T H E TORCH OF REASON, S IL V E R T O N , OREGON , JU L Y 5, E. >1. 300 (1900.)
Are W e To Be W o rd -trip p e d ?
A lw ay s?
5
to believe God to be as we eould now. Or, theologically phrased, Deity in, or beyond, or after it?
think him to be, was the highest Evolution is th a t system of thought And if he can have no room fo re x -
blasphem y.” W hich m eant: Be a which regards all things as pro- istence in the infinite correlation of
BY T. B. WAKEMAN.
child in the hands of Church and ceeding from an im m anent and the world, how can he “create or
Priests, or as Newman interpreted om nipresent Deity, who eternally de-create” it? W hen H ydrogen an d
We can do nothing w ithout tools, it: Get into the Romish C hurch, creates and de-creates by the cease- Oxygen combine and form water,
Man is best defined as th e “ tool- which takes the same ground— you less and orderly movings of his in- does the water proceed from the
using anim al.” Because to o k are m ust believe “ because it is impossi- dwelling presence.” So say the “ indw elling presence”
of
'an
indispensible we become their de- ble,” or be dam ned.
A religion priests.
im m anent and O m nipresent De­
pendents, and they our inform ers, resting on m ystery is as impreg-
Our au th o r very considerately ity ,” or from the H ydrogen and
teachers, m inisters, m asters and uable as the m ystery. Then, there adds: “ But, my dear sir, this m ust Oxygen gases which actu ally go to
gods.
W ords are our inevitable was our own Jo h n Fiske, who land- be ra th e r tirin g to y o u ;” and so the m ake the w ater, and which m ay
m ind-tools aud organs. By and in ed and lost his splendid “ Cosmic chapter fitly ends with a refreshing be exactly reproduced again from
them m ind travels as does our body Philosophy” in the “ Idea of God” lunch to his hearer. Yes, this con- it? M ay we not say “ absolutely
by and on its limbs. T urn, wrestle, and the “ Unseen W orld.” T hus elusion was “ tirin g ,” and as we and conclusively” th a t th e gases
tw ist, strive, agonize as best we can, he nullified H erbert Spencer, until c a n ’t share the lunch, we pray for m ake the w ater, and th a t no Deity
we are the victim s of our words. Spencer finally spoke out clear, as .inform ation. Is not this phrase, creates it? And so of every other
We can never th in k or be w ithout is shown by his reply to Balfour, j “ an absolutely and conclusively fact or process in the lim itless uni-
or beyond them . Are we t h e n , See Judge W a ite ’s “ Spencer and negative answ er,” a mere word- verse. Do not the sim ple facts of
eterually doomed to be lingual H is Critics,” (pp. 55 57), and the ¡trip , having no m eaning w hatever change take the place of Deity,
slaves? Can we never really know quotations in this serial of Mr. as applied to a fact or law actually N ature, Force and of all the E n tities
or do .anything? W hen we th in k B land.
M any more reactionists found to exist in the objective and Spooks?
we have some bottom of F act or could be nam ed — the query is world? Is it possible, for instance,
Can a person be “ Scientifically
T ru th to build on— it is only a will our reverend au th o r be one of for both the old an 1 the new* As- intellig en t” who persists in talk in g
word . In the beginning was “ The ih
If a th in k er leaves even the tronom y to be true? W hen we find or w riting, for unscientific people, as
word, and the word was G od,” and slightest crack or loop-hole in his th a t the earth goes around th e sun though Science had not thoroughly
so is it now, and ever so will it be?, wall, it is wonderful to see how an n u a lly , can we not say “ abso­ explained the childish ignorance
W here is the Iconoclasm , the A the- quickly some spooky lichen or weed lutely and conclusively” th a t the and consequent innocence out of
ism th a t can deny, kill, crush and will find a lodging for its rootlets sun does not at the same time g<> which these illusions of a “ C reative
obliterate the God-word? Let us of Egoistic hedonism , and finally around the earth? W hen we find D eity” and of a “ Conscious Im m o r­
pray to our own souls for th a tl So briDg down the whole structure.
th a t twice two are four, m ust we ta lity ” arose? and leaving a doubt
we mused as we laid down our old,
This query rises because he well “sleep on the d o u b t’’ before the th a t Science has not “ absolutely and
good, faithful Boston Investigator shows th a t m odern Science, th a t is, Savage who th in k s it may be three conclusively negatived” the possi­
(long m ay it wave!) of Ju n e 23,, the facts proved th a t “ the soul is or five? W hen we find th a t the bot- bility of th eir existence?
