The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-09-21
COMMUNICATIONS.
PROF. LIE OONTE AS THEIST AND
EVOLUTIONIST.

DR.. William Tucker, published in THE UNIvER-
sALIsr of Sept. Z, entitled Evolution as Inter
preted by its Advocates" in which Prof. LIE
Conte was quoted. 1t is well known that LIE
Conte is a theistic evolutionist. EDIToR.l
1t is not just to any thinker to
quote an isolated phrase and from it
construct a man of straw, that we
may satisfy our vanity by it's over
throw. I think, therefore, you should
give Prof. LeConte fuller hearing.
He says: "The issue Qet us look
it squarely in the face) is: either God
is far more closely related with ma
ture, and operates it in a more direct
way than we have recently been ac-
customed to think, or else (mark the
alternative) nature operates itself
and needs no God at all. There is no
middle ground tenable. What, then,
Is practically the notion which most
people have of the relation of Deity
to Nature9 1t is that of great mas
ter-mechanic far away above us, and
beyond our reach, who once upon a
time, long ago, and once for all,
worked, created matter, endowed it
with necessary properties and powers,
constructed at once out of hand this
wonderful cosmos with it's numberless
wheels within wheels, endowed it with
forces, put springs in it, wound it up,
set it agoing, and then-rested. The
thing has continued to go of itself
ever since. He might have not only
rested but slept, and the thing would
have gone of itself. But no, l forget.
He must not sleep or die, for the
work is not absolutely perfect. There
are some things too hard even for
him to do in this masterful, God like
way. There are some things which
even he cannot do except in prem
tice-like, man-like way. The hand
must be introduced from time to time
to repair, to rectify, to improve, es-
pecially to introduce new parts, such
as new organic forms.
"See, then, how the issue is forced.
Either nature is sufficient of itself
and wants no God at all, or else this
whole idea, the history of which we
have been tracing, is radically false.
We have here given by science either
demonstration of materialism or else
a redatctio dd absurdatm; which is it?
/ do not hesitate a moment to say it
is reductio dd obsatrduna, and / be-
lieve that evolution has conferred an
inestimable benefit on philosophy and
on religion by forcing this issue and
compelling us to take more rational
view. What, then, is the alternative
view? 1t is the utter rejection with
Berkeley and with Swedenborg of the
Independent existence of matter and
the real efficient agency of natural
forces. It is the frank return to the
old idea of direct divine agency, but
in new, more rational, less anthrop-
omorphic form. 1t is the bringing
together and complete reconciliation
of the two apparently antagonistic
and mutually excluding views of d.
rect agency and natural law. Such
reconciliation we have already seen is
the true test of irrational philosophy.
cit is the belief in God not far away
beyond our reach, who once long ago
enacted laws and created forces,
which continue of themselves to run
the machine we call nature. but a
God immanent, God resident in
nature. at all times and in all places
directing every event and determin-
ing every phenomena, God in
whom in the most literal sense not
only we but all things have their be-
ing, in whom all things consist,
through whom all things exist, and
without whom there would be and
could be nothing. According to this
view the phenomena of nature are
naught else than objectifed modes
of divine thought, the forces of nat
ure naught else than different forms
of one omnipresent divine energy or
will, the laws Of nature naught else
than the regular modes of operation
of that divine will, invariable because
he is Interchangeable. y Again
it will be objected that this is pure
Pantheism.' Again, we answer yes.
Call it so if you like, but far differ
ent from what goes under that name,
far different from the pantheism which
sublimates the personality of the
Deity into all pervading unconscious
force, and thereby dissipates all our
hopes of personal relation with him.
Properly understood, We believe this
view completely reconciles the two
antagonistic and mutually excluding
views of impersonal pantheism and