,,philosophies ,,anci5t ,,& ,,mod]n ,,rationalism 99 99 99 99 99 ,,religions3 ,,anci5t ,,& ,,mod]n ,animism4 ,by ,,edw>d ,,clodd1 au?or ( ,! ,/ory ( ,creation4 ,pan!ism4 ,by ,,james ,,allanson ,,picton1 au?or ( ,! ,religion ( ! ,univ]se4 ,! ,religions ( ,anci5t ,*9a4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,giles1 ,,ll4,d41 ,pr(essor ( ,*9ese 9 ! ,univ]sity ( ,cambridge4 ,! ,religion ( ,anci5t ,greece4 ,by ,,jane ,,h>rison1 ,lectur] at ,newnham ,college1 ,cambridge1 au?or ( ,prolegom5a to ,/udy ( ,greek ,religion4 ,islam4 ,by ! ,rt4 ,hon4 ,,ame] ,,ali ,,sy$1 ( ! ,judicial ,committee ( ,8 ,maje/y's ,privy ,c\ncil1 au?or ( ,! ,_s ( ,islam & ,e?ics ( ,islam4 ,magic & ,feti%ism4 ,by ,dr4 ,a4 ,c4 ,,haddon1 ,f4,r4,s41 ,lectur] on ,e?nology at ,cambridge ,univ]sity4 ,! ,religion ( ,anci5t ,egypt4 ,by ,pr(essor ,w4 ,m4 ,,fl9d]s ,,petrie1 ,f4,r4,s4 ,! ,religion ( ,babylonia & ,assyria4 ,by ,,!ophilus ,g4 ,,p9*es1 late ( ! ,briti% ,museum4 ,e>ly ,buddhism4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,rhys ,,davids1 ,,ll4,d41 late ,secret>y ( ,! ,royal ,asiatic ,society4 ,h9duism4 ,by ,dr4 ,l4 ,d4 ,,b>nett1 ( ! ,dep>tm5t ( ,ori5tal ,pr9t$ ,books & ,,mss41 ,briti% ,museum4 ,sc&9avian ,religion4 ,by ,,william ,a4 ,,craigie1 ,jo9t ,editor ( ! ,ox=d ,engli% ,diction>y4 ,celtic ,religion4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,anwyl1 ,pr(essor ( ,wel% at ,univ]sity ,college1 ,ab]y/wy?4 ,! ,my?ology ( ,anci5t ,brita9 & ,irel&4 ,by ,,*>les ,,squire1 au?or ( ,! ,my?ology ( ! ,briti% ,isl&s4 ,judaism4 ,by ,,israel ,,abrahams1 ,lectur] 9 ,talmudic ,lit]ature 9 ,cambridge ,univ]sity1 au?or ( ,jewi% ,life 9 ! ,middle ,ages4 ,! ,religion ( ,anci5t ,rome4 ,by ,,cyril ,,bailey1 ,m4,a4 ,%9to1 ,! ,anci5t ,religion ( ,japan4 ,by ,w4 ,g4 ,,a/on1 ,c4,m4,g4 ,! ,religion ( ,anci5t ,mexico & ,p]u4 ,by ,,lewis ,,sp5ce1 ,m4,a4 ,e>ly ,*ri/ianity4 ,by ,s4 ,b4 ,,black1 ,pr(essor at ,m',gill ,univ]sity4 ,! ,psy*ological ,orig9 & ,nature ( ,religion4 ,by ,pr(essor ,j4 ,h4 ,,leuba4 ,! ,religion ( ,anci5t ,pale/9e4 ,by ,,/anley ,a4 ,,cook4 ,mani*eeism4 ,by ,f4 ,c4 ,,conybe>e4 7,%ortly47 ,,philosophies ,e>ly ,greek ,philosophy4 ,by ,a4 ,w4 ,,b5n1 au?or ( ,! ,philosophy ( ,greece1 ,rationalism 9 ! ,n9ete5? ,c5tury4 ,/oicism4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,/4 ,,george ,,/ock1 au?or ( ,d$uctive ,logic1 editor ( ! ,apology ( ,plato1 etc4 ,plato4 ,by ,pr(essor ,a4 ,e4 ,,taylor1 ,/4 ,&rews ,univ]sity1 au?or ( ,! ,problem ( ,conduct4 ,s*ola/icism4 ,by ,fa!r ,,rickaby1 ,s4,j4 ,hobbes4 ,by ,pr(essor ,a4 ,e4 ,,taylor4 ,locke4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,alex&]1 ( ,ow5s ,college4 ,comte & ,mill4 ,by ,t4 ,,:ittak]1 au?or ( ,! ,neoplatoni/s1 ,apollonius ( ,tyana & o!r ,essays4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]4 ,by ,w4 ,h4 ,,hudson1 au?or ( ,an ,introduction to ,sp5c]'s ,philosophy4 ,s*op5hau]4 ,by ,t4 ,,:ittak]4 ,b]keley4 ,by ,pr(essor ,,campbell ,,fras]1 ,d4,c4,l41 ,,ll4,d4 ,sw$5borg4 ,by ,dr4 ,,sewall4 ,nietzs*e3 ,8 ,life & ,works4 ,by ,,an?ony ,m4 ,,ludovici4 ,b]gson4 ,by ,,joseph ,,solomon4 ,rationalism4 ,by ,j4 ,m4 ,,rob]tson4 ,lucretius & ! ,atomi/s4 ,by ,,edw>d ,,clodd4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,rationalism ,by ,j4 ,m4 ,,rob]tson ,,au?or ,,( ',a ,,%ort ,,hi/ory ,,( ,,free?\ght' ',,lett]s ,,on ,,reason+1' ,,etc4 ,,london ,,con/able ,,& ,,company ,,ltd #aiab ,,cont5ts ,,page #a4 ,,! ,,t]m #a #b4 ,,! ,,practical ,,position #g #c4 ,,! ,,religi\s ,,*all5ge #ab #d4 ,,! ,,philosophical ,,*all5ge #bj #e4 ,,! ,,skeptical ,,religi\s ,,*all5ge #bg #f4 ,,! ,,mean+ ,,( ,,reason #cg #g4 ,,! ,,te/ ,,( ,,tru? #dg #h4 ,,ultimate ,,problems #fb #i4 ,,ideals #gf ,,rationalism #a4 ,,! ,,t]m ,! names 'rationali/' & 'rationalism' h be5 us$ 9 s _m s5ses )9 ! pa/ ?ree hundr$ ye>s t !y _c be said to /& q def9itely = any type or s*ool ( philosophic ?\ght4 ,= ,bacon1 a 'rationali/' or rationalis 0 a physician ) a priori views ( disease & bodily function2 & ! ,ari/otelian humani/s ( ! ,helm/adt s*ool 7 nam$ rationali/as ab\t ! same p]iod by _! oppon5ts4 ,a little lat] "s ,cont95tal s*ol>s appli$ ! "n to ! ,soc9ians & dei/s2 & lat] /ill x designat$1 9 ,brita91 types ( ,*ri/ian ?9k]s :o s\ght to give a relatively reason$ =m to articles ( ! curr5t cre$ :i* _h g5]ally be5 prop\nd$ z my/]ies to be tak5 on fai?4 ,! claim to apply 'reason' 9 su* matt]s 0 by _m or?odox p]sons reg>d$ z 9 itself impi\s1 :ile o!rs d]id$ ! adoption ( ! title ( 'rationali/' or 'reasoni/' by pr(ess+ ,*ri/ians z an unw>rant$ pret5ce ( sup]ior reasonabl5ess4 ,us$ 9 e?ics1 ! label 'rationalism' s]v$ 9 ! e>li] "p ( ! eighte5? c5tury to /igmatise1 z lack+ 9 evangelical fai?1 ^? ,*ri/ians :o s\ght to make _! moral philosophy quadrate ) t ( 'natural religion4' ,lat] 9 ! c5tury1 ?\gh 9 ,engl& we f9d ! /atus ( 'rational' claim$ = or?odox belief 9 miracles & prophecies z ! only valid evid5ce = ,*ri/ianity1#a rationalism became ! recognis$ "n = ! critical me?ods ( ! lib]al ,g]man !ologians :o s\ght to r$uce ! sup]natural episodes ( ! ,scriptures to ! /atus ( natural ev5ts misund]/ood2 & sev]al pr(ess$ hi/ories ( mod]n 'rationalism' h accord+ly dealt ma9ly or :olly ) ! developm5ts ( ,biblical criticism 9 ,g]many4 ,new connotations1 h[ev]1 began to accrue to ! t]ms 9 virtue ( ! philosophical proc$ure ( ,kant's ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 ?\gh 8 ,religion )9 ! ,b\nds ( ,simple bloss5 ,reason w5t f> to c\nt5ance ! curr5t usage2 & :5 ,hegel subsequ5tly proce$$ to id5tify 7at times7 reason ) ! cosmic process1 !re 7 set up implications :i* /ill give v>i\s te*nical significances to 'rationalism' 9 "s academic circles4 ,9 ! brilliant "w ( ,pr(essor ,william ,james on ,pragmatism1 = in/ance1 ! t]m is repres5t$ z connot+1 9 contra/ to ! ?9k+ ( 't\gh-m9d$' empirici/s1 t ( a type or s*ool ( 't5d]-m9d$' p :o are collectively-- ',rationali/ic 7go+ by pr9ciples7 ,intellectuali/ic ,ideali/ic ,optimi/ic ,religi\s ,free-willi/ ,moni/ic ,dogmatical4' ,yet x is safe to say t 9 ,brita91 = a g5]ation back1 ! "n has c>ri$ to ! g5]al m9d only two or ?ree ( ! connotations 9 ,pr(essor ,james's li/1 & mu* m ne>ly co9cides ) 8 contr>y li/ *>act]is+ '! t\gh-m9d$'3-- ',empirici/ 7go+ by facts7 ,s5sationali/ic ,mat]iali/ic ,pessimi/ic ,irreligi\s ,fatali/ic ,plurali/ic ,skeptical' --?\gh "h aga9 ! item 'plurali/ic' does n *ime ) ! common conception1 & 'pessimi/ic' is h>dly less op5 to *all5ge4 ',intellectuali/ic' appe>s to be aim$ at ,hegelians1 b w\ld be und]/ood by _m z describ+ ! t5d5cy to set up 'reason' aga9/ 'au?ority'2 & ,pr(essor ,james's 'rationali/s1' :o w\ld appe> to include ?9k]s l 8 colleague ,pr(essor ,royce1 w\ld n be s describ$ 9 ,engl& by _m univ]sity m51 cl]gym51 or j\rnali/s4 ,! "n 'rationali/1' 9 %ort1 has come to mean = mo/ p 9 ?is c\ntry v mu* :at 'free?9k]' us$ to mean = ^? :o did n employ x z a m]e t]m ( abuse4 ,x /&s1 t is to say1 = "o :o rejects ! claims ( 'revelation1' ! idea ( a p]sonal ,god1 ! belief 9 p]sonal immortality1 & 9 g5]al ! conceptions logically accru+ to ! practices ( pray] & wor%ip4 ,p]haps ! be/ "n = su* p]sons w\ld be 'naturali/1' :i* 0 already 9 use ) "s su* =ce 9 ! "t ( ,bod9 & ,montaigne4 ,kant1 x may be rememb]$1 di/+ui%$ betwe5 'rationali/s1' z ?9k]s :o did n d5y ! possibility ( a revelation1 & 'naturali/s' :o did4 ,b ?\gh 'naturalism1' has latt]ly be5 recognis$ by _m z a highly conv5i5t t]m = ! view ( ?+s :i* rejects 'sup]naturalism1' & w be s us$ 9 ! pres5t discussion1 ! correlative 'naturali/' has nev]1 s to speak1 be5 naturalis$ 9 ,engli%4 ,= "o ?+1 x has be5 specialis$ 9 ord9>y language 9 ! s5se ( '/ud5t ( nature1' or r ( :at has come to be specially kn[n z 'natural hi/ory'--9 p>ticul>1 ! life ( birds1 insects1 fi%es1 & animals4 ,&1 fur!r1 ! t]m 'naturalism1' l e o!r g5]al label = a way ( ?9k+1 is liable to divagations & misund]/&+s4 ,"s ?9k]s 7kn[n to ! pres5t writ] only ?r\gh ! acc\nts giv5 ( !m by o!rs7 appe> to =mulate z a philosophic pr9ciple ! doctr9e t ! be/ way to regulate our lives is to f9d out h[ ! broad processes ( ',nature' is t5d+1 & to con=m to x alike our ideals & our practice4 ,! notion is t if1 say1 ,nature appe>s to be mak+ = ! ext]m9ation ( backw>d races1 we %\ld try to help ! process =w>d4 ,x is d\btful :e!r m ?an a v small numb] ( in/ruct$ m5 h ev] ent]ta9$ su* a pr9ciple4 ,x is c]ta9ly n ! expression ( ! philosophy ( ^? anci5ts :o s\ght to 'live accord+ to ,nature'2 & x w\ld c]ta9ly n h be5 ass5t$ to by su* mod]n 'naturali/s' z ,sp5c] & ,huxley & ,mill4 ,b if ! pr9ciple is curr5t at all1 x makes ! "n ( 'naturali/' z ambigu\s philosophically z 'rationali/' c be4#b ,& simil> drawbacks atta* to ano!r set ( t]ms :i* h mu* to recomm5d !m--'positive1' 'positivi/1' & 'positivism4' ,!y /& !oretically = 7#a7 ! provable1 7#b7 ! attitude ( ! seek] = intelligible pro( 9 all ?+s1 7#c7 ! conviction t ! rights ( reason are ultimate & indefeasible4 ,b "h aga91 to say no?+ ( ! equivoque ( 'positive1' we are met by a claim ( pre-emption1 ! claim ( ,comte to associate ! 'ism' specifically ) 8 sy/em1 !oretic & practical4 ,& = ! majority ( m5 ) positivi/ proclivities1 ! gi/ ( ! 'practical application' ( ,comte is incompatible ) ! positive _s4 ,positivism ) a capital ,p is !reby made = !m1 z x 0 = ,littr1 some?+ ali5 to positivism z ! free sci5tific _s w\ld seek to %ape x4 ,& a wrangle ov] ! own]%ip ( ! ^w w\ld be a wa/e ( "t4 ,,footnotes3 #a ,see ,a ,full ,answ] to a late ,view ( ! ,int]nal ,evid5ce ( ! ,*ri/ian ,religion1 9 a ,dialogue betwe5 a ,rational ,*ri/ian & 8 ,fri5d4 ,london1 #aggg4 ,! or?odox writ] deals sev]ely ) "s l9es ( ,*ri/ian apologetics :i* h s9ce _h vogue4 #b ,! some:at awkw>d t]m 'naturali/ic1' :i* is sometimes useful1 is h]e9aft] us$ 9 relation to ! s5se above giv5 = 'naturalism4' #b4 ,,! ,,practical ,,position ,! usages be+ s1 mo/ ( u :o c answ] to ! t]m 'rationali/' may reasonably let its g5]al =ce be decid$ = u by ! /ream ( t5d5cy 9 ord9>y spee*2 &1 recognis+ ! exi/5ce ( o!r applications1 "o may usefully seek to give a philosophic acc\nt ( :at its adoption seems to involve4 ,t is to say1 ! pres5t treatise does n und]take to pres5t1 mu* less to ju/ify1 all ! views :i* h ev] be5 describ$ z 'rationali/ic1' b m]ely to pres5t curr5t rationalism 9 ! broad s5se indicat$1 z on ! "o h& an outcome ( t5d5cies se5 at "w 9 ! e>li] movem5ts s nam$1 & on ! o!r h& z app>5tly committ+ its repres5tatives to a c]ta9 body or class ( conclusions4 ,= !re is ?is capital elem5t 9 common = all ! /irr+s kn[n by ! "n ( rationalism1 t !y /& = 'private judgm5t' z aga9/ m]e tradition or m]e au?ority4 ,e>ly 'rationali/s' might inde$ seek to put a quasi-rational =m ^u tradition1 & to give reasons = recognis+ au?ority4 ,b 9 _! day & degree !y _h _! active "p 9 ! evolution ( ! critical faculty1 inasmu* z !y outw5t ! l9e ( m]e acquiesc5ce2 & views :i* to-day =m "p ( uncritically accept$ cre$s 7 once products ( innovat+ 7h[ev] fallaci\s7 reason+4 ,!re is no saltum mortale 9 ! evolution ( ?\ght4 ,! v oppon5ts ( ! rationali/ (t5 claim to be m rational ?an he1 & mu/ at lea/ use 8 me?ods up to a c]ta9 po9t4 ,?is is done ev5 by ! quasi-skeptical s*ool1 ( :om "s claim to subord9ate reason to "s species ( insight :i* !y ei!r omit to discrim9ate intelligibly f ! process ( judgm5t1 or d n admit to ne$ its sanction4 ',rationalism1' !n1 is to be und]/ood relatively4 ,to be significant to-day1 accord+ly1 x %\ld /& fir/ & la/ = ! habit & t5d5cy to *all5ge ! doctr9es :i* claim 'religi\s' or sacrosanct au?ority--to seek by reflection a def5sible !ory ( ?