The San Francisco call., 1896-02-12

To the Editor Of The CGll-DEAR SIR: l see
in your issue of Monday the synopsis of lee
ture by Dr. J. L. York in reply to my argument
on 'Infallibility' delivered before the Educa-
tional Union. That argument presupposed
the existence of God and the existence of
revelation from God to man. Naturally DR..
York objects to these suppositions and deyotes
his lecture 10 a description OF the divine and
OF revelation.
In his survey of the universe the learned
lecturer discovers certain things which be con-
siders divine. These are matter. force and
natural law. To these he applies the incom-
municable attributes eternal and infinite. Let
us consider how far he is justified in this pro-
ceeding, and first let US take the question OF
l. MATTER.
The doctor evidently considers that matter
is something different from force, something
in which force inheres, as, for instance, heat in
iron, Or more roughly, water in a sponge.
But what evidence has he that there is such
thing as matter apart from force? He has
never seen matter, never touched matter,
never came in direct contact with matter in
any shape or form, and yet we lind him,
agnostic though he be, making public act OF
faith in something which his eyes have
not seen nor his ears heard nor his hands
handled.
Let us see how this accusation is justified
We come into relations with things outside of
ourselves through the senses. These senses
are all notifications OF touch From all por-
tiOns OF our body are minute threads running
! TO the brain. These threads telegraph
wires and the brain is the central office.
When an excitement is set up by any of these
TO the brain, where its significance is inter-
preted by our consciousness.
Special kinds of messages are received by
specially developed organs. The eye receives
the messages which We commonly call light,
the ear receives sound; the palate taste, the
nostrils odor. These specialized organs we call
sense and their office is 10 receive messages
from the world which is outside our conscious
ness.
Now we see at once that there is no sense
which brings US in direct contact with what
we call matter, or that in which force resides
All the messages which come 10 US are the re-
suits of forces. When I put nv hand on a
table the only message which my conscious
ness receives is that there is some force which
resists the force eXerted by my hand. That
force find occupies definite area and acts in
certain definite ways. Ii the element OF light
is introduced l discover that certain other mes
sages are telegraphed through the optic nerve,
but these messages, too, the results OF
forces. So with the remaining senses, their
activity is stimulated only by forces and only
ny force are we brought into relations with
things which are outside of ourselves.
We speak, 1t is true OF chairs, tables, houses,
mountains, streams. meadows, but all these
names are only labels put upon certain deter
inmate sets OF forces which produce certain
determinate messages on the telegraph wires
which lead TO the central Office, where con-
selousness receives and interprets them.
4 peculiar character of this consciousness of
ours is that it is always asking questions. 1t
Is not satisfied with receiving messages; it
marks each OF them with a big interrogation
mark. Indeed our intellect is only an
animated why, as the poet knew who put hap
piness in its answer.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
Hence it is con tinually asking what is the
cause OF these impressions, sensations or mes
sageS which come to us from the outside. The
hrst thing ii settles is that there is something
outside of US. There exists something which
is not /. 1t is the thing (whateyer we may call
it, which starts these messages along the
nerves to the brain.
But what is this something? Let us call it
force. Now, force means nothing more than
the exciting agent OF these sensations. 1t is
power or act in its most tenuous form. We
find, however, that this force or power is mani
tested in certain well-defned ways Thus for
instance it can be localized. A certain set of
forces can be stationed. so to speak, in dis
tlnct area. When we speak of a stone or q
lump OF coal or piece of gold we merely mean
that certain bundles of things which cause
sensations or messages to our brain have been
imprisoned in certain FORMS in certain shapes
In certain locations. We can deal with the
forces thus imprisoned; we can transport them
them.
Hence the mind asks the question, How is it
that force may be so localized, may be so i'm
prlsoned? common answer supposes what
is called matter, or another something in
which force rests and which gives it, so 10
speak, local habitation and a name The
essential idea OF this something called matter
is Its localization, its limitation. 1t puts
limits TO the Wanderings of force. 1t is the
vessel which contains water; it is the cord
which ties the bundle of sticks.
Hence it will be readily seen how unscien-
tine II Is for DR.. York to say that matter is di-
vine because it is everlasting and universal
Matter is only an hypothesis to explain the be-
'hayior OF certain forces. Some people do away
with the idea altogether as unnecessary, But
supposlng the hypothesis is necessary, and that
there is something different from force in
which force resides it is puerile to say that it
is universal or infinite. The very idea of mat
ter is the antithesis OF universality. 1t is
something which can be cut in chunks and
some of put here and some OF it put there Its
essential attribute is limitation and ANYTHING
which is limited cannot be universal. thing
is necessarily universal when by Its very nature
1t must be diffused everywhere; but matter
which is only synonym for limits, is not ne
cessariiy universal. On the contrary, it is ne
cessarily defned-circumscribed- the only
possible use OF II is TO limit, define or cipcum-
scribe force.
Again, the idea of matter is opposed to the
IDEA OF everlasting. 1t is only function of
force, and we cannot deal with it as ever
lasting apart from force. When Dr. York saws
that matter cannot be destroyed ne is con-
rounding matter with energy or force. Indeed
there is nothing so easily destructible as
matter. IN reality it is but more or less
stable balance of forces and that balance is
upsettlng every minute and hour of the day
and night. The matter which we call a lumD
OF coal can be destroyed in a few seconds THE
FORCES inherent In the matter are not de-
sToyed, but 6re released to form other COM
plnatlons, but the matter itself is done for
finished, and anything which can be done for
or hnlshed Is not everlasting nor yet divine
2. NATURAL LAW.
One popularity we remark about these forces
whlcn set up sensations in US, is that their ac.
tion is constant and uniform. II man sits
down on red-hot stove. the nerves always
carry remarkably weli-defned series OF mes
sages TO the central office So in the relations of
forces one to another, we find that they q re
com bined or resolved in certain definite ways
description of these combinations or these
resolutions we call natural law. We say that
natural law is constant and unchangeable
meaning thereby that forces alwavs act in thaa
same manner under the same conditions, and
that the only way to alter their action is to al
ter the relations of the forces.
Now, as the doctor well remarks natural
law, in this sense, is not the cause why the
forces so behave. 1t is merely a description of
their behavior. To say, therefore, that atural
law is divine or eternal is as reasonable as to
predicate divinity of the description of dog
fight.
If natural law meant the cause or reason
why forces so acted there might be some
reason for decking it with complimentary ad-
Jectives. But science is superstitiously care
ful TO excise the idea of causation. When IL is
laid down as law that a stone when unsup-
ported falls to the earth, no cause is assigned