The sun., 1901-03-31
rgy RIDDLE or TBg rNIvEEsE.
>a,srai as Opposed to Supernatural so'a'ion''


,'Nr Woodlock in your paper "i last sunday
attacks the great work Of Prof Haeckel on
the Riddle ~ tho Universe, 10 which tne
main conclusions ~ modern rationahsuc
nbHosonhy are summed up The philosophlc
v.ak,esses in MIR woodlock's confident
,,,anut 10 overthrow this philosophy as
peng 10th immoral and untenable sho"
'hat he has quite failed 10 appreciate the Clear
evidence sustaining this philosophy
A. the outset I would correct common
ethical fallacy put forth by Mr. Woodlock
whom he SAYS that positive belH IN he
personality ~ God and the immortality oi
M. soul is necessary for morality, and thar
the greatest immoralit"s must necessarily
follow the abandonment of these doctrines
through the spread of modern philosophy
for ,ls nm obvious ethical fact that these two
doctrines have no necessary or direct relation
N pure morality or ethics AZ all For a truly
moral life II is vastly more important mat a
nan should be made faithful in his conduct
ip reason. TO righteousness, and TO humanity
than that no should have any clear belief
whatever in a personal God or an immortal
,nul | can therefore assure Mr. Woodlock
,hat A serious attempt 10 have our beliefs as
10 God and "-oul" accord with the ascer-
,sinable truths or facts ~ existence. such as
made by Haackel and his school, even though
We may have 10 deny -personaltv" and i'm
mortality a. they are generally understood.
,ill be no menace 10 true morality but rather
. great help
would also remind him that. a a matter
o. actual fact, races having distinct belief
In the aforesaid religious doctrines are not
hi' more moral than races having no such
positive belief and that he will now find some
NJ the alanchest believers in personal
God and an immortal soul among the most
criminal and degraded classes and he will
also find u to be fact not only in this but
IN all ages. that a full or partial disbelief in
those doctrines has always existed among
mon n the highest intellect and moral char
Scter TO give few examples among an
,en'- and moderns. ! need only say that
,on'ucus. Isno, Epicurns. Marcus Aurelus.
Matthew Arnold. Thomas Huxley and Her
bert Spencer were neither moral degenerat"s
nor Intellectual fools. but rather preemnent
ir the ancient and modern worlds Of morals
and philosophy. and vet M one Of them had
any clear or positive belief in a personal God
or an immortal soul. or thought these doc
irrne- essential 10 true morality
4, q nationalist. nothing l. 80 attractive
snd satisfactory to N" in Mr. Woodlock's
I"N"I as M almost pd'h''h hPp'al v" w
demand for facts with which 10 test the
,.,.t,,.s ,s ,bi ,,stu-,Ii.t,,. and .y,,luii,p-
ar, philosophy ~ against III" supernatural
philosophy Of the dogmstic religions whi'h
he attempt, to defend. OF rather considers
lrrofu,nble for can hod him hrmly 10 this
ground ~ yerinable ur obyiou, fac, or direct
logical cou,lusOn- from 'ar'. ~ 'he uuly
irue tr-r pi philo-pphic ruth shall there
fore. ilr~i Ak nm ~hat id'i~ h" ha~ 10 gIH" ~
IL.
ih" real truth 81 N" 'hr"" gr"A' Doctrines
FOR which h" shows such concern, vi the
personality ~ Gpd III" IMMORTALITY o. the
soul, and N" ir""d"m ol ~" WIZ lh"-c
duo'rlue- be- confidently calls n"c"s-drN
truths. 10 destroy Witch h" -IN- H. lnr u ain
puTpo~" ui the ha"ok"l philosophy N"H,
% they be necessary mum, lh"N must nave
'he character Of obvious {" l"rlihhl" facts
"r -"lf-evdent prn' Iple~ amt can b." easily
shown !" b" real rum "r ~ ,HhI lhlN u" any
ordinary UIuu Where ~" the ld,'- NhIoit
show that III" luiult" Power ~ 81" universe
L. nc'"~ .1FIlN or probably, u Person or a
spirit IN The mag" and likeness OF man"
] hd' iht~ Person Ut ~ m exists iNgepenCsnl
u the world "i mailcr ana mad" M word
of matter ont Of nothing AMI that rhls
SPIRIT enter INTO close p"T,onnl relations
with mankind, lk" u hing with hi- subjects
or a parent with hi chlldrcr, and adjusts
varou- op"rntion- oi ut'ur" "r even entirely
~u~pcud' or r"versr> 20, la", ia respone" 10
incdntltou. pf hi human worsnlpper-'
can Mr. Noodlu"h Riy" o.. nnN i,ul iD prove
that these BAN. .TOu-, childish, Immoral and
irrational doctrine. ar" realty true
with regard 10 ~" fascinating do,irtn" Of
UmuOrt tlltV, / di-O ak 'h" am" question
HaS Nr Wood,oct rrnl!' tu' fact 90 prove
ihat u man ACTUALLY hvr- when he die. II
he has. I and ooluti'.' others viii he hnpT,
80 know II and viii XIV" Iu our aznnstiCisiu
a. nure on thi- question i"rfaInl, the los
Of an Immortal soul H. be -Hy-, would be An
iruuIuuarlblr los. but surely II man ha~ 10
F.. m rtll soul he cannot ru-.Ii ~ 10 a. m 1
Il u,, hI, an immortal -pul be- surely cannot
in.e ID los refusing ru brllcv" Inst God Is u
"Ip~-un nd insisting inHI NJ, l. sonnet hing
itrrc er.or- only iu Ihrie' uan theology
W,N he Fui .ich uon-iruu~ idea that the
futlrr bll-~ ui a uan'. soul viii b'. d,,t"rn ned
e.-curiully bv his mental ihrorIr> un tho
,.pn,ru u.ition or God and not bv hi- conduct
ar character PaEnn pntIu~0ph, never
Dtoppcd 20 such barbaTIiN ~ that. nV It- "~-rr-
tinl teaching, In the Nurd- Of socrates was
'npr the fniuIr of - iuni'- soul dcIrud. a
...ebiillly ON tho attainment Of the highest
orns nbnru God
# Nr Mon. lock cnrcfulIy examine. his IA.
tall.ctual CON, science must I,. mot admir- ina I
has ,,nreptinp. nf What he .lll- God" and
'srI" ,,. t.,,r b.dnu., ,nnstIy and nm,
ven l,bln thinx. and very different from tho
y.ritpDln and -uhetartiaI ihIug> thai he
Lnn,rs a. uatrtrul facts, And II a.. oualy 20
H. actuaI rou.rpiiou nf God" and SpuI '
.huII vn moi md ,hui Nr an u,.,ir,friy a
das,rihe II a. hc,rg ,, .nwsIL,,,v Iutlo t,nt,,r.
of disn,nhndind mind lis soul" h.lug .Irl,,Iy
q, lttlr rpi,. af.n,rti "a Ie 4 mint Vlilr IA.
Odd j. , vr.,t ar ,ri.,l'r dI.n,,l,nd,.d ,,,t,d >
vii lac moi ,l.n ,nnfcs. iIst he firmly ,hr,-
Ihn. tLc idcp maj what he ,,II. mind ar
"-Uirit" 8. really the prnatns If all Ihiugs