+s r ?an accept enrolm5t "u traditional cre$s :i* dem& allegiance on sup]naturali/ gr\nds4 ,( su* ?9k]s ! numb] is daily increas+4 ,!re are n[1 probably1 t5s ( ?\s&s ( m or less in/ruct$ m5 & wom5 9 ?is c\ntry :o w\ld call !mselves rationali/s 9 ! broad s5se above specifi$ z n[ g5]ally curr5t4 ,!y are all1 probably1 ,d>w9ians or evolutioni/s1 mo/ly 'moni/s' 9 ,sp5c]'s way1 'det]m9i/s' 9 ! philosophic s5se ( t t]m if !y h work$ at ! 'free-w' problem at all1 & non-believ]s 9 p]sonal immortality4 ,v few1 at lea/1 bracket ! t]m 'rationali/' ) 'spirituali/' 9 describ+ !mselves3 ! two t5d5cies ne>ly always divide %>ply1 ?\gh x _c be said t 9 /rict logic !y are mutually exclusive4 ,( mo/1 ! philosophic attitude approximates broadly to t ( ,sp5c]1 ?\gh _m recognise & av[ ! inexp]tness ( ,sp5c]'s metaphysic4 ,only a few1 probably1 if any1 c\ld prop]ly be t]m$ 'skeptics' 9 ! /rict philosophic s5se ( d\bt]s ( all inf]5ces4 ,t is a m5tal attitude m (t5 pr(ess$ by def5d]s ( 'revelation1' z ,pascal & ,huet1 :o seek to make ! judgm5t despair ( itself 9 prep>ation = an act ( ass5t :i* is already discr$it$ by su* despair4 ,yet x belongs to ! rationali/ic attitude to be ready1 9 consi/5cy1 to analyse all "o's own convictions & li/5 c&idly to all negations ( !m4 ,a belief 9 ! possibility ( rational c]titude is implicit 9 e process ( s9c]e criticism2 b ! discrim9ation or gradation ( c]titudes is ! task ( rational philosophy4 ,z we %all see1 quasi-rational c]titude z reg>ds ! process ( evolution is *all5g$ f two po9ts ( view by pr(ess$ believ]s 9 ! reality ( t process4 ,"o s*ool argues t sci5tific conclusions are all unc]ta9 because ! ultimate assumptions ( sci5ce are unv]ifiable1 & t1 accord+ly1 religi\s assumptions1 be+ nei!r m nor less rational ?an o!rs1 may 'reasonably' /&4 ,o!rs argue t ! process ( judgm5t or reason+ :i* is held to e/abli% sci5tific tru? is n adequate to any !ory ( int]pretation2 & t1 accord+ly1 "s species ( div9ation--:i* 9 ! t]ms ( ! case eludes judgm5t--is to be reli$ on4 ,su* ?9k]s o/5sibly pr(ess to 'reason' to ! effect t reason+ is invalid4 ,aga9/ !m1 ^? :o claim to hold by reason z ! totality ( judgm5t may fitly call !mselves by ! "n 'rationali/4' ,giv5 su* a g5]al attitude1 !n1 to :at philosophic =m is x ju/ifiably to be r$uc$8 ,^? :o h longe/ m$itat$ ! "q w p]haps be ! lea/ quick to give a precise & confid5t answ]4 ,if tra9+ 9 ! scrupul\s use ( reason sets up any m5tal habit 9 face ( l>ge problems1 x is ! habit ( t5tative approa*2 & ! rationali/ ( to-day %\ld be a mu* less readily self-satisfi$ ?9k] ?an ! =m] claimants to ! "n4 ,pr(essor ,james1 inde$1 is able to reconcile an o/5sible c]ta9ty ( rightness ( me?od & result ) mu* exp]i5ce 9 inve/igation4 ',a pragmati/1' he tells u1 'turns 8 back resolutely & once = all ^u a lot ( invet]ate habits de> to pr(essional philosoph]s4 ,he turns away f ab/raction & insuffici5cy1 f v]bal solutions1 f fix$ pr9ciples1 clos$ sy/ems1 & pret5d$ absolutes & orig9s4' ,"o is delight$ to he> x2 b x is p]haps ! c\rse ( prud5ce = mo/ ( u to d\bt our p[] ( gett+ entirely cle> ( invet]ate habits4#c ,scrut9y ( philosophic lit]ature fails to reveal any "o :o entirely succe$$ 9 x1 ev5 sl[ly4 ,a con/ant conc]n = revision1 !n1 w\ld seem to be =c$ ^u ! pr(ess$ rationali/1 :o kn[s h[ (t5 ! appeal to reason has yield$ m]e modifications ( error1 "o unju/ifiable cr$5ce ou/+ ano!r4 ',kn[s1' "o says1 because ! error is provable to ! satisfaction ( ! judgm5t :i* seeks c]ta9ty4 ,su* negative k is ! promise ( positive4 ,,footnote3 #c ',pragmatism' soon becomes '%e' 9 ,pr(essor ,james's h&s4 ,mr4 ,s*ill] seems to pref] 'x'2 b he too makes mu* play ) pragmatism z an entity4 ,:atev] be ! am\nt ( 'ab/raction' involv$1 ! v]bal me?od sav\rs ( v old-e/abli%$ malpractices4 #c4 ,,! ,,religi\s ,,*all5ge ,x is fitt+1 !n1 at ! v outset to make a critical scrut9y ( ! implications ( our t]m4 ,rationalism1 broadly1 implies ! habitual resort to reason1 to reflection1 to judgm5t4 ,! rationali/1 9 effect1 says1 ',t :i* ,i f9d to be incr$ible ,i mu/ disbelieve1 :atev] pre/ige may atta* to its ass]tion2 t :i* ,i f9d to be d\btful or inconceivable ,i w s describe4 ,f9d+ ! practice ( pray] to be incompatible n only ) any s9c]e belief 9 natural law1 b ) ! pr(ess$ religi\s beliefs ( ! m educat$ ( ^? :o resort to x1 ,i w n pray4 ,see+ all religions to be b halt+ manipulations ( ! guesses & intuitions ( savages1 to be /ill z uncritically cr$ul\s 9 _! affirmations z !y are bl9d 9 _! d5ials1 & to be ?us m]e loose modifications ( old] beliefs felt to be a/ray1 ,i w g beh9d !m all = my own !ory ( ?+s1 gett+ all ! help ,i c alike f ^? :o h reason$ mo/ loyally on ! deep] problems involv$1 & f ^? :o h /riv5 mo/ circumspectly to und]/& ! process ( causation 9 ! univ]se4' ,s f>1 ! proc$ure is "o ( reject+ demon/rably fallaci\s beliefs 9 reg>d to ! g5]al ord] ( ?+s1 sub/antially on ! l9es on :i* te/$ & te/able conclusions h be5 sub/itut$ = old delusions 9 :at we t]m '! sci5ces4' ,at e /ep ! rationali/ is assail$1 j z 7 & are ! re=m]s ( ! sci5ces2 fir/ by angry epi!ts1 !n by bad argum5ts z to 'evid5ce1' !n by cool] attempts to demon/rate t 8 me?od w lead to moral h>m1 :e!r or n to pres5t or future puni%m5t at ! h&s ( an angry ,god4 ,9 p>ticul> he is assur$ t on 8 pr9ciples !re c be no re/ra9t ^u m5's evil proclivities2 & t ev5 ! mo/ ?\ghtful man runs endless dang]s ( wrong-do+ :5 he sub/itutes 8 private judgm5t = ! 'categorical imp]ative' embodi$ ei!r 9 religi\s codes or 9 ! curr5t body ( morality4#d ,to su* repres5tations ! critical answ] is t und\bt$ly ! application ( reason to moral issues incurs ! risks ( fallacy :i* beset all reason+ 9 sci5ce s-call$2 b t1 on ! o!r h&1 e "o ( ^? risks atta*es at lea/ equally to all acceptance ( 'au?oritative' tea*+4 ,galileo c\ld n well err worse ?an anci5t ,semites or ,*ri/ian prie/s 9 matt]s sci5tific2 & ,clif=d c\ld n conceivably div agate m dang]\sly 9 morals ?an did ! plott]s & ag5ts ( ! ,massacre ( ,/4 ,b>?olomew4 ,ev5 if we put out ( ! acc\nt ! ov]:elm+ record ( und5i$ wick$ness wr\ght 9 ! "n ( ,god & fai?1 !re nev] has be51 & !re is no prospect ( our ev] see+1 unanimity ( moral op9ion among ev5 ! mo/ discipl9$ types ( religi\s believ]s 9 'au?ority4' ,ev5 9 ! ,ca?olic ,*ur* x w\ld be difficult to f9d any two m5 ( judicial habit ( m9d :o agree 9 all po9ts z to :at is '"r4' ,nor is ! rationali/'s position a :it m op5 to utilit>ian criticism 7= 8 religi\s oppon5ts1 x w be obs]v$1 are n>r[ly utilit>ian ev5 9 pr(ess+ to combat 8 utilit>ianism7 :5 he is *all5g$ ^u 8 acceptance ( '! voice ( consci5ce1' o!rwise ! 'categorical imp]ative4' ,! ,kantian argum5t on t head is a fallacy ( %ift+ t]ms4 ,m5tal hesitation z to obey+ ! s5se ( 'ought' is ! pro( ( ! vacillation ( ! p]ception ( 'oughtness4' ,:5 ,i feel1 fir/1 t ,i 'ought' to =give a peculator1 & !n t ,i 'ought' to give him up to 'ju/ice'2 or1 alt]natively1 t ,i ought to rise e>li]1 &1 aga91 t ,i may z well enjoy m sleep1 ,i h r$uc$ ! 'categorical imp]ative' to ! la/ t]m 9 a calculation4 ,& exactly ! same ?+ is done by ! believ] :o is p]plex$ z to ! 'voice ( ,god4' ,religi\s hi/ory & biography are full ( av[als1 on ! "o h&1 ( ! murd]\s cla% ( convictions alike re/+ on 'revelation' ( all k9ds1 &1 on ! o!r h&1 ( ! agonies ( zealots 'wre/l+ 9 pray]' to "k :at is really ! div9e w4#e ,cromwell's life illu/rates bo? ord]s ( dilemma1 ) a suffici5cy ( resultant moral evil to arre/ propag&a on ! side ( fai?4 ,& ! philosoph] ( ! 'categorical imp]ative' misc>ries z in/ructively z does ! soldi] ( div9e w4 ,kant1 on ! "o h&1 vetoes ev5 ! tell+ ( a lie to a w\ld-be murd]] to put him a/ray1 &1 on ! o!r h&1 comm5ds to 'enlight5$' cl]gym5 ! sy/ematic prea*+ ( _! religion 9 a d\ble s5se1 because populus vult decipi4 ,! 'categorical imp]ative1' z prop\nd$ by him1 is a =m ( self-deception4 ,:51 aga91 ! psy*ic facts are critically fac$ & ! 'categorical imp]ative' is rationally recognis$ z ei!r ! sum ( ! p]si/+ moral judgm5ts or ! m]e v]balism t we ought to d :at we feel we ought to d1 ! rationali/ is /ill at no disadvantage1 utilit>ian or o!r4 ,x is n !re t 8 te!r tight5s4 ,religi\s morality1 z f9ally ratifi$ by ! m ?\ghtful among religi\s m51 is b ! endorsem5t ( 'natural' morality4 ,!re is n "o social comm&m5t1 z di/+ui%$ f religi\s or rituali/ dogma1 t did n em]ge z a prescription ( ! natural moral s5se1 primitive or o!rwise--a sup]]ogatory pro( t ! religi\s prescriptions are f ! same s\rce4 ,all surviv+ religi\s e?ic is to-day actually accr$it$ z su*1 precisely because--& only 9 s f> z--x con=ms to natural judgm5t4 ,)\t resort to t tribunal1 ! religioni/ c\ld n discrim9ate betwe5 ! sanction ( ! six? comm&m5t & ! law ( ! levirate1 :i* he has cancell$4 ,! religi\s sanction1 !re=e1 is logically null1 9 t]ms ( ! religi\s man's own m5tal processes4#f ,!re is left him1 to discr$it ! rationali/1 only ! ?reat t ! ,god :om he t]ms inf9itely good w or may puni% ! unbeliev] = n believ+ on ! /r5g? ( a ,bible pack$ ) incr$ible n>rative & indef5sible doctr9e4 ,! anti-rationali/ position is ?us r$uc$ to ',pascal's wag]'--at once ! mo/ *ildi% &1 f ! /&po9t ( o!r & nobl] religi\s ?\ght1 ! mo/ irreligi\s argum5t ev] advanc$ by a compet5t intellig5ce on ! side ( fai?4 ,pascal's !sis is t if ! unbeliev] is wrong1 he runs a frightful risk ( future torm5t2 :]eas1 if he %\ld aft] all be "r1 he w be no worse (f aft] dea? = hav+ believ$4 ,s ! 'belief' requir$ ( him is a simple m9dless & fai?less con=mity to a conditional ?reat4 ,to su* moral p]v]sity c religion p]suade4 ,to ,pascal's wag] !re h be5 _m retorts4 ,mill decl>$ t if a ,god %\ld doom him to hell = hav+ be5 unable to believe 9 su* a ,god1 'to hell he w\ld g'--glad1 by implication1 n to be 9 heav54 ,mansel's sole answ] 0 a pu]ile attempt at a pi\s sne]4 ,clif=d1 9 effect1 d5\nc$ ! ,pascalian appeal = :at x 01 a base appeal to fe>4#g ,b x is unnecess>y to resort to su* logical sup]]ogation4 ,!re are two obvi\s & decisive rebuttals to ,pascal's doctr9e on purely logical gr\nd4 ,fir/ly1 8 !sis is available to ! ,moslem or ! poly!i/ no less ?an to ! ,*ri/ian2 & :5 put f ei!r ( ^! sides x leaves ! ,*ri/ian runn+ ! v risk ) :i* he m5aces ! unbeliev]4 ,he may h *os5 ! wrong ,god4 ,secondly1 ! hypo!tical ,good ,god1 if 9 any intelligible s5se wor?y ( ! "n1 w\ld conceivably be z likely to s5d ,pascal to hell = di%on\r+ him z to s5d ! hone/ a!i/ !re = refus+ to make-believe4 ,! pieti/ has di%on\r$ himself to no purpose4 ,! a po/]iori argum5t = religi\s con=mity has ?us come to no?