New-York tribune., 1915-12-18

THEISM AND HCMANlSM. Being me piI-
ford Lectures delivered at the University
Of Glasgow. 1914. BY the RI. Hon. Arthur
James Balfour NJ. A. F. II. s, Ii. p
D. c. /. syo, pp. xv. 254 George H.
Doran Company.
Mr.. Balfour reminds US of one OF
Tennyson's Experiments" in which
the Laureate described himself as com
ing to the test with a poem composed
in a metre of Catullus,
All in quantity. careful OF my motion
Like the skater on ice that hardly bears
him,
Lest fan unswares before the people.
Waking laughter in indolent reviewers
The statesman-philosopher-or shall we
say philosopher statesman has no
fear of falling; but he comports him
self with the same minute and eI-
quisite carefulness that the poet sug-
gested. His nimbleness of thought, his
dexterity of logic, his artlessly artfu-
intellectual balance are so perfect that
there is sometimes danger that the
reader will engage himself more with
admiration Of the manner than with
serious consideration of the matter OF
the discourse. 1t is pity to do this
however, for engaging as Mr.. Balfours
style may be. the subject matter OF
his lectures is much more valuable; to
the discriminating reader. Disagree
with him as much as some may, 1t IS
impossible to deny to him the posses
sion and the use of rare scholarship,
Of singularly persuasive powers OF rea-
eoning, and of an unsurpassed fairness
and catholicity. Indeed, we are inclined
TO account the last named quality, car
!ied too often to an extreme degree, as
his most serious weakness. In his con
suming passion for fairness to all
schools Of thought and to all beliefs
concerning the subject in hand, he re-
CARDS that subject from so many points
of view, and with so many concessions
and qualifications, that there is danger
Of our losing sight Of the proposition
which he is seeking to establish and
of the point of view which he himself
prefers TO occupy.
With all the dialcctic subtot'eT OF
which he Is q past master, however,
MIR Balfour cheTlshes definite beAeis,
and at times--we might say at all
times to those who can successfully
follow the intricate mazes OF his ar
guments-he sets them forth with ad-
mirable simplicity and directness.
Time ~ The verv rorinnino Of those
discourses he differentiates between
the two conceptions OF Deity: Inc
metaphysical, which emphasizes Hls
all-inclusive unity; and the religious
which emphasizes His ethical person
ality. Some hold the two conceptions
TO be compatible. some TO be incom-
patible, while some Of the foremost
philosophers have ignored the difer-
ence between them. Mr.. Balfour de-
clares that he has never, TO has own
satisfaction, succeeded in uniting the
two; and then makes IL plain that II
he must discuss the one or the other,
it will be the religious conception.
Perfectly positive, TOO, is his align
ment of himself with the spiritual con-
ception of God, as against the purely
materialistic theory OF the universe
"We now know too much about mat
ter to be materialists. The very
essc-ce Of the 0hveicol order Of 'hlrrS
is that it creates nothing new. Change
is never more than a redistribution Of
that which never changes" With this, OF
course, matenaHsts o. the haeckei anu
| SUPER Haeckel school will not agree
! But at least there can be no doubt
as to where Mr.. Balfour stands; nor
| as TO the deftness and dexterty with
which he defends his position. The
emotional values which are associated
with and required by our beliefs about
| beauty and virtue, he contends. must
| have some other and more congruous
] source 'han the blind TRANSFORMER on
Of physical energy. Hamlet and the
. pressed or explained in chemical for
mulas or by the laws of natural selec-
ton ana thc su4vNa. OF the u,.,s,. DE-
/ hind the painting is the painter; oe-
hind tho rocm is tho poet. 0~@ IN
very existence and the workings OF
/ their genus are not exphcao.e on d
/ material basis.
There are grave difficulties in the way
Of attaining convincing conclusions
through experience and observation Oh
the external world-that external world
/ in which all men believe but concern
I INC the character of which they pro-
| fo1ndlv differ. And II they thus differ
I in their Interpretation Of the material
I things about them, which are perceptl-
! Bile to the physical senses, much more
NAV we expect them 10 differ IN their
I conception of the invisible forces which
are intangible to the senses. Yet all
these difficulties can never modlfy our
attitude toward either praetcai acton
/ or scientific theory "Beleis "nlch
were inevitable before" says Ar. Bal
four. "remain inevitable still. The. su,
preme act Of instructive faith involved
in the perception Of external objects
stands quite unshaken." Nor does nc
I shrink from the logical and inevitable
/ sequel 20 and elimination OF this line
I Of argument. The central proposition
/ Of il all, which he unhesitatingli man
tains, is that there are inevitable be
/ liefs and ins .inctive faith when may
/ not be susceptible OF material demon
i stration. but which are impregnablc
10 material attack. The "Cogito; ergo
sum" Of Descartes may be shifted at By
up-to-date philosophers, but Mr.. Bal
four will not admit the possibility OF
- 1 = Hni he nrnfeT z.