William Atkinson - The Complete Works of William Walker Atkinson

Outside of the pulpits and universities other influences are at work. In the first place, there is felt the great influence of that great wave of transcendental thought which swept over the country during the last century, of which Emerson was the chief exponent. The effect of Emerson’s transcendentalism is most marked in the present unrest in thought and conception. His “Oversoul” forms the basis of a mystical religion which has brought comfort and peace to many a weary soul. The very essence of his teaching is, of course, the Oneness of All, and the Indwelling Spirit. The influence of Walt Whitman, Edward Carpenter and Browning has been felt in the general movement toward the Transcendental conception. Maeterlinck has also drawn the attention and interest of many toward the same or similar conceptions. People who have studied the German philosophers, particularly Hegel and Schopenhauer, in many cases find themselves attracted toward the teaching and conceptions of the present stage of idealism.

The influence of the Congress of Religions, at the time of the World’s Fair in Chicago, has led people to take a new interest in the study of comparative religion, particularly in the religions of the Orient, nearly all of which are based upon some form of pantheistic or idealistic doctrine. The effect of Christian Science and of the various New Thought cults and schools has been to lead people’s minds in the same general direction—toward the “recognition, realization and manifestation of the God in me.” In fact, it would seem as if a thousand circumstances had conspired to bring modern thought to a point in which it must consider the New Idealism and the new presentation of the Immanent and Indwelling Spirit. The world seems to have turned its back upon orthodoxy, but at the same time has refused to entertain and accept the teachings of materialism, notwithstanding the predictions of the thinkers of the last century. It needs something to fill the place of the old ideas, which are being discarded, and the idea of the Indwelling Spirit— the Oneness of All, the Union with God—appears to be the logical conception under all the circumstances. At the present time there is certainly a wave setting in from all directions, tending ever toward centering the world’s thought upon the old-new conception of fundamental principles. Whether it is permanent, or whether it will disappear in a reactionary movement, or whether it will evolve into something still higher and nearer to truth—these are the questions that observing men are asking each other to-day. It is indeed a wise man who can answer them.

And now for the immediate effects of this change of conceptions regarding the fundamental principles. What effect is it having upon the people of to-day? What is its influence upon other lines of thought? What effect is it exerting upon the great economic, sociological, ethical and moral movements of the day? How is the new conception working out in actual practice? These are important questions—let us consider them.

From the viewpoint of the unchanged, steadfast members of the old guard of orthodoxy, the new conceptions are pernicious in their effect, and can work naught but harm to the race . In the first place, say these good people. There is nothing new about the thing—it is as old as the race. This is undoubtedly true, for the same teachings, beliefs and conceptions which are now so popular may be found in the oldest of the world’s philosophies and religions. India and ancient Greece are the fountain head of the basic ideas of the modern popular conceptions. In the Vedanta, in the teachings of Buddha, in the writings of Plato, Heraclitus, Democritus and the Stoic philosophers, may be found the principles of the popular thought of to-day. The cycle, or spiral, of human thought has brought the old philosophies to the front as new. But is the fact that a new thing is really old any real argument against it? Secondly, say these critics: It comes from heathen sources. True, also, but this is circular reasoning—the fact that an old philosopher, before the days of Christianity, happened to fail to be a Christian, is no argument against his truths. Nor is all truth, wisdom and virtue the especial property of Christian thinkers. If we were to discard all heathen knowledge, the world would be a heavy loser. Thirdly, say the critics: It is naught but pantheism. This may be so, but, notwithstanding the odium attached to the term by the orthodox churchman, pantheism has inspired some of the world’s greatest minds. There are two kinds of pantheism, the first being that of the materialists, who hold that God is but 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;” that nature and the universe was but a manifestation of God; and that “to define God is to deny Him.”

To understand the charge of “pantheism” hurled at the old-new conception of the Oneness of All, by the orthodox critics, one must realize what the pantheism of Spinoza is, and to realize how different it is from the old pantheism of the materialists. The following quotation, from the “Encyclopædic Dictionary,” 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 teaching— that there is but one substance, God—has been interpreted. By substance, however, Spinoza meant the underlying reality and ever-living existence, and he chose for the epigraph of his Ethics the words of St. Paul: ‘In him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts xvii:28). God is for him the one principle, having thought and extension as two eternal and infinite attributes constituting its essence, of which attributes mind and matter are the necessary manifestations; and thus 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 confounded than the fountain with the rivulet, or eternity with time. God is natura naturans , nature is natura naturata ; the one is the energy, the other the act. 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 the divine flame; his body a mode of the infinite existence.”

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.