OF
VOL. 2.
S IL V E R T O N , OREGON, T H U R SD A Y , N O V EM BER 10, 1898.
Press On.
BY PARK BENJAM IN.
Brens on! su rm o u n t th e rocky steeps,
C lim b boldly o ’er th e to r r e n t’s arch ;
He fails alone w ho feebly creeps !
H e wins who dares th e h e ro ’s m arch .
Be thou a h ero ! let th y m ig h t
T ram p on e te rn a l snow s its w ay,
And, th ro u g h th e ebon walls of n ig h t,
Hew dow n a passage u n to day.
Press on ! an d if once a n d tw ice th y feet
Slip back an d stu m b le , h a rd e r tr y ;
From him w ho never dreads to m eet
D anger an d d e a th , th e y ’re su re to fly.
To cow ard ra n k s th e bullet sjreeds,
W hile on th e ir b reast w ho never quail,
G leam s, g u ard ian of ch iv alric deeds,
B right courage, like a coat of m ail.
Press on! if F o rtu n e play th ee false
To-day, to-m orrow s h e ’ll be tr u e ;
W hom now she sin k s, she now ex alts,
T aking old trifts and g ra n tin g new.
The w isdom of th e p re se n t h o u r
M akes u p th e follies p a st and gone;
To w eakness, stre n g th succeeds, and
pow er
From frailty sp rin g s! P ress on, press
on!
T herefore, press on and reach th e goal,
And gain th e prize and w ear th e
crow n ;
F ain t not, for to th e stead fast soul
Come w ealth , and honor, and renow n.
To th in e own self be tru e , and keep
T hy m in d from slo th , thy th o u g h t
from soil.
4 ’ress on, and th o u sh a lt surely reap
A bounteous h a rv e st for th y toil.
— F avorite Poem s.
Joseph
Cook’s “ Scientific
Theism”
. *
i
BY EDGAR C. BEALL.
F all the fallacies in theolog­
ical reasoning, some form
of the “ vicious circle” , or
circular syllogism , is w ithout doubt
the most common, as well as th e
most specious and subtle. Defined
in general term s, it consists in
proving the prem ises by the con­
clusion, an d then the conclusion by
the premises.
In other words, a s­
sum ing or sta tin g w ithin one of the
premises, som ething, the tru th of
which could never he established,
or which would never be adm itted,
until after the d em onstration of
the conclusion. The whole arg u ­
m ent from design begs the ques­
tion; hut the m ost sin g u lar feature
about it is, th a t the leading theo­
logians, perceiving th eir error, now-
come forw ard with a new set of
circular argum ents, which are, if
possible, even more sophistical th an
the old. Of the cham pions of “ sci­
entific th eism ” , doubtless the most
popular representative in the U n it­
ed States is Joseph Cook, of Boston.
In his lecture entitled “ M atthew
A rnold’s Views on Conscience” ,Mr.
Cook presents w hat he calls the
“ scientific answ er” to th e obvious
defect in P aley ’s reasoning.
I
quote verbatim :
‘•But the answ er is th is: T hat
we cannot have a dependent ex ist­
ence w ithout an independent or
O
R eason .
self-existent being to depend uj>on.
All existence, to p u t th e argum ent
in syllogistic form, is either depend­
ent or independent.
You are sure
of th a t? Yes. Well if there is a
dependent existence, there m ust he
an independent; for thers can not
he dependence w ithout som ething
to depend upon, and an infinite
series of links receding forever is
• an effect w ithout a cause. Y our
axiom th a t every change m ust have
an adequate cause is denied by the
theory of an infinite series. You
carry up your chain link after link
and there is nothing to hang the
last link upon.
“ 1. All possible existence is either
dependent or independent.
“ 2. If there is dependent exist­
ence, there m ust be independent
existence, for there cannot be de­
pendence w ithout dependence on
som eth’ng. An endless chain w ith­
out a point of support is an effect
w ithout a cause; dependence w ith ­
out independence is contradiction
in term s.
“ 3. I am a dependent existence.
“ 4. Therefore there is independ­
ence existence. B ut independent
existence is self-existence.
“ 1. All possible being is either
self-existent or not self-existent.
“ 2. If there is being which is not
self-existent, the principle that
every change m ust have an ade­
q u ate cause, requires th a t there
should exist being that is self ex­
istent.
“ 3. I am a being th a t is not self-
existent.
“ 4. Therefore, there is being th at
is self-existent. So, too, with ex­
act loyalty to self-evident tru th ,
we may say:
‘‘1.
A ll possible persons are
either self-existent or not self-exist­
ent.
“ 2. If there exist a person th a t is
not self-existent, there m ust he a
person th a t is self-existent.
“ 3. I am a person not self-exist­
ent.
“ 4. Therefore, there is a person
who is self-existent. It is H e.”
The introductory rem arks, and
the first four of these propositions,
are, w ithout doubt, su b stan tially
correct; provided, however, th a t we
can construe the third proposition
to ineon th at m an is “ dependent”
upon the universe in a relative and
not in an absolute sense, in the
second argum ent, the first and sec­
ond propositions are also logical;
but th e th ird , “ I am a being th a t is
not self-existent,” like the third
proposition in the first argum ent,
is true only in the sense th a t man
did not a tta in personality by an
act of his own volition; or inde­
pendently of certain reactions be­
tween his organism and its envi­
ronm ents which were necessary to
his developm ent. The fourth propo­
sition is adm issible, provided Mr.
