Thoughts on Religion | Page 2

previous publications on the subject of religion.
In 1873 an essay of George Romanes gained the Burney Prize at
Cambridge, the subject being Christian Prayer considered in relation
to the belief that the Almighty governs the world by general laws. This
was published in 1874, with an appendix on The Physical Efficacy of
Prayer. In this essay, written when he was twenty-five years old,
Romanes shows the characteristic qualities of his mind and style
already developed. The sympathy with the scientific point of view is
there, as might be expected perhaps in a Cambridge 'Scholar in Natural
Science': the logical acumen and love of exact distinctions is there:
there too the natural piety and spiritual appreciation of the nature of
Christian prayer--a piety and appreciation which later intellectual habits
of thought could never eradicate. The essay, as judged by the standard
of prize compositions, is of remarkable ability, and strictly proceeds
within the limits of the thesis. On the one side, for the purpose of the
argument, the existence of a Personal God is assumed[1], and also the
reality of the Christian Revelation which assures us that we have reason
to expect real answers, even though conditionally and within restricted
limits, to prayers for physical goods[2]. On the other side, there is taken
for granted the belief that general laws pervade the observable domain
of physical nature. Then the question is considered--how is the physical
efficacy of prayer which the Christian accepts on the authority of
revelation compatible with the scientifically known fact that God
governs the world by general laws? The answer is mainly found in
emphasizing the limited sphere within which scientific inquiry can be
conducted and scientific knowledge can obtain. Special divine acts of
response to prayer, even in the physical sphere, may occur--force may
be even originated in response to prayer--and still not produce any
phenomenon such as science must take cognizance of and regard as
miraculous or contrary to the known order.
On one occasion the Notes refer back to this essay[3], and more
frequently, as we shall have occasion to notice, they reproduce thoughts
which had already been expressed in the earlier work but had been

obscured or repudiated in the interval. I have no grounds for knowing
whether in the main Romanes remained satisfied with the reasoning
and conclusion of his earliest essay, granted the theistic hypothesis on
which it rests[4]. But this hypothesis itself, very shortly after publishing
this essay, he was led to repudiate. In other words, his mind moved
rapidly and sharply into a position of reasoned scepticism about the
existence of God at all. The Burney Essay was published in 1874.
Already in 1876 at least he had written an anonymous work with a
wholly sceptical conclusion, entitled 'A Candid Examination of Theism'
by Physicus[5]. As the Notes were written with direct reference to this
work, some detailed account of its argument seems necessary; and this
is to be found in the last chapter of the work itself, where the author
summarizes his arguments and draws his conclusions. I venture
therefore to reproduce this chapter at length[6].
'§ 1. Our analysis is now at an end, and a very few words will here
suffice to convey an epitomized recollection of the numerous facts and
conclusions which we have found it necessary to contemplate. We first
disposed of the conspicuously absurd supposition that the origin of
things, or the mystery of existence [i.e. the fact that anything exists at
all], admits of being explained by the theory of Theism in any further
degree than by the theory of Atheism. Next it was shown that the
argument "Our heart requires a God" is invalid, seeing that such a
subjective necessity, even if made out, could not be sufficient to
prove--or even to render probable--an objective existence. And with
regard to the further argument that the fact of our theistic aspirations
points to God as to their explanatory cause, it became necessary to
observe that the argument could only be admissible after the possibility
of the operation of natural causes [in the production of our theistic
aspirations] had been excluded. Similarly the argument from the
supposed intuitive necessity of individual thought [i.e. the alleged fact
that men find it impossible to rid themselves of the persuasion that God
exists] was found to be untenable, first, because, even if the supposed
necessity were a real one, it would only possess an individual
applicability; and second, that, as a matter of fact, it is extremely
improbable that the supposed necessity is a real necessity even for the
individual who asserts it, while it is absolutely certain that it is not such

to the vast majority of the race. The argument from the general consent
of mankind, being so obviously fallacious both as to facts and
principles,