+2 & ! process ( argum5t has reveal$ ! religio-utilit>ian *ampion ( morality z traitor to t cause4 ,!re is left him1 inde$1 ! plea t religi\s fe>s & sanctions are good = ! ill-dispos$ believ]1 :o ought1 !re=e1 n to be disillusion$4 ,z reg>ds ! simple dogma ( deity1 ! position has ! emphatic support ( ,voltaire4 ,b ,voltaire decl9$ to use ! fav\rite m5aces ( fai?1 z d _m religioni/s ( to-day2 & if ^? m5aces are to be rationally v9dicat$1 !re mu/ fir/ be rais$ ! "q :e!r !y c\ld n be improv$ ^u = ! purpose pr(ess$4 ,leav+ t task to ^? :o affect !m1 ! rationali/ may claim to be ju/ifi$ 9 act+ on ! maxim t hone/y is ! be/ policy 9 ! intellectual z 9 ! comm]cial life4 ,!re has be5 no su* hi/orical h>ve/ ( moral bett]m5t f ! religion ( fe> z c\ld induce him ( all m5 to employ x z a moral prophylactic4 ,?us f> he figures z ! v9dicator ( simple v]acity aga9/ ^? :o1 9 ! "n ( morals1 w\ld make x ( no acc\nt4 ,he has /ill to meet1 inde$1 ! *all5ge3 ,:at ( ! ill-dispos$ among y\r own way ( ?9k+8 ,if an unbeliev] %\ld see 8 way to ga9 by falsehood or licit fraud1 :at %\ld det] him8 ,mu* satisfaction appe>s to be d]iv$ by _m well-mean+ p f ! prop\nd+ ( ?is dilemma4 ,!y may or may n be gratifi$ by ! answ] t if a rationali/ %\ld n be1 by tra9+ & bias1 spontane\sly av]se to ly+ & *eat+1 or g5]ally unwill+ to d o!rwise ?an he w\ld be done by1 or s5sitive en\gh to ! blame ( 8 fell[s to fe> x1 !re is inde$ no m security = 8 v]acity or hone/y ?an = t ( a typical ,jesuit or a pi\s company promot]4 ,"o c b add t1 see+ t 9 ! t]ms ( ! case he began by unpr(itably av[+ an unpopul> op9ion1 he is presumably1 on ! av]age1 r less likely to lie = ga9 ?an ^? :o confess$ly f9d ! %e] fe> ( consequ5ces a highly important consid]ation 9 _! own plan ( life1 & :o h at ! same "t ! promise f _! own code ( pl5>y p>don = all s9s on ! simple condition ( ultimate rep5tance4 ,,footnotes3 #d ,ev5 ,pr(essor ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ! able/ ( liv+ ,engli% philosoph]s1 is responsible = ! proposition t 'to wi% to be bett] ?an ! _w is to be already on ! ?re%old ( immorality' 7,e?ical ,/udies1 #ahgf1 p4 #ahj74 ,z ! book has n be5 repr9t$1 despite mu* dem&1 x may be inf]r$ t ! au?or no long] /&s to all its positions4 #e ,?us we are told ( ! h]oic ,gordon t he 0 'p]plex$ p]petually1 & p]petually 9 d\bt z to ! precise w ( ,god ) him' 7,w4 ,s4 ,blunt1 ,gordon at ,kh>t\m1 #aiaa1 p4 #hh74 #f ,! logical analysis may be c>ri$ fur!r1 z by ,mr4 ,a4 ,j4 ,balf\r3--',to assume a special faculty :i* is to ann\nce ultimate moral laws c add no?+ to _! validity1 nor w x d s ! m if we suppose its au?ority support$ by su* sanctions z remorse or self-approval4 ,consci5ce reg>d$ 9 ?is way is n e?ically to be di/+ui%$ f any ext]nal au?ority1 z1 = in/ance1 ! ,deity1 or ! laws ( ! l&' 7,a ,def5ce ( ,philosophic ,d\bt1 #ahgi1 p4 #cde74 #g ,! same might be said ( ,mrs4 ,br[n+'s m9atory picture ( ! mom5t's passage '',twixt ! dy+ a!i/'s negative1 ,& ,god's face wait+ aft] all'-- r\nd ! corn] ) a flail1 belike4 ,religion _c be m di%on\r$ ?an by ! moral ideals ( "s ( its *ampions4 #d4 ,,! ,,philosophical ,,*all5ge ,b we h n[ cle>ly import$ into ! rationali/ philosophy a pr9ciple or factor :i* o/5sibly rivals or primes reason4 ,! rationali/ av[s a moral bias--an attitude t[>ds 8 fell[s1 a moral 'ta/e1' let u say--:i* p>tly det]m9es 8 reason$ judgm5t4 ,he has a conception ( goodness 9 virtue ( :i* he f9ds 'revelation' frequ5tly repell5t & ! popul> ',god' a *im]a2 ev5 z ! believ] f9ds !m satisfactory because !y are 9 "p con=mable to 8 moral & speculative bias1 & he has be5 br\ght up to pret]mit judgm5t beyond ^? limits4 ,?is bias appe>s to be p>tly cong5ital1 p>tly acquir$2 ?\gh mo/ m5 are agre$ t _m :o reveal a giv5 bias w\ld h pres5t$ ano!r _h !y be5 diff]5tly tra9$4 ,c]ta9 =ms ( cong5ital bias1 t is to say1 yield m or less easily to o!rs1 specially fo/]$ or ex]cis$4 ,:atev] be ! respective =ce ( ! g5]ative factors1 ! fact ( bias rema9s2 & !re is no escape f ! conclusion t x op]ates 9 reg>d to 'intellectual' z well z to 'moral' judgm5ts--to judgm5ts1 t is1 ( causal int]pretation or non-moral discrim9ation z well z to judgm5ts ^u human action4 ,! rationali/1 9 fact1 is m]ely a p]son :o 9 c]ta9 directions c>ries ! processes ( d\bt1 analysis1 & judgm5t fur!r ?an d p]sons ( a diff]5t habit ( m9d4 ,8 neighb\r1 :o believes 9 ',god' or '! sa9ts' or ,mrs4 ,eddy1 may *ance to c>ry ^? processes 9 o!r directions fur!r ?an he1--may be m reflective & exp]im5tal & judici\s1 = in/ance1 9 matt]s ( diet1--may ev5 be an analytical ?9k] 9 matt]s ( sci5ce to :i* ! s-call$ rationali/ has giv5 no indep5d5t ?\ght4 ,!re are well-kn[n in/ances ( m5 ( sci5ce :o by analysis wid5 ! b\nds ( physical k :ile accept+1 9 ways :i* o!r m5 f9d grotesquely uncritical1 loose propositions on psy*ic exi/5ce4 ,:5 s\nds are he>d f furniture1 ! rationali/1 ) 8 naturali/ic bias1 looks = explanations 9 t]ms ( physics2 :ile ! spirituali/1 ev5 if he *ance to be a pr(ess$ physici/1 looks = !m 9 t]ms ( speculative psy*ics4 ,^u a /rictly imp>tial & 'objective' consid]ation1 ! two k9ds ( bias are se5 to be alike =ms ( crav+1 desires seek+ satisfaction4 ,bo? inquir]s seek = 'causes4' ,b "o has ! habit ( seek+ causes 9 t]ms ( sequ5ces ( kn[n or intelligible processes1 capable ( will$ repetition2 ! o!r ye>ns to f9d pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( non-mat]ial p]sonalities 9 ! cosmos & 9 8 p]sonal neighb\rhood1 &1 believ+ 9 su* exi/5ce 9 advance1 ei!r provisionally or root$ly1 hopes to br+ o!rs to 8 way ( ?9k+ by a demon/ration t c]ta9 physical ph5om5a are n physically producible4 ,& x mu/ be grant$ him t h]e9 he is !oretically at p> ) ! man ( sci5ce--physical or moral--:o1 hav+ spontane\sly fram$ a hypo!sis1 seeks to f9d t facts con=m to x4 ,e man ) a hypo!sis1 broadly speak+1 wants to f9d t facts are s-&-s4 ,! rationali/1 !n1 has 8 bias l ano!r4 ,?\gh x takes 9 "p a critical or negative =m1 x is fundam5tally z positive z ano!r4 ,he has come to crave = coh]5ce & consi/5cy 9 n>ratives1 /atem5ts1 explanations1 argum5ts1 propositions1 & sy/ems ( ?\ght2 ev5 z 8 'contr>y' or competitor has come to crave = evid5ce t some?+ 'sup]natural' wields a purposive & 'intellig5t' control1 m$iate or imm$iate1 ov] all ?+s1 us+ among o!rs 'sup]normal' means4 ,?is 'contr>y' ?9k] may or may n believe 9 'spirits' 9 ! ord9>y s5se1 may or may n believe 9 ! immortality ( human m9ds2 b if he is really to be an oppon5t ( ! rationali/ bias he is to be class$ z hav+ a bias to traditional or au?oritative views ( ! cosmos1 to religi\s z aga9/ naturali/ic explanations ( hi/ory1 to a conception ( ! human z ( ! extra-human processes 9 t]ms ( a controll+ w & purpose4 ,he too1 x is true1 mu/ h "s crav+ = coh]5ce & consi/5cy--else he c\ld n debate & reason at all2 b ! o!r crav+ 9 him has prim$ t4 ,x is a fallacy1 we may note 9 pass+1 to suppose t ! 'agno/ic' attitude1 s-call$1 is some?+ betwe5 ! two ma9 =ms ( bias "h posit$4 ,agno/icism1 logically c>ri$ out1 c diff]5tiate f o!r =ms ( rationalism only 9 local limitation ( belief2 & 9 practice x is n (t5 f\nd to d ev5 t4 ,! agno/ic inevitably beg9s 9 t]ms ( ! rationali/ bias1 9 crav+ = coh]5ce & consi/5cy ( /atem5t2 & 8 mo/ circumspect negations /& = precaution aga9/ inconsi/5t cr$ulity4 ,b precisely 9 virtue ( t bias1 he is ! oppon5t ( ! sup]naturali/ bias4 ,he does n 9 effect m]ely say1 ',i d n "k'3 he implicitly says ',y d n "k' to ! pr(essor ( non-natural k4 ,bias1 !n1 be+ cle>ly posit$1 ! debate at once turns--z inde$ x usually does ev5 )\t =mal ackn[l$gm5t ( bias--to a competition ( claims to consi/5cy4 ,all debate presupposes agreem5t on some?+4 ,z antagoni/s 9 religion appeal ei!r to ,god-idea or to ,bible1 to probability or to usage1 to exp$i5cy or to au?ority1 or to hi/oric evid5ce = "o revelation z aga9/ ano!r1 s antagoni/s ^u ! fundam5tals ( religion appeal to accept$ laws ( pro(1 measures ( evid5ce1 consi/5cy ( reason+4 ,! mo/ t5aci\s ( traditioni/s mu/ put 8 case 9 a 'reason$' =m4 ,& !re91 ( c\rse1 lies ! secret ( ! gradual hi/oric dissolution ( traditional cr$5ce 9 ! m9ds ( ^? :o come at all )9 ! range ( ! argum5t4 ,e act ( reason+--z prie/hoods are m or less cle>ly aw>e--is a concession to ! rationali/ position to beg9 )2 & only sup]ior skill 9 f5ce c o/5sibly c\nt]vail ! advantage ?us giv5 to ! disputant :o claims t reason mu/ det]m9e beliefs4 ,reason+ aga9/ ! validity ( reason is recognisable z suicidal by all :o c reason coh]5tly4 ,if reason be untru/wor?y1 :at is ! value ( reason+ to t effect8 ,ei!r y g by reason or y d n4 ,if n1 y are out ( ! debate1 or y are grasp+ y\r sword by ! blade1 a c\rse n long to be p]si/$ 94 ,ev5 ! skeptical def5d] ( religion1 foll[+ religi\s prec$5t1 says1 ',come n[1 let u reason toge!r4' ,?us we rea* ! /&+ anomaly t ! def5ce ( fai? aga9/ rationali/ic criticism alt]nately takes ! c\rses ( pron\nc+ ! appeal to reason a fooli% presumption1 & ( claim+ to reason m fai?fully ?an ! rationali/4 ,! two positions be+1 to say ! lea/1 incompatible f ! po9t ( view ( dialectic1 we mu/ fight ^u "o or ! o!r at a "t2 &1 hav+ briefly dealt ) ! =m]1 we may fitly consid] at great] l5g? ! latt]4 ,! m philosophic assailant ( ! rationali/1 we assume1 pr(esses aft] all to /& or fall by reason+4 ,t is to say1 he claims to hold 8 sup]naturali/ positions 9 logical & moral consi/5cy ) 8 hi/orical positions1 8 practice z a judge or juror1 z a man ( sci5ce1 z a critic 9 politics1 z a man ( hon\r1 z a play] ( cricket by ! rules ( ! game4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 h[ev]1 he at times goes ab\t ! task by way ( an und]tak+ to %[1 n t 8 beliefs are well f\nd$ 9 reason1 b t no beliefs are2 & t 8 beliefs are !re=e at lea/ z valid z any "o else's4 ,all ! :ile he is o/5sibly appeal+ to reason1 to judgm5t4 ,t position 9 turn mu/ be consid]$4 #e4 ,,! ,,skeptical ,,religi\s ,,*all5ge ,! philosophic issue "u ?is head has be5 usefully cle>$ = ,engli% read]s by ,mr4 ,a4 ,j4 ,balf\r 9 8 ,def5ce ( ,philosophic ,d\bt2 &1 9 ano!r s5se1 v usefully = rationali/s by ! same writ] 9 8 "w ,! ,f\ndations ( ,belief4 ,! gi/ ( ! =m] treatise is an expansion ( ! proposition ( ,hume t all moral judgm5ts1 on analysis1 are f\nd to root 9 a s5tim5t or bias4 ,9 p>ticul>1 ,mr4 ,balf\r argues t all sci5tific beliefs s-call$1 h[ev] imm$iately prov$1 re/ ^u g5]al beliefs :i* are 'incapable ( pro(4' ,x is notewor?y t nev] ?r\gh ! :ole treatise does ,mr4 ,balf\r analyse ! concept ( 'pro(1' ?\gh 8 ma9 aim is o/5sibly to discrim9ate betwe5 prov$ & unprov$ propositions4 ,x may be wor? :ile1 !n1 at ?is /age1 to note ! risks ( intellectual confusion 9 connection ) ! t]m pro(4 ,! common conception1 implicit 9 ,mr4 ,balf\r's argum5t1 is t conc]n+ a 'prov$' ?+ ei!r we h1 or m5 ( sci5ce say we h1 a "r ( c]ta9ty1 z x 71 :i* we _c h conc]n+ any?+ n prov$ or n capable ( pro(4 ,! simple fact is t ! v idea ( pro( involves t ( unc]ta9ty y seek to prove t :i* is n unque/ionable4 ,to prove is to probe1#h to te/4 ,! idea ( 'demon/ration1' :i* seems commonly to connote special c]ta9ty1 c>ries u no fur!r4 ,x means a '%[+1' a 'lett+ y see ) y\r own eyes4' ,9 geometry1 x /&s = a *a9 ( reason+ 9 :i* e /ep re/s ^u previ\s /eps :i* ultimately re/ ^u axioms & def9itions agre$ ^u4 ,!re ! process is "o ( analysis--a %[+ t a proposition =m]ly unkn[n z su* is really conta9$ 9 or impli$ by propositions kn[n4 ,c]ta9ty foll[s4 ,yet !re is abundant record ( 'pro(s' or 'te/s' :i* 7 fallaci\s1 & ( o/5sible demon/rations :i* 7 flaw$--modes ( squ>+ ! circle1 = in/ance4 ,! ultimate 9 ! matt] is ! belief arriv$ at or evok$2 & ! significant fact = u is1 t beliefs o/5sibly s arriv$ at may be false1 because ! cit$ pro( or evid5ce is errone\s or ! demon/ration inconsequ5t4 ,c]ta9ty1 on ! o!r h&1 atta*es 9 ! highe/ degree to c]ta9 beliefs t1 9 ! nature ( ! case1 are 'incapable ( pro(1' t is1 ( be+ te/$4 ,no belief is m c]ta9 = all m5 ?an ! belief t !y w all die1 ?\gh ! ev5t1 posit$ z future1 _c z su* be 'te/$4' ,9 ?is case1 ! connotation ( ! ^w 'pro(1' nev]!less1 is by common cons5t transf]r$ to ! concept ( mortality3 ! inv>iable dy+ ( all previ\s m5 is all[$ to be 'pro(1' or decisive evid5ce1 t all liv+ m5 w die to ! la/ g5]ation4 ,9 reg>d to "s o!r c]ta9ties1 ! concept ( 'pro(' is :olly irrelevant4 ,y _c 'prove' t y feel a pa91 ?\gh x is "o ( ! mo/ c]ta9 ( all facts = y :ile x la/s4 ,if1 !n1 any g5]al sci5tific or o!r belief be %[n to be 'incapable ( pro(1' 9 ?is m]ely negative s5se 7z di/+ui%$ f 'capable ( dispro('71 t is no argum5t aga9/ x = any practical or philosophic purpose4 ,su* a belief is t 9 ! 