EVANSTON. ILL DFTHE No "Beginning" OB. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY A common-sense exposure of the error in the rea¬ soning upon which is based the belief in a "Creation" or "First Cause" of things BY WILLIAM H. MAPLE Motion is as natural as rest CHICAGO CHARI.KS H. KERR AND COMPANY 1892 Copyright^ JS92, by Charles H, Ker9 /S û 3 y / (3^ PREFACE To aid somewhat in the great struggle that reason is making to free mankind from that cumbrous cloak of superstition, fear and misery which it has inherited from past generations, and which still clings to the race like a frightful nightmare to a waking man—;to the end that greater freedom of opinion and greater happiness may come to the whole people, is the object of this little volume. It is undoubtedly true that mankind will cease to be superstitious only in proportion as people come to understand the real causes of events in nature. It is equaUy certain that people generally will not strive to find natural causes for what occurs until they are convinced that such causes actually exist. It is, therefore, evident that the first step in the eradication of superstition is to have it understood that nature has her own 4 PREFACE ways of doing things—and that her methods are inherent and invariable. As long as man is taught the doctrine of so-called special providences—is made to believe that supernatural beings are about him—he will suffer in a two-fold way ; he will be haunted with ill-grounded fears and, anon, be lulled into a feeling of secur¬ ity when real danger surrounds him. And it is because of such considerations as these that the thoughts in the following pages and the general truths established therein become at once both fundamental as truths and helpful from the standpoint of practical good. In pointing out the fundamental fallacy in the argument on which rests the doctrine of the "Creation" of the universe out of nothing, and its necessary corollary, the belief in the existence of a being or beings outside of nature, the great truths of the eternity of the substance of things, and of the existence in nature of adequate causes for all that occurs, have been made mani¬ fest.. Thus the corner-stone of superstition has PREFACE 5 been removed and at the same time an enduring basis for a rational system of ethics has been found. That the introductory part of the work is more lengthy than what follows will not surprise the reader when he is reminded that the formal argument of any proposition may be very brief—that prolixity is not indicative of tne strength of logical struct¬ ures. As the principal trouble in raising a great weight is the preparation and placing ' of suitable levers or other mechanical appli¬ ances, so in communicating a new truth, the greatest task is the preparation of the mind for its reception. The mind by Its very nature can only rea¬ son from data, and hence, if new conclu¬ sions are to be arrived at, old impressions (things believed to be facts), to some extent, must be removed before any progress can be made. And it is from this view that the relevancy of all that is said in the intro¬ ductory part of the work to the main ques¬ tion will appear. The writer believes that his brief argu- 6 PREFACE ment establishes immovably the doctrine of the eternity of the substance of things as opposed to the ' ' Creation ' ' theory, and that the general acceptance of this truth must result in great good to humanity, for the simple reason that, in the fullest sense of the word, it is a fundamental one, under¬ lying as it does the whole structure of hu¬ man knowledge—the science of duty as well as all other branches of learning. But whether or not the argument on this main question is conclusive, no person can, it is believed, read the little volume without deriving some benefit. Advanced thinkers may possibly see more clearly the strength of their positions. Honest doubters of old doctrines will be encouraged to depend on the natural outgivings of their intellects as having much of real truth. Believers in the common church dogmas, if not so shaken in their views as to make them more indepen¬ dent thinkers themselves, will, at least, be made more tolerant of the views of those who can not see things as they do. Skepti¬ cism will be less odious to them than before, and free thought be looked upon as less PREFACE 7 dangerous than they were wont to consider it. So that if no definite change of opinion on any particular subject result to readers there will still remain to some of them at least the profit of the new thoughts that will be provoked. And it is new thoughts that move the world—all progress depends upon them. It may not be amiss to s täte here that the doctrine of the eternity of the substance of the physical universe, as herein established, is not necessarily atheistic. The argument will, in the minds of all readers who are thoughtful and who have a fair knowledge of the principles of Natural Science, destroy the idea of a "Creator," but it at the same time demonstrates beyond question the ex¬ istence of a " Supreme Being." It leads the mind by logical and natural processes of reasoning from the ' ' temporal " to the "eternal" and thus brings the reader face to face with God — and all this without 4 any "inspiration" other than that which is the common heritage of every honest thinker. That the Deity thus found is not a ' ' per- 8 PREFACE sonal" one will not be objected to by the deepest religious natures, for the reason that the impersonal is necessarily greater than the personal, and the true God must be that, than which a greater can not be conceived. Chicago, August, 1892^ CONTENTS I. Chakactek op the Work—Somewhat • Personal—The Faith op the Skeptic— No Unknowable—Being Needs no A- pology—Source op Knowledge—Need op Toleration—Other thoughts. . » 13 II. Reason Leads to Truth—Consciousness not a Truth-determining Faculty—To Know is a Property op Man's Organ¬ ism—Nature Gives no Reasons for her Actions 50 III. Definition op Truth—The Crowning Glory op Man—A Duty to Reason— 4 Common-place Facts 68 IV. The Question to be Discussed—Need of Faith in Man—Faith in Facts is Easy —Monstrous Doctrines — Reason, alone, Deals with Cause and Effect —Instinct Knows Nothing About the Causes op Things 80 V. No First Cause, a Demonstration. . . 95 VI. Other and Shorter Mental Processes Leading to the same Conclusion. . . 102 VII. Explanation op Terms 106 9 10 CONTEKTS VIII. The Formal Arguments Condensed. . . 109 IX. The Term "Beginning'' is Generally Used only as a Matter of Convenience —Moses does not Positively Affirm a X. Eternity op Matter, Force and Phe¬ nomena— New Heavens and new Earths—^Thought Produced by Mat¬ ter in Motion and the Activities of Nature afford the only Scope for its Rational Exercise 116 XI. The Eternity of Succession in Harmony with all other Knowledge—Reach of Theiptic Arguments—Further op the Source and Character op Human Knowledge 197 XII. Form and Order also Eternal—An Ade¬ quate Cause in Nature for all that Occurs—The great Age of the Earth. 133 XIIÎ. The Fundamental Fallacy Underlying the Belief in a Creation or first XIV. Belief in a Cause for the Totality of things Irrational and Unnecessary. 