes ( ! a!i/ic argum5t1 :e!r or n any su* m special consid]ations are possible4 ,nev]!less1 = ! sake ( complet5ess1 ,i may "h obs]ve t we are n :olly )\t indications 9 nature ( ! physical causation :]eby ! effect ( cosmic h>mony is produc$4 ,! univ]sal t5d5cy ( motion to become rhy?mical--itself1 z ,mr4 ,sp5c] 0 ! fir/ to %[1 a necess>y consequ5ce ( ! p]si/5ce ( =ce--is1 s to speak1 a cons]vative t5d5cy3 x sets a premium aga9/ natural cataclysms4 ,b a m important consid]ation is ?is1--t dur+ ! evolution ( natural law 9 ! way sugge/$ 9 ,*apt] ,,iv41 z e newly evolv$ law came into exi/5ce x mu/ h be51 z x 71 graft$ on ! /ock ( all pre-exi/+ natural laws1 & s w\ld n ent] ! cosmic sy/em z an elem5t ( confusion1 b r z an elem5t ( fur!r progress4 ,= in/ance1 :51 ) ! orig9 ( organic nature1 ! law ( natural selection ent]$ ^u ! cosmos1 x 0 graft$ ^u ! pre-exi/+ /ock ( o!r natural laws1 & s comb9$ )9 !m 9 unity4 ,& a little ?\ght w %[ t x 0 impossible t x %\ld d o!rwise2 = x 0 impossible t natural selection c\ld ev] produce organisms :i* w\ld ev] be able by _! exi/5ce to conflict ) ! pre-exi/+ sy/em ( a/ronomic or geologic laws2 see+ t organisms1 be+ a product ( lat] evolution ?an ^! laws1 w\ld ei!r h to be adapt$ to !m or p]i%4 ,& h5ce ! new law ( natural selection1 :i* consi/s 9 s adapt+ organisms to ! pre-exi/+ laws t !y mu/ ei!r con=m to !m or die4 ,n[1 ,i h *os5 ! case ( natural selection because1 z allud$ to 9 ! text1 x is ! law ( all o!rs :i* is ! mo/ conspicu\sly effective 9 produc+ ! h>moni\s complexity ( nature4 ,b ! same k9d ( consid]ations may be se5 to apply to mo/ ( ! o!r g5]al laws ) :i* we are acqua9t$1 p>ticul>ly if we be> 9 m9d t ! g5]al outcome ( _! unit$ action z we obs]ve x--! cosmic h>mony on :i* s mu* /ress is laid--is n p]fectly h>moni\s4 ,cataclysms--:e!r x be ! capture ( an insect1 or ! ru9 ( a />--al?\gh ev5ts ( comp>atively r>e occurr5ce if at any giv5 "t we take into acc\nt ! total numb] ( insects or ! total numb] ( />s1 are ev5ts :i* nev]!less d occasionally happ54 ,& ! fact t ev5 cataclysms take place 9 accordance ) s-call$ natural law1 s]ves b to emphasise ! consid]ation on :i* we are engag$--viz41 t ! total result ( ! comb9$ action ( g5]al laws is n su* z to produce p]fect ord]4 ,la/ly1 if ! answ] is made t human ideas ( p]fect ord] may n correspond ) ! highe/ ideal ( su* ord]1 ,i obs]ve t to make su* a answ] is m]ely to ab&on ! subject ( discussion2 = if a !i/ re/s 8 argum5t on ! basis ( our human conception ( ord]1 he is n free to ma9ta9 8 argum5t & at ! same "t to ab&on its basis at :atev] po9t ! latt] may be %[n unt5able4 #cj ,s9ce ! above 0 writt51 ! fir/ volume ( ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s ,sociology has be5 publi%$2 & ^? :o may n z yet h read ! fir/ half ( t "w are "h /rongly recomm5d$ to d s2 = ,mr4 ,sp5c] has !re %[n1 9 a m connect$ & conclusive mann] ?an has ev] be5 %[n be=e1 h[ /rictly natural is ! gr[? ( all sup]/itions & religions--i4e41 ( all ! !ories ( p]sonal ag5cy 9 nature4--#ahgh4 #ca ,h]b]t ,sp5c]'s ,essays1 vol4 iii4 pp4 #bdf-bdi 7#ahgd74 #cb ,?is is ! truly inconceivable elem5t 9 ! physical !ory4 ,z ,i h %[n 9 ! plead+ on ! side ( ,a!ism1 ! suppos$ inconceivability ( cosmic h>mony be+ due to m9dless =ces1 is n ( su* a k9d z :olly refuses to be surm\nt$ by symbolic conceptions ( a suffici5tly ab/ract "*4 ,b x is impossible1 by ! aid ( any symbols1 to ga9 a conception ( an et]nal exi/5ce4 ,& ,i may "h po9t out1 t if ,m9d is said to be ! cause ( evolution1 n only does ! /atem5t involve ! inconceivable proposition t su* a ,m9d mu/ be inf9ite 9 respect to its p[]s ( sup]vision1 direction1 c42 b ! /atem5t also involves a necess>y alt]native betwe5 two additional inconceivable propositions--viz41 ei!r t su* a ,m9d mu/ h be5 et]nal1 or t x mu/ h come into exi/5ce )\t a cause4 ,9 ?is respect1 !re=e1 x w\ld seem t ! !ory ( ,a!ism has ! advantage ov] t ( ,!ism2 = :ile ! =m] !ory is "u ! necessity ( embody+ only a s+le inconceivable t]m1 ! latt] !ory is "u ! necessity ( embody+ two su* t]ms4 #cc ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c] has treat$ ( ?is subject 9 8 memorable controv]sy ) ,mill on ! ,univ]sal ,po/ulate 7see ,psy*ology1 #dbg71 & refuses to ent]ta9 ! t]m ,inconceivable z applicable to any propositions o!r ?an ^? :]e9 ! t]ms _c1 by any ef=t1 be br\ght be=e consci\sness 9 t relation :i* ! proposition ass]ts betwe5 !m4 ,t is to say1 he limits ! t]m ,inconceivable to t :i* is absolutely inconceivable2 & he !n proce$s to affirm t all propositions :i* admit ( be+ fram$ 9 ?\ght1 b :i* are s mu* at v>iance ) exp]i5ce1 9 :i* its t]ms h habitually be5 o!rwise unit$1 t its t]ms _c be put 9 ! alleg$ relation )\t ef=t1 ought prop]ly to be t]m$ incr$ible propositions4 ,n[ ,i _c see t ! class ,incr$ible propositions is1 z ?is def9ition ass]ts1 id5tical ) ! class :i* ,i h t]m$ ,relatively inconceivable propositions4 ,= example1 x is a famili> obs]vation t1 on look+ at ! sett+ sun1 we exp]i5ce an almo/1 if n q1 insup]able difficulty 9 conceiv+ ! sun's app>5t motion z due to our own actual motion1 & yet we exp]i5ce no difficulty 9 believ+ x4 ,conv]sely1 ,i ent]ta9 b little difficulty 9 conceiv+--i4e41 imag9+--a %>k ) a mammalian he>t1 & yet x w\ld require extremely /rong evid5ce to make me believe t su* an animal exi/s4 ,! tru? appe>s to be t our language is defici5t 9 t]ms :]eby to di/+ui% betwe5 t :i* is :olly inconceivable f t :i* is ) difficulty conceivable4 ,?is1 x seems to me1 0 ! pr9ciple reason ( ! dispute betwe5 ,sp5c] & ,mill above allud$ to1--! =m] writ] hav+ always us$ ! ^w ,inconceivable 9 ! s5se ( ,absolutely inconceivable1 & ! latt] hav+ app>5tly us$ x--9 8 ,logic & else:]e--9 bo? s5ses4 ,i h endeav\r$ to rem$y ?is defect 9 ! language by introduc+ ! qualify+ words1 ,absolutely & ,relatively1 :i*1 al?\gh n appropriate words1 are ! be/ t ,i am able to supply4 ,! conceptive faculty ( ! individual hav+ be5 det]m9$ by ! exp]i5ce ( ! race1 t :i* is inconceivable by ! intellig5ce ( ! race may be said to be inconceivable to ! intellig5ce ( ! individual 9 an absolute s5se2 no ef=t on 8 "p c enable him to surm\nt ! organically impos$ conditions ( 8 conceptive faculty4 ,b t :i* is inconceivable m]ely to "o individual or g5]ation1 :ile x is n inconceivable to ! intellig5ce ( ! race1 may prop]ly be said to be inconceivable to ! intellig5ce ( t individual or g5]ation only 9 a relative s5se2 ap>t f ! special condition to :i* ! individual intellig5ce has be5 subject$1 !re is no?