'uni=mity ( nature1' :i* is held by ! same t5ure z t 9 ! mortality ( all m54 ,x _c be 'prov$1' ei!r z to ! pa/ or ! future1 9 ! s5se ( be+ te/$1 save z reg>ds pa/ p>ticul>s1 :i* are necess>ily a small selection f ! totality ( ph5om5a4 ,= ! future1 9 ! t]ms ( ! case1 !re c be no pro(4 ,yet no man has any m d\bt z to ! ris+ ( ! sun to-morr[ ?an z to 8 own ultimate dea?4 ,conc]n+ ?is we are q c]ta91 :i* we _c be z to _m ?+s reasonably held to h be5 'prov$4' ,su* & su* are our 'c]ta9ties4' ,:at1 !n1 is ,mr4 ,balf\r's case aga9/ m5 ( 'sci5ce1' & ^? :om he calls '! ,free?9k]s'8 ,x may be put "u ?ree heads4 #a4 ,!y are lax1 he ?9ks1 9 _! conception ( pro(4 ,z x happ5s1 he argues aga9/ ,mill's criticism ( ! syllogism1 :i* is t !re c be no real inf]5ce f ! premisses ( a syllogism1 because 9 ! major premiss !re is already ass]t$ :at is aft]w>ds ass]t$ 9 ! conclusion4 ,mr4 ,balf\r's reply is1 t ',s long z 9 fact we d ass]t ! major premiss )\t fir/ believ+ ! conclusion1 s long w ! latt] be an inf]5ce f ! =m]4' ,n[1 ,mill's express cont5tion is t we nev] d ass]t ! major premiss )\t fir/ believ+ ! conclusion2 & ! dispute resolves itself into "o z to ! prop] mean+ ( 'inf]5ce4' ,mill is at ?is po9t gu>d+ aga9/ errone\s conceptions ( pro(2 8 !sis be+ t ! 'pro(' ( ! conclusion is n giv5 9 ! major1 b 9 ! body ( evid5ce on :i* t is f\nd$1 & :i* c>ries ! conclusion at ! same "t4 ,z ! k9d ( syllogism 9 "q is ! old "o ab\t ! mortality ( ,sokrates1 ,mill "h takes z 'pro(' ! evid5ce :i* all m5 n[ reckon suffici5t to e/abli% ! fact ( univ]sal human mortality1 ?\gh1 z a=esaid1 x is n lit]ally a complete 'pro(' at all4 ,mr4 ,balf\r is argu+1 if any?+ relevant to 8 ma9 !sis1 t a s-call$ 'inf]5ce' :i* is m]ely a /atem5t 9 "o p>ticul> ( :at is believ$ ( all su* p>ticul>s1 is a 'real' inf]5ce1 & !re=e someh[ m valid ?an inf]5ces n s drawn4 ,p]haps he does n mean ?is3 if s1 ! argum5t has no be>+ on 8 ma9 case4 ,conc]n+ 'inf]5ce1' ! prop] developm5t ( ,mill's position w\ld be t ! processes ( reason+ prop]ly to be s call$ are ei!r hypo!ses /ill to be te/$ or beliefs held by ! t5ure ( uncontradict$ exp]i5ce4 ,& inf]5ces ( ! latt] k9d are 9 fact ( ! mo/ v>i\s degrees ( c]ta9ty4 ,we 'inf]' t we %all all die1 n f ! g5]alisation t all m5 are mortal1 b f ! accept$ fact t all m5 hi!rto h be54 ,! major premiss 9 ! typical syllogism is itself ! inf]5ce4 ,b we also inf]1 f a mu* n>r[] exp]i5ce1 t inasmu* z pit*bl5de1 say1 has be5 f\nd to yield radium 9 c]ta9 v small quantities1 o!r pit*bl5de w d s 9 future4 ,"h ! c]ta9ty is di/9ctly less3 few m5 w\ld wag] heavily on x4 ,& we may at once grant to ,mr4 ,balf\r t 9 ?is & _m o!r cases 'sci5tific beliefs' fall f> %ort ( 'c]ta9ty1' z t t]m is e/abli%$ = u by o!r beliefs4 ,z ,mill put x1 inf]5ce f p>ticul>s nev] c be =mally cog5t4 ,he might h add$ z a=esaid1 t all real inf]5ce z to ev5ts is f p>ticul>s1 & t =mal cog5cy belongs only to ma!matics4 ,mr4 ,balf\r says he w n 'g s f>' z ,mill4 ,s t1 :atev] be ,mill's inconsi/5cies--& !y are _m--,mill 0 at ?is po9t some:at less confid5t ( belief ?an ,mr4 ,balf\r4 #b4 ,mr4 ,balf\r impugns :at he takes to be '! mo/ ord9>y view ( sci5tific philosophy1 444 t sci5ce1 9 s f> z x consi/s ( a /atem5t ( ! laws ( ph5om5a1 is f\nd$ entirely on obs]vation & exp]im5t1' :i* 'furni% n only ! occasions ( sci5tific discov]y1 b also ! sole evid5ce ( sci5tific tru?--evid5ce1 h[ev]1 :i* is consid]$ by mo/ m5 ( sci5ce n only amply suffici5t1 b also z good z any :i* c be well imag9$4'#i ,9 ?is /atem5t !re are obvi\s laxities1 :i* may s]ve z op5+s = idle dispute4 ,no man ( sci5ce1 surely1 holds t all /atem5ts ( ! laws ( ph5om5a are equally well 'prov$' by obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,!y d hold t su* a proposition z t ( '! uni=mity ( nature1' consid]$ z a 'law ( ph5om5a1' is f\nd$ on obs]vation & exp]im5t1 z fully z any proposition ( natural mode c be4 ,b !re is obvi\s room = ambiguity1 aga91 9 ! expression 'laws ( ph5om5a4' ,let u consid]1 = in/ance1 #c4 ,mr4 ,balf\r's cont5tion t ! 'law ( univ]sal causation' is incapable ( pro(1 & _c prop]ly be said to be f\nd$ on obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,"h ! rationali/ may safely grant him 8 :ole case--at lea/ ! pres5t writ] does4 ,he is "r1 ,i submit1 9 8 criticism ( ,mill's o/5sible attempt to prove t ! s-call$ 'law ( univ]sal causation' is d$uc$ f obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,i w fur!r waive ! "q :e!r he rebuts ! pro( (f]$ by ,kant = 8 proposition t '! judgm5t ( sequ5ce _c be made )\t ! presupposition ( ! judgm5t ( causality1' :i*1 l _m ( ,kant's =mulas1 seems to me v awkw>dly phras$4 ,b ,i advance )\t hesitation ! proposition t all reflection ^u ev5ts involves ! conception ( univ]sal causation1 & t all reflection ^u ?+s involves ! conception ( !m 9 ev5tu4#aj ,& ?is necess>y assumption is n z su* a product ( obs]vation & exp]im5t1 ?\gh we c nev] exactly say h[ f> exp]i5ce may condition#aa our mann] ( mak+ ! assumption4 ,x is q ne$less to trace ! hi/ory ( x 9 human exp]i5ce1 = x is cle>ly pre-human4 ,if f a tree y fire at & w\nd a tig] :o sees y1 he w try to get at y1 pla9ly reg>d+ y z ! cause ( 8 w\nd1 ?\gh he may nev] h be5 %ot or se5 a %ot fir$ be=e4 ,! accuracy ( 8 inf]5ce is wor? not+1 ?\gh he might *ance1 ( c\rse1 to h be5 w\nd$ by a %ot fir$ by an unse5 companion ( y\rs4 ,x may 'reasonably' be 'inf]r$' 7to use t]ms :i* ,mr4 ,balf\r w\ld probably c5sure71 t man has always obey$ ! law ( ?\ght ?us illu/rat$2 & no numb] ( wrong p>ticul> inf]5ces c affect ! inevitabl5ess ( 8 assumption t any ev5t has a cause4 ,! concept ( cause roots 9 prim>y animal habit4 ,is ?is assumption1 !n1 a 'law ( ph5om5a' 9 ,mr4 ,balf\r's s5se8 is x to be rul$ out1 on 8 pr9ciples1 z n be+ f\nd$ on obs]vation & exp]im5t8 & are m5 ( sci5ce !reby %[n to be wrong 9 hold+ t e sci5tific /atem5t ( ! laws ( ph5om5a is s f\nd$8 ,i d n see h[ he c ?us argue2 = he has expressly cont5d$ 7p4 #ace71 t ',a law ( nature ref]s to a fix$ relation1 n betwe5 ! totality ( ph5om5a1 b betwe5 extremely small portions ( t totality4' ,is a law ( ph5om5a1 !n1 some?+ o!r ?an a law ( nature8 ,?is he _c mean2 & ! conclusion is t ! s-call$ 'law ( univ]sal causation' is n prop]ly to be call$ a law ( nature1 or a law at all1 unless we are s to call a necess>y elem5t ( all reflection ^u nature4 ,! dispute "h1 9 %ort1 resolves itself into a "q ( t]m9ology2 & x is q likely t _m m5 ( sci5ce1 & _m free?9k]s1 h us$ lax t]m9ology4 ,b z reg>ds ! reasonabl5ess ( _! beliefs1 or _! way ( believ+1 9 contra/ ) ^? ( ! sup]naturali/s :om ,mr4 ,balf\r *ampions1 he has ?us f> made out no ho/ile case :atev]4 ,& :5 we come to :at appe> to be 8 conclusions1 !y are su* z c wr+ no rationali/'s )]s4 ,our ultimate premisses1 he cont5ds1 are incapable ( pro(4 ,grant$--if ! assumption ( univ]sal causation is to be t]m$ a premiss1 z is t ( ! uni=mity ( nature4 ,! practical issue = him appe>s to be conta9$ 9 ?is passage 7italics ours73-- ',t m5 ought n to give up on speculative gr\nds ! belief 9 ! uni=mity ( nature1 or any o!r great pr9ciple1 ,i hold1 z ! read] w see if 8 pati5ce la/s to ! end ( ! volume1 ) z mu* p]si/5ce z any man4 ,b ,i mu/ altoge!r take exception to ! /atem5t1 :i* is ! c5tral po9t ( ! argum5t j /at$1 namely1 t ! fact t ^! pr9ciples "w 9 practice is any gr\nd = believ+ !m to be ev5 approximately true' 7p4 #ade74 ,our pati5ce may easily /& ! sugge/$ te/1 s9ce ,mr4 ,balf\r's book is = ! mo/ "p extremely well writt52 & unless ,i h totally misund]/ood him1 8 conclusions are 7a7 t he & we d well to accept ! g5]al body ( accept$ sci5tific doctr9es1 includ+ ^? ( ! !ory ( evolution & ! uni=mity ( nature1 )\t any gr\nd = believ+ !m to be ev5 approximately true2 & 7b7 t he & 8 co-believ]s d equally well to hold :at he vaguely indicates 7p4 #cbd7 z '! ,!ological op9ions to :i* ,i adh]e1' also )\t 'any gr\nd = believ+ !m to be ev5 approximately true4' ,9 a s5t5ce 7p4 #cbj7 ( :i* ! diction is noticeably lax1 he says3-- '444,i & an indef9ite numb] ( o!r p]sons1 if we contemplate ,religion & ,sci5ce z unprov$ sy/ems ( belief /&+ side by side1 feel a practical ne$ = bo?2 & if ?is ne$ is1 9 ! case ( ^? few & fragm5t>y sci5tific tru?s by :i* we regulate our animal actions1 or an especially imp]i\s & inde/ructible "*--on ! o!r h&1 ! ne$ = religi\s tru?1 root$ z x is 9 ! l(tie/ region ( our moral nature1 is "o f :i* we w\ld n1 if we c\ld1 be fre$4444 ,we are 9 ?is matt]1' he adds1 'un=tunately altoge!r outside ! sph]e ( ,reason4' ,,footnotes3 #h ,?is is ! elucidation ( ! puzzl+ phrase1 '! exception proves ! rule1' s (t5 fallaci\sly us$4 ,x comes f ! ,lat9 s*oolm5's ',exceptio probat regulam1' :]e ! mean+ is pat5t en\gh4 #i ,def5ce ( ,philosophic ,d\bt1 p4 #ac4 #aj ,comp>e ,pr(essor ,royce3--',our intellig5t ideas ( ?+s nev] consi/ ( m]e images ( ?+s1 b always involve a consci\sness ( h[ we propose to act t[>ds ! ?+s ( :i* we h ideas' 7,gif=d ,lectures1 #aijj1 i4 #bb74 #aa ,i exclude ! possibility t 'exp]i5ce' might be con/ru$ to mean ! entire developm5t ( ! m9d f infancy4 ,su* a con/ruction w\ld r$uce ! argum5t to insignificance all r\nd4 #f4 ,,! ,,mean+ ,,( ,,reason ,! problem z to '! sph]e ( ,reason' c\ld n be m effectually rais$4 ,mr4 ,balf\r cle>ly implies t !re is a sph]e ( ,reason1 b =ces a p]plex$ qu]y z to :5 he believes himself to ent] x4 ,evid5tly1 by 8 own def9itions1 8 :ole political life is liv$ outside x4 ,alike 8 g5]alisations f pa/ hi/ory1 & 8 pr$ictions ( ! future1 are su* z af=d 'no gr\nd = believ+ !m to be ev5 approximately true'3 ^? ( 8 oppon5ts1 ( c\rse1 com+ = him "u ! same category4 ,he w\ld1 p]haps1 hold himself to be 9 ! sph]e ( ,reason :5 foll[+ a proposition 9 ma!matics2 b he does n admit himself to be !re ev5 :5 he cons5ts to believe t he w die1 & t he _h bett] avoid prussic acid4 ',no exp]i5ce1 h[ev] l>ge1' he insi/s 7p4 #ge71 '& no exp]im5ts1 h[ev] well contriv$ & successful1 c\ld give u any reasonable assurance t ! co-exi/5ces or sequ5ces :i* h be5 obs]v$ among ph5om5a w be repeat$ 9 ! future4' ,n 'c]ta9ty1' be x obs]v$1 b 'any reasonable assurance4' ,t is to say1 we h no reasonable assurance t we %all die4 ,obvi\sly ! extravagance ( ?is proposition is calculat$4 ,! po9t is t no belief :atev] conc]n+ life & dea? & morality & ! process ( nature c be ju/ifi$ by 'reason'2 & t accord+ly no religi\s belief :atev] c be discr$it$ on ! score ( be+ oppos$ to reason or 'unreasonable4' ,if n m reasonable ?an ! mo/ c>efully te/$ or ! mo/ widely accept$ belief 9 sci5ce1 or ! belief t ! sun w rise or fire burn to-morr[1 or t we %all all die1 x is n less reasonable ?an !y4 ,!re=e1 believe z y\r bias leads4 ,x is only fair to ,mr4 ,balf\r to say t !re is no?+ new 9 8 position1 ?\gh probably x has nev] be=e be5 q s viol5tly =mulat$4 ,! ,greek ,pyrrho 7fl4 #cjj-cej ,b4,c47 argu$ t almo/ all propositions 7 d\btful2 & "s ( 8 foll[]s are said to h be5 consi/5t en\gh to d\bt :e!r !y d\bt$4 ,9 ! dialogues ( ,cic]o we f9d ! skeptical me?od employ$1 ) supreme inconsi/5cy1 by ! (ficial expon5ts ( unbeliev$ doctr9es1 to discr$it compet+ doctr9es4 ,among ! pagans x 0 also turn$1 ) no special religi\s purpose1 aga9/ all =ms ( dogmatic doctr9e by ,sextus ! ,empiric 7fl4 #bjj-bej ,a4,c472 & 9 ! e>ly ,*ri/ian dialogue ( ,m9ucius ,felix a pagan is pres5t$ z turn+ x aga9/ ,*ri/ianity4 ,9 ! lat] ,middle ,ages x is resort$ to by ,cornelius ,agrippa1 previ\sly a great prop\nd] ( fanta/ic propositions 9 sci5ce1 aga9/ ! curr5t sci5ce ( 8 "t1 & 9 fav\r ( a return to ! simplicity ( ! e>ly ,*ri/ian cre$4 ,/ill lat]1 x 0 mu* resort$ to1 aft] ! ,re=mation1 by ,ca?olics = ! purpose ( discr$it+ ,prote/antism2 & ,pascal & ,huet1 ! latt] 9 p>ticul>1 s\ght to employ x aga9/ 'unbelief4' ,huet left beh9d him1 z 8 legacy to 8 *ur* & g5]ation1 :at ,m>k ,pattison has t]m$ 'a "w ( ! mo/ outrage\s skepticism'2 & ,pascal's use ( ! me?od has left a /&+ debate z to :e!r he himself 0 a 'skeptic4' ,9 ,engl&1 on ! ,prote/ant side1 ,bi%op ,b]keley put =? an argum5t to ! effect t ! ,newtonian doctr9e ( fluxions involv$ ! acceptance ( unprov$ 'my/]ies1' & t ^? :o appli$ x _h accord+ly no excuse = reject+ ! my/]ies ( ,*ri/ianity4 ,f9ally1 x is fair to note t ,mr4 ,balf\r's nihili/ic treatm5t ( reason has a surpris+ sanction 9 ,hume1 to say no?