T H E TORCH o f REASON, S IL V E R T O N , OREGON , S E P T E M B E R 6, E. M. 300 (1900.)
6
------ - i — J
“7
; , K ± w >>
a d -’T r AnHl 1 "oil.
in t h j Whv evidently, “ the all things known scientific evolutionist would the banners of Liberty, Science and
o n t o C ? r « I R c C n t e d L n h iw .” Here is not tak e Mr. B land up on th a t H u m a n ity , to the “ E arth ly P ara-
On page 79 the doctrine of the creation of the point, for if there ia one idea incon- d i s e t h e true “promised land
andf8ay d e ln X n ‘ frul Of abeurditiee
in its o r t h X presentation, and
diam etrically opposed to scientific
.
i ' T H p best w ee ui wish
fo“/ 7 brave ’l i l devoted to good
nurnose
according
to
our
m undane God. But worse th a n the I u n d ersta n d it], it is the idea th a t
o,d God, this one also “ d e - c r e a . e s is put forth by th e word -D eny’
th a t is, he is the “ A ctu a lity ” which and th e word ‘God.' and the de-
may exercise the “ possibility” of pendent pronouns, him and his.
not only “de-creating” but of ere-
A nother m a tte r of regret was th a t
of
P ersonally, this regret is great
As an tn stru cto r tn a d ecs.v ely
L ite ra l, th a t is to say em anctpa e
1 m versity, with its paper
b
Torch of R eason, we reach thou-
con J a.in g . “ survival” and an “ ¡tumor- our F rie n d 's “ gospel” did not bring sands of readers weekly, bestdes
science, ’is the eternal peace of the ta lity ” for the consciousness of a forward the h u m an , social race- our students. A “ Gospel of E v o ­
„
defunct m osquito. B ut how is he Im m o rtality ,b ased upon Scientific lu tio n ,” scientifically w ritten, is
« T t0 the dualistic DeRy bush to do th is? Scientifically, by the anthropology,”
to which Prof. w hat we need. In our F rie n d ’s
n e t he negatives it utterly. He correlation of alw ays existing m at- Haeckel referred. T h a t concept is work we thought it was com ing,
’ “ Science when its d a ta are ter and its changes called force? the re su ltan t flower of the g ran d and we quoted from
« - u and
j adver-
says Science,
I No, We rta d , hat hf, is t(, d„ ¡, Science of historical Sociology. Its Used it largely. We had no idea
soberly interpreted h
- bv the ceaseless and orderly mov- “ E nthusiasm and Religion of Hu- th a t a retrograde “ gospel” about
tity —iia
— N atu
re—slow iv
ly,hlioilly,pain-1
the ceaseless a n d .o ru r
y
^ •
“ Im m ortality and D eity” was ap-
litv
iu rt:—»inn
,
o '“ **'
j
• „ „ „ , xi hp
i • c in3riira.
•
:
fu lly unfolding itself on the T heatre Ungs of his indw elling presence.” m an tty ” is now he ch.ef tnsp.ra-
of T im e ” All of the deities are j T h a t is, he, by ceaseless and order- tioo of th e Liberals, Scientists, pearing in our reliable old Liberal
thoroughly dissipated into nothing- ly m ovings of his presence, d w e ll-, P h ila n th ro p ists and Reform ers of Investigator; and, least of all, did
ness. N othing short of P antheism Ing inside of som ething[?J, creates the world, upon whom its em anct- we suppose th a t “questions,” en­
...
m
m • * JS
ft* 4 Z .
-wAe.-m, Vwmwu
ft > t k / A ** L
—
1 ■ ft ■ ft a X 11 I 1 frX ft I ll ism abling answers to be given th a t
or Atheism is reconcilable with “ all things,” and they from him “ pro- pation from superstition, and its
progress tow ards the “ E a rth ly m ight save the whole w*ork at the
moderu knowledge of reality. ’ “ God ceed” out into existence? This is
P aradise” lar gely depends. A ‘ Gos­ last m om ent, would be treated as a
and the world are one!” He uses m erely the old God of the C ate­
But
pel of E v o lu tio n ,” which does not presum ption or an insult.
the word “ W orld E nigm a” (W el- chism which Hays: “ The work of
reach up to, and blossom out with alasl as the R om anists say it:
tra th se l) as descriptive of the E ther creation is G od’s m aking ‘all things
th at ffower, is a sad case of “ a rre st­ “ Once a priest, alw ays a p riest”—
problem which is next to be solved. of nothing, by the word of his
not only in thought, but in m anner.
ed developm ent.”
T he idea of the great M onist, power.” Our Friend changes this
We regret th a t on account of our
Haeckel, countenancing the notion creed only by inserting “ Movings
F rie n d ’s presenting an unscientific Travels: M orning on the Pacific
th a t some “ A ctuality,” “ D eity” or of bis indw elling presence” instead
Shore: B aths, and S ig h ts
God and im m o rtality , as the o u t­
“ Energy” of the universe could up- of the “ word of his power.” I may
and T houghts.
set its laws in favor of the post i be “ superficial,” hut the m aterial come oi his “G ospel,” it is likely, as
m ortem consciousness of a man or I difference between the old and the it is, to be an injury rath e r than a
benefit. The question of the age
BY T . B. W A K E M A N .
a m osquito, is a delicious absurdity. new definition does not appear to
is, can Theology get some w arrant
H e says (p . 79): “ The law of sub­ me. In both cases “ all th in g s”
or excuse for itself beyond the reach
We first saw this shore with the
stance [correlation J rules in th e re­ came into existence from the creat­
m otest regions of space, as it does ing God, and by the “ energy” of of Science and its know ahle world? setting sun, and followed th a t over
on earth . The persistence of m at­ bis “ presence,” or the “ word of his Then they can say as of old: “ I to Asia with various reflections on
ter and force has been as universal power” and out of nothing, for this believe because it is im possible.” the progress of E m pire, to be read
in all time as it is today. The is the m eaning of the word “ cre­ Thus, Sir W illiam H am ilton and in the last Torch.
