A Candid Examination of Theism. George John Romanes
Читать онлайн книгу.
target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_48bc7aa8-fb42-51c2-8720-ac46b55b22f3">16. Summary of considerations as to the value of this Argument from Inconceivability.
17. Introductory to the other Arguments in favour of the conclusion that only Intelligence can have caused Intelligence.
18. Locke's presentation of the view that the cause must contain all that is contained in the effects. His statements contradicted. Mill quoted to show that the analogy of Nature is against the doctrine of higher perfections never growing out of lower ones.
19. Enunciation of the last of the Arguments in favour of the proposition that only Intelligence can cause Intelligence. Hamilton quoted to show that in his philosophy the entire question as to the being of a God hinges upon that as to whether or not human volitions are caused.
20. Absurdity of the old theory of Free-will. Hamilton erroneously identified this theory with the fact that we possess a moral sense. His resulting dilemma.
21. Although Hamilton was wrong in thus identifying genuine fact with spurious theory, yet his Argument from the fact of our having a moral sense remains to be considered.
22. The question here is merely as to whether or not the presence of the moral sense can be explained by natural causes. A priori probability of the moral sense having been evolved. A posteriori confirmation supplied by Utilitarianism, &c.
23. Mill's presentation of the Argument a resuscitation of Paley's. His criticism on Paley shown to be unfair.
24. The real fallacy of Paley's presentation pointed out.
25. The same fallacy pointed out in another way.
26. Paley's typical case quoted and examined, in order to illustrate the root fallacy of his Argument from Design. Mill's observations upon this Argument criticised.
27. Result yielded by the present analysis of the Argument from Design. The Argument shown to be a petitio principii.
THE ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL LAWS.
28. My belief that no competent writer in favour of the Argument from Design could have written upon it at all, had it not been for his instinctive appreciation of the much more important Argument from General Laws. The nature of this Argument stated, and its cogency insisted upon.
29. The rational standing of the Argument from General Laws prior to the enunciation of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy. The Rev. Baden Powell quoted.
30. The nature of General Laws when these are interpreted in terms of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy. The word "Law" defined in terms of this doctrine.
31. The rational standing of the Argument from General Laws subsequent to the enunciation of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy.
32. The self-evolution of General Laws, or the objective aspect of the question as to whether we may infer the presence of Mind in Nature because Nature admits of being intelligently interrogated.
33. The subjective aspect of this question, according to the data afforded by evolutionary psychology.
34. Correspondence between products due to human intelligence and products supposed due to Divine Intelligence, a correspondence which is only generic. Illustrations drawn from prodigality in Nature. Further illustrations. Illogical manner in which natural theologians deal with such difficulties. The generic resemblance contemplated is just what we should expect to find, if the doctrine of evolutionary psychology be true.
35. The last three sections parenthetical. Necessary nature of the conclusion which follows from the last five sections.
THE LOGICAL STANDING OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE BEING OF A GOD.
36. Emphatic re-statement of the conclusion reached in the previous chapter. This conclusion shown to be of merely scientific, and not of logical conclusiveness. Preparation for considering the question in its purely logical form.
37. The logic of probability in general explained, and canon of interpretation enunciated.
38. Application of this canon to the particular case of Theism.
39. Exposition of the logical state of the question.
40. Exposition continued.
41. Result of the exposition; "Suspended Judgment" the only logical attitude of mind with regard to the question of Theism.
THE ARGUMENT FROM METAPHYSICAL TELEOLOGY.
42. Statement of the position to which the question of Theism has been reduced by the foregoing analysis.
43. Distinction between a scientific and a metaphysical teleology. Statement of the latter in legitimate terms. Criticism of this statement legitimately made on the side of Atheism as being gratuitous. Impartial judgment on this criticism.
44. Examination of the question as to whether the metaphysical system of teleology is really destitute of all rational support. Pleading of a supposed Theist in support of the system. The principle of correlation of general laws. The complexity of Nature.
45. Summary of the Theist's pleading, and judgment that it fairly removes from the hypothesis of metaphysical teleology the charge of the latter being gratuitous.
46. Examination of the degree of probability that is presented by the hypothesis of metaphysical teleology, comprising an examination of the Theistic objection to the scientific train of reasoning on account of its symbolism, and showing that a no less cogent objection lies against the metaphysical train of reasoning on account of its embodying the supposition of unknowable causes. Distinction between "inconceivability" in a formal or symbolical, and in a material or realisable sense. Reply of a supposed Atheist to the previous pleading of the supposed Theist. Herbert Spencer quoted on inconceivability of cosmic evolution as due to Mind.
47. Final judgment on the rational