+ ( ! o!r writ]s :o h practically limit$ reason+ to ma!matical d$uction4 ,t great ?9k]1 ) 8 frequ5t great c>elessness1 wrote t ',our conclusions f exp]i5ce ( cause & effect are n f\nd$ on reason+1 or any process ( ! und]/&+' 7,inquiry conc]n+ ! ,human ,und]/&+1 ,sect4 iv4 ,"p ii41 p>4 #b74 ',all inf]5ces f exp]i5ce are effects ( cu/om1 n ( reason+' 7,sect4 v41 p>4 #c74 ',all ^! spontane\s feel+s are a species ( natural in/9cts1 :i* no reason+ or process ( ! ?\ght & und]/&+ is able ei!r to produce or to prev5t' 7,ib4 p>4 #f74 ,b ,hume1 be x not$1 w\ld 9 8 e>li] life h recoil$ f ,mr4 ,balf\r's religi\s ,irrationalism1 = 9 8 dei/ic p]iod he wrote t ! belief 9 ,deity is 'con=mable to s\nd reason4' ,&1 :at is m important1 he 9 effect cancell$ 8 own rem>ks on reason1 above cit$1 by writ+ z foll[s 9 ,note ,b on ! ,inquiry cit$3-- ',no?+ is m usual ?an = writ]s1 ev5 on moral1 political1 or physical subjects1 to di/+ui% betwe5 reason & exp]i5ce1 & to suppose t ^! species ( argum5tation 7sic7 are entirely diff]5t f ea* o!r4 ,! =m] are tak5 = ! m]e result ( our intellectual faculties1 :i*1 by consid]+ a priori ! nature ( ?+s1 & exam9+ ! effects t mu/ foll[ f _! op]ation1 e/abli% p>ticul> pr9ciples ( sci5ce & philosophy4 ,! latt] are suppos$ to be d]iv$ entirely f s5se & obs]vation1 by :i* we "k :at has actually happ5$ f ! op]ation ( p>ticul> objects1 & are !nce able to inf] :at w = ! future result f !m4444 ,b not)/&+ t ?is di/9ction be ?us univ]sally receiv$1 bo? 9 ! active & speculative sc5es ( life1 ,i %all n scruple to pron\nce t x is at bottom errone\s1 or at lea/ sup]ficial4' ,hume1 x w be obs]v$1 is n "h b5t on v9dicat+ ! rational "* ( direct inf]5ce f obs]vation3 he _h set out 9 ! text by disp>ag+ cu/om>y ?9k+ z non-rational2 & he is n[ claim+ = ! 'reason+' man t exp]i5ce goes a long way to g5]ate 8 reason+ processes4 ',! tru? is1' he says 9 8 f9al p>agraph1 'an inexp]i5c$ reason] c\ld be no reason] at all1 7 he absolutely inexp]i5c$4' ,x is a fragm5t>y note to a ha/y passage2 b at lea/ x conc$es t reason+ is l>gely a matt] ( inf]5ce f exp]i5ce1 & ?us decisively ga9says ! ass]tion 9 ! text t no inf]5ce f exp]i5ce is an 'effect ( reason+1' inasmu* z x says su* inf]5ce is reason+2 t reason+ is a work+ ( ! m9d on ! facts ( life2 & t ! common di/9ction betwe5 reason+ & beliefs d]iv$ direct f exp]i5ce 'is at bottom errone\s1 or at lea/ sup]ficial4'#ab ,if1 he says 9 ! f\r? p>agraph ( ! ,note1 ',if we exam9e ^? argum5ts :i*1 9 any ( ! sci5ces above m5tion$1 are suppos$ to be ! m]e effects ( reason+ & reflection1 !y w be f\nd to t]m9ate at la/ 9 "s g5]al pr9ciple or conclusion = :i* we c assign no reason b obs]vation & exp]i5ce4' ,if an argum5t be n a process ( reason+1 nei!r ^w is intelligible4 ,if an argum5t t]m9ates 7has "o end7 9 a conclusion f\nd$ on obs]vation1 & if t obs]vation be a 'reason' = a proposition1 !n argu+ is reason+4 ,if n1 :at is ,mr4 ,balf\r's book8 ,by 8 own def9ition1 t is 'outside ! sph]e ( ,reason1' inasmu* z x is a s]ies ( negative propositions :i*1 l _! d5i$ contr>ies1 mu/ be 'incapable ( pro(4' ,:at t]m1 !n1 w\ld he apply to 8 argum5t1 if he admits t he is argu+8 ,! philosophic skeptic1 x w\ld appe>1 has logically ov]rea*$ himself--a v usual consummation4 ,!re is little sign t any ( ! religi\s skeptics above nam$ ev] made any conv]ts to religion2 & !re is mu* 'reason' to ?9k t !y turn$ _m to unbelief4 ,mr4 ,balf\r f "t to "t speaks ( 'reasonable p' & ( 'absurdity4' ,b he leaves u 9 ! d>k z to :at absurdity means1 & 8 !sis excludes f ! 'reasonable' class alike all religi\s p]sons & all sci5tific p]sons1 unless1 possibly1 ma!maticians z su*4 ,s9ce !re is no 'reasonable assurance' = ! belief t ! sun w rise to-morr[1 & politicians h no gr\nd 9 reason = any?+ !y say z su*1 ! mass ( ! ord9>y beliefs ( educat$ mank9d are n reasonable or rational2 & s9ce we h no 'reason' = believ+ 9 ei!r mortality or immortality1 we c h no reason = believ+ 7:e!r we d or n7 9 ,mr4 ,balf\r1 :o av[$ly believes 9 bo? )\t reason4 ,8 book1 by implication1 is n an appeal to reason1 is n a process ( reason+1 & c give no 'reasonable assurance' ( any?+1 positive or negative1 to anybody4 ,all ?is by 8 own %[+4 ,! rationali/1 x %\ld seem1 has small cause to deprecate su* antagonism4 ,he c\ld h>dly h a m compreh5sive cle>+ ( ! field ( dialectic = ! =mulation ( 8 own conception ( reason & reason+1 & 8 own appeal to ! reason ( reasonable p4 ,z ?us3-- #a4 ,reason is our "n = 7a7 ! sum ( all ! judg+ processes2 7b7 ! act ( reflex judgm5t2 7c7 'private judgm5t' z aga9/ ob$i5ce to au?ority2 & 7d7 ! /ate ( sanity contra/$ ) t ( insanity2 & 'a reason' is a fact or motive or surmise :i* we judge suffici5t to induce u or o!rs to believe or d 7or d\bt or n d7 some?+ )\t mu* or any dang] ( error1 failure1 or injury4 #b4 ,reason+ is our "n = ! process ( comp>+ or /at+ 'reasons :y' c]ta9 propositions or judgm5ts %\ld be believ$ or disbeliev$1 or c]ta9 acts done or n done4 #c4 ,we are emphatically '9 ! sph]e ( ,reason' :5 we are reflect+ & reason+1 z di/9ct f m]ely feel+1 s5sat+1 desir+1 or hat+2 b ev5 ! feel+s are1 z x 71 "p ( ! /uff ( ,reason4 ,/rictly speak+1 we are 9 ! sph]e ( ,reason ev5 :5 we believe :at we are told to believe on matt]s outside ! k ( our in/ructors 79 s f> z we cr$it !m ) great] wisdom ?an our own71 or try to believe t :at we w\ld l to be true mu/ be true because we w\ld l x 7inasmu* z we are proce$+ reflectively on a 'reason :y'72 ?\gh 9 ^! cases we are reason+ fallaci\sly--t is1 9 a way :i* c lead to manifold error & injury4 #d4 ,reasonable is our approbatory epi!t = an action1 c\rse1 or p]son t is guid$ by reason+ :i* we see to exclude mo/ risks ( error & injury--save ( c\rse :]e ! tak+ ( risk ( injury is assum$4 ,e "o ( ^! def9itions is ju/ifi$ by ! diction>y to beg9 )1 ?\gh ! diction>ies1 ( necessity1 note fur!r conflict+ mean+s1 z :5 reason is indicat$ z '! faculty or capacity ( ! human m9d by :i* x is di/+ui%$ f ! intellig5ce ( ! l[] animals1' or hazily di/+ui%$1 on philosophic au?ority1 f '! und]/&+4' ,b ! lexicograph] loyally notes t a reason is 'a ?\ght or consid]ation (f]$ 9 support ( a det]m9ation or an op9ion'2 & t to reason means1 among o!r ?+s1 'to rea* conclusions by a sy/ematic comp>ison ( facts1' 'to exam9e or discuss by argum5ts4' ,^! s5ses are implicit 9 daily usage4 ,! concept ( ,reason1 9 %ort1 mu/ include ! :ole factory ( beliefs4 ,! judg+ faculty1 ! judg+ prop5sity1 is a complex ( in/9cts1 exp]i5ces1 inf]5ces1 & necessities ( ?\ght4 ,x orig9ates at an animal /age1 & cons]ves to ! la/ animal elem5ts--z :51 )\t any process ( calculation1 y inf]1 z x 7 ?r\gh ! muscul> s5se1 t a top-heavy omnibus is likely to ov]balance1 or t 9 rid+ y\r bicycle r\nd a %>p corn] y mu/ incl9e y\r body inw>ds4 ,x deals ) diet & m$ic9e1 art & indu/ry1 no less ?an ) !ology & sci5ce & politics4 ,9 ! =m]1 its accept$ proc$ure is obvi\sly a set ( survivals ( m or less te/$ ideas f among an inf9ity ( detect$ mi/akes2 & ! moral law ( ! intellectual life = ! rationali/1 ! pr9ciple :i* be/ ju/ifies 8 assumption ( t "n1 is t e belief or pref]5ce :atev] is fitly to be tri$ by all or any ( ! te/s by :i* beliefs h be5 sift$ 9 ! pa/1 or may m effectually be te/$ 9 ! future4 ,we are to d ) bo? our religion & our sci5ce 9 g5]al :at we h done 9 ! pa/ & are /ill do+ ) our m$ic9e1 our sanitation1 our education1 our physics1 our hi/oriography4 ,)\t m ado1 !n1 we may proce$ to ask h[ reasons = beliefs are ultimately to be apprais$ by reasonable & consi/5t p--9 o!r words1 h[ beliefs are hone/ly to be ju/ifi$4 ,,footnote3 #ab ,s ,kant3 ',?\ghts )\t cont5t are void2 intuitions )\t conceptions are bl9d' 7,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft1 ed4 ,kir*mann1 #ahgj1 p4 #ajj72 & ,comte3 ',!re is no absolute sep>ation betwe5 obs]v+ & reason+' 7,politique ,positive1 #ahea1 i4 #ejj74 #g4 ,,! ,,te/ ,,( ,,tru? ,x may h be5 obs]v$1 ) or )\t p]plexity1 t ,mr4 ,balf\r specifi$ a 'ne$ = religi\s tru?' z 8 gr\nd = hold+ 8 unspecifi$ '!ological beliefs1' ?is aft] bracket+ ,religion & ,sci5ce z alike 'unprov$ sy/ems1' consi/+ 7by implication7 ( a body ( propositions z to :i* we h n 'any gr\nd = believ+ !m to be ev5 approximately true4' ,! skeptico-religi\s conception ( tru? be+ ?us f\nd to be z nugatory z t ( 'reason' put =w>d f ! same qu>t]1 we are compell$ to posit "o m con=mable to common s5se1 common usage1 & common hone/y4 ,= ! g5]ality ( in/ruct$ m51 tru? 9 secul> affairs means n m]ely 't :i* is tr[$1' b 7a7 t :i* we h adequate 'reason' to tr[1 & 7b7 t ( :i* our acceptance is consi/5t ) our way ( te/+ cr$5ces ( any or all o!r k9ds4 ,! ultimate crit]ion ( our beliefs1 9 %ort1 is ! consi/5cy ) :i* we hold !m4 ,by ?is te/ ! gr\nd is rapidly cle>$ ( skeptico-religi\s lit]ature4 ,t puts a spuri\s problem to mask a real "o4 ,! "q = u is n & _c be :e!r1 see+ t by inf]5ce f exp]i5ce "s ( ! beliefs we n[ hold are likely to be f\nd false by po/]ity1 we h any "r to accept "o belief & discr$it ano!r4 ,! skeptic is himself do+ s 9 ?is v argum5t1 & all ! "t4 ,8 :ole intellectual life is "o ( judgm5ts & pref]5ces4 ,!re is no intellectual life )\t !m4 ,! "q is :e!r we h appli$ to any "o belief or set ( beliefs ! te/s we h appli$ to o!rs3 :e!r1 = in/ance1 we c hone/ly pr(ess to believe 9 pray] or ! doctr9e ( ! ,tr9ity or heav5 & hell z we believe 9 ,gre%am's ,law or ! effects ( qu99e or ! r\ndness ( ! e>?2 :e!r we h criticis$ ! religion 9 :i* we 7 br\ght up z we criticise ,mohamm$anism or any o!r2 :e!r we h scrut9is$ ! leg5ds ( our cre$ z we h scrut9is$ ! leg5d ( ,k+ ,ar?ur & 8 ,knights2 or :e!r1 on ! o!r h&1 we hold ! atomic !ory or fai? 9 vacc9ation by m]e au?ority1 :ile we dispute ab\t religi\s tea*+ 9 ! s*ools4 ,?is does n mean t we are to apply ! same k9d ( te/ to e k9d ( proposition2 t we are to ask = evid5ce ( immortality z we ask = evid5ce ( ! ,d>w9ian !ory4 ,! te/ is "o ( consi/5cy4 ,does ! belief 9 immortality1 we are to ask1 consi/ ) ei!r our k or our imag9ation8 ,d we hold x critically & coh]5tly or z a m]e cong]ies ( irreconcilable propositions8 ,d we ask ourselves :at we mean by 'meet+ aga9'8 ,is x any?+ m ?an a fantasy :i* we affirm = our own com=t or ! suppos$ com=t ( o!rs1 or = ! sake ( m]e con=mity ) popul> s5tim5t8 ,no ?