Lesson 2bof the basic ideas of the modern popular conceptions. In theVedanta, in the teachings of Buddha, in the writings of Plato,Heraclitus, Democritus and the Stoic philosophers, may befound the principles of the popular thought of to-day. The cycle,or spiral, of human thought has brought the old philosophiesto the front as new. But is the fact that a new thing is reallyold any real argument against it? Secondly, say these critics:It comes from heathen sources. True, also, but this is circularreasoningthe fact that an old philosopher, before the days ofChristianity, happened to fail to be a Christian, is no argumentagainst his truths. Nor is all truth, wisdom and virtue theespecial property of Christian thinkers. If we were to discardall heathen knowledge, the world would be a heavy loser.Thirdly, say the critics: It is naught but pantheism. This maybe so, but, notwithstanding the odium attached to the termby the orthodox churchman, pantheism has inspired some ofthe worlds greatest minds. There are two kinds of pantheism,the first being that of the materialists, who hold that God isbut the sum and substance of the natural forces and objects;the second being the view of the god-drunken philosopher,Spinoza, who held that God was in all, and all in God; thatnature and the universe was but a manifestation of God; andthat to define God is to deny Him.To understand the charge of pantheism hurled at theold-new conception of the Oneness of All, by the orthodoxcritics, one must realize what the pantheism of Spinoza is, andto realize how different it is from the old pantheism of thematerialists. The following quotation, from the EncyclopdicDictionary, states the matter briefly and clearly:The system of Spinoza bas been described as atheism, as pantheism,and as the most rigid monotheism, according as his cardinal teachingthat there is but one substance, Godhas been interpreted. Bysubstance, however, Spinoza meant the underlying reality andever-living existence, and he chose for the epigraph of his Ethics theThe Crucible of Modern Thought20words of St. Paul: In him we live and move and have our being (Actsxvii:28). God is for him the one principle, having thought and extensionas two eternal and infinite attributes constituting its essence, of whichattributes mind and matter are the necessary manifestations; andthus he solves the problem of the relation of the finite to the infinite.Everything is a form of the ever-living existence, the substance, God,which is, and is not, nature, with which He is no more to be confoundedthan the fountain with the rivulet, or eternity with time. God is naturanaturans, nature is natura naturata; the one is the energy, the other theact. In the same way, he explains the union of the soul with the body.Man is but a mode of the divine existence; his mind a spark of thedivine flame; his body a mode of the infinite existence.Surely this comes very near to agreement with the twentiethcentury conception of the omnipresent spirit. If one ispantheism, the other must be also. We leave this subject in thehands of the respective schools.Fourthly, say the orthodox critics: When we deny thepersonality of God, we deny His Being as God, and resolve Himinto a mere principlethe principle of nature. This is anothermatter which may be safely left for the consideration of thetheologians. It is too technical for discussion here. We must,however, mention the view of Schopenhauer, who taught theidea of a World-Spirit, which he called The Will to Live. Hesaid: When we assert pantheism we deny the existence of aGod; when we identify God with nature, we really show God tothe door. The contention of the orthodox that all the attributes,qualities and characteristics which orthodoxy attributes tothe personal God disappear when the personality is denied,seems to be worthy of respectful consideration. And the newconceptions certainly do emphatically deny the personality ofGod, and certainly do regard him as a principle. Therefore, wemay understand the cry of orthodoxy, that they would takeaway Jehovah, and supplant Him by a shadowy Principle. But auniversity professor has said: The view of God which conceivesOld Wine in New Bottles.21him as external to the human self is a view which dominates thelowest forms of religions. Just how much of the old qualities,characteristics and attributes of the personal God may bepreserved when the personal conception is supplanted by anabstract principle, which must by its nature be absolute anddevoid of qualities, characteristics and attributes, is a questionfor the philosophers to argue among themselves. We do nothazard an opinionwe are merely the reporter of the observedideas in the public mind.But, finally cry the orthodox critics: If you deny the personalGod, the inspiration of the scriptures, and the authority of thechurch you sweep away the very standards of religion, moralityand laws of human conduct. You leave nothing but a recourseto utilitarian ethics and systems of morality, built upon thechanging ideals of man, or of his supposed needs. Your standardschange with the times. You destroy all standards and the rockcrumbles beneath your feet. We think this objection worthyof thought. It must follow that if the authority of the scripturesand the church is denied then the standards resting upon thisauthority must likewise fall, and man must be driven to theerection of standards based upon his reason, judgment andexperience, rather