Omaha daily bee., 1893-10-22

nine people out OF ten who believe that the
agnostic has converted them to his own way
of thinking cannot show a single argument
advanced by him. And therefore,, friends,
public lectures by so-called atheists and In
hdels, even the greatest OF them, carry with
them but little danger of winning any peo-
pie from their old methods Of thought and Of
action. But this Is somewhat apart from
our subject. Let us return. From the
standpoint of science and philosophy we
wish to ascertain now what facts in experi-
ence, IL any, point TO the existence of q di-
vine being.
First, we look to history, for IL Is to his
tory that science first of all must always look.
Throughout the nges, and as far back as
man may possibly follow the tracks Of his
tory. we ind deeply inherent in the nature
of mar q belief in something higher, nobler
and better than man himself. Even the
rudest tribes lave had their gods to which
they pointed as something of great magni-
tude and power. Now, however great and
numerous be the arguments to the contrary,
science and philosophy must agree to this,
that the very universally of a recognition OF
some deity points to the fact that in
man there is the innate instinct of a higher
being. Men felt the want OF something
higher than themselves and, because they
could not rise to the conception Of a spirit
ual God unseen, except in the manifesto
tion OF HIS works, they had to make some
material symbol for the idea, of wood or
stone, or gold. The idol, let it be remetn-
bered, did not ut first stand as God, but 1t
stood simply in the place of a symbol for
Hin. Gradually, however, the sisnif-
canoe was lost and in the eyes of the,
barbarians the wood and stoue
itself because a Goa. Now what l wish TO
SHOW is this: Instincts correspond to some
thing that exists and are never purposeless.
Now because the instinct of worship shows
itself in the lowest of the human species as
well as in the highest. science must admit
that there is something in the universe to
satisfy the yearnings of that instinct-call
it what you will; we call it God.
Again, let us take the scientists on their
W grounds, and II they are at all open to
conviction they must admit that an i'm
portant link ls' lacking in their chain of
arguments. AT the idea of God or n creative
power they scott. Science is their God
force is their God; evolution is their Cod.
Look, they say, and be reasonable. The
earth with its qualifications and varying
layers shows plainly that it is not the crea-
tion of six days, but rather of numberless
aeons. Yes, gentlemen, we say, we admit
that you are right, but the fact that the first
stories in Genesis are to be interpreted
not literally, but in the form Of allegories,
does not in the remotest shake our faith in
God. We tell them tina, we can be as truly
religious without Bellevue any of the myths
or miracles of the bible literally as we can
If we believed any or all of them.
Origin of Mankind.
"But they say that is all very well. But
wherefore do YOU need God At ala Is He not
altogether uselessl They say, Man is but n
higher evolution of a lower species, this
lower of a still lower, and this again of a
lower yet, and so on until the first life is the
evolution from the lifeless particles from
which all these have sprung. Gentlemen,
we follow you, we say; but ten us, If you
please, whence came these frs, particles,
who created them and who put life into
theml o never mind, they say, we don't
care about that. But say that science,
that philosophy, that reason, that thought
cannot and dare not stop here. Beyond the
~lifeless. ~soulless particles of matter there
must be a first cause that brought
them into existence and gave them life. To
say that they are self-created is nonsense,
for that would be to say that nothing
created from nothing and nothing added
to nothing gives nothing. Friends, wo can
understand how by the force of inertia a ball
will continue rolling in a straight line for
ever after 1t has once been set in motion,
unless stopped by some opposing force.
but without that fret force to start it, mo-
universe. We need a first cause. After
that first cause has given life to the lifeless
particles, then we can conceive how, through
evolution, the universe may have come to
what it is. That first cause scientists call
nature, force or energy-we call it God.
But yet d single reference, and we shall
have concluded for tonight. Science has
made wonderful strides in the last century,
generation and decade. 1t has light
ened the work of man; it has
added to his comforts; it has re-
moved many of his disabilities; it
has Strengthened crooked limbs and done
much else for which we must be grateful.
But one thing it has not done and never will
do, it cannot give life; it cannot give
thought; it cannot give feeling.
Let science come to that pitch wherein
1t can give life, thought, hope, love and pity
unto a man, a beast, a bird, aye, even to a
spider or a fly, and in reverence l will call it
God. But that day will never come. Science
may advance to that height wherein 1t nay
make a figure so exactly like a man as to
deceive US all. and with electricity or other
powers endow it with the power of locomo-
tion, but it will never succeed in creating q
soul that shall live, a brain that shall think,
or a heart that shall feel, synpathize and
pity. For these things we need God. Shall
l ask you, dare l ask you, which is the
nobler Of these sentiments, which is the
grander, which is the more sublime, which
is the more reasonableR"