p. 58What have you to say to the argument of last month, that the wisdom-marked and power-shewing universe must have a cause in which power and wisdom are rooted?—I must seem dull, but I cannot jump with you so quickly. It is easy to talk of the universe. I find it difficult to grasp the greatness of the subject. The more I think of it, the more I am lost.
But the thing is there to be noticed and thought about.—Yes, the universe is there; but I find the thinking hard. It is so great—so inconceivably stupendous—I am staggered, paralysed, crushed.
The sensation is natural to small mentalities like ours, but our inability to grasp the greatness can make no difference to the conclusion arising from a contemplation of it.—I do not quite follow you there.
My argument is not affected by the size of the thing. If the universe were small, the argument would be the same. Evidence of wisdom and power p. 59 would shew the existence of wisdom and power whether the thing shewing it were large or small. If the thing is large, the argument is all the stronger.—I suppose it must be so; but I feel a sort of intellectual paralysis in the presence of the measureless immensity spread out before us in the heavens.
The paralysis will be respected by every one entering into the greatness of the subject. At the same time, it is a feeling to be resisted. It is due to the weakness and smallness of man, and also in some degree perhaps to an unconfessed latent egoism, which sets itself up as the standard by which things are to be measured and determined. We must get rid of it, otherwise we shall become petrified and reduced to a state of almost intellectual idiotcy. The universe is there whether we peer into it, or leave it alone in our frightened impotence. The power and wisdom which it displays are glorious facts whether we joyfully recognize them or lie down in mental stupefaction like the blinking brute. The inference they yield is an inherent indication in the nature of things, whether we discern it or give way to our indisposition to follow it. It is evident we have to choose between following reason or lying down in intellectual sloth. I advise you to shake yourself together, rub your eyes, get rid of this fog, and follow the glorious Light.—Your advice is good. I hope I am not disposed to intellectual sloth. My difficulty is rather to reconcile the various indications of reason. Some seem to point one way and some another.
Vigorously seize and combine them. They must be in harmony. There cannot be such a thing as actual contradiction in the constitution of the universe. If there appears to be so in any case, the appearance p. 60 must be due to incorrect sight in us—not to the things themselves.—Very likely very true, but we feel the difficulty all the same.
Come to the point: What difficulty in conceding the pre-existence of power and wisdom capable of producing the works of power and wisdom which we see in the universe?—There must, of course, have existed the power of production before the production took place.
Very well; put your foot down there; there you have solid ground to stand on as a base for the next move.—What would you call the next move?
The recognition of God.—Ah, that is easy to say. What difficulty in the doing?—Well, my understanding is at fault. I do not know what I am admitting in admitting the pre-existence of power of production. I do not understand what this is.
You need not try. You cannot understand it: but you must recognize the fact, even if you cannot understand it.—I have a difficulty in admitting a fact which I do not understand.
Nay, my friend; not if its truth as a fact is undoubted. You admit many facts you do not understand.—I think not.
What have you to say to your own power of thought, and your power to will and to act out your will: do you understand it? Do you know what thought is, and how it is formed in the brain? Do you know what life is, whether in plant or animal? Do you know what gravitation is, that draws globe to globe in boundless space? Do you know what electricity is that flashes your signals across the ocean in a moment or gives a dazzling light in the dark? My friend, there are a thousand things that you know as facts, that you cannot understand p. 61 in the nature of them, and yet whose truth as facts, you never for a moment allow this lack of understanding to interfere with. Is it not so?—I must allow there is force in what you say.
Why should you allow your inability to understand to interfere with the frank and cordial recognition of the most glorious of all facts—that the universe which we behold, in which we live, of which we form a part, is the product of eternal power and wisdom in which it subsists from moment to moment?—I don’t know that I can answer you. I suppose it is a little want of intellectual perspicacity on my part. The wheels of my intellectual machinery seem a little clogged. I would like to understand God.
My friend, you cannot; and you will never have peace or settled faith until you recognize that you cannot. It is enough that you believe that He is. This you are compelled to do. You cannot logically escape it. The scientific minds of the age do not escape it. They accept the conclusion in other terms. They admit “the Unknowable” and speak of “force” and recognize reason as the guide of its evolutions. They do not profess to understand the Unknowable. The very term is a confession of their inability to understand. Yet they do not reject because they cannot understand. They simply say there is truth beyond them. They acknowledge it is there though admitting incapacity to know what it is. why should your inability to understand God be the least reason for not accepting Him, since your reason perceives He must be?—As I have said it is probably the result of dulness. Yet I can see a point when it is established. I admit the general cogency of your argument; but there are still some difficulties—not exactly obstacles—which I may submit next time we meet.