The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-29
VII.

IN Cndptr oil DIS former poOk, lDe
Riddle of the Universe our author set
forth the scientific reasons which, in his
opinion. forbid US 20 accept the dogma
OF personal Immortality. As the most
vehement attacks, however have been
made on that chapter by metaphysicians
OF the dominant school. and by Christian
theologians he returns to the question in
the present volume. He has become con-
vinced. he tells us, by the innumerable
letters he has received, and by conversation
with educated people of all classes, that no
other dogma IL so firmly established and
highly valued as athanatism or the belief
in personal Immortality. Most men will
not give up at any price the hope that a
l. or life awaits them beyond the grave
which will compensate them for all the pain
and suffering they endure here. II is
pointed out that -in the 6ction OF this
future life, the mediRval geocentric idea
still forms the capital feature. Troelslund
has shown, in his Idea of Heaven and OF the
World how this theory still dominates the
metaphysics Of the majority of men. In
spite of Copernicus and Laplace, Heaven
is still for most people the semi-circular
blue glass bell that overarches the earth.
We still hear the praises of our prospective
life in this heaven sung daily in sermons
and speeches and festive orations. The
orator extends his right hand upward
to the infinite starry space OF heaven,
forgetting that the radius Of the direction
toward which he is pointing changes every
second. and in twelve hours will reach the
precisely opposite region Of space. and
become downward Other believers en-
deavor to be still more concrete, and point
out definite celestial bodies as the homes Of
immortal souls Haeckel reasserts in the
book before US that modern oosmogony.
astronomy and geology entirely exclude
these pretty actions from science; and
modern psychology, physiology, ontogeny
and phylogeny vigorously refuse an inch OF
ground for athanatsm."
Our author recognizes the founder Of
systematic optimism In Gottfried Leibnitz
who, in his -Theodicy," taught that God
(the AN wise, all good, and almighty
Creator of the world" y had, with perfect
consciousness. created the best OF all
possible worlds" that His infinite good
ness. wisdom and power are seen every
where In the preestablished harmony OF
things but that the individual human
being, and mankind. taken as a whole,
have only limited capacity for develop
ment Haecke, on his part, submits that
the man who knows the real features Of
the world, who has honestly confronted
the tragic struggle for life that rules
throughout living nature, who has SYM
pathy for the infinite sum OF misery and
want Of every kind in the life Of men, can
scarcely understand how an acute and in
formed thinker like Leibnitz could enter
tain such optimism"
Turning TO pessimism. which, OF course
is the direct opposite Of systematic OPP
timism. because while the one holds the
universe 10 be the best the other regards
it as the worst OF all possible worlds, the
author reminds US that this pessimlstio
conception has found expression In the
Oldest and most popular religions Of
Asia, Brahmanism and Buddhism. Both
these Hindoo religions were originally
pessiInistio, and at the same time atheistio
and idealistic Schopenhauer especially
directed attention to this fact, declaring
that they were the most perfect of all re-
llgions and importing their leading ideas
into his own system Of philosophy He
pronounced 1t "a glazing absurdity 10 at
tempt to prove this miserable planet the
best OF all possible worlds-this cockpit
of tortured and suffering beings who can
only survive by destroying one another
in which the capacity for pain grows with
knowledge, and so reaches its acme in man.
Truly optimism cuts so sorry figure in
this theatre Of sin, suffering and death
that we should have 10 regard Il as n piece
of sarcasm il Hume had not given US an
explanation Of its origin (the wish TO flatter
God and hope for some result for it). To
the palpable sophistry Of Jeibnitz, who
would prove this earth the best OF all possi-
BILE worlds. we can oppose a strict and hon
est proof that it is the worst OF ali possible
Is religion indispensable for the evolu-
ton and maintenance Of morality? Let us
see how Haeckel answers this momentous