147 Beginning—Some Queries 113 cause Pointed Out 188 XV. The Doctrine op eternal Succession is Mentally Restful and Satisfying. .150 CONTENTS 11 XVI. A Selp-existeist Universe the Fact op all Facts, and the Veritable and only real DeITY 152 XVII. The Theological Pyra mid—A Monument op Superstition, and how it has been Built on the Fundamental Fallacy Pointed out in this Work 155 XVIIL Conclusion 164 t A "Of absolute rest nature gives us no evidence; all mat- teVf as far as we can ascertain, is ever in movement, not merely in masses as with the planetary spheres, but also molecularly, or throughout its most intimate structure; thus every alteration of temperature produces a molecular change throughout the whole substance heated or cooled ; slow chemical or electrical actions, actions of light or in¬ visible radiant forces, are always at play, so that as a fact we can not predicate of any portion of matter that it is absolutely at rest." NO BEGINNING" OR THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. CHAPTER I CHARACTEB OP THE WORK—SOMEWHAT PERSONAL—THE FAITH OP THE SKEPTIC—NO UNKNOWABLE—BEING NEEDS NO APOLOGY—SOURCE OP KNOWLEDGE—NEED OP TOLERATION—OTHER THOUGHTS '• Within the brain's most secret cells, A certain Lord Chief Justice dwells, Of sov'reign power, whom, one and all, With common voice, we ' reason 'call.' This is not an "orthodox" book. It inferentially and intentionally antagonizes the fundamental doctrines of the so-called orthodox religions. Do not read it, dear brother man, if you are a believer in the popular creeds of the day, unless you are 1» 14 NO BEGINNING willing to investigate anew tlie foundations of your faith. The work is written for the truth it may contain and is published with the hope that it may be instrumental in aid¬ ing mankind, somewhat, in finding funda¬ mental facts on which to base and maintain its ethics and its governments. It deals only with basal truths, and is written in the interest of future man. If the reasoning of the work, and the conclusions arrived at, are unsound, it can do no permanent harm, and may, even in such case, lead to truth, by provoking new thoughts in others. Prof. John TyndaU, says : "Right or wrong, a thoughtfully uttered theory has a dyna¬ mic power which operates against intellect¬ ual stagnation ; and even by provoking opposition is eventually of service to the cause of truth." The wii ter is a lover of truth. He despises hypocrisy and deception ; and, hence, does not desire to get what he has to say before his readers through false pretenses. The Christian Bible, though the work of man as all other bibles and books are, contains much of truth. It says in substance, some- THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 15 where, that we should not do evil that good may come. This is heartily indorsed ; and hence any good that may come from this book will not be at the expense of the evil of dissimulation. The writer has thought considerably on religious and ethical questions, and for the sole purpose of finding the real facts under¬ lying the systems engaging his attention. For years he has refrained from giving publicity to some of his most honest convic¬ tions through a fear (born as he believes of his early education) that harm to society might come from the too general enlighten¬ ment of the masses as to the actual truth lying at the foundation of the popular relig¬ ious systems. " Santa-Claus," he reasoned, is a source of pleasure, and possibly of profit, to children ; and why is not an immaculate Savior, a veritable God-man, a benefit, if not a necessity, for men and women ? He has, however, come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when truth may safely show her face; that, with the en¬ lightenment of the age as to the nature of 16 NO BEGINNING things, there no longer exists a necessity for a "Thus saith the Lord" system of morals. ** Xew occasions teach new duties ; Time makes ancient good uncouth. They must upward still and onward, Who would keep abreast of truth. Lo! before us gleam her camp fires ; We, ourselves, must pilgrims be, Launch our Mayflower, and sail boldly Through the winter's icy sea; Nor attempt the future's portal With the past's blood-rusted key.*' There is but little doubt that if Moses were now alive he would not seriously claim that his ten commandments were engraved by the "finger of God," but would admit that they were the result of experience, and written as all other laws were at that time. It is easy to see the wisdom if not the necessity, in the absence of well organized governments, and in the then ignorant con¬ dition of the body of the people, of an ap¬ peal to the superstition of the semi-barbarous masses that the ancient lawgiver had to govern. Then, such a thing as rational ethics was not known unless it was among the ruling THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 17 classes. No appeal could be made to the people through their knowledge of the nature of things, because they did not pos¬ sess such knowledge.* Instead, therefore, l.^'Moses" is supposed tohave lived something over three thousand years ago and the child-like ignorance of man- kind at that time as to the causes of natural phenomena may be inferred from such facts as the following : The earth was then supposed to be a flat body of un¬ known extent. It was then, and until a few hundred years ago, believed to be the center of the universe; in fact was thought of as being substantially the universe. The millions of sun-stars that are each the center of a svs- tern of worlds were thought to have been created and placed in space for no other purpose than what little light they gave to the nightly wanderer on this earth. Any unusual natural occurrence was believed to be a special manifestation of the anger of the Gods. A rain¬ bow was a promise of good, and an eclipse was an omen of some great tribulation. Animals were slaughtered and burned that the smell might reach to heaven and mollify Jehovah's wrath. The art of printing and the manufac¬ ture of paper, the use of steam and electricity as powers, the discovery of the circulation of the blood, the use of machinery of almost all kinds, the use of medicines for diseases, a knowledge of the atmosphere in which we live, the discovery of the shape, size and motion of the earth, and of the great American continent comprising nearly all the land within the Western Hemisphere—and, in short, the discovery of nearly every fact on which the learning of the world is to-day based, were all events occurring thou¬ sands of years after the time when ** Moses " is supposed to t 18 NO BEGINNING of attempting the impossible task of show¬ ing the people the why and the wherefore of right doing, Nature's powers were personi¬ fied, and ' ' God, " who it was believed lived on the top of Mount Sinai, was said to have arbitrarily issued His mandates, through Moses to the people. have issued his *'Thus saith the Lord " rules to the Hebrew people. That he did very well as a lawgiver, considering the times in which he lived, is not disputed ;bat that he was inspired, in any manner different from what honest law¬ makers of all times are inspired, is an assumption without the semblance of proof, and one that has been a great hin¬ drance CO progress ; for it is unquestionably true that just in proportion as the world is made to believe at any time that a certain code of morals, or of civil conduct, has been directly given by God to man (it being in such case con¬ sidered perfect) just in that proportion will man cease all effort to make better laws or to establish forms of govern¬ ment more conducive to his happiness and advancement. It is clear from a moment's thought on the subject, that the " ten commandments " contain only such fundamental rules of conduct as would suggest themselves to man at a very early age of the race. As to the display of any superhuman wisdom in the so- called Mosaic account of creation in the order in which things were said to have been produced, so often spoken of by theologians, all there is to this, is. that the writer was not stupid enough to create" the herbivorous animal be¬ fore the plants on which it feeds, or the ñshes before the sea in which they swim. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY ±9 There may be those to-day, and doubtless are, who believe literally this simple story, and who would be less tractable as subjects and less worthy as citizens were it not for some such belief ; yet, it is happily true that man is so constituted and environed that, as a rule, such restraining influences cannot be separated from him except in proportion as he ceases to be superstitious ; and this con¬ dition can only come from a quite general knowledge among the people of the fact that Nature has laws of her own and that those laws are invariable. Superstition has been, at the same time, a great benefit and a great curse to the world ; a necessity in the past ; to some extent, possibly, beneficial at the present time ; but its loss need not be feared; for the reason that it will only dis¬ appear, like milk-teeth in children, when • crowded out by its better successor. It will hardly be denied that it is the growth of the knowledge of natural causes for natural phenomena, that is the source of the increasing lack of faith in old church dogmas. Ever since man developed sufli- ciently as a rational being to inquire after 20 NO BEGINNING causes of .things, some cause had to be assigned for what occurred ; and in exact pro¬ portion as he failed to account philosophi¬ cally for events in nature, he was inclined to attribute such events to the work of some unseen personality. And, conversely, in proportion as he has found that matter pos¬ sesses certain properties, and that natural forces are ever acting in accordance with their own innate laws, he has found con¬ stantly less need of the supernatural.® Two thousand years ago men, generally, believed in miracles. Some time ago it became a kind of proverb that " the age of miracles has passed." What were called special provi¬ dences were, however, almost universally believed in until within, comparatively, a few years. !Now, many clergymen even hesitate to assert such a belief; while sci¬ entists, almost universally, consider such 2 Joseph Le Conte in one of his recent and v«ry able works in defense of the fundamental doctrines of the Chris¬ tian religion, says: ** The religions world seems, just now, to be in one of those states of chaotic opinion, in a transi¬ tion state, a stage of disintegration, a state of solution, caused principally by the mass of new elements introduced by science,^'* THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACT 21 things as existing only in the imaginations of men. But this great change, it must be seen, is on account of the growing belief of the world in the reign of natural law.' The belief, in laws specially promul¬ gated by Deity to man is giving way because 3 Herbert W. Morris, an able defender of certain church doctrines, writes eloquently on the uniformity of Nature's operations as follows : The grand elements of nature move and operate according to the same uniform laws, the world over. Whether we traverse the plains, climb the mountains, sail upon the seas, dive into caverns, or ascend into the clouds, we find these laws in undeviating operation. Not an element moves capriciously, not an atom floats at random. Gravitation exerts its power ac¬ cording to the same rule, gases combine in the same pro¬ portions, metals fuse and liquids boil at the same points of heat, light is reflected and refracted at the same angles, heat is radiated, and the air is condensed or rarefied after the same laws, and dew and rain and snow are produced under the same circumstances and according to the same processes—whether we stand on this, or tliat side of the globe. The electric, magnetic and vital forces are likewise invariable in their action. The Needle elects its position, the fiery fluid of the clouds recovers its equilibrium, and life puts forth its powers, in the same way, wherever we go. Atoms cohere to atoms, and unite to form the crystal, or coalesce to produce the green blade, or aggregate to build the lordly tree, or blend to put forth the painted and perfumed flower, or combine to yield the luscious fruit— under the impulses of tho same mysterious laws, from the xising to the setting sun.** 22 NO BEGINNING of, and solely because of, the increasing knowledge of the essential nature of things. So, as has been said, we need not fear to part with the old doctrines of direct and supernatural revelations as to duty and of unseen personalities ; for these will only dis¬ appear as they are crowded aside by the on- marching Grenius of science, bearing in her hand the mandate, which includes all that is good in the teachings of Moses and Christ : Conform yoursel ves ever to the laws of na¬ ture ; for there is no peace nor forgiveness for transgressors of her eternal edicts. The writer has no personal ends to gain by disagreeing with the majority of his fel¬ low-men on these subjects. On the contrary, he has thought in spite of himself, and come to conclusions that he well knows are unpop¬ ular at the present time. Whatever opin¬ ion, therefore, may be formed of the con^- tents of this little volume, he trusts that he will be credited with sincerity in all that may be written. The writer is one of the people ; he loves freedom for himself and for mankind as he loves his own being. He once, voluntarily. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 23 risked Iiis life in war for union, freedom and equality among men. He is a law-abiding citizen, believing that laws made and re¬ tained by the majority of the people should be obeyed, right or wrong. In his youth he was a ' ' skeptic " ; in his early manhood an ' ' unbeliever ' and for years past, one of the wonders of tlie world to him has been the fact that so many edu¬ cated and good people were believers in the "Apostles' Creed." * For over thirty years he has been con¬ scious that if the doctrines assented to by the millions of ' ' orthodox '' people were really true, he was liable at any moment to pass into a place or state of endless misery ; 4 For the information of any reader who is not famil¬ iar with it, this creed is here given: ** I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence he shall cometo judge the quick und the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resur¬ rection of the body and the life everlasting. Amen." 24 NO BEGINNINO and he has pursued his investigations seri¬ ously and solemnly in view of the great risk involved. He has often been asked, why not be on the "safe side" b,v accepting the church doctrines? But he could not do so. He could not assent to certain doctrines, and was an unbeliever in them, for the reason— paradoxical as the statement may appear to some persons—that he had too much faith —in something else. In other Avords, his faith made him an unbeliever. He was an unbeliever in the doctrine of endless punishment, because he had faith that if there was a personal Grod he would provide a better destiny for his own chil¬ dren, and that in any case a less terrible fate awaited man." '' 5 That people of sound minds, who have any love in their hearts, can be believers in this monstrous doctrine of an endless hell must always be a matter of great astonish¬ ment to humane and Ihouirhtful persons. And the fact that such a doctrine has been retained so long as a part of the creeds of the dominant churches is, in itself, proof that religious beliefs are, as a rule, the result of authority and not of thought. The doctrine is wholly irreconcilable with other church teachings. It is so far out of harmony with the conception of God as a good and compassionate being. