Chapter 9

THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC NEGATION.

What gives the denials of positivism their general weight, is the impression that they represent reason 208

They are supported by three kinds of arguments: physical, moral, and historical 209

The two first bear upon all religion; the latter only on special revelations 210

Natural religion is the belief in God, immortality, and the possibility of miracles generally 210

Physical science prefers to destroy natural religion by its connection of mind with matter 210

1st. Making conscious life a function of the brain. 2nd. Evolving the living organisms from lifeless matter. 3rd. Making this material evolution automatic 210

Thus all external proofs of God are destroyed 212

And also of the soul's immortality 213

External proof is declared to be the test of reality 213

And therefore all religion is set down as a dream 215

But we believe that proof _is_ the test of reality, not because it is proved to be so, but because of the authority of those who tell us so 215

But it will be found that these men do not understand their own principle 216

And, that in what they consider their most important conclusions they emphatically disregard it 217

One or other, therefore, of their opinions is worthless--their denial of religion or their affirmation of morality 219

But we shall see this more clearly in considering the question of consciousness and will 220

We shall see that, as far as science can inform us, man is nothing but an automaton 220

But the positive school are afraid to admit this 221

And not daring to meet the question, they make a desperate effort to confuse it 222

Two problems are involved in the matter: 1st. How is brain action connected with consciousness 223

2nd. Is the consciousness that is connected with it something separable from, and independent of it 223

The first of these problems has no bearing at all on any moral or religious question. It is insoluble. It leaves us not in doubt but in ignorance 224

The doubt, and the religious question is connected solely with the second problem 228

To which there are two alternative solutions 228

And modern science is so confused that it will accept neither 228

As Dr. Tyndall's treatment of the subject very forcibly shows us 230

And Dr. Tyndall in this way is a perfect representative of the whole modern positive school 231

Let us compare the molecules of the brain to the six moving billiard-balls 231

The question is, are these movements due to the stroke of one cue or of two 233

The positive school profess to answer this question both ways 234

But this profession is nonsense 236

What they really mean is, 1st. That the connection of consciousness with matter is a mystery; as to _that_ they _can_ give no answer. 2nd. That as to whether consciousness is wholly a material thing or no, they _will_ give no answer 237

But why are they in this state of suspense? 238

Though their system does not in the least require the hypothesis of an immaterial element in consciousness 239

They see that the moral value of life does 239

The same reasons that will warrant their saying it _may_ exist, will constrain them to say it _must_ 240

Physical science, with its proofs, can say nothing in the matter, either as to will, immortality, or God 242

But, on the other hand, it will force us, if we believe in will, to admit the reality of miracles 243

So far as science goes, morality and religion are both on the same footing 243