than upon the authority of the scripturesand the church. And here is where many careful observers seethe immediate cause of much of the sociological, economicand ethical unrest, and shifting standards of to-day. Theseobservers say that the race, now in the process of discardingthe old authority, must lose its faith in the infallibility of theold standards, and is beginning to create new standards, basedupon the needs, real or supposed, of the race; and this occasionsmuch of the turmoil and bubbling in the great Melting Pot ofModern Thought.People are inquiring why they should be bound to old formswhen the authority for those forms have been discarded. Theyask why they should attempt to live up to the old admonitions:Submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastorsThe Crucible of Modern Thought22and masters; to order myself lowly and reverently to all mybetters;to do my duty in that state of life into which it shallplease God to call mewhen the authority of the churchwhich so enjoined these duties is in grave doubt. They ask:The Ten Commandments denied as inspiredthen whatcommandments shall we follow! If the scriptures are notinspired what is the true rule of conduct and life! These arethe questions that the plain people are asking. They are in atransition stage. They are revolting against the old rules of sociallife, economics, and the old morality, in many instances. They aredisputing many venerable old ideas regarding property, socialduties, relation of state and citizen, marriage, etc. The barriersdown, they are thinking of building according to their wishesor requirements, rather than upon the dicta of churchmenand ancient prophets. All these things are bubbling in the pot,because of the changing conceptions of fundamental principles.On the other hand, the advocate of the new conceptionsanswers that, while this is all truethat while the old standardsare being destroyed and discardedthat man is also engagedin building up for the race a newer, saner and grander edifice ofthoughta better, truer and stronger set of standards, basedupon human needs, experience and requirementsthatinstead of following the arbitrary commands of dead prophetsand teachers, or of antiquated and discarded creeds, the racewill move on, inspired by the Indwelling Spirit of God mademanifest as man, ever towardhigher and nobler effortstoward higher and better things, following ever the ideaembodied in the lines of Holmes:Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul;As the swift seasons roll!Leave thy low and vaulted past!Let each new temple, nobler than the last,Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,Till thou at length are free, .Old Wine in New Bottles.23Leaving thine outgrown shell by lifes unresting sea.And, in the meantime, those of us who may feel confusedat this process of tearing down and rebuildingwho feel thepang of letting go of the old, and the perplexity and confusionresulting from the attempt to adapt ourselves to the newwe who, though our faces and intellect be turned toward thefuture, still feel that our hearts are with the pastwhat is therefor us to do but to proceed in our search with a positive faith,knowing that a constant and persistent desire for truth mustinevitably lead us into the very light of truth?Thus it has come about that in the consideration of theconflicting ideas, theories and conceptions presentingthemselves for consideration at the bar of modern thought,there is a new school which is now making its claims heard, andwhich many think destined to occupy a prominent positionon the stage of interest in the near future. This school has forits basic principle the idea that abstract truth is unknowablethat the mind of man is unable to grasp the idea of abstractprinciple, any more than it can grasp that of abstract air,abstract water, abstract stone, etc. It holds that man does not,and cannot, know whence he comes; whither he goes; or whatis the object of his existence. And that, therefore, his highestwisdom lies in accepting this fact, and then living in the here andnow; accepting what good may come to his hand; discardingall questions incapable of definite answer; being kind anddoing good wherever he can, not as a duty, but because of theevolving feeling of the Brotherhood of Man; and finally testingall statements of truth by the touchstone of utilityaskingever the questions: What is it good for? How will it work?What can be done with it? Does it make good? This class ofthinkers show a preference for the pragmatic view of thoughtand life, which Professor James has so well stated as: Theattitude of looking away from first things, principles, categories,supposed necessities; and of looking toward last things, fruits,The Crucible of Modern Thought24consequences, facts. After all, would it not be strange if thepragmatic method should prove to be the solutionshouldprove to be the test to be applied to the products of the meltingpotthe final test of: How does it work out? What is it goodfor? What will it do for the race? How far does it make good?Meanwhile the pot is bubbling, seething and sputtering. Thecrucible is heated to its fullest extent. Some of the thoughtsand ideas placed therein we know to be true; concerning others,there is grave doubt; but what will be the new arrangement,the new system, the new application; in brief, what will bepoured forth from the pot? The world is on tiptoe, watching,wondering.