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 25 He could not believe that an all-wise being made man and pronounced the work good, and then "repented" of the act and drowned the world, because he had faith that su¬ preme wisdom could make no mistakes. He could not believe that God created « millions of men and women, knowing before¬ hand that any of them would be the objects that, if it were true, it would make of the personal creator that the church believes in an infinite and unrelenting: tyrant. To the extent that it is really accepted, its ten- •dency is to lessen sympathy, promote selfishness, nourish bigotry, increase intolerance, stifle thought, check prog¬ ress, generate discord, estrange friends, create misery and to antagonize at once the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. It is a doctrine so superlatively re- pulsive, absurd and awful as to make of all arguments against it the merest verbiage and any attempted defense the veriest blasphemy. Language can not depict half of its horrors nor comprehension grasp the smallest fraction of its infamy. It is infinite hate, infinite cruelty, infinite nonsense. Let every reader of these lines reflect on the meaning of the words "endless punishment"—not a year, not a thousand years, not a million years, not a million million years, but ages added to ages, eons multiplied by eons, and the sum and the product of all these, and yet the tortures of hell have but well begun! It is a disgrace to the present generation that any objection is made to strik¬ ing such an antiquated, needless and immoral dogma from the creeds of every church. It disparages man, libels God and is too great a compliment for even an imaginary devil. 26 ÎTO BEGINNING of his endless wrath ; because, on the same authority, he preferred to have faith that God was compassionate and good. He early doubted the existence of a per¬ sonal devil ; because he had faith that, if there ever was such a creature, God would have killed him at the first opportunity ; and would not have been long in making an opportunity. And he doubted that an angel in heaven ever got up a rebellion there and became a devil; because there seemed to be just as good authority, and more reason, for believ¬ ing that God's will was supreme, at least in that one particular place. He did not believe that the world was created out of nothing ; that an adult man was ever made in a few minutes, or less time ; that Eve was manufactured out of a bit of bone and fiesh, cut from the side of a man ; that Adam ' ' hid ' ' from an omnipres¬ ent personality behind a bush ; that God had a "chosen people" and at the same time was not a "respecter of persons." That God commanded Abraham to kill and burn up his son ; that Christ was im- THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 27 maculately conceived, or that he vpent, bodily, to some other world after his execu¬ tion ; that Christ worked miracles at all ; and especially, that the first proof given that he was Deity, in the form of a man, was the changing of a quantity of water into an in¬ toxicating liquor to be drunk at a feast. In short, he did not believe any of a thou¬ sand miraculous, mysterious, improbable and cruel things mentioned in the ' ' Bible ' ' ; because he believed them to be unreason¬ able, and preferred to have faith in things consistent with human experience and the well-known laws of nature. He thus, literally, became skeptical through faith; and he remained so from the fact that he had faith—that there is safety in being true to one's own honest convic¬ tions ; faith that a good God would not punish a person in some other world for try¬ ing to be right in this \ faith that no remorse can come to any rational being for earnestly seeking to know the truth. And this, dear reader, is the faith of the skeptic. Not a faith that is born of a vain and selfish desire to " wear a crown," 28 NO BEGINNING or of the fear of punishment ; not a faith that is the result of the stuffing of the mind when young with mysterious and unreason¬ able things, but the faith that comes from deliberation, that fears nothing but being wrong, and asks no special reward for being right. Skepticism, therefore, let it be remem¬ bered, odious as the clergy have tried to make the word, simply means lack of faith in some propositions, some doctrines ; and must, of necessity, be based on faith in something else. It is impossible to seriously doubt with¬ out a reason. The writer is not a believer in the doc¬ trine that man was once perfect and is now totally depraved ; but, on the contrary, he believes that naturally there is much good in man—^that in general men mean well. He knows that there is much evil in the world, and that the lives of certain individuals show great depravity. But he also knows that there is much good manifested in the lives of men, and that among the many some are pre-eminently good. Among men there THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 29 are to be found the good, better, best ; and the bad, worse, worst—all grades ; and this will doubtless always be the case, however high mankind may rise or however low it may fall, and regardless of what may, at any time, or in any world, be its standard of excellence. He believes that good and evil, like heat and cold, are relative terms. He knows that many well-meaning men have, in a practical sense of the word, been very bad men ; and that many times the wicked do good things ; and further, that many things admittedly evil in the doer prove to be for the ultimate good of society. He has, therefore, learned to be very tol¬ erant of the views and acts of his fellow- man ; not pretending to know with any such degree of certitude what on the whole is best in any given case, as to justify any extreme condemnation of the acts or teach¬ ings of others. As evil exists, and good still abounds, as the intentions of men are generally good, however bad in fact their doings or beliefs may be, the writer is inclined to account for 30 NO BEGINNING the false views that have always been plenti¬ ful, on the ground of incorrect reasoning on the subjects considered, rather than on the theory of the perverseness of the reasoners. He has, therefore, always felt that the great¬ est need of the world was more honest rea¬ soning together on the various questions dividing and estranging men. The writer is sensible of his own littleness, and amazed at the greatness of things with¬ out himself. He admits that he knows but little ; that any one man knows but little ; and does not deem it possible, even for the millions of his race in the aggregate, to ever solve all the problems of the universe. He believes, however, that nature's opera¬ tions are all knowable to the collective intel¬ ligence of man, or to beings of the nature of man intellectually considered.® So many 6 If tte birth of ideas in the brain is thought of as an opération in which the enerfry of the brain is converted into thought, then in such view of the case it must be ad¬ mitted that here is one performance of nature that is un¬ knowable; for the reason that there must be a point, so to say, between knowable nature on the one side and knowl¬ edge of nature on the other where there is neither distinct¬ ively the one nor the other of these things. Speaking of "mind in the terms of matter," mind is the cognizing TIIK FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 31 laws of Nature are now known, so much more in regard to her hitherto secret ways subject, and matter and its movements are the cognized or cognizable objects, and it is clear that in such view (which makes of mind, so-called, a kind of machine for converting natural phenomena into knowledge) the ** mind " can not be at the same time both the cognizing subject and the cognized object—the machine and the material used by the machine. But the idea of the writer on this question is, that thought is not transformed energy, and hence the produc¬ tion of ideas by the organism is not an operation in the sense in which this word is used in connection with exter¬ nal phenomena, but-that it is simply a property of the organism called man, when moved upon by forces, both ex¬ ternal and internal, to think, to cognize, to have ideas, to know. And thus viewed the fact that man thinks no' more demands explanation than does the fact that matter attracts matter, or that in various conditions and combinations it behaves in certain ways. Scientists do not pretend to enter upon any explanation of the existence of the properties of matter, but are content with the simple discovery of such properties. It is true that there are laws of attraction and laws in accordance with which all matter and forces act, and laws of thought, but the power of mind," so-called, to per¬ ceive an object, or to draw inferences as in abstract reason¬ ing, is inexplainable, other than to know that the power exists. The fact itself is the only solution of the fact. And from this view of the subject it is plain that man's inability to explain the existence of the power of mental per¬ ception in himself does not form an exception to the general statement, that all of nature's operations are knowable. 