Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-04
AN UNCAUSED CAUSE
Evidences as to Its Nature Derived
From Its Highest Effect.
MAN AND THE ARGU MENT FOR GOD
Existence of Intelligence, Will, Person
ality and Conscience.
[NTUITIyE AND INSTRUCTIVE FACTS
rwRIrrrN FOR THE DISPATCH. ]

| WRITTEN FOR THE DISPATCH
We are in the midst of the statement OF
the argument for God. There are three
steps in the argument, each indicated by one
word. The first step is indicated by the
word cause, the second by the word nature,
the third by the word man.
There is change, and change implies
cause, and cause implies first cause. 1t is
worth while to emphasize this ultimate TACT
second time, because it is popularity called
in question. say "popularly" because no
philosopher, nobody acquainted with the
laws OF reasoning and the nature OF thought,
doubts it. He may he an atheist, still he
will affirm-and is aware that be must afhrm
that there is first cause. A surface Cd,
lection, however, easily presents itself, and
in such plausible shape that IL misleads
some, and it is desirable, therefore, that
every body should know the answer to 1t.
The objection comes after this fashion:
What is the cause oi the first cause? You
find watch, and you say that it exhibits or
shows design. You insist that it is so won
der ul that it must have had a designer-ln
other words, that it is too wonderful not to
have been constructed. You ind the watch
maker, and you say with regard to him that
he, too, must have had designer, for he is
more wonderful than the watch. In imagina-
Jion you go from the matchmaker to
the being you call God, and you
say He designed the matchmaker, but
He Himself was not designed because He is
too wonderful to have been designed. And
yet in the case OF the watch and OF the
matchmaker it was the wonder that sug-
gested design, while In the case of the
maker of the matchmaker the wonder denies
a designer. Do you not see that this argu-
ment destroys itself?" Back we go from
effect to cause, but why stop anywhere?
ONLY ONE REAL CAUSE.
The answer to the question is two evident
facts. One is the fact OF cause. The other is
the fact that there is only one real cause,
and that is an uncaused cause. Or else
cause is delusion, in which case there is
an end to all sane thinking. This is the
dilemma. Between two conditions we must
choose, each of them beyond the circumfer-
ence of comprehension, between an endless
succession OF causes with no initial cause at
all or an uncaused cause. But the choice
it must be plain, is simply between cause
and no cause. But if we say there is no
cause we have committed intellectual sui
eide. Thus we affirm the first step in the
argument for God. There is first cause
What is this cause? Is it matter or mind?
We may learn that by studying its effects.
There are two effects of the first cause. One
is nature; the other is man.
We look out at nature. Here are two
evident facts, the fact OF uniformity and the
fact of adjustment. What kind of cause
lies behind such facts as these? There is
only one valid mode OF reasoning, and that
is to argue from the known to the unknown.
Is there, then, any cause known to us which
produces such effects as these. There is,
and one only, and that cause-what is it?
1t is an intelligent will. We look out then
upon the uniformity and the adjustment of
nature and say an intelligent will did this.
And so saying we take the second step in
the argument for God.
We turn now from the fact of nature to
the TACT of man. The first cause made us.
And what are we?
INDUCTION AND INTUITION
But just here comes in distinction be-
tween the ways of ascertaining truth. Truth
is arrived at by induction and by intuition.
We gather great manv facts together, and
finding by process of induction that all the
facts say the same thing, we assert that that
common testimony is general principle.
This is the reasoning by which we know
that there is order and design in the world
of nature. Intuition, however, is an imme-
diate affirmation of truth, with no prelimi-
naries OF argument. Whatever we know BY
induction We know by process OF argu-
ment; but whatever we know by intuition,
we know simply because We know it. We
may not be able to tell how we know 1t;
nevertheless, we know it. Intuitive truth,
that is, is self-eyident, universal, necessary.
1t cannot be contradicted without absurdity.
It is worth while noticing, just here, that
of these two processes of arriving at truth
the intuitive process, whenever it can be
used, is by far the more certain. There may
be some mistake about our inductive reason
ings we may be generaliZing for INSULT
cient data, but so long as we keep our sanity
there can be no doubt about our intuitive
afirmations. Unless these are true, we
must stop thinking.
Bp this process OF intuition we learn four
facts about ourselves. The TACT of intelli-
gence, the fact of will, the fact of person.
ality, the fact of conscience.
Two of these facts, intelligence and will,
we have been taking for granted all along
during this argument. We have thoughts,
we have purposes-that we know. InteIli-
gence and will we so take for granted that
when we see uniformity in nature we infer
intelligence behind it, and when we see ad-
justment IN nature we infer will behind it,
without the consciousness of any need at all
to prove that there is any intelligence or any
will anywhere. That is, We know it.
THEY ARE INTUITIvE FACTS.
We are all thinking at this moment. That
is as sure as that the sun is in the sky.
lift my hand, my will does that. Intelli-
gence and will are intuitive facts. / know
not how we would proceed to prove them,
any more than 1 know how to prove such
facts as time and space. We simply know
that these are true. No metaphysics, no
augmentation can persuade the sane man
that he does not think: that he does not
will. He does. And that is the end of it.
See how this emphasizes the argument
from nature. Here is an effect of the first
cause, an effect which thinks and wills.
What kind of cause must that be which lies
behind such an effect as this? Is it mind or
is it matter out of which has proceeded a
thinking and self-determining being? We
in ferred from nature that the first cause is
an intelligent will; now we infer it with
double force from man. He that made the
eve, shall He not see? He that made the
mind, shall He not think?
We take the third iact, the fact of per-
sonality. Will anybody deny personality?
Will anybody contradict the assertion that
L am 1? A great philosopher, after ques-
tioning all things in earth and heaven, got
at last on solid ground, when he said: 81
think; therefore 1 am" That, at least, he
was sure of. No one was ever so doubtful
as to doubt that he was doubtful. We know,
as we do not know any fact in the external
world, that zoe are.
We talk about being sure, about really
knowing this and that. Some say that what
they see they know. and nothing else. Do
we know then wnat we see? We look across
the plain at the distant hills and the hills