Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Hesperian student / (Lincoln [Neb.]) 1872-1885 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 1, 1876)
.'. jsffLS mmmm&m - ' " ffpmr iMJSM ,... v - in ! THE HESPERIAN STUDENT. r ,'wft ufiilenu'nts of Prejudice in B6c ligious Di.Meuaslon." In tho December number of tho Stu dknt I find an article from tin' pun of 0. 13. II., having tho above caption, of which, with your permission, I will give a short notice. With man' ' of tho propositions as set forth in the article I heartily agree. That cither religion or science is all error, is too absurd a proposition to bo seriously asserted by any sane person. Science, in its true sense, is only that which is known; therefore it must be true as far ns it is sci ence. Keligion,although concerned chielly with things beyond our knowledge that is, which will not admit of logical proof has many principles so interwoven with our own conscious being, that to deny it wholly is to do violence to our .nvn better nature and throw oil' all the obligations of virtue and the restraints of moral law. That all tho phenomena of nature cannot be explained by any law of science, is a fact long since proved; that there is a force, or intelligence, back of all visible or Unowablo forces, is most freely admitted by those who are best acquainted with the laws which govern nature's phouomona. It being tlion admitted that there is a mys tery beyond human comprehension thai the caused must have had a cause may we not inquire what creative force is most in accordance with reason and tho effects produced ? It is asserted by G. 13. II. that, whatever the nature of the first cause, whether ex iMant in matter itself, or in some external agency, U cannot be infinite, since it "is n cause or creator only in relation to the tiling caused or created;" that thoro is a mutual relation between thorn, and lie cause a relation, a mutual limitation; hence the first cause is not a first cause, but must have boon caused by something else if caused at all. If this creative forco is in matter, it is undoubtedly limited by tho thing created J that is, by matter itself since the same causes continuing to act would produce . the same effects until the creative forco wastxhausted ; hence tho created would j be equal, both in duration and extent, to . the creator, and without tho creature the creator is non-existanl that is, tho cfi'oct produced tho cause; which is absurd,: showing that our hypothesis was incorrect. If on the contrary, as tho monotheist claims, the creative power is vested in ' Mime external agency, tho relation botweon j the creator and the created is not so plain, I this external cause being an intelligent being and not a blind forco one whose existence depends in no wise upon tho , works of his hands; who, had tho uni verse never boon created, would still have been a creator in powor. Tho writer of the article under notico docs well to say that this rola ion botweon the creator and the created must linvo been caused by something if caused at all. It leaves him an opening at which to es capo, but it is little calculated to inspire confidence in the minds of his readers to show so little faith in his theories himself. Ho dodges the only real issue, if tho mon. otheistic idea is correct. God was not caused, but is solf-cxistant, the cause of all things. "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." But such a contradiction of terms as the gentleman has used implies to my mind that ho was already lloatiug without rudder or compass on that boundless ocean of mystery of which he speaks. Again he says, '-is it not enough 'hat wo are conscious of a power beyond our ken?" and "is not existence which is in- conceivable more worthy of reverence than a being that can bo represented in thought with form and attributes?1" How any one can reverence an existence of which he cannot conceive is beyond my ken. I can hardlylbo conscious of such an existence, and I greatly fear that frail bark of the writer is fast sinking beneath the waves of this ocean of mystery. To attempt to restrict religion to the ac knowlcdgment of a higher power, shows entire ignorance of the subject. Such an abstraction is no more religion than tho theory of evolution is science. It is a judgment without theevidence, an attempt to describe what ha. never been seen or felt. Hcligion is not a form thai may be practicod.or a science that may be learned, but a power that must be felt. As we can not know what death is till we die, neither can wc realize what it is to live by faith until we are born of the spirit; and I doubt whether the change is more com plete in one case than in the other. What would such a religion bo as this reformer tries to picture to our imagination V for imagination alone can grasp it a religion without love, or power, or wisdom, or any of the attributes which oithodoxy ascribes to God, which "merely predicates tho ex istence of a power back of all phenomena the unknowable mystery." If God, or first cause, is an unknowable mystery,then all religion is vain, or rather thoro is no such tiling as religion, but all contempla tion of a higher power is idle speculation. "The groat error of religion," declares the writer of the article, "is the unceasing attempt to drag down the Infinite within I lie narrow scope of human conception." "The attempt to represent the Infinite First Cause as possessed of attributes which human beings can comprehend, however pure and holy, is the chief means of solf degradatlon." How the contemplation of anything pure and holy can be tho means of self-degradation is another point be yond my comprehension. It is an asser tion at varianco with positive facts and ex perience. You might as well assert that the example of a just and virtuous man is calculated to lead men into vice and crime as that the contemplation of a pure and holv God conduces to human debasement. The writer's ignorance or carelessness is again shown in his statement "that all the conceptions of the Infinite are mere cari catures, more or loss crude, according to tho development of the subject." That the orthodox of God is perfect has never been afilrmcd. Human conception cannot take in tho fullness of the attributes of God. Our standard of comparison is too small, but it does not follow that God does not possess those attributes because thoy exceed tho domain of human thought, for "we are not to constitute the capacity of thought into the measure of existence, or recognize the domain of our knowledge as nocossarily co-oxtenslvc with the hori .on of our faith V" To the charge of a lack of candor brought against religion I would say, do not be harsh in judgment; it is not al ways an evidence of hypocrisy that a man does not wisli to argue with you; btsides, the creed of tho church is not tho funda mental principle of religion; but there are certain