A Candid Examination of Theism

Candid Examination of Theism,
by George John Romanes

Project Gutenberg's A Candid Examination of Theism, by George John
Romanes This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: A Candid Examination of Theism
Author: George John Romanes
Release Date: August 7, 2006 [EBook #19003]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CANDID
EXAMINATION OF THEISM ***

Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
made using scans of public domain works from the University of
Michigan Digital Libraries.)

A

CANDID EXAMINATION
OF
THEISM.
BY
PHYSICUS.
BOSTON: HOUGHTON, OSGOOD, & COMPANY. 1878. [All rights
reserved]
* * * * *
CANST THOU BY SEARCHING FIND OUT GOD?
* * * * *
PREFACE.
* * * * *
The following essay was written several years ago; but I have hitherto
refrained from publishing it, lest, after having done so, I should find
that more mature thought had modified the conclusions which the essay
sets forth. Judging, however, that it is now more than ever improbable
that I shall myself be able to detect any errors in my reasoning, I feel
that it is time to present the latter to the contemplation of other minds;
and in doing so, I make this explanation only because I feel it desirable
to state at the outset that the present treatise was written before the
publication of Mr. Mill's treatise on the same subject. It is desirable to
make this statement, first, because in several instances the trains of
reasoning in the two essays are parallel, and next, because in other
instances I have quoted passages from Mr. Mill's essay in connections
which would be scarcely intelligible were it not understood that these
passages are insertions made after the present essay had been
completed. I have also added several supplementary essays which have
been written since the main essay was finished.

It is desirable further to observe, that the only reason why I publish this
edition anonymously is because I feel very strongly that, in matters of
the kind with which the present essay deals, opinions and arguments
should be allowed to produce the exact degree of influence to which as
opinions and arguments they are entitled: they should be permitted to
stand upon their own intrinsic merits alone, and quite beyond the
shadow of that unfair prejudication which cannot but arise so soon as
their author's authority, or absence of authority, becomes known.
Notwithstanding this avowal, however, I fear that many who glance
over the following pages will read in the "Physicus" of the first one a
very different motive. There is at the present time a wonderfully
wide-spread sentiment pervading all classes of society--a sentiment
which it would not be easy to define, but the practical outcome of
which is, that to discuss the question of which this essay treats is, in
some way or other, morally wrong. Many, therefore, who share this
sentiment will doubtless attribute my reticence to a puerile fear on my
part to meet it. I can only say that such is not the case. Although I
allude to this sentiment with all respect--believing as I do that it is an
offshoot from the stock which contains all that is best and greatest in
human nature--nevertheless it seems to me impossible to deny that the
sentiment in question is as unreasonable as the frame of mind which
harbours it must be unreasoning. If there is no God, where can be the
harm in our examining the spurious evidence of his existence? If there
is a God, surely our first duty towards him must be to exert to our
utmost, in our attempts to find him, the most noble faculty with which
he has endowed us--as carefully to investigate the evidence which he
has seen fit to furnish of his own existence as we investigate the
evidence of inferior things in his dependent creation. To say that there
is one rule or method for ascertaining truth in the latter case, which it is
not legitimate to apply in the former case, is merely a covert way of
saying that the Deity, if he exists, has not supplied us with rational
evidence of his existence. For my own part, I feel that such an assertion
cannot but embody far more unworthy conceptions of a Personal God
than are represented by any amount of earnest inquiry into whatever
evidence of his existence there may be present; but, neglecting this
reflection, if there is a God, it is certain that