\ghtful man1 p]haps1 w d5y t he holds "s ( 8 op9ions by "s su* easy t5ure2 7 x only = ! reason t consi/5t asc]ta9m5t is (t5 labori\s1 & t common cons5t has to be all[$ to take its place 9 reg>d to _m beliefs ( pla9ly inf]ior importance4 ,b religi\s beliefs are n s class$ by ^? :o s]i\sly debate !m2 & "h1 if ev]1 ! *all5ge to scrut9y & consi/5cy is imp]ative4 ,& s di/urb+ is ! *all5ge t = c5turies pa/ ! high] religi\s consci\sness has be5 engag$ 9 an unceas+ ef=t to p]suade itself & its antagoni/s ( ! secul> or mundane reasonabl5ess ( its sup]naturali/ cre$4 ,religi\s life is se5 go+ on at two widely remov$ /&po9ts3 "o t ( ! emotional believ] :o kn[s no conceptual difficulties1 & is conc]n$ only to ma9ta9 9 himself & o!rs ! quasi-ec/atic /ate ( fai?2 ! o!r t ( ! w\ld-be reason] :o is conc]n$ to secure peace ( m9d by argu+ d[n 8 own misgiv+s & ! positive antagonism ( unbelief4 ,betwe5 ^? extremes1 probably1 is liv$ ! mass ( religi\s life s-call$1 unt\*$ ei!r by ec/asy or by conceptual unbelief z di/+ui%$ f passive con=mity4 ,b ! conflict ( ! ?9k+ m9ority is unceas+2 & or?odox pr(essions ( triumph deceive no "o :o is really engag$ 9 ! /ruggle4 ,on bo? sides x has long be5 a "q ( balanc+ 'probabilities1' a conflict ( 'reasons4' ,bacon1 decl>+ t he w\ld 'r believe all ! fables 9 ! ,gold5 ,leg5d & ! ,koran ?an t ?is univ]sal frame is )\t a m9d1' op5$ a door t let 9 all ! =ces ( d\bt4 ,! ,koran is ! =m 9 :i* ! ,god-idea recomm5d$ itself to ! ,moslem m9d1 z ! ,bible is ! =m 9 :i* x comm5d$ itself to ! ,*ri/ian2 & if = ea* ! o!r is always fabulis+ 9 detail1 :]e c\ld be ! c]titude ( ! common doctr9e8 ,0 m9d any likeli] to be ! =m ( ! p[] ( ! univ]se ?an any o!r ( ! an?ropomorphic *>act]i/ics ( ,jehovah & ,allah & ,zeus8 ,h[ev] t might be1 ,bacon 0 appeal+ to ! %e] s5se ( probability2 ! ',evid5ces' ( ,grotius 7 address$ to ! same k9d ( judgm5t2 & ,pascal's 'wag]' 0 a blank appeal to ! pr9ciple ( *ances plus ! in/9ct ( fe>4 ,butl]1 anxi\sly /riv+ to r$uce ! /raggl+ dei/ic controv]sy to its logical bases1 accept$ ! te/ ( probability z ! guide ( life2 & ,glad/one1 8 la/ *ampion1 ) all 8 %[ ( %e] fai?1 /r5u\sly endorses ! doctr9e4 ,! vital "q is se5 to be1 !n1 :e!r ! ,butl]ian 'believ]' or ! rationali/ is ! m loyal to t /&>d ( probability by :i* ea* av[$ly guides himself4 ,b ,butl]1 9 ! v act ( pr(ess$ly bas+ 8 case on probability1 introduc$ ! contr>y pr9ciple4 ,glad/one1 gravely repreh5d+ t ,jesuit doctr9e mislead+ly t]m$ ,probabilism--:i* p]mits ( a *oice ( ! less probable c\rse 9 morals & belief--suppos$ himself to be uphold+ a true ,probabilism 9 ,butl]4 ,! fact is t ,butl]1 seek+ to *eckmate ! ,dei/s1 committ$ himself to anomaly z a m>k ( revelation4 ',y believe1' he virtually argu$1 '9 a b5evol5t ,god ( ,nature1 ?\gh ,nature is full ( o/5sible cruelty & he>tlessness3 if ^! moral anomalies d n /agg] y\r deism1 :y %\ld anomalies 9 ! ,scriptures be = y an argum5t aga9/ _! be+ a div9e revelation8 ,%\ld y n r expect to f9d difficulties 9 ! revelation z 9 ,nature8' ,s t ! *ampion ( ! /&>d ( probability ends by putt+ an elem5t ( improbability z a m>k ( div9e tru?4 ,x 0 long ago po9t$ out t ,butl]'s argum5t 0 ?us z good = ,islam or any o!r religion z = ,*ri/ianity4 ,glad/one fram$ a futile rebuttal to ! effect t ,*ri/ianity _h m>ks ( tru?1 9 respect ( prophecy & miracles1 :i* ,islam lack$--a m]e /ultification ( ! ,butl]ian !sis4 ,! ,moslem c\ld retort t if 8 cre$ succe$$ m rapidly ?an ! ,*ri/ian ) special m>ks ( anomaly ^u x1 ^? 7 presumably ! "r anomalies6 ,by ! ,butl]ian analogy ( ,nature1 :at sort ( anomalies1 pray1 7 to be expect$ 9 a div9e revelation8 ,glad/one actually made x a disqualification ( ,islam t x _h succe$$ by ! sword2 ?is :5 8 own cre$ _h sla9 m ?an ev] did ,islam4 ,b on ,butl]'s pr9ciples1 8 plea 0 va9 ev5 if true4 ,if a div9ely rul$ ,nature be r$ 9 too? & claw1 :y %\ld n ! div9e fai? be s likewise8 ,:at is ! lesson1 by dei/ic analogy1 ( ! volcano8 ,! complete answ] to ,butl]1 ( c\rse1 lies 9 /at+ ! simple fact t analogy leads rationally to ! conclusion t all ! alleg$ revelations are alike human products4 ,if e "o 9 turn is f\nd to embody cosmological delusion1 hi/orical falsity1 fabul\s n>rative1 b>b>\s e?ic1 & irrational sanctions1 all ( :i* are by ea* believ] s+ly admitt$ to be ! normal m>ks ( human /umbl+1 ! case is at an end4 ,! "o sali5t & sov]eign probability is ! "o t ! believ] ignores4 ,:5 ?is m\nta9\s fact is realis$1 ! full =ce ( ! ,butl]ian argum5t is se5 to recoil on its premiss no less ?an on its conclusion4 ,! dilemma t 0 to turn dei/s into ,*ri/ians is simply ! confutation ( all !ism4 ,^u none ( ! te/$ pr9ciples ( inf]5ce n[ normally act$ on by m5 ( sci5ce1 m5 ( bus9ess1 & m5 ( affairs1 is x rationally to be inf]r$ t ! univ]se is rul$ by a sup]human ,good ,male ,p]son1 :o loves & hates1 puni%es & rew>ds1 plans & reconsid]s1 injures & comp5sates4 ,z little are we entitl$ to inf] t x is gov]n$ by a ,sup]human ,bad ,p]son1 or a numb] ( ,sup]human ,p]sons1 male or female1 good or bad1 or bo?4 ,! poly!i/ic & !i/ic solutions are ! natural ones = unreflect+ ignorance & prie/ly policy1 & ! latt] rema9s ! natural "o = rev]5t +ra9$ prejudice1 alias inculcat$ fai?2 b x is only s mu* sophi/icat$ folklore = ! /ud5t ( life1 nature1 hi/ory1 philosophy4 ,! late/ =ms ( x are b defecations ( ! e>li]4 ,= ,arnold1 tra9$ 9 rev]5ce & avid ( rev]5d sanctions1 ! deity ( 8 fell[s is confess$ly b a 'magnifi$ non-natural man'2 & 8 sub/itut$ ',some?+-n-ourselves-:i*-makes-=-righte\ sness1' 9 turn1 is = 8 critics b an evasion ( ! problem ( ! some?+-n-ourselves-:i*-makes-=-unrighte\ sness4 ,9 sum1 !n1 ! case = rationalism z aga9/ ! cre$s is t !y recognise no rational te/ = tru?1 & apply none4 ,!y are all1 to say ! lea/1 grossly improbable 9 ! light ( ! fulle/ human k2 & ! acceptance ( !m means ei!r passive disreg>d ( ! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason or ! habitual employm5t ( argum5ts :i* ^u any o!r k9d ( issue w\ld be recognis$ by all compet5t m5 z at be/ utt]ly inadequate4 ,!ology is ! mo/ unc&id ( all ! curr5t sci5ces2 its results are ! mo/ self-contradictory2 its premisses ! mo/ incoh]5t4 ,^u ^? !ologians1 !n1 :o accuse ! rationali/ ( self-w & prejudice1 he is =c$ to retort ! *>ge ) a d\ble emphasis4 ,!y are daily disloyal to ! ,canon ( ,consi/5cy1 :i* is = him ! moral law ( ! intellectual life4 ,claim+ to prop\nd ! highe/ tru?1 !y ov]ride all ! te/s by :i* tru? is to be kn[n4 ,! mod]n def5ce ( 'fai?1' :e!r ,*ri/ian or !i/ic1 is less & less an attempt to prove tru? ( doctr9e--save z reg>ds ! def5ce ( hi/oricity2 m & m an attempt to prove its usefulness or its com=tabl5ess4 ,fai? has turn$ utilit>ian1 z reg>ds its apologetics4 ,john ,mill err$ some:at1 inde$1 9 endors+ ! /atem5t t d[n to 8 "t mu* _h be5 writt5 on ! tru? ( religion1 & 'little1 at lea/ 9 ! way ( discussion or controv]sy1 conc]n+ its usefulness4' ,*ri/ian bi%ops e>ly le>n$ to claim = _! cre$ a gift ( prosp]ity2 & 9 ! eighte5? c5tury !re 0 an abundance ( utilit>ian v9dication ( ! fai?4 ,b latt]ly ?is has m & m col\r$ ! :ole def5ce4 ,ei!r z a promise ( peace or z "o ( com=t & /imulus1 z a plea = emotional indulg5ce or = ! joy ( ! s5se ( deliv]ance f responsibility = s91 z a gu>antee = good gov]nm5t or z a condition ( g5]al progress1 ,*ri/ianity is def5d$ on any gr\nd r ?an on t ( ! tru? ( its n>ratives or ! con=mity ( its doctr9e to good s5se1 moral or o!r4 ,& ! pleas are ent]ta9+ly int]nec9e4 ,"o day we are told t x makes = race-survival2 ! next1 t x is a spiritual /ay = races t are dy+ out1 & a great dea?b$ com=t to ex-cannibals1 ) a pa/ ( _m murd]s4 ,a cre$ :i* involves a cosmology is recomm5d$1 n by su* argum5ts z may comm5d a cosmology1 b by pleas ( subjective agreeabl5ess :i* 9 any discussion ( hi/oric fact w\ld be felt to sav\r ( trifl+4 ,& ?is simple & spontane\s sophi/ry is 9 a measure kept 9 c\nt5ance by quasi-philosophies su* z t ( ! ',w to ,believe' & t latt]ly t]m$ ,pragmatism4 ,! =m]1 z brilliantly prop\nd$ by ! late ,pr(essor ,james1 am\nts simply to ?is1 t 9 matt]s on :i* !re is no good or suffici5t evid5ce ei!r way1 we d well to believe :at we w\ld l to believe4 ,z ! precept comes f ! ?9k] :o pass$ on to /ud5ts ! c\nsel ( ,pascal conc]n+ ! opiate value ( religi\s practices1#ac x is easy to inf] h[ x w t5d to be int]pret$4 ,& ! second philosophy is l unto ! fir/1 9 s f> z x conveys1 "u cov] ( ! true =mula t ! valid beliefs are ^? :i* affect action1 ! ant9omian h9t t if we ?9k we h f\nd any belief a help to action1 x is !reby suffici5tly c]tificat$ z true4 ,! rationali/ comm5t on ,pragmatism1 ?us appli$1 is t x really discr$its ! religi\s beliefs ( mo/ m51 inasmu* z !y nev] relate _! fai? to action 9 g5]al1 w\ld n /ake a %ill+ on a pray]1 h no work+ fai? 9 provid5ce1 & d n 9 ! lea/ desire to pass f ?is life to ano!r4 ,b ^! m5 d n /udy philosophy2 :ile ! emotional believ]s1 :o really feel _! fai? to be a help 9 life1 d n ne$ ! pragmati/'s precept1 & believe )\t x4 ,:at is true 9 ,pragmatism is ( ! ess5ce ( ,rationalism4 ,our lives at _! be/ are made valid = u by our mutual tru/1 our reciprocal s9c]ities2 & ,rationalism consi/s 9 ! ef=t to ext5d intellectual & moral s9c]ity to ! /udy ( all problems4 ,x may p]mit1 none ! less1 ( "s su* g5ial or affectionate gloz+ ( "s facts z love & fri5d%ip t5d to set up 9 ! relations ( p]sons1 tol]ance tak+ on ! ve/ure ( sympa?y2 & x no m makes = ,gradgr9dism1 or ! belittlem5t ( any ( ! high] joys1 ?an = conc5tration on ! l[]4 ,its antagoni/s alt]nately indict x = 'gloom' & = lic5ce2 = coldness & = ',epicureanism'2 = seek+ only happ9ess1 & = turn+ happ9ess out ( doors4 ,! contradictions ( ! indictm5t tell ( its collective orig9 9 m]e ho/ility ( temp]4 ,rationalism1 ( all codes & modes ( life-philosophy1 mu/ mo/ seek to make ! be/ ( life4 ,"s pr(ess$ rationali/s1 inde$1 at times gr9d 9 ! mills ( ! ,phili/9es by pr(ess+ an appreh5sion le/ _! fell[s1 9 pursu+ tru?1 %\ld lose sight ( beauty2 & su* misconceiv+ m5tors plead confus$ly = "s =mal association ( rationalism ) ! arts ( feel+1 ) poetry1 ) music1 ) drama1 ) fiction--z if )\t cultivat+ ^! ?+s 9 ! "n ( ,rationalism we %\ld be dive/$ ( !m or discr$it$ z n possess+ !m4 ,! fallacy is ( a piece ) t :i* id5tifies ,*ri/ianity ) progress 9 civilisation4 ,! rationali/ic bias is 9 actual exp]i5ce f\nd to be z compatible ) any /hetic bias z ) ! sci5tific1 specially s call$2 ?\gh 9 po9t ( fact a sci5tific culture is 9 itself m conducive to rationalism 9 respect ( hi/orical & ultimate problems ?an is culture 9 ! arts1 :i* are mo/ly enjoy$1 apprais$1 & ev5 practis$ )\t delib]ate resort to critical analysis4 ,"s rationali/s1 aga91 h be5 f\nd to cont5d t ! critical analysis ( ?+s /hetic is de/ructive ( /hetic joy--an error ( errors1 involv+ bl9dness to ! facts t ev5 a sci5ce is 9 itself ultimately p]ceptible z an arti/ic con/ruction1 & t all ! arts live & r5ew !mselves by ! s5se ( tru?4 ,! solution ( ! v]bal conflict lies 9 recognis+ t rationalism is aft] all b a "n = consid]ate consi/5cy 9 ! intellectual life1 :]e consi/5cy is /ill s sadly little cultivat$1 & :]e e/abli%$ habits & in/itutions t5d s p[]fully to its exclusion2 :]eas 9 ! arts !re is no call = su* specific *ampion%ip4 ,!re ! v joy ( novelty is soon pot5t to ov]come ! resi/ance ( habit--:i*1 = ! re/1 roots 9 /ructural or acquir$ limitations n greatly dep5d5t ^u cultivation or neglect ( ! rationali/ic habit4 ,a man ( sci5ce or ( critical rese>* may be dull to new ref9em5ts ( /hesis :]e an unsci5tific emotionali/ may be s5sitive to !m4 ,recognis+ all ?is1 ! balanc$ rationali/ w %un z a special s9 ( religion ! ritualis+ ( 8 joys1 ! sect>ian ext5sion ( 8 diff]5ces ( cr$5ce to ! field ( /hetics4 ,8 rationalism z su* implies no "o ( ! special 'isms' ( ! arts2 ?\gh !re he may be an 'i/' l ano!r4 ,= him all art1 all lit]ature1 all beauty1 is s mu* ( ,nature's fruitage2 & ,*ri/ian ca!dral & ,moslem mosque c yield him pleasures :i* ,*ri/ian & ,moslem c nev] d]ive f 8 di/9ctive intellectual "w4 ,he may ev5 take arti/ic satisfaction 9 contemplat+ ! figure ( ! w+$ angel :i* ,*ri/ianity took ov] f ,paganism1 )\t believ+ x to be ! image ( a reality1 z s _m pieti/s h s *ildi%ly done = ?