Cook does not here attach to the
word “ being” the idea of organism
or personality. Man is, of course,
a “dependent” or contingent being,
so far as regards the fact of his
having become an organism w ith­
out any exercise of his own will; or
in th e sense th a t he is an objective
expression or m anifestation of a
certain force or tendency inherent
in m atter, which m ay he said to
underlie his personality. Thus, rel­
atively, his individual organism is
“ dependent” upon this subjective
force, or com bination of forces and
environm ents in nature; but, re­
garded absolutely, he forms a part
of the etern ally self-existent en tire­
ty of the universe. As an effect, he
bears the sam e relation to the u n i­
verse th a t the leaf does f> the tree.
A leaf is, relatively, an expression
of a process or function of the tree,
and is dependent on this function
only for its form and in d iv id u al­
ity. But as an absolute existence,
it is a p art of the tree, and is as in ­
dependent of any forces outside of
the tree as the tree itself is. Or, if
it he objected to this illustration
th a t the tree is not self-sustaining,
we m ay com pare m an a t once to
the tree. R ealatively, th a t is, as a
definite stru ctu re, the tree is de­
pendent upon its environm ents,
such as earth , air, w ater, and light;
but absolutely, its particles are
composed of m aterial elem ents
found in earth , air, etc., thus form ­
ing a p a rt of the universe as a self-
existing whole.
Let us now especially notice the
second proposition in the th ird and
last argum ent, viz.: “ If there exist
a person th a t is not self-existent,
there m ust be a person th a t is self-
existent.” As this is the pivot upon
which the syllogism rests, if it can
not be established as true, the
whole argum ent m ust fall. H ave
we, then, any evidence th a t it is
true? Does Mr. Cook offer any?
Not the slightest. He sim ply a s­
sum es th a t nothing short of a d i­
vine Person could he an adequate
cause of hum an personality. And
this he does w ithout any induction
w hatever to w arran t such a notion.
T his proposition is only a subtle
m ethod of asserting th a t there is a
C reator, because it is on all sides
conceded th a t, in a relative sense,
m an is not self-existent; th a t is, not
self-fyistaining, or independent of
his environm ents. B ut w hat is the
whole syllogism intended to prove?
W hy, sim ply th a t there is a Crea­
tor. Could there be an y greater
sophistry than this?
To make the “ vicious circle” still
more ap p aren t, let us reconstruct
Mr. Cook's argum ent, and express
it in words which will perhaps a d ­
m it of less am biguity:
NO. 44.
1. All non-self-sustaining per­
sons are caused by a Self-Sustain­
ing Person.
2. I am a non-self-sustaining
person.
3. Therefore, I am caused by a
Self-Sustaining Person; i. e., by a
God.
Now, it will be clear to the
reader th a t the first proposition
here v irtu ally contains an assertion
th a t there is a personal God; be­
cause, as I have already explained,
all concede th a t m an does not ex ­
ist or sustain him self independently
of certain conditions and en v iro n ­
m ents external to his organism .
It will be equally clear th at the
th ird proposition, or conclusion,
contains the sam e assum ption.
Rhus the whole argum ent is a
circle.
I have stated th a t m an is rela­
tively, non-self-existpnt, though
when regarded absolutely, as a
p art of the in destructible en tirety
of the m aterial w orld, he is self-
existent. As this distinction m ight
afford some ground for cavil, I will
say th a t in this case it is en tirely
unnecessary for us to attem p t to
indicate m an ’s exact relation to the
universe. F o r the sake of the a r­
gum ent, we will concede th a t m an
is in no sense self-exister.t, and
th a t he is contingent or dependent
upon a “ som ew hat” external to
himself. Now, can, or does, Mr.
Cook prove th a t th is “ som ew hat'’
is a “Some-One” ? A d m ittin g the
th ird proposition, “ I am a person
not self-existent,” upon w hat a u ­
thority does Mr. Cook lay down
the second proposition, “ If there
exist a person th at is not self-exist­
ent, there m ust be a person th a t is
self-existent” ? How i^ it possible
to establish this premise, w ithout
first establishing the fo u rth propo­
sition, or conclusion, which is, suh-
ta n tia lly , the assertion that there
is a God? Is there not here a pos­
itive violation of th e rules of syllo­
gism, which require th a t the evi­
dence supporting the prem ises m ust
he gathered from external sources?
Induction m ust precede deduction.
W e have no right to draw a p artic­
u lar conclusion from a general
proposition unless the latter is a l­
ready adm itted or has been dem on­
strated. Mr. Cook’s arg u m en t is
about as logical as th e following:
1. All possible leaves either grow
by them selves, or upon trees, or
som ething resem bling trees.
2. I f there exist a leaf th a t did
not grow by itself, there m ust be a
leaf th a t did grow by itself.
- -
________
Concluded on 8th page.
«