32 NO BEGINNING of doing things is likely to be discovered, that it seems absurd to attempt to set a limit to what it is possible to know. If we do so, and say that at a certain line knowable things end and all beyond is unknowable, it is like attempting to fix in the imagination a limit to space. We may say, and try to make ourselves believe, that space ends at some indefinite line far away ; but as we think,' and try to fix such a line it is found impossible, from the fact that the mind at once goes beyond the attempted limit. The line is, so to say, no sooner fibced than the Mind looks beyond and defiantly asks itself : "What is there?" and, answering at once, says : " Space is there—space is not, and cannot be limited." And so it would seem to be with knowable things. As no bound¬ ary wall can mentally be erected for space, so as to what truths in nature it is possible for man to discover, no limit can be set for mind by mind. The mind of reasoning intelligences may move, somewhat like a planetary body, in a circle; but unlike the material body, it is constantly changing the plane of its orbit THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 33 and its length of flight; and. is thus ever brought into new realms of thought and to see new truths. The writer, inerefore, with greater defer¬ ence but with equal confidence of being right, as promptly objects to an unknowa¬ ble line being fixed by a Spencer as by a Spurgeon ; by a Huxley or a Darwin, as by the average churchman who is ever ready to say, when confronted by a difficult problem: " Such things it was not given us to know." All realities are knowable and yet all may never be known, may be said precisely in 4 the same sense tha<" it may be said that all space is measurable, yet only a small part of its infinite amplitude will ever be measured by man. Place a man in any part of infinite space, and he will measure a portion of it. He will measure the world on which he may be placed, as a surveyor measures a farm, and then by means of the higher mathematics he will compute the size and distance of other worlds millions of miles away ; and he is as much and as fully a knowing, as he is a measuring creature. No mile of space 34 NO BEGINNING exists that he can not measure if only he is placed within reach, and no fact of all the infinitude of facts of eternity transcends his power of knowing, except only as he is limi¬ ted in time and space. Man can not comprehend limitless space, but he is cognizant of it—he knows that it is. He can not comprehend infinity, but mathe¬ matics brings it to light as surely as it does the existence of a thousand pebbles. He can not comprehend endless succession, but he can find it to be a fact. He can not know all things, but he can know some things and know that he knows them, and know also that it is possible for him to know other and still other things, being limited only by op¬ portunity. And it is impossible for him to set a limit to his own power to know by any independent volition of his own, as it is im¬ possible for him to know any one thing by reason of any such volitionary power. He knows what is reflected by his mental fac¬ ulties and he can not know anything else ; and hence he can not know that a reality not known is unknowable. It is common with theological writers of THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 35 an advanced type to speak of the "how" and the "why" of natural things. They say that science has the "how" to deal with, and religion the "why" '—that sci¬ ence has for its object the explanation of the immediate causes of phenomena but that it is left, largely at least, to supernatural reve¬ lations to account for the 'purpose of things. They insist, by inference, that nothing ex¬ ists except by reason of a pre-existing pur¬ pose of something else. ÍTow, it seems much more rational to admit the existence of things, absolutely, unqualifiedly. Existence itself is before purpose, and requires no apology for its being. Hence there can not have been purposes before a being (a something). 7 It is said in * * The Unseen Universe ' ' (a very able work supposed to have been written by two eminent scientific gentlemen of England): ** A division as old as Aristotle separates speculators into two great classes—those who study the How of the Universe, and those who study the Why, All men of science are embraced in the former of these, all men of religion in the latter. The former regard the Universe as a huge machine, and their object is to study the laws which regulate its working; the latter again speculate about the object of the machine, and what sort of work it is intended to produce." 3(5 NO BEGINNING Things are, and with the exception of some of the works of man and other finite intelligences, if such exist, there is no rea¬ son why for their being. The writer's position is, therefore, that the "how," the modus (/peraudi of things being knowable without limitation, and there being no "why" for natural things (with the above exception), there is no fact in nature but what the intellect of man is competent (the opportunity being given) to know. If it is claimed that simple existence or being is a fact and an unknowable fact, it is perhaps a sufficient reply to say that sub¬ stance or essence however conceived of is known by its properties—its characteristics, and that simple being in the sense of sub¬ stance without character is probably not a fact. This seems so, for how better can we arrive at the idea of complete non-entity than by eliminating from matter all its known properties ? It is most evident that to take from matter the one quality of extension is to destroy it ; and to take from force the idea of influence exerted is to annihilate THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 37 force; so that it must be illogical to speak of a supposed thing that is reduced to non¬ entity in the very effort to conceive of it, as an actuality The mind is adapted to know realities, and,iealities have properties making them objects of knowledge—making them know- able; and hence a thing supposed to be a reality, but found to have no knowable nature, is necessarily discarded by the mind (if the mind is not under duress) as a false conception and as not existing at all as a verity. The "unknowable" is possibly only an¬ other name for the unreal.