New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-02-10
Big Plumbers Bills

philosophers, men OF science and men Of the
word. The newspapers. which seldom seek to
handle such matters edtorially, discuss him
with animation, If not always with very clear
view Of what he is aiming at They discuss
him in certain quarters also, with feeling Of
d!smay due to their perception Of the fact that
the Conservative leader IS in the high sense Of
the word a sceptic; such sceptic, that is. as
Montague was Pascal was. and perhaps.
nearest of all. as Newman was His SPIRIT
where 1t Is not sceptica, is essentially scientific.
Perhaps there is not so very much difference be-
tween the two. His book is entitled THE
Foundation OF Belief" At first sight. or as
first impression, he may seem rather 10 uh-
settle the foundations than TO strengthen tnem
That will not. think. be found the ultimate
effect Of this treatise. 1t might almost De de-
scribed as a new religion on the runs
Of the new philosophy. That wouid come
as near the truth rs most epigrams 10
But the book cannot be dismissed IN
an epigram and Of course cannot De re-
viewed by cable do not attempt an account OF
It. wish only to remark that II cannot be put
aside. either by metaphyscians or theoiogians'
1t is from whatever point Of view you look al
It, contribution to the thought of the time on
the most important and difficult problems OF all
time.
Mr. Balfour has long been philosophical stu
dent He knows the literature Of his subject
Long before he made a name in politics or led
party or graduated as a statesman. he was known
to his friends and to a few readers of unusual
books as an acute and daring thinker. trained in
a severe school of daeeics. Historically and
officially he is master of his subject, and as a
logican he has not many superiors in this or
he hac plungel into
what may still be called the conflict between re-
ugion and science He attacks Rationasm and
Naturalism, of which he deems ethical Nj
hilism the inevitable outcome. He rejects the
philosophy of the senses. He declares the as
sumption of the existence of a God more de-
fcnsbe on scientific grounds than the proposition
OF science that there is Independent material
world. Nevertheless, he shrinks throughout from
anything like definite statement Of belief. He
offers only provisional solution OF existing diff
culties Once more. he affirms, as all theologians
have had to affirm. the necessity of faith. which
he curiously qualities as a faith not in excess OF
reason as If reason had anything to do with that
matter. The synthess Of which he Is in search,
a synthesis in which scientific thought and re-
lgious thought may find common denon,ina-
tor is not TO be had without sacrifices on both
sides.
Some of the admissions and assertions MT
Balfour makes must leave the orthodox aghas'.
Most certainly they will not accept his processes
hardly even his conclusions. nor yet his dehni-
ton Of the movable ard unknowable. and still
less his adoption of Hume's arguments. Hume.
nevertheless, and his own mind led him to con-
clusion remote from Humes. and though he viii
not base a conclusion on the old argument from
design which Hume refuted once for all. he
reaches in the end the theory that the origin or
the world must be sought in the presupposition
of a rational being. On that the new religion Is
to rest. and the new religion on such basis IL
not so very far off from the DID, except that 1t
will contain good deal less of dogmatic theo!-
ogy and much more Of spiritual insight. as well
as Of that unfnching effort toward truth TO
which the intellect and reason have more to say
than mere unaided faith G.. w. S.