+ 9 ! conditions ( human intellig5ce z su* to prev5t ! ?+ f be+ conceiv$4 ,:ile ?is "w has be5 pass+ ?r\gh ! press1 ,i h f\nd t ,mr4 ,g4 ,h4 ,lewes has already employ$ ! above t]ms 9 precisely ! same s5se z t :i* is above expla9$4--#ahgh4 #cd ,i %\ld "h l to h add$ "s consid]ations on ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's rem>ks conc]n+ ! effect ( tra9+ ^u ! m9d 9 ?is connection2 b1 to avoid be+ t$i\s1 ,i %all cond5se :at ,i h to say into a few s5t5ces4 ,:at ,hamilton ma9ta9s is v true1 viz41 t ! /udy ( classics1 moral & m5tal philosophy1 c41 r5d]s ! m9d m capable ( believ+ 9 a ,god ?an does ! /udy ( physical sci5ce4 ,! "q1 h[ev]1 is1 ,:i* class ( /udies ought to be consid]$ ! m au?oritative 9 ?is matt]8 ,i c]ta9ly _c see :at title classics1 hi/ory1 political economy1 c41 h to be reg>d$ at all2 & al?\gh ! m5tal & moral sci5ces h d\btless a bett] claim1 /ill ,i ?9k !y mu/ be l>gely subord9ate to ^? sci5ces :i* deal ) ! :ole doma9 ( nature besides4 ,fur!r1 ,i %\ld say t !re is no v /rong affirmative influ5ce creat$ on ! m9d 9 ?is respect by any class ( /udies2 & t ! only reason :y we s g5]ally f9d ,!ism & classics1 c41 unit$1 is because we s seldom f9d classics1 c41 & physical sci5ce unit$2 ! negative influ5ce ( ! latt]1 9 ! case ( classical m9ds1 be+ !re=e g5]ally abs5t4 #ce ,! qualities nam$ are only kn[n 9 a relative s5se1 & !re=e ! app>5t contradiction may be de/itute ( mean+ 9 an absolute s5se4 #cf ,all ! quotations 9 ?is ,app5dix h be5 tak5 f ! *apt] on ,our k ( ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 & f ! e>ly "p ( t on ,! ext5t ( human k1 toge!r ) ! app5d$ lett] to ! ,bi%op ( ,worce/]4 #cg ,a criticism ( ,mr4 ,john ,fiske's propos$ sy/em ( !ology z exp\nd$ 9 8 "w on ,cosmic ,philosophy 7,macmillan ,co41 #ahgd74 #ch ,cosmic ,philosophy1 vol4 i4 pp4 #hg-hi4 #ci ,cosmic ,philosophy1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #dbi1 #dcj4 #dj ,ibid41 p4 #dda4 #da ,ibid41 pp4 #dej1 #dea4 #db ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 vol4 i4 pp4 #aei-afa4 #dc ,we ?us see t ! "q :e!r !re may n be some?+ quasi-psy*ical 9 ! con/itution ( ?+s is a "q :i* does n affect ! position ( ,!ism z x has be5 left by a negation ( ! self-consci\s p]sonality ( ,god4 ,b z ! speculations on :i* ?is "q has be5 re>$ are 9 !mselves ( mu* philosophical int]e/1 ,i may "h obs]ve t1 9 "o =m or ano!r1 !y h be5 dimly float+ 9 m5's m9ds = a long "t pa/4 ,?us1 except+ ! degree ( c]ta9ty ) :i* x is taught1 we h 9 ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s words above quot$ a rev]sion to ! doctr9e ( ,buddha2 =1 z =ce is p]si/5t1 all t w\ld happ5 on dea?1 suppos+ ! doctr9e true1 w\ld be an escape ( ! circumscrib$ aggregate ( units =m+ ! individual consci\sness into ! unlimit$ abyss ( simil> units con/itut+ ! ,absolute ,be+ ( ! ,cosmi/s1 or ! ,div9e ,ess5ce ( ! ,buddhi/s4 ,aga91 ! doctr9e 9 a vague =m p]vades ! philosophy ( ,sp9oza1 & is next cle>ly enunciat$ by ,wundt4 ,la/ly1 9 a rec5tly publi%$ v rem>kable essay ,on ! ,nature ( ,?