® 8 If the position above taken—that there does not exist any such thing as simple being, tiiat is, being without properties—is correct, then, of course, it can not be said that such supposed simple being is an unknowable reality. Such^form, so to express it, of being can not be an un¬ knowable thing, because it is not a thing at all. It may be said, however, that even admitting for the sake of the argument that such a reality as simple being does exist, yet it can not be classed as unknowable. If anything exists and is known to exist, it is not wholly un* knowable—its existence is known. And in the case of so- called simple being, it is clear that all there is to know of it is the one fact of its existence; for the very term simple, or pure being, limits the character of such being to bare 38 NO BEGINNING existence; so that, generally# the proposition that affirms the existence of an unknowable something, is to some ex¬ tent self-contradictory; and if the supposed unknowable reality is simple existence, then the proposition becomes a complete self-contradiction and an absurdity on its face. Simple being, if such exists, is fully known by being known to exist. But perhaps the better way to dispose of the question is to maintain that simple being is not being at all, but an empty and abstract conception—a form of thought with all the substantial elements eliminated. It is true that in our effort to understand nature, our powers of conception finally seem to be confronted with an unknowable"; but this is so because we are inclined to try to get away from nature for its ultimate solution, and thus pass unconsciously from the concrete reality to an empty conception, and forget for the time that the purely abstract, as an ahstractj is fully known by being known to be. Similarly as the image of a visible body remains for an instant on the retina of the eye after the body is with¬ drawn from actual view, a kind of indistinct consciousness of something seems to linger with us after the real ele¬ ments of the object of thought have all been eliminated; but actual consciousness of the existence of an object being dependent on the phenomenal properties of the object, real consciousness of such object must cease with the complete elimination from the object of its consciousness-awakening properties. In so far as we think of this indistinct consciousness as standing for an actuality, such actuality seems to have unknowable qualities; but this is not so in reality, for its existence — granting for the argument's sake that such actuality exists—is its only remaining attribute, and this being known, all is known. And in this view, the seem¬ ingly unknowable is known at the very instant that it is THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 39 appreJjeuded as being; and hence the actually unknowable does not exist at all« An abstract thing is not an entity, because all the real elements have been thrown out and nothing but a shadow remains. Take as an illustration any of such abstracts as " white¬ ness," " roundness," etc.: Nothing farther can be known of tham than their existence—as long as they are regarded as abstracts; but this is because there is nothing to know of them as abstracts but their existence. ^'Whiteness " is not a thing, but a conception of similarity between things. As soon as the attempt is made to apply the term " whiteness " to a particular thing, it ceases to be white¬ ness, and the thing becomes a white body or substance, and all there is of ** whiteness " is merged in the concrete substance and lost. The same may be said of "round¬ ness " : this is not an entity, but a form only ; and a form distinct from a formed thing is complete emptiness. Forms are not even bounded by substance, but by lines, A form, therefore, instead of being an entity or power, is nothingness enclosed in nothingness. In short, the very term "abstract " means lacking substance. And thus it is that so-called pure being, or something supposed to exist anterior to, or outside of all coi'^crete being, is nothing but pure emptiness—the real substance all having been excluded by the very name we gave to the supposed unknowable essence. It is a fact that being underlies all thought; that without existence of some kind there would be no thought; but it is concrete being and not an unthinkable, unconditioned something that lies at the foundation of thought opera¬ tions. Concrete being operating on the knowing organism produces knowledge of the existence of such being, and this knowledge lies at the foundation of q\\ further knowledge— is what may be called a first truth. But first truths are the 40 NO BEGINNING resultof thought as surely as are all subsequent truths. The mental activity which forces us to say that something is, is less in quantity but no less real in quality than those thought operations involved in solving a problem in geometry. Knowledge does not begin with innate ideas in the mind " considered as an entity, but with perception— that is, by or through the effedt produced on the organism by actual concrete substance; aud it ends at the end of phenomena—at the end of real being. In other words, it does not end at all until all realities are known. Substance produces thought; j;hought, by what for the want of a bet¬ ter name may be called a kind of reaction, deals with sub¬ stance, ■ At the end of concrete reality, in so far as such an end may be supposed to be conceived, thought, of course, ceases—not, however, because there is something unknow¬ able beyond, but for the reason that there is neither " ob¬ jective ** material nor " subjective " power left. It may seem that the changeable must rest on an un¬ changeable—that the state of change pre-supposes a state of unchangeableness as a kind of antithesis of thought; but this seeming necessity is fully done away with when the mind grasps the idea of perpetual change. It is not an unchangeable, but the changeable itself that changes. There can be no conuection between an unchangeable and a changeable, for any supposed connection whatever—such as seeks to make of the former the cause of the latter— destroys the unchangeable character of the so-called un¬ changeable and makes of it also a changeable essence. In other words, an absolute ** cannot be an absolute and at the same time be the cause of the " related." Herbert Spencer himself, in tryinar to prove the existence of an absolute and ** unknowable " reality, behind appear¬ ances," as he expresses it, makes an admission which de- THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 41 Knowledge is of, or concerning. Nature's methods, and Nature's methods are all knowable. To go further than this and to say that back of and anterior to nature there existed an infinitude of purposes in the mind of an infinite personal intelligence, is without rea¬ son and without results. It is simply an attempted explanation for what needs no explanation, in that it resolves itself into seeking a reason for existence—^an excuse ior being, when being must necessarily be stroys his non-relative (another name for the unchangeable or absolute). He says, It follows that the relative is, itself, inconceivable, except as related to a real non-rela- txve^^'' seeming to overlook the fact that it the relative " is related to a " non-relative," then must the non-relative be related to the relative, and hence is not a non-relative at all. If B is related to A, A is just as certainly re¬ lated to B And thus it is seen that unconditioned or ab¬ solute being cannot underlie, in any causal sense, condi- iioned, active existence, for absolute being ceases at once to be such, as soon as it is thought of as causing other being; and is, therefore, not a reality constituting an excep¬ tion to the proposition which affirms that all realities are knowable. The real actuality is in and identical with the moving, phenomenal existence, and not behind it. 42 NO BEGINNING (and is, even in this attempt to account foi being) accepted as a first truth.* Existence (in some sense of the word) can not, it is clear, be thought of as contingent. It necessarily is, and needs no reason for be¬ ing. To seek to get back of it, for the pur¬ pose of ascertaining a "why" for it, is to doubt its necessity and to make of all exist¬ ence something that need not have been. As to the forms of matter or the modes of force, or however the idea of character in necessary being may be expressed, it seems equally clear that character, or quality, is inseparable from being and no more needs explanation than does existence itself. No thing, whether it be named matter, force, or simply essence, without properties can be determined by the intellectual powers of man to exist, for the reason that all our knowledge of the existence of any thing comes from the character of such thing. It is only through its qualities that a thing is recognized by the mind at all. A characterless thing is no thing. 