\s&s ( ye>s4 ',religi\s' music c m9i/] to him 9 virtue ( ! common psy*osis4 ,8 v names = himself & 8 intellectual code are b insi/5ces on complete inn] loyalty to a moral law :i* mo/ m5 pr(ess to obey1 & :i* all ( necessity obey 9 _m if n 9 mo/ matt]s4 ,! "t is = him ev5 9 sight1 z x 71 :5 mo/ m5 w recognise & live by t law2 & :5 t day comes !re w be no m ne$ to pr(ess rationalism ?an to pr(ess1 z a cre$1 any ( ! daily reciprocities by :i* society subsi/s4 ,b till t day comes he m>ks himself1 & is m>k$--to 8 frequ5t discom=t1 x may be--by 8 insi/5ce1 9 ! deepe/ matt]s1 on t law ( tru? :i* s _m /ill p]si/5tly subord9ate to pleas or pref]5ces ( au?ority or habit1 conv5tion or subjective ta/e4 ,av[+ x z 8 bias1 if s *all5g$1 he claims t x is ! bias to p]fection 9 ! intellectual life z ! bias to ord] & sympa?y is ! bias to p]fection 9 ! civil4 ,,footnote3 #ac ,see ,pr(essor ,james's ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 #ahia1 ii4 #cba4 #h4 ,,ultimate ,,problems ,to a surpris+ degree1 ! philosophic disputes ( ! ages turn ^u ! same problems2 & to an ext5t t is no?+ %ort ( s9i/]1 !y resolve !mselves = mo/ ( ! onlook]s1 if n ( ! p>ticipants1 into ! "q ( ! ma9t5ance ( ! popul> religion4 ,?us academic !i/s 9 our own day are f\nd res5t+ ! t5d5cy ( anci5t free?9k]s to discr$it & dise/abli% ! ,gods ( ,olympus1 :o = ! academics !mselves1 z = ev]ybody else1 are a set ( *im]as4 ,are we to inf] t ! curr5t academic philosophies1 ev5 :]e con/ructive1 are no bett] bottom$ ?an ! popul> cr$5ces !y seek to %elt]8 ,kant's 'critical' philosophy 0 by himself soon turn$ to ! acc\nt ( pulpit religion2 ,fi*te end$ 9 re/at+ ! gospels 9 t]ms ( 8 pan!i/ic p]sonal equation2 ,hegel soon atta9$ to ! *ampion%ip ( ! ,prussian ,/ate ,*ur*2 ,lotze has re=mulat$ ,*ri/ianity to ! end ( giv+ x cont9uance z a cre$ = ! educat$4 ,nietzs*e said ) sub/antial tru? t ! vogue ( ,kant has be5 t ( a philosoph] :o enabl$ !ological tea*]s to put a philosophic face ^u a doctr9e n o!rwise pres5table to _! /ud5ts2 & ! vogue ( ,b]keley 9 ,engl& has be5 ( a simil> k9d4 ,9 our own day ! =tunes ( new treatises 9 popul> philosophy turn ^u _! adaptability to or?odox sophi/ics4 ,our g5]ation has se5 9 succession 7#a7 ! absurd "w ( ! late ,pr(essor ,drummond on ',natural ,law 9 ! ,spiritual ,_w' welcom$ z turn+ ! tables on 'sci5ce' by %[+ t its doctr9es are fundam5tally at "o ) ^? ( ! fai?2 7#b7 ! /ill m absurd "w ( ,mr4 ,b5jam9 ,kidd on ',social ,evolution' hail$ z demon/rat+ by ratioc9ation t ! reasonable c\rse = society is n to reason2 & 7#c7 ! incomp>ably subtl] books ( ,mr4 ,balf\r acclaim$ 7:e!r or n read7 z prov+ t reason _c bite on religi\s op9ions1 & t we c\ld nev] enjoy our music & our d9n]s z we d if we ?\ght ( ourselves m]ely z evolv$ f animal =ms1 )\t some:]e ins]t+ ,deity z ! sanction & exempl> ( our pref]5ces1 /hetic or moral4#ad ,always ! acclamation tells ( a passion someh[ to humiliate 'sci5ce1' to put reason 9 ! wrong1 to triumph ov] 'negation1' to %[ t !re are m ?+s 9 heav5 & e>? ?an are dreamt ( 9 any philosophy :i* does n make play ) '_s1' wor%ip1 & ! sup]natural4 ,! cure1 h[ev]1 is nev] f\nd to be p]man5t2 & latt]ly we see ! n v accommodat+ philosophy ( ,m4 ,b]gson grasp$ at z yield+ "s k9d ( weapon :]e) to beat back ! advance ( ! ev]-encroa*+ assailant4 ,soo? to say1 nei!r ! analyses nor ! syn!ses ( ,m4 ,b]gson are 9 any way damag+ to rationalism1 or 9 any way rationally ancill>y to sup]naturalism4 ,! anti-rationali/s h clut*$ eag]ly at 8 dictum t reason1 consid]$ z a light ^u ! univ]se1 is a poor ?+2 & t !re is some?+ 9 u high] ?an intellig5ce4 ,ap>t f ! disp>ag+ =m giv5 7gratuit\sly7 to ! cont5t ( ^! propositions1 !re is no?+ 9 !m t has n be5 rationali/ically put4 ,t is to say1 x is a rationali/ic proposition t new tru?s are rea*$ nei!r by d$uction nor by induction1 b by a leap ( ! judgm5t1 by spontane\s guess or hypo!sis4 ,:at !n8 ,to say or imply t ! guess+ faculty is some?+ incomp>ably high] ?an intellig5ce is "o ( ! inconsequ5ces ( ,m4 ,b]gson1 ^: v acute analysis is apt to play ^u special problems )\t controll+ 8 own dialectic proc$ure4 ,! sob]+ fact is t ! false hypo!ses are rea*$ 9 ! same way z ! true1 ! wrong guesses 9 ! same way z ! "r1 ! delusions 9 ! same way z ! discov]ies4 ,! v !ses 9 sci5ce :i* ,m4 ,b]gson contemns 7 rea*$ by ! way :i* he arbitr>ily pron\nces 'sup]ior' to ! way ( reason4 ,& ! c\rt ( appeal t det]m9es :i* is :i*1 is aft] all j t intellig5ce or reason :i* ,m4 ,b]gson1 imitat+ "o ( ! old me?ods he has ably help$ to discr$it1 _h v]bally belittl$ 9 m]ely discrim9at+ its function4 ,no pr]ogative :atev] c !reby be conf]r$ ^u ei!r ! guess+ faculty or ! guess] z su*4 ,! 'div9+' faculty is n m div9e ?an ano!r3 x is n really m wond]ful to cat* fi% ?an to cook !m2 & ! gift ( e/abli%+ hypo!ses is z r>e z ! gift ( fram+ !m4 ,:5 all is said1 ! self-confid5ce ( ! transc5d5tali/ avails = none b himself3 z 8 own crav+ = c\nt5ance %[s1 8 hypo!sis mu/ pass mu/] be=e reason if x is to p]suade4 ,& = ?is among o!r reasons1 ,m4 ,b]gson's attack ^u ,sp5c] & o!r g5]alis]s 9 sci5ce = _! 'me*anical' way ( conceiv+ evolution is no bl[ to 'sci5ce1' z ,m4 ,b]gson w\ld probably av[1 ?\gh he is lax en\gh to delimit sci5ce at times 9 8 dialectic4 ,8 own way ( /at+ evolution is only ano!r mode ( sci5ce4 ,to call 'sci5ce' sup]ficial is to be s2 = ! demon/ration t any sci5tific doctr9e is inadequate mu/ itself be sci5ce or no?+4 ,& "h aga9 ,m4 ,b]gson's criticism1 ?\gh se>*+1 is n new1 h[ev] fre%ly put4 ,9 respect ( 8 sociology 9 p>ticul>1 ,mr4 ,sp5c] has be5 repeat$ly s criticis$2 & x is "h alone t 8 limitation ( me?od is really s]i\s1 inasmu* z x affects 8 prescriptions4 ,z reg>ds ! conception ( sub-human evolution1 8 way ( r$uc+ ! pa/ to 'pieces' ( evolution is n only n injuri\s1 x 0 ! only way 9 :i* evolution 9 ,nature c\ld well h be5 realis$ by m54 ,m4 ,b]gson is all = ! 'creative' aspect ( evolution1 ! ,liv+ ,n[1 ! em]g5ce ( ! late/ ph5om5on z n m]ely ! result ( ! "o be=e1 b ! liv+ manife/ation ( ! :ole4 ,b ?is is simply ! in/9ctive1 pre-sci5tific relation to ! problem1 return$ to & re/or$1 z x _h ne$ be1 to its place 9 a sci5tific s*ema f :i* x _h be5 dropp$ precisely because x l$ n[h]e4 ,m4 ,b]gson has suff]$1 probably1 f ! zeal ev5 ( in/ruct$ expon5ts1 to say no?+ ( ! acclamations ( ! amateur2 b p]haps ev5 ,m4 ,b]gson1 by reason ( 8 l9e> mode ( advance1 misconceives ! full significance ( 8 own re/atem5ts ( p]ceptual & conceptual fact4 ,8 !orem has be5 repres5t$ z v9dicat+ ! !sis ( ,mr4 ,samuel ,butl]'s ',luck or ,cunn+'--! !sis1 namely1 t animal survival & progress are to be conceiv$ 9 t]ms ( gift or ef=t r ?an ( environm5t2 t ,lam>ckism1 once m1 is tru] ?an ,d>w9ism4 ,b ! argum5t ov]looks ! fact t ,cunn+ may be envisag$ z ,luck2 & t ,lam>ckism )\t ,d>w9ism halts f> worse ?an ,d>w9ism )\t ,lam>ckism4 ,at be/1 ! 'liv+' view ( evolution is b a complem5t ( ! o!r1 a return f analysis to outcome4 ,put s+ly1 x is no addition to k4 ',we call$ ! *ess-bo>d :ite3 we call x black1' ! onlook] might say1 ) ,br[n+2 :ile ! analy/ might retort t1 l ! savage1 he 0 q consci\s ( ! ev]-mov+ po9t ( life1 ! ,liv+ ,n[1 b pref]r$ to give 8 m9d to ! /ill & spaci\s pa/1 & 'to cut x up into pieces' by way ( kn[+ some?+ ab\t ! law ( ?+s1 pa/1 pres5t1 & future4 ,! morally valid elem5t 9 ,m4 ,b]gson's insi/5ce on 'creative evolution' 7aga9 an old t]m1 by ! way7 is ! v9dication ( p]sonality z a creative =m4 ,b ?is 0 n necess>y z reg>ds ! rational det]m9i/1 ^: position really assum$ x1 ?\gh possibly individual det]m9i/s may h obscur$ ! tru? by _! phraseology4 ,z ( old1 anti-rationali/s p]si/ 9 assum+ t ! det]m9i/ view ( ?+s1 mo/ly accept$ by ! rationali/1 impairs "* by r$uc+ w to a 'me*anism4' ,b t is a calculat$ obscuration ( ! doctr9e4 ,x is a bad sophism to ass]t t '! rejection ( me*anism by non-lib]t>ians is a m]e phrase4 ,soon] or lat] !y h to affirm t man is me*anically det]m9$4'#ae ,x is n s4 ',go+ ,univ]se' negates ,ma*9e4 ,t concept adh]es to ! s*ema ( ^? :o affirm ! univ]se to be made3 ,naturalism excludes x4 ,!i/ic det]m9ism does make man a m]e vessel1 a tool3 = ,naturalism he is an individuation ( ! ,liv+ ,all4 ,! intellig5t det]m9i/ nev] 0 & nev] w be put out by 8 conceptual recognition ( himself z "p ( an inf9ite sequ5ce2 & he has no ne$ ( ,m4 ,b]gson's 7unt5able7 re/atem5t ( ! problem ( free-w & det]m9ism to ! effect t ! w is sometimes free & sometimes n4 ,t is inde$ a hopeless fallacy--an illicit inf]5ce f ! unduly /ress$ re-discov]y t new tru? is rea*$ by a leap & n by a sequ5ce4 ,to say t we are 'free' :5 we h an orig9al idea or guess is to miss ! logical tru? set =? by s unsophi/icat$ a philosoph] z ,locke--t ! concept ( 'fre$om' is irrelevant to e process ( ?\ght4 ,m4 ,b]gson insi/s on ! irrelevance ( spatial t]ms to psy*ic processes1 b ov]looks ! equal irrelevance ( t]ms ( prev5table p]sonal action4 ,precisely because he is1 s to say1 ! late/ outcome ( ! univ]se1 ! rational det]m9i/ w insi/ ^u 'pull+ 8 weight' & hav+ ?+s g1 z f> z may be1 9 ! way he pref]s4 ,no "o's "r is bett]6 ,& he c confid5tly claim t "h1 :]e he is philosophically at "o ) ! ?or\gh-go+ !i/1 he has all ! possible moral ga9 f 8 det]m9ism )\t an iota ( ! !i/'s p]plexity4 ,t ga9 consi/s 9 ! lead to m]cy 9 human affairs4 ,! !i/-det]m9i/ is c]ta9ly n1 z "s ,*ri/ian rhetoricians 7ignorant ( ,*ri/ian hi/ory7 affirm all det]m9i/s mu/ be1 ei!r a c[>d or a lic5ti\s knave1 9 ! ord9>y s5se4 ,augu/9e & ,lu!r & ,calv9 & ,knox 7 nei!r1 ?\gh all f\r 7 sadly s9ful m54 ,b ! !i/ic det]m9i/ is op5 always on ! "o h& to ! p>alys+ ?\ght t if he %\ld err he is resi/+ ,god1 & on ! o!r to ! equally deadly in/igation ( ! ?\ght t ^? :o resi/ him are ,god's enemies4 ,to escape bo? sn>es he mu/ turn ?or\gh pan!i/non-!i/4 ,& ! up%ot is t ! !i/ic det]m9i/ is nev] m]ciful1 :]eas ! rational det]m9i/ is at lea/ "u a logical compulsion to be s1 h[ev] he may resi/ or divagate4 ,he is free to def5d himself1 & to def5d society2 b 9 s f> z he hates & hurts he is illogical1 & 9 s f> z he makes puni%m5t retaliation1 or prev5tion punitive1 he is ei!r conf\nd+ himself or sett+ lu/ aga9/ light4 ,7 !re no o!r bett]m5t f ! sub/itution ( ! non-!i/ic = ! !i/ic relation to ultimate problems1 ?is might be held to outweigh all claims on ! o!r side1 to say no?+ ( ! simple rationality ( ! negative solution4 ,b t is1 ( c\rse1 9 itself decisive4 ,! logically /ronge/ =m ( ! !i/ic case z aga9/ ! non-!i/ is t1 ev5 z he lives & moves 9 gravitation )\t any subjective consci\sness ( x1 s he may be controll$ 9 e ?\ght by a transc5d5t volition4 ,b ?is argum5t1 :i* excludes ,m4 ,b]gson's =mula ( our occasional 'fre$om' ( w1 equally %elt]s det]m9ism f ! cont5tion t we are 'consci\s' ( fre$om ( ?\ght4 ,ev5 z we are demon/rably condition$ by gravitation :ile unconsci\s ( its control1 we are demon/rably condition$ by our exp]i5ce & /ructure z reg>ds ev5 our guesses4 ,nei!r ! ignorant nor ! ungift$ man makes ! valid new hypo!sis4 ,!re rema9 = use by ! !i/ only ! old reproa*es t a non-!i/ic philosophy is 'desolate1' 'negative1' 'mat]iali/ic1' & incapable ( expla9+ ! univ]se4 ,! la/ is a m]e ignoratio el5*i1 = ! v ess5ce ( ! non-!i/ic *all5ge is t e 'explanation ( ! univ]se' is an impo/ure1 expos$ z su* ei!r by its self-contradictions or by its evasions4 ,! normal !i/ ei!r bilks ! problem ( evil by av[+ x to be a my/]y--a ?