principles which have ever been presented boldly that God possesses the attributes of love, power, wisdom, justice, mercy and goodness, in the most perfect fullness; that lie created all things, and superintends, directs and cares for his creatures, and therefore we are in duty bound to love and servo him; thai he re wards virtue and punishes vice; that ho gives his spirit to guide and help those who ask and trust him. Those proposl tions have been before tho world for eigh teen hundred years and more without suc cessful contradiction. In the light of tliose facts why should religion dread seionce? The domain of science reaches only that which can be established by positive proof, and religion asserts only that which never can be proved or disproved by any course of hu man reasoning, but must bo received by faitli and proved by the Spirit of God. 1 fully concur in tho opinion that tho groat question is what is and not what ought to be truth, but 1 fear religionists are not the only class of persons who dodge this question in order to save pro conceived notions and escape disagreeable conclusions. Let the question bo answered fairly and truly, whatever be tho result to creed or theory. But do not in your zeal tear down tho beautiful temple of religion until you find it unsafe. Dig deep imd examine the foundations, and if thoy bo not based upon the rock then let it bo pulled down, that we bo r.ot overwhelmed in its ruiLs when tho winds and Hoods beat upon it. Do not ask us to exchange our hope based upon the word of God for the opinions of men opinions which lack all authority and depend upon certain conditions which may and may not exist, which are not susceptible of proof, and give no reward to faith. Besides tho un certainty of these theories, thoro is no positive proof of a conflict between them and the orthodox conception. Many mon eminent in science have found uo such conflict, and I venture tho assertion that none ever will find it except those who are looking more fora justillci tion of a course of irroligion than for truth The idea of accounting for the joys of Christians by psychological law seems to mo the most absurd proposition in the ar tide, as if any law, however general, com passed all the varieties of temperament and all the circumstances under which these joys have boon experienced. What other cause or principle has ever pro duced the same result in thousands of minds? Yet religion is the same in all persons and under all conditions, the difference in the feelings of its possessors being onh; the difference in their faith and perfection in the chris tiau graces. Again what other cause has wrought so complete a change in men ; a change, not only in their minds but in their acts and lives making the drunken man sober; Jtho dishonest man honest; the profane manareveroncorof God; and even the scoffer, the infidel and the athe ist, have been made humble dcsciplos by its power. Those who have sot all the strength of their wills against it and have beon reached by the spirit of God and convsneed of their error, showing that re hgion is not dopendont entirely upon the will. The faith of man is not entirely within his own control. God can so im press tilings upon his mind that he can. not but believe thorn, but it remains for him to decide whether he will act on his belief or not. But why id this desire among a ceitain class of mon to overthrow the Bibb iUlj religion? If the Bible is a i.,blc Jesus Christ a myth, and the holy spirit Hie creation of an on active imagination, why waste so much timu in lighting against a shadow." Why attempt to shake the faith l nio3C who are happy in tho possession ..( jt since they have nothing better to offer, and should religion be false its iulh n-ult arc in no worse condition than tin most poi feci theories of men would haw them did thoy possess the soul of truth, lathis search we should remember that truth i3 eternal, and look beyond this earthly cxis tence. Such a religion as these n.en set up cuts oil' all hope of a better lite and makes death an eternal sleep. But it may be answered that christians will n,,t ct this subject rest but keep it continually before the world ; true, but can you Manic them? Would you not even dcspUi the man who, believing you were in danger of eternal death, should keep silent and leave you lo escape or fall without. i wuru ing? Would you not say, and that tuily, that he was wanting in common humani. ty? True religion has no place in the heart of him who is willing to save him self alone. The supposition '-that the Bible is the only interpretation of the imperfectly de veloped finite mind could give of tin In. finite and yotmay be a false interpretation" is 1 think untenable. It must be either the direct revalotion of God and therefore true or the result of human speculation in an age when few facilities for proving the truth wore enjoyed, and consequently lacks all authority. There is no middle ground; it is God's truth, or man's delusion. "It is truly sad and absurd to array the faculties of the mind against eacli other, tho consciousness of the superhuman against actual knowledge of Nature's laws." It is equally sad and foolish in tho facoof positive knowledge of sin and degradation and the universal desire lor a purer and betterstate of existence to de ny tho existence of a Savior by whose merits we may be reconciled to God. Tho fact of sin is patent whether we call It original, or by whatever name. It does not require an original sin in our first parents to condemn us since we have violated the laws of God ourselves and that wo have I think none will deny even if God required at our hands obedience to no other laws than those of nature and our own being. It then, wo are ever to be pure we must be purified; and If God be pure wo must be, to enjoy his presence. The groat questions then to be considered are these: Is God an intelligent being or a blind force V Are there any eternal prin ciple of truth, justice and virtue, or are they merely human attributes which have no existence beyond the human mind' These qiielion answered, the strife ceases; for if thoy have a separate exis tence, that existence is God. May they bo answered speedily and may truth pre. vail ? A. A. C. In this number of the Studbnt will bn found the report of our ex-business mi'iiager, Mr. II. II. Wilson, which speaks in more glowing terms of hia ability as business manager than wo are able to do. When Mr. Wilson took charge of the fi nances of tho Student thoy were in a very poor condition. Wo were running behind each issue, but as soon as he ok charge, the paper not only became self supporting, but he has paid a part of tho back indebtedness. sMWf - ay-TaNP. -umsmtsmmr ..! 1 Wu..n AJt .- - . , m i M . . . WV jQSHMHIBcWJFffS7 r ?& i-tWafflfflKsi 41?. . . L. Ah?, ,.7N 2 'rt:v' - rfHHIwjHIHtHiwHHBKH iSBSSPvvr -..v. ; ' . " ' : Ty7 . wmmmMBmmxmtmmmmmmmm