9 Emerson says: "Being is the vast aflSrmative, ex¬ cluding negation,self-balanced, and swallowing up all rela¬ tions, parts and times within itself/* THK FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 43 This is not only a necessary deduction, it seems, from the fundamental laws of thought, but the truth of the statement is attested by the common-sense of mankind of all ages, as illustrated by the fact that the ' ' Gods ' ' of all people have been given certain attributes. They are "spiritual" or "supernatural" beings, "without body, parts or passions," perhaps. They have all been different in some respects from any natural thing known to exist. They are so strangely different from all things else that they can not be seen or recognized by any of the physical senses or known by the know¬ ing faculty of man. They have, each one, been different from all the others in many particulars, and yet there is one, and possi¬ bly only one point in which they are all alike, and that is that each Deity has had attributes. And this fact is because there can not exist in the human mind a conception of any thing, any power or essence, however named, without character. It is evident that quality can not exist without substance, and it seems just as cer- 44 NO BEGINNING tain that substance can not exist without quality. The very conception of one pre¬ supposes the other; or rather the one is a fundamental element of the conception of the other. And this being so it follows that not only being but being having quality, character, substance, tendency, force, activ¬ ity—being similar to the being now found to be, is and has always been, as a necessity; and that the character and properties of matter are as self-existent and indestructible as is matter itself, or as is any other being of which, it is possible to conceive. Being is, being is something, is some way— has characteristics, attributes, properties ; hut can not be the result of an anterior purpose because purpose is itself a char¬ acteristic of something. Modes of nature therefore no more need or demand a prior purpose' than " God," in the popular sense of the term, requires a creator or a reason for his attributes. Nature's movements. Nature's acts are her attributes, and there can be no " why ' ' con¬ cerning them. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 45 The ways of the infinite oneness neither need nor admit of justification. The writer, therefore, enters on the discus¬ sion of the questions to be considered not only with the belief that no really unsolv- able problems ever have been or ever will be presented to man, but also with the firm conviction that it is only through the right use of reason that truth can be found and appropriated to the wants of the race. That he discards wholly the doctrine of direct revelation to the mind of man, by one or more higher personal intelligences, and believes alone in the revelation of Nature's works, it is hardly necessary to state. He believes that observation by means of the physical senses, memory, and mental activity constitute in man the only sources of knowledge: as to facts derived from history, tradition and more directly from others, as also inherited adaptability to re¬ ceive knowledge, all of these he includes within what might be called the memory of the race—^the memory of the great family of man considered as one organism. 46 NO BEGINNING The writer also believes that there is but one kind of intelligence—one kind of right reason in the universe. Mental power is possessed in different degrees by different men, and possibly by other classes of ra¬ tional beings ; but the difference is, in his opinion, only in degree and not in kind. Scientists, now, generally, believe that mat¬ ter everywhere is composed of the same elementary substances. Light, electricity and heat are doubtless the same substances or forces everywhere ; and it seems rational to conclude that wherever in the universe intelligence is found, it is the same in kind, although, like heat, differing greatly in de¬ gree. The writer is a believer in the doctrine of evolution—the doctrine that things grow, so to say. He does not believe than any tree, matured and ready to bear fruit, or any adult man, ever sprang instantaneously into existence, or was formed otherwise than by years of growth. Doctrines, religious beliefs, systems of ethics, and governments are also things of growth. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 47 The writer believes in rational ethics, and in governments "o/'[coming out of or from, created by] the people, for the [ whole] peo¬ ple, and hy [all of] the people." Some criterion of right private action, as also laws controlling individuals in their treatment of each other, are necessities. But, as the individuals to be governed are the creators of all right government, and as all advancement by society is dependent on the action of the individuals composing it, the largest possible freedom should be reserved to such individuals—to the end, that there be no interference with the advancement of the people collectively. The only infallible criterion of right ac¬ tion, and the only true foundation of. human legislation, is natural law. To discover what that underlying law of nature is, should be the great aim of every legislator and ethical teacher. The writer would not, as should be inferred from what has been said, leave questions as to what is or what is not in conformitv with natural law, to individual judges or courts ; but would crystallize into legislation the ag- 43 NO BEGINNING gregate wisdom of the body of the people, and recognize and enforce this, as the gov¬ erning law, until changed by the people, through peaceful and established methods. It is right for individual men to differ in opinion. Such difference is natural, una¬ voidable, and necessary. Friction between mind and mind, occasioned by the expres¬ sion of conflicting thoughts, brightens and polishes such minds as certainly as friction polishes pieces of metal when rubbed to¬ gether. Humanity at large owes its past progress in knowledge wholly to such fric¬ tion ; and if better things are to be attained in the future they must come through the same process. Without mental activity, without the mixing and compounding of ideas, no indi¬ vidual could gain any great knowledge— could not, certainly, discover any general truth, law or rule of action; and it is equally certain, that without the free inter¬ change of thoughts between individuals the greatest possible progress can not be made by collective man. And it should always be borne in mind. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 49 that it is only in the aggregate that man is great or does great things. The greatest individual, alone, is narrowly limited, both in power and time for action. He is "of few days and full of trouble." He thinks a few thoughts, adds a trifle to the knowledge of his race, and passes away. Mankind, however, as a whole, is an organ¬ ism that encircles the world ; is million-eyed, looking out into the universe in all directions at the same time ; lives for ages—possibly for a number of years so great as to be in¬ comprehensible by a single mind. He builds cities ; establishes governments ; creates systems of philosophy ; weighs the earth and the other planets as in a balance ; meas¬ ures the distances of the more remote heav¬ enly bodies, and calculates their positions in space a thousand years ahead — utilizes Nature's forces ; discovers her laws ; and is fast finding out the hitherto "secret ways of God." » « i CHAPTER II SEASON LEADS TO TRUTH—CONSCIOUSNESS NOT A TRUTH DETEKMININO FACULTY—TO KNOW IS A PROPERTY OF MAN'S ORGANISM—NATURE GIVES NO REASONS FOR HER ACTIONS With the foregoing preliminary and some¬ what personal remarks, the writer proceeds to a kind of second preface, designing, by all that is said in advance of the more formal discussion, to accomplish at least three things : First: to indicate, somewhat, the route he has traveled mentally