Now the fresh light and breeze of
un ity and continuity of the world, ate;” and our F rie n d ’s definition Mausel gave the u ltim ate as “ be­
in tim e, has been proved as utterly does not intim ate th a t the creation lief,” McCosh gave “ in tu itio n ,” the the m orning finds me on the sam e
as its un ity in actual existence.” was out of anything; w hat’s more, S p iritu a lists “ sp irit.” And as long fine, soft, light grayish bed of sand,
Space lim it prevents more q u o ta ­ not even o u t of the God himself. as there is any doubt about the looking out on the sam e, but diff­
tions. Read bis works, and all H ad he so m eant, he m ight have certaiuty and infinite reach of Sci­ erent appearing world of w aters
d o ubt about H aeckel’s solid repug­ used the word “co rrelate;” hut the ence, i. e., of correlation, the ignor­ and shore. F or the wind had fresh­
nance to every conceivable phase word correlate would at once oust a n t or fanatic priests and m inisters, ened a t night, and the rollers
of God or Ghost will vanish at once. his Deity, for by their correlation will have their way w ith the m ass­ seemed more like ranges of young
But suppose all of these “ a u th o r­ “ all th in g s” run them selves w ith ­ es; will keep on saying, “ Down on m ountains trying to find the greater
ities,” and more, did support our out creation, beginning or end, and your m arrow -bones, Y e m iserable ranges on the shore. But they had
Friend’s notions, they could not are at once the world and God of sinners, ’fess and pray and give us th eir old long m ajestic sweep.
B yron’s ocean apostrophe: “ Roll
help him a particle, except in so Science. In th a t correlative view your h earts and money, or the
far as they express the facts, laws there is no possible room fo r a c re ­ “ D eity” will dam n you, su re.” And on, thou deep and d ark blue ocean,
and results of N ature and Science. ator, or ex tra-m u n d an e D^ity, and so the redem ption and progress of roll,” etc., seems to recall the
They all “ e rr” as to m any things, so all references to “ Him or “ H is” this world must wait upon an in ­ Pacific ra th e r th an the A tlantic,
but Science never ‘ errs;” and Sci- are om itted from m odern scientific ane and stupid superstition about after you have seen both.
The Pacific m akes us exclaim :
ence is the only filial au th o rity , works. The world has ceased to be “ another world;” for “ where your
T ruth only bears the torch in the regarded as a D ualism , because it [fear an d ] treasure is, there your Thou glorious M irror, where the Al­
m ighty’s form
search for tru th . Now th a t we has been discovered to be a Monism. heart will be also.”
Glasses
itself in Tem pests; in all time
A nother and an unexpected re­ Calm or convulsed—in
come to first band with our F rien d ’s The All does not “ reveal energy”
breeze, or gale,
gret
comes
from
the
ungracious
nnd
or
storm
,
“ D eity,” let us see whether it is a nor “ proceed from it” as a “ D eity,”
w . h c . our m
enu
^ X ^ d le lT n d
uuliberal way in which
Friend
as our F riend says. Energy is the —
reality or a spook.
sublime,
As Haeckel says: “ God and the power of th e All to do work, its own listens to questions or criticism . ]
world are one.” This is his short- activity, and is in nowise separate The questions referred to m ay have The Ima£e of E ternity.
Q uite different all this from the
est wav of re-stating the u ltim ate from it, nor creating it. You m ight seemed “ careless” because they were
law of correlation and equivalence, as well say th a t a w orkm an pro- not expressed in his own inim itable rushing cu rren ts and high tides,
If our Friend means only this, he ceeds from his labor, or th a t a style; hut th a t was not m aterial, the fitful hurricanes an d tornadoes,
is at one with the Science of the head proceeds or is created by its for they were certainly intelligible the “ gray m elancholy w aste,” bro­
world, and we agree with him , and headache! But it is all too absurd —certain ly so
when com pared ken by the chop-seas, of the narrow ,
would rejoice as we began to do i to consider. There is nothing in it with our F rie n d s vapory defini- rock-bound and storm -tossed A t­
over the first part of his “ Gospel.” but Spook. Infinite correlation is tio n s. That they were not “ super- lantic.
T he children have brought up
But his explaining definition of M onism, and “ The A ll” is all there ficial” is evident from the fact th a t
tide-rim strange
our F rien d makes a reply w ithout from the
_
w shells,
Evolution and Deity, above quoted, i8t
The ending of our F rien d ’s “ Gos- an answ er. T h a t they seemed “ self- razor clam s and “ sea-weeds rich
was sufficient to prom pt the ques­
lions, Is
is not
uoi this
u n s th
n.c e m old
hi v
vcv .
pel of E v o lu tio n ” in this unscien- conceited” to him , is because he and stran g e.” Did you ever see a
tions.
G j iu
host?
Is not this Dualism? For, by th a t tific “ Im m o rtality and D eity” was did not appreciate the im portance “ sea-onion” nearly a hundred feet
definition we have “ all things pro- a m atter of profound regret to his of his work to others, nor their cruel long? It is a sort of vegetable sea-
jeeding from an Im m in en t and scientific and Liberal friends. The disappointm ent when it led them serpent. Its germ catches on some
O m nipresent Deity who eternally lady referred to w rites: “ I won- back to the d irty flesh-pots of old — --------------------------------------------- -
creates anti de-creates”— w hat? dered whether or no some well , E gypt, instead of forward, under i
Concluded on 8th page.