E. M. 300 (A. D. 1900), after read ­ but the consciousness produced tom law of Science is “ th a t equiva- i Then again, is not our au th o r
ing the adm irable ch ap ter therein w ithin us by the action of our ner­ lence and correlation of the changes j certain where he should be hypo-
of the serial, “ The Gospel of E v o lu ­ vous tissues; consciousness thus in the world are q u alitativ e and th etical— about “ the transm ission
tion,” by Rev. J. P. B land, B. D. being simply a function of organ- q u a n tita tiv e ,” shall we not say “ ab- from the N ebula to the now?” W as
Reader, by all m eans read th a t ized m atter [protoplasm ] and psy­ solutely an d conclusively” to the not H erbert Spencer too sudden
chapter, if you never read an y th in g chosis, hut a product of ueurosis.” Spookist, your soul, and all souls, about th a t N ebular H ypothesis in
else (except the Investigator and One m ight, could or would suppose are “ but a process of n e u ro sis ”— a treatin g it as a fact? May not
Torch). For it contains the Scientific th a t this proved fact would end the result of change in protoplasm , Lockyer, Proctor, Ball and other
basis, the foundation (w ith refer- question w hether “ this conscious- and not an entity, or spook, or astronom ers be nearer right with
ences to the au th o rities, too), of the ness can still continue to exist spirit of an y kind w hatsoever? th eir Meteoric, Aggregative, Col-
instruction given on th a t subject in after the death (and destruction) of M ust we hesitate in saying th a t a lective, or other Hypothesis? After
our L. U. O., and upon which the the organism whose vital activities thing m ay be a thing, and y et a few thousands or m illions of years,
splendid and glorious satisfaction produced it,” and of which it is no thing at the sam e time?
m ay not our successors in the
of the altru istic im m o rtality in the shown to be the concom itant and
Then about the “ w orkings of “ E a rth ly P ara d ise” find th a t our
E arthly P aradise is tau g h t in resultant?
¡N a tu re ’s im m an en t and creative So!ar System is still young and
place of the exploded old Egotistic
B ut no! A 11 of this scientific cer- Force.” Is not our au th o r here vigorous, still picking up cornets,
Im m ortality of the Celestial Mirage, taiu ty is m erely so much fat which w ord-tripped out of Science into etc., as it goes along, and th a t the
or ‘ Sum m er L a n d .’ But then, if he throws into the fire of doubt. For, M ythology? N ature (c ap ita l N) is horrid stories of its burning or
this reverend gentlem an has done Our reverend friend goes right on ''im ply the begetting or passing of freezing out were childish dream s of
his Scientific-construction work so to say: “ To th a t question the sci- one correlate into another in the the Theology which gave us the
well—why not enjoy it in silence, entifically intelligent can no longer process of world changes. It is a creative God, and the post m ortem
or m ake the world echo with its give an affirm ative answer, and fact—a link in the infinite process personality and conscious im m or­
applause? The latter we wish to th a t neither can they give an abso-I °f co rrelatio n —or a Goddess o r a tality ?
Do you say we inquire “ too curi-
do but with a word of reserve a n d j j u le jv a n j conclusively negative SHE working like V enus or Diana?
caution. Does the Learned A uthor one; t his absolute negative being
Then, too, is not “ C reative Force” ously” to inquire »0? No! We of
in the end mean to bring down excluded— if, for no other reason, a w ord-trip? How can N ature have the Liberal U niversity are under
upon us again th a t old arm y of by the possibility th a t there m ay, any e n tity F o rce,creativ e or other? the highest and strongest obliga-
One change is found, as the funda- tions to teach “ th e tru th , th e whole
spooks, dressed in new uniforms, i f()r au g h t we know, be infinitely
but gibbering th eir old nonsense in „
>More th in g s in heaven and e a rth m ental law of all Science, to be the tru th , and nothing hut the tru th .
new and half m ysterious words , T han are dream ed of in our p h ilo so p h y .” equivalent and correlative of a pre- We m ust do all we can to keep
which paralyze because we c a n ’t Consequently, such rays and gleams c e d in g and a subsequent one. M ust from being hum bugged, bam boozled
clearly m ake out w hat they may of im m o rta lity ’s hope as men may we not say “ absolutely and con- or w ord-tripped, or from allow ing
mean?
still be able to rationally cherish, clusively” th a t no other C reative others to become so. T his expo-
This is the old trick of Obscura- Science and sound philosophy Force is possible? Is not the scien- eition of Mr. B land is ex trao rd in -
tism. There was Sir W illiam H am ­ neither frown on nor discourage; tific m eaning of Force sim ply a a ri,y good a »d useful. Let it be
ilton. How splendidly his “ P h il­ but the probabilities of rnan’a con- j nam e for the changes of the rca^ by every one; then answ er the
osophy of the U nconditioned” gives sciously surviving his body’s death modes of m otion in the world?
queries above suggested, as the Sei-
us the m ental su n light in which to are seemingly very slig h t.” He is
Then, is not “ an im m inent i an d entific m ethod logically and tru th -
work and build on E a rth . B ut how not certain th at the life ceases when om nipresent D eity” another word- fully requires, and you m ay add
soon was it all beclouded by th a t the body is gone which produced trip into m ythology? Is not a .still more to its usefulness.
“legitim ate b e lie f’ which gave The­ the life— whose activity it wa9!
Deity as “ absolutely and conclusive­
Then the article closes by defining ly” impossible as th a t “ conscious
ology the stronger sway of u n lim it­
To know when to speak and when
rerna’n silent is a fine knowl-
ed,because unconditioned, authority the U niverse “ as the n a tu ra l pro- im m o rtality ” after d ea th ? If the
o r^ 8 have led to m urders,
of “ R evelation.” “ Belief,” was his duct of the orderly workings of world is found to be a lim itless
N ature’s im m anent creative Force p ro c e ss o f eq u iv alen t correlation o f } a quarrel, the silent t o n g u e d the
killing word.
Then Dean M ansel told us “ th a t, . . . from the Nebula to the (c langes, w hat room is there for a t wise m an ’s possession.