in reaching his general conclusion, and to hint at certain fundamental facts that possibly may, in the future, be dwelt upon by the readef to his profit as a seeker after truth, and to the advantage of the writer in the arguments to follow. Second: to call into action the mental powers of the reader so that he may start iu .sn THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 51 the discussion wide awake and fully con¬ scious that it is his boldest, purest, and most honest reason, and this alone, that is to be addressed. Third : to procure that thoughtful atten¬ tion to the final and main arguments that might not be given if they were more abruptly thrust before the reader. The principal question to be considered, is that relating to the origin of the totality of things. This has appeared to most men in the past to be too great a problem to. be solved by human reason ; and there will doubtless be some readers of this book who will look upon any attempt to deal with the question, from the standpoint of reason alone, as unpardonable presumption. The writer's apology to such persons is, in part, that his mind has not followed a cer¬ tain channel of thought wholly from choice. Whatever may be said on the question of man's responsibility for his thoughts, it is most evident to any reflecting mind that no one can think exactly what he chooses to think. That a person to a very great extent thinks what his environment and physical 62 NO BEGINNING constitution compel him to think, must be admitted by all who think at all. An irresistible proof of the fact that cir¬ cumstances not of one's own creation help to shape his thoughts, is furnished in the experience of every reader of this book, and at the particular instant of reading this paragraph. You, reader, did not learn of your own volition or choice that there was such a book in existence. Circumstances, over which you had no control, placed these words before you, and you have new thoughts as the result. The writer would not, however, be under¬ stood as intimating that he has made any particular effort to coerce his mind in its search for truth. He could not do this and be a believer in the desirability of mental freedom. As well might the mariner expect to go safely into port when interfering with and restraining the free action of his compass, as for a man to hope to find truth when try¬ ing to make his views of things conform either to his own pre-judgments or to the opinions of others. THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 53 To say to one's self, "I have thought in this manner and must not change my views, " or, ' ' This doctrine is popular and I must be faithful to it," is mental slavery. To refuse to think for fear of finding new truths, is piental cowardice. And to seek to influence the intellectual views of others or of one's self otherwise than by an honest and kindly appeal to reason, is mental tyranny. Reason cannot both guide and be guided. It likes to be trusted, and, like the sensitive pilot, goes before those only who desire its services. It is like a wise and humane king ; it dispenses blessings in proportion as it is given the right to rule ; and if blind feeling or unenlightened "consciousness" usurps its place, reason is not to blame if error is the result. Reason is man's best friend. It is the lantern given him by nature to light his way through the world. Let not mistakes be charged to its account until its light is freely followed ; and thus far in the history of the race it cannot be claimed that this has been the case. 54 NO BEGINNING Some men have reasoned a little ; other» have reasoned much on some subjects ; but what is needed is, that all men, or at least the majority, should reasoB on all subjects. And not until this is done can it fairly be claimed that the reason of collective man will fail to point unerringly in the direction of truth, and of the greatest possible good. With all its hindrances in the past, reason has led man far away from his primitive barbarity and up to a high plane of civiliza¬ tion. It has replaced the cave and the rude hut of his ancestors with beautiful cottages and stately mansions. It has given him a variety of healthful food, and provided him with medicines for almost every ill. It has given him conscious knowledge of his own dignity and possibilities, and added in countless ways to his well-being. It has in¬ creased his years on the earth and multi¬ plied many times his joys It has provided him with wealth to supply his material wants, and set before him intellectual viands fit for god'^ It has enlarged his powers of mind ; educated his judgment ; allayed his fears ; broadened his sympathies ; increased THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 55 his love for his fellows, and is fast bringing about an era of gentleness that will make every duty a pleasure and every labor a recreation. The writer is aware that it is claimed by some—and strange to say claimed as being reasonable—that some particular truths are not discernible by reason ; but are only known to be truths by consciousness, inde¬ pendent of any intellectual process. The correctness of this doctrine has already, in- ferentially at least, been questioned ; but it is here suggested, without the intention of being sarcastic, that if this is in reality a true doctrine, then is it also a fact that some truths are not in harmony with reason—are unreasonable ; and this cannot be. At least, it cannot reasonably be granted, but must be denied. Reason cannot admit that any truth is unreasonable. Other faculties or impulses of man's na¬ ture may suggest the existence of a truth, not before consciously known, but reason can not accept it until she has passed upon its genuineness. 56 NO BEGINNING Eeason, the proud mistress of our com¬ plex being, constantly asserts her sole qual¬ ification to determine what is and what is not true, and can not be expected to sur¬ render her rights to any or all of her subor¬ dinates. The senses may suggest, desire may urge, love and hope may importune, but reason alone returns all verdicts as to what is real and what is fanciful—what is true and what false. If formal argument is demanded on this question of the supremacy of reason it may be had somewhat as follows : If it be asserted that feeling or conscious¬ ness, distinct from ratiocination, is the true arbiter as to the truth or falsity of any given proposition, let the assertion itself be tested in its own crucible and notice the result. If the truth of any proposition, such, for instance, as asserts the existence of a per¬ sonal Deity—is best determined by feel¬ ing, as distinguished from reason, then is the following proposition true: Conscious¬ ness alone is the true arbiter as to the truth or falsity of some propositions. But is this true, tested by itself ? If our inmost self is THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 57 consulted, if our consciousness is appealed to, it will be learned that it does not assert itself to be a truth-determining faculty on any subject—does not claim to be able to discriminate between actualities and things only seemingly so—does not claim to weigh evidence and pass on its sufficiency to estab¬ lish a case, but is only a kind of record of our mental tribunal, rather than the court Itself. We are conscious that we think ; but we are equally conscious that we are only con¬ scious of this fact after we have thought ; that thought must exist before we are con¬ scious of it, and that, therefore, mental ac¬ tivity (reason) is the creator of conscious conclusions, and their superior. At first thought, there may seem to be ex¬ ceptions to this. Impromptu judgments are known in some cases to be more reliable than conclusions reached after a certain amount of conscious thought on the subject ; and such conclusions may appear to be original determinations of consciousness. But they are not. Such prompt responses