+s 9 ,!mselves1 ,pr(essor ,clif=d arrives at a simil> doctr9e by a diff]5t r\te4 ,! foll[+ is ! conclusion to :i* he arrives3--,t elem5t ( :i*1 z we h se51 ev5 ! simple/ feel+ is a complex1 ,i %all call ,m9d-/uff4 ,a mov+ molecule ( inorganic matt] does n possess m9d or consci\sness1 b x possesses a small piece ( m9d-/uff4 ,:5 molecules are s comb9$ toge!r z to =m ! film on ! "u side ( a jellyfi%1 ! elem5ts ( m9d-/uff :i* g along ) !m are s comb9$ z to =m ! fa9t beg9n+s ( ,s5ti5ce4 ,:5 ! molecules are s comb9$ z to =m ! bra9 & n]v\s sy/em ( a v]tebrate1 ! correspond+ elem5ts ( m9d-/uff are s comb9$ z to =m "s k9d ( consci\sness2 t is to say1 *anges 9 ! complex :i* take place at ! same "t get s l9k$ toge!r t ! repetition ( "o implies ! repetition ( ! o!r4 ,:5 matt]s take ! complex =m ( a liv+ human bra91 ! correspond+ m9d-/uff takes ! =m ( a human consci\sness1 hav+ intellig5ce & volition4 7,m9d1 ,janu>y1 #ahgh47 #dd ,!ism1 by ,rob]t ,fl9t1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d41 ,pr(essor ( ,div9ity 9 ! ,univ]sity ( ,ed9burgh1 c4 #de ,su* be+ ! objects 9 view1 ,i h n ?\ght x necess>y to ext5d ?is criticism into any?+ resembl+ a review ( ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w z a :ole2 b1 on ! contr>y1 ,i h aim$ r at conf9+ my obs]vations to ^? p>ts ( 8 treatise :i* embody ! curr5t argum5ts f teleology alone4 ,i may "h obs]ve1 h[ev]1 9 g5]al t]ms1 t ,i consid] all 8 argum5ts to h be5 answ]$ by anticipation 9 ! =ego+ exam9ation ( ,!ism4 ,i may also "h obs]ve1 t ?r\gh\t ! foll[+ essay ,i h us$ ! ^w design 9 ! s5se 9 :i* x is us$ by ,pr(essor ,fl9t himself4 ,?is s5se is di/9ctly a diff]5t "o f t :i* ! ^w be>s 9 ! writ+s ( ! ,paley1 ,bell1 & ,*alm]s s*ool4 ,= :ile 9 ! latt] writ+s1 z po9t$ out 9 ,*apt] ,,iii41 ! ^w be>s its natural mean+ ( a c]ta9 process ( ?\ght1 9 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's "w x is us$ r z expressive ( a product ( intellig5ce4 ,9 o!r words1 design1 z us$ by ,pr(essor ,fl9t1 is synonym\s ) int5tion1 irrespective ( ! p>ticul> psy*ological process by :i* ! int5tion may h be5 put into effect4 #df ,op4 cit41 pp4 #bee-beg4 #dg ,let x be obs]v$ t !re is a di/9ction betwe5 :at ,i may call sub/antial & =mal exi/5ce4 ,?us !re is no d\bt t fl[]s z fl[]s p]i%1 or become non-exi/5t2 b ! sub/ances ( :i* !y 7 compos$ p]si/4 ,&1 9 ?is connection1 ,i may "h po9t out t if ! univ]se is inf9ite 9 space & "t1 ! univ]se z a :ole w\ld pres5t sub/antial exi/5ce z /&+ out ( relation to space & "t1 :]eas innum]able portions ( ! univ]se pres5t only =mal exi/5ces1 because /&+ 9 relation bo? to space & "t4 ,?us1 = in/ance1 ! sol> sy/em1 z a sol> sy/em1 mu/ h an end 9 "t z x has a b\nd>y 9 space2 b z ! sub/ance ( :i* x consi/s w n become ext+ui%$ by ! ext9ction ( ! sy/em1 x may n n[ /& 9 any real relation to :at we call space & "t4 ,i am incl9$ to ?9k t x is ^u ! idea ( non-exi/5ce 9 ?is =mal s5se t we con/ruct a pseud-idea ( non-exi/5ce 9 a sub/antial s5se2 b x is evid5t t if ! univ]se z a :ole is absolute1 ?is pseud-idea mu/ repres5t z impossibility4 ,& f ?is x foll[s1 t if exi/5ce is inf9ite 9 space & "t1 e quantum ( x ) :i* our exp]i5ce comes into relation mu/ repres5t1 z its ess5tial quality1 t quality :i* we f9d to be pres5t$ by ! sub/ance ( ?+s--! quality1 t is1 ( p]si/5ce4