+ he _c expla9--or falls back on ! alt]native evasions t !re _c be good )\t evil 7t is to say1 t good ne$s evil1 :i* is ?us good7 or t 'p>tial ill is univ]sal good1' & t evil is ?us non-ens--:i* aga9 is a d5ial ( any moral problem4 ,to compla9 ( 'negation' z su* :ile mak+ su* negations z ^! is to be m ent]ta9+ ?an impressive4 ,& to be told t1 9 putt+ aside ^! logoma*ies1 he is depriv+ himself ( intellectual & moral com=t1 is = ! rationali/ no p]turb+ exp]i5ce4 ,he is :at he is because he kn[s ! utt] inanity ( ! !i/ic declamation ab\t 8 putt+ 9 place ( ! ',immeasurable ,div9e ,eye' a 'va/ bottomless ,eye-,socket'2 kn[s t = ! va/ mass ( mank9d ! imag9$ ,eye has be5 a m5ace ( all _! myriad ills1 t its lev9 slays !m l flies1 t ! iron has ent]$ unc\nt$ millions ( s\ls :o daily pray$ = div9e succ\r4 ,! prate ( 8 'negation' is z *ildi% z ! compla9t ( ! av[al t we _c rea* ! planet ,jupit]1 n to say ! con/ellation ,h]cules3 he does b affirm ! incontrov]tible tru? t an inf9ite univ]se _c be compass$ by our ?\ght1 & t to ass]t its p]meation by 'm9d'--a f9ite process ( p]ception & discrim9ation1 v]bally def9$ z transc5d+ bo?--is to pay ourselves ) words4 ,to ! ,b]keleyan =mula t exi/5ce is only z p]ceiv$1 & t )\t p]ception !re c be no exi/5ce1 he answ]s1 simil>ly1 t ! fir/ proposition means only t we p]ceive :at we p]ceive1 & t ! second is m]e intellectual nullity1 a v]bal pret5ce to un?9kable k4 ,! fur!r ,z5onian frivolity ( ! d5ial ( an 'ext]nal _w' ne$s f him no fur!r comm5t ?an ?is1 t 9 ! t]ms ( ! argum5t 'ext]nal' has no mean+1 & ! proposition1 !re=e1 none ei!r4 ,x may be left to ! d5i] ( exi/5ce 'outside consci\sness' to tell u :]e consci\sness is4 ,! inquiry may p]haps lead him to ! discov]y t he1 ! pr(ess$ foe ( mat]ialism1 has be5 limit+ consci\sness to ! compass ( ! skull4 ,! ultimate claims ( ! !i/ to spiritual sup]iority & s]5ity are oddly bracket$ ) ! *>ges ( arrogance & ,epicureanism con/antly made by him aga9/ 8 antagoni/4 ,all alike are irrelevant to ! issue ( tru?2 & all alike tell ( o!r motives ?an ^? ( tru?-seek+4 ,^? o!r motives are sub/antially :at our !ological ance/ors call$ 'w-wor%ip1' self-pleas+1 ! bias ( pre-supposition1 ! av]sion to surr5d]4 ,all !i/ic dialects alike s+ ! song ( self-e/eem4 ,! spiriti/ pron\nces 8 ga9say] 'imp]cipi5t1' ?us inexp5sively cutt+ ! knot ( argum5t2 &1 himself a wilful cont9uator ( ! ?\ght-=ms ( ! savage1 decl>es himself to be transc5d+ ! e>?9ess ( ! sci5ces 9 virtue ( :i* he is civilis$4 ,all ?is is a poor way ( prov+ s]5ity2 z poor1 at bottom1 z ! p]petual display ( wra? at ga9say+ by m5 :o claim to h ! back+ ( ,omnipot5ce4 ,consci\sness ( int]c\rse ) ! sup]natural has nev] o/5sibly avail$ to give ! common run ( !i/s imp]turbability 9 _! int]c\rse ) ! naturali/4 ,& if 9 ! /ress ( controv]sy ! rationali/ %\ld 9 turn prove himself capable ( p]turbation1 let him1 av[+ t he claims no sup]natural /ay1 at lea/ plead t he sets up no intellectual 'col\r l9e1' & t 8 gospel is aft] all frat]nal en\gh4 ,once m1 he does b ask ! !i/ to take "o m /ep 9 a criticism :i* he has already c>ri$ f>1 ) small tr\ble to himself4 ,e religion sets aside e o!r3 ! rationali/ only sets aside "o m4 ,e !i/ has negat$ a million ,gods save "o3 ! rationali/ does b negate ! million?4 ,& 9 do+ ?is1 he is n committ+ ! v]bal nullity ( say+1 ,!re is no ,god--a =mula nev] fa!r$ by a consid]ate a!i/4 ,god1 undef9$1x2 & we d n say1 ,!re is no x4 ,( ! def9$ ,god-idea1 :i*soev]1 we demon/rate ! unt5abl5ess2 b 9 giv+ ! !i/ an inconceivable univ]se we surely meet 8 appetite = ! transc5d5t4 ,rationalism1 :5 all is said1 is ! und]tak+1 9 ,george ,eliot's phrase1 to d )\t opium4 ,& p]haps ! %rewde/ *all5ge to x is ! d5ial t ! av]age man c s ab/a9--a d5ial :i* may be back$ by ! rem9d] t ! fram] ( ! phrase did n4 ,a juri/ once *e]fully assur$ ! pres5t writ] t ! mass ( m5 w nev] d )\t alcohol & religion4 ,he 0 n aw>e t he 0 adapt+ a ,byronic blasphemy4 ,x may be t 9 a _w 9 :i* mo/ m5 *ronically crave alt]nately /imulants & n>cotics1 he 0 9 a measure "r4 ,b z "o ( 8 two necess>ies is already "u a wid5+ m$ical indictm5t & avoidance1 x may be t ! o!r w f>e simil>ly4 ,9 any case1 is n ! ideal a wor?y "o1 z ideals g8 ,,footnotes3 #ad ,x is an or?odox writ] :o applies to ?is ratioc9ation ! tag1 ,cr$ibile e/ quia ineptum e/1 dismiss+ x z 'a bl5d+ ( sceptical analysis ) cr$ul\s ass]tion' 7,rev4 ,dr4 ,mack9to%1 ,hegel & ,hegelianism1 p4 #bai74 #ae ,rev4 ,dr4 ,r4 ,mack9to%1 ,hegel & ,hegelianism1 #aijc1 p4 #baf4 #i4 ,,ideals ,ideals1 obvi\sly1 are "p--! be/ "p--( our bias3 to t admission we may unhesitat+ly rev]t4 ,by 8 bias ! rationali/ c af=d to be tri$4 ,intellectually he makes tru? 8 p>am\nt consid]ation1 & morally he insi/s ^u ! same s9c]ity 9 ?+s intellectual z m5 pr(ess to practise 9 hon\rable int]c\rse4 ,i h he>d a di/+ui%$ ,*ri/ian s*ol> d5\nce ^! canons z comm&+ su* an outrage z tell+ a *ild ( its "m's %ame4 ,! *>ge is an illu/ration ( ! /range malice ( :i* piety is capable4 ,no human be+ ev] propos$ to communicate all tru? ( any k9d to *ildr52 & ! limit to ! gratuit\s tell+ ( w\nd+ tru? is fix$ by normal c\rtesy & sympa?y z reg>ds ! suff]+s ev5 ( adults4 ,! *>ge is 9 fact "o m illu/ration ( ! anti-v]idical bias ( pietism--! ne$ to di/ort & p]v]t ! case aga9/ ! rationali/4 ,& if pietism c ?us di/ort ! be>+ ( ! intellectual canons ( rationalism1 mu* m habitually does x di/ort ! specific purport ( rationali/ morals4 ,! fact t naturalism implies utilit>ianism is trans=m$ into ! proposition t utilit>ianism means ! subord9ation ( all play ( sympa?y to an incessant calculus ( pr(it4 ,z we h se51 !ism & ,*ri/ianity alike d *ronically subord9ate ! v]idical in/9ct--a moral in/9ct l ano!r--to l[] consid]ations ( utility2 & only too (t5 9 hi/ory d we see !m annull+ ! in/9cts ( m]cy & reciprocity by ! law ( dogma4 ,n by prop\nd]s ( t te/ is ! rationali/ to be put to %ame4 ,! v basis ( ,*ri/ianity1 9 f9e1 is an o!r-_w utilit>ianism4 ',:at pr(its x a man----8' ,utilit>ianism means = him1 9 brief1 :at x meant :5 x fir/ took %ape z a moral plea--! te/+ ( traditional moral canons1 & _! annulm5t :5 !y are se5 to be m]e survivals ( b>b>ism1 sanction$ only by cu/om & religion2 nev] ! sub/itution ( a calculus ( utility = an accept$ moral canon 9 e act ( life4 ,any g5]al moral rule rationally se5 to be broadly utilit>ian is !reby v9dicat$ qua rule2 & to put its practice at ! haz>d ( e try+ em]g5cy w\ld be to s9 aga9/ ! v pr9ciple ( utility4 ,= ! re/1 ! rationali/ has 8 moral bias l ano!r2 & 9 virtue ( x1 z animat+ rationalis]s ( v>i\s developm5ts1 has be5 wr\ght ! ma9 "p ( ! mod]n purification ( work+ morality1 ?\gh ! moral in/9ct 9 religi\s m5 has respond$1 & has at times initiat$ re=mation4 ,x is left to ! religioni/ to argue t a bias :i* has wr\ght = tru?1 ju/ice1 & m]cy w someh[ fail to pres]ve o!r virtues4 ,no rem9isc5ce ( ! sexual hi/ory ( ,*ri/ian societies c re/ra9 ,*ri/ian advocates f imput+ to ! _s ( reason a t5d5cy to promote promiscuity 9 ! sex relation & ?us to ov]?r[ '! family4' ,hold+ z !y d t ! family is ! key/one ( society & civilisation1 !y 9 effect argue t ! practice ( rational calculation ( means & ends w de/roy bo?4 ,pessimism c\ld no fur!r g2 & if ?is be n ! height ( pessimism x is a /ress ( false-witness :i* puts ! accus] outside ! pale ( controv]sy4 ,z an imputation ^u kn[n rationali/s 9 g5]al ! !orem is simply false4 ,! sy/ematic revival ( ,aryan polygamy has be5 a religi\s process2 & ! free/ practition]s ( sexual *oice among reason+ unbeliev]s1 ! ,russian ,nihili/s1 h be5 notori\sly monogyn\s4 ,x may be hop$ t we %all 9 future he> less & less 9 ^! matt]s ( ! extremities ( or?odox malice or misgiv+1 z we he> less & less ( ! old plea t :]eas a bad believ] may be held 9 moral *eck by 8 religi\s fe>s1 a bad unbeliev] w fe> only ! police4 ,! /ati/ics ( ! jails d n enc\rage t l9e ( apologetics2 & ! records ( ! ,society = ! ,prev5tion ( ,cruelty to ,*ildr5 d n g to %[ ei!r t rationalism makes p>5ts cruel or t religion keeps !m k9d4 ,! pla9 tru? is t ^u bad bias law is ! ma9 *eck2 & t ! mo/ vaunt$ religi\s me?ods ( develop+ ! good bias ( ! weak h latt]ly be5 sy/ematically supplem5t$1 9 ! organisation1 = in/ance1 ( ! ,salvation ,army s call$1 by secul> me?ods :i* are ! av[al ( ! f9al & g5]al futility ( ! o!rs4 ,9 no o!r direction are ! moral ideals ( rationalism less fully v9dicat$ by ! movem5t ( civilisation4 ,! humane & sci5tific treatm5t ( crim9als has actually be5 antagonis$1 9 ! "n ( ! ,*ri/ian doctr9e ( s91 f ! ranks ( ! ,h[>d ,society1 e/abli%$ to promote su* humane treatm5t4 ,rationalism c no o!r3 religion seems will+ to leave x ! cr$it4 ,above all1 ! great cause ( ,peace on e>?--! v motto 7a mi/ranslation1 z x happ5s7 cit$ z t ( nasc5t ,*ri/ianity--visibly dep5ds m & m on ! spread ( rational calculation1 ! _s ( reason1 r ?an on t ( fai?1 h[ev] fai?fully _m a good ,*ri/ian cont9ues to plead = x4 ,!re is no ,peace ,*ur*3 ev5 ,quak]ism has latt]ly _h its w>-mong]s2 & !re is no record 9 hi/ory t ! doctr9e ( ! ,fa!rhood ( ,god ev] )held m5 f fratricidal w>4 ,we %all /ill he>1 x may be1 t ! intellectual pride ( rationalism is 9 t5d5cy anti-democratic2 ,gibbon & ,hume be+ cit$ z cases 9 po9t4 ,& ! rationali/ democrat1 %unn+ ! lead ( 8 antagoni/ to panacea-mong]+1 may "h at once--or once m--confess t ! _s ( reason 9 ?+s intellectual is no gu>antee = ! imm$iate elim9ation ( egoism 9 human relations4 ,*ri/ianity has claim$ to be su* a gu>antee--) ! results we "k4 ,b x is flatly inconceivable t ! _s :i* *all5ges all au?ority & anomaly 9 doctr9e c t5d to cons]ve ei!r tyranny or social & political inequality4 ,! v apologi/s :o make ! *>ge are ! successors & coadjutors ( ^? :o h *>g$ ^u irreligi\s philosophy ! g5]at+ ( ! ,fr5* ,revolution4 ,anti-democratic rationali/s !re w be1 z !re h be52 b = e "o su* !re are a hundr$ ( ! contr>y ideal2 & x is n 9 cons]vative p>ties t !y are f\nd to av[ !mselves4 ,= rationalism1 on ! side ( ?\ght1 mu/ =ev] mean lib]ty1 equality1 frat]nity1 '! giv+ & receiv+ ( reasons1' ! complete reciprocity ( judgm5t4 ,to all races1 all ca/es1 x makes ! same appeal1 be+ z univ]sali/ z sci5ce1 nam+ no ma/]1 pr(f]+ no ritual1 hold+ out no ?reat4 ,! rationali/1 z su*1 c h no "p 9 ! errant ,d>w9ism :i* w\ld cons]ve /ruggle because /ruggle has yield$ progress2 mu* less 9 ! pseudo-,d>w9ism :i* w\ld fur!r degrade backw>d races because !y h be5 ill-plac$4 ,( race-hatr$ he _c be guilty )\t infidelity to 8 fir/ pr9ciples4 ,& if all ?is be t]m$ vaunt+1 ! objector may1 p]haps1 be placat$ by ! repeat$ av[al t nei!r is rationalism proclaim$ to be a :olly new way = ! nations1 nor is ! rationali/ z su* acclaim$ z ! monopoli/ ( good4 ,he respectfully urges ^u ! be/ & able/ foll[]s ( o!r flags t "u 8 !y w n det]iorate or be less *]i%$2 t _! gifts are preci\s 9 8 eyes2 t he wants _! collaboration = humanity's sake4 ,8 panegyric ( ,reason is b ! praise ( :at is wise/ & be/ 9 man3 8 'ism' is ! conc]n to put (f dead husks ( op9ion1 to lift all life to ! plane ( light4 ,! religioni/ may1 if he mu/1 come ov] ) p]mission to call ! cultus ( tru? & sanity a religion3 "s !re are :o suppose !mselves to solve ! dispute by t means1 z ,sp5c] ?\ght to solve x by invit+ ,sci5ce & ,religion to jo9 h&s 9 an av[al ( a common ignorance4 ,su* eir5icons d n seem widely acceptable3 x is really bett] to let words keep _! hi/oric mean+s ?an wilfully to *ange _! values4 ,b if ! "q be :e!r rationalism is a cre$ to live by1 an ideal to live by1 let ^! pages be tak5 z giv+ "p ( ! answ]4 ,pr9t$ by ,t4 & ,a4 ,,con/able1 ,pr9t]s to ,8 ,maje/y at ! ,ed9burgh ,univ]sity ,press