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

I also predict that this one underlying reality will be thought of as Spirit. By “Spirit” I mean the Essence of the All , containing within itself both the principle of form, shape and mass which we call substance; and the principle of awareness or consciousness which we call mind. As G. E. Moore says:

“Common to all meanings of ‘spirit’ is the conception of that which is conscious. Consciousness itself is not conceived as being spirit, but as being an attribute of it; so that spirit is conceived as something capable of existing, even when it is not conscious. On the other hand, there is no positive conception of what this permanent element in spirit is; it is only conceived abstractly as that (whatever it may be) which is the substance or subject of consciousness , and negatively as not identical with any known quale (quality).”

This usage of the term “Spirit” must not be confounded with other and more common forms of usage. We can perhaps best think of it in the terms of Spencer, i. e., as “that infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed.” Therefore, I feel that here will be found a reconciliation between the advanced thinkers of the opposing schools of idealism and materialism, the agreement being based upon the common conception of an ultimate reality known as Spirit in which the opposite phenomena of substance and mind meet, blend, and have their origin and end, and of which both mind and substance are but relative aspects, phases, poles, or manifestations. I believe that the close of the twentieth century will find philosophers and scientists both discussing ultimates in terms not of matter nor of mind, but of Spirit. And, I believe that from this common conception a new synthesis will arise, acceptable alike to philosophy, science and religion.

But, I do not follow the idea of Spencer to the extent that I believe that the thought of to-morrow will hold that this ultimate reality—Spirit—is unknowable. On the contrary I believe that evolution will bring forth in man faculties and powers of understanding whereby he will be enabled to know more and more regarding ultimate things which are now classed as transcendental and defying apprehension by the mind of man. I believe that the thought of to-morrow will use the term “unknown” even more frequently than that of to-day, but that the term “unknowable” will be banished. I believe in the infinite possibility of expansion and evolution of mind .

As S. E. Stevens says: “We do not know and cannot comprehend; but if it becomes essential for mankind to know— infinite nature will evolve an organ of mind that can comprehend. A part of the infinite, man’s possibilities of knowing must be infinite. What has taken ages to evolve a wish to understand, will require ages to develop ability to understand!” As Haeckel has said: “There is no scientific problem which we may dare to say the mind of man will never solve; no mystery so deep or profound; no question ever has or ever will be asked, but a mind or brain will be evolved and developed capable of solving and answering.” In fact, even to-day careful thinkers have found signs of the budding of faculties or mental powers which register impressions of things ordinarily called transcendental—which give the report of a consciousness other than that dependent upon the ordinary senses. Of this I shall speak further as we proceed.

The thinker of the end of the twentieth century will label things “known,” “unknown,” or “to be known,” but never “unknowable.” He will point to the limits of the “known” and say “here our present knowledge ends,” in the true scientific spirit, but he will never commit the folly of saying “Here knowledge ends and the unknowable begins.” To the coming thinker physics and metaphysics will be branches of one field of investigation, and that field will be called the Science of Truth . I believe that eventually the distinction between physics and metaphysics will be wiped out—that the natural and the supernatural will be seen to be equally phases of the greater nature.

But what of the religion and theology of tomorrow! It is indeed a brave man (or a foolish one) who will attempt to answer this question. But, judging from present indications I think it safe to hazard the speculation that the conception of the immanent and indwelling God will have won the victory over the conceptions of a Deity removed from the universe— who made the universe out of nothing and then set it going like a watch, standing aside to see how it worked. Perhaps the better way to indicate what I believe will be the prevailing religious conception of to-morrow would be to call your attention to the signs of the evolution of that conception to-day. For instance consider the remarkable statement of Prof. Charles W. Eliot, late President of Harvard entitled “The Religion of the Future” as published in the Harvard Theological Review of October, 1909, from the report of the lecture delivered July 22, 1909, before the Harvard Summer School of Theology. The reader who is familiar with the prevailing ideas of the New Thought will be struck by the remarkable resemblance to the latter, although Professor Eliot arrived at his conclusion independently. Among other things Professor Eliot said:

“The new thought of God will be its most characteristic element. This ideal will comprehend the Jewish Jehovah, the Christian Universal Father, the modern physicist’s omnipresent and exhaustless Energy, and the biological conception of a Vital Force. The Infinite Spirit pervades the universe, just as the spirit of a man pervades his body, and acts, consciously or unconsciously, in every atom of it. The twentieth century will accept literally and implicitly St. Paul’s statement, ‘In Him we live, and move, and have our being,’ and God is that vital atmosphere, or incessant inspiration. The new religion is therefore thoroughly monotheistic, its God being the one infinite force; but this one God is not withdrawn or removed, but Indwelling and especially dwelling in every living creature. God is so immanently immanent in all things, animate and inanimate, that no meditation is needed between Him and the least particle of His creation. In His moral attributes, He is for every man the multiplication to infinity of all the noblest, tenderest and most potent qualities which that man has ever seen or imagined in a human being. In this sense every man makes his own picture of God. Every age, barbarous or civilized, happy or unhappy, improving or degenerating, frames its own conception of God within the limits of its own experiences and imaginings. In this sense, too, a humane religion has to wait for a humane generation. The central thought of a new religion will therefore be a humane and worthy idea of God, thoroughly consistent with the nineteenth century revelations concerning man and nature, and with all the tenderest and loveliest teachings which have come down to us from the past.

“The scientific doctrine of one omnipresent, eternal Energy, informing and inspiring the whole creation at every instant of time and throughout the infinite spaces, is fundamentally and completely inconsistent with the dualistic conception which sets spirit over against matter, good over against evil, man’s wickedness against God’s righteousness, and Satan against Christ. The doctrine of God’s Immanence is also inconsistent with the conception that He once set the universe a-going, and then withdrew, leaving the universe to be operated under physical laws, which were His vicegerents or substitutes. If God is thoroughly immanent in the entire creation, there can be no ‘secondary causes.’ In either the material or the spiritual universe. The new religion rejects absolutely the conception that God is alienated from the world. It rejects also the entire conception of man as a fallen being, hopelessly wicked, and tending downward by nature; and it makes this emphatic rejection of long-accepted beliefs because it finds them all inconsistent with a humane, civilized or worthy idea of God.”