William Atkinson - The Essential Works of William Walker Atkinson - 50+ Books in One Edition

Surely this comes very near to agreement with the twentieth century conception of the omnipresent spirit. If one is pantheism, the other must be also. We leave this subject in the hands of the respective schools.

Fourthly, say the orthodox critics: When we deny the personality of God, we deny His Being as God, and resolve Him into a mere principle—the principle of nature. This is another matter which may be safely left for the consideration of the theologians. It is too technical for discussion here. We must, however, mention the view of Schopenhauer, who taught the idea of a World-Spirit, which he called “The Will to Live.” He said: “When we assert pantheism we deny the existence of a God; when we identify God with nature, we really show God to the door.” The contention of the orthodox that all the attributes, qualities and characteristics which orthodoxy attributes to the personal God disappear when the personality is denied, seems to be worthy of respectful consideration. And the new conceptions certainly do emphatically deny the personality of God, and certainly do regard him as a principle. Therefore, we may understand the cry of orthodoxy, that “they would take away Jehovah, and supplant Him by a shadowy Principle.” But a university professor has said: “The view of God which conceives him as external to the human self is a view which dominates the lowest forms of religions.” Just how much of the old qualities, characteristics and attributes of the personal God may be preserved when the personal conception is supplanted by an abstract principle, which must by its nature be absolute and devoid of qualities, characteristics and attributes, is a question for the philosophers to argue among themselves. We do not hazard an opinion—we are merely the reporter of the observed ideas in the public mind.

But, finally cry the orthodox critics: “If you deny the personal God, the inspiration of the scriptures, and the authority of the church you sweep away the very standards of religion, morality and laws of human conduct. You leave nothing but a recourse to utilitarian ethics and systems of morality, built upon the changing ideals of man, or of his supposed needs. Your standards change with the times. You destroy all standards and the rock crumbles beneath your feet. “We think this objection worthy of thought. It must follow that if the authority of the scriptures and the church is denied then the standards resting upon this authority must likewise fall, and man must be driven to the erection of standards based upon his reason, judgment and experience, rather than upon the authority of the scriptures and the church. And here is where many careful observers see the immediate cause of much of the sociological, economic and ethical unrest, and shifting standards of to-day. These observers say that the race, now in the process of discarding the old authority, must lose its faith in the infallibility of the old standards, and is beginning to create new standards, based upon the needs, real or supposed, of the race; and this occasions much of the turmoil and bubbling in the great Melting Pot of Modern Thought.

People are inquiring why they should be bound to old forms when the authority for those forms have been discarded. They ask why they should attempt to live up to the old admonitions: “Submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters; to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters;…to do my duty in that state of life into which it shall please God to call me”—when the authority of the church which so enjoined these duties is in grave doubt. They ask: “The Ten Commandments denied as inspired—then what commandments shall we follow!” If the scriptures are not inspired what is the true rule of conduct and life! These are the questions that the plain people are asking. They are in a transition stage. They are revolting against the old rules of social life, economics, and the old morality, in many instances. They are disputing many venerable old ideas regarding property, social duties, relation of state and citizen, marriage, etc. The barriers down, they are thinking of building according to their wishes or requirements, rather than upon the dicta of churchmen and 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 conceptions answers that, while this is all true—that while the old standards are being destroyed and discarded—that man is also engaged in building up for the race a newer, saner and grander edifice of thought—a better, truer and stronger set of standards, based upon human needs, experience and requirements—that instead of following the arbitrary commands of dead prophets and teachers, or of antiquated and discarded creeds, the race will move on, inspired by the Indwelling Spirit of God made manifest as man, ever toward—higher and nobler efforts— toward higher and better things, following ever the idea embodied 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, .

Leaving thine outgrown shell by life’s unresting sea.”

And, in the meantime, those of us who may feel confused at this process of tearing down and rebuilding—who feel the pang of letting go of the old, and the perplexity and confusion resulting from the attempt to adapt ourselves to the new— we who, though our faces and intellect be turned toward the future, still feel that our hearts are with the past—what is there for us to do but to proceed in our search with a positive faith, knowing that a constant and persistent desire for truth must inevitably lead us into the very light of truth?

Thus it has come about that in the consideration of the conflicting ideas, theories and conceptions presenting themselves for consideration at the bar of modern thought, there is a new school which is now making its claims heard, and which many think destined to occupy a prominent position on the stage of interest in the near future. This school has for its basic principle the idea that abstract truth is unknowable— that the mind of man is unable to grasp the idea of abstract principle, 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 what is the object of his existence.” And that, therefore, his highest wisdom lies in accepting this fact, and then living in the here and now; accepting what good may come to his hand; discarding all questions incapable of definite answer; being kind and doing good wherever he can, not as a duty, but because of the evolving feeling of the Brotherhood of Man; and finally testing all statements of truth by the touchstone of utility—asking ever the questions: “What is it good for? How will it work? What can be done with it? Does it make good?” This class of thinkers show a preference for the pragmatic view of thought and life, which Professor James has so well stated as: “The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, categories, supposed necessities; and of looking toward last things, fruits, consequences, facts.” After all, would it not be strange if the pragmatic method should prove to be the solution—should prove to be the test to be applied to the products of the melting pot—the final test of: How does it work out? What is it good for? What will it do for the race? How far does it make good?

Meanwhile the pot is bubbling, seething and sputtering. The crucible is heated to its fullest extent. Some of the thoughts and 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 be poured forth from the pot? The world is on tiptoe, watching, wondering.