To Infidelity and Back | Page 7

limit, nor can you conceive of a
limit to space or time. Here conceivability contradicts itself.
Furthermore, you cannot conceive of existence without a cause, nor of
a cause without existence. To the statement of the believer that, "as the
wonderful mechanism of the watch presumes a designer, so the
infinitely more wonderful mechanism of the universe presumes God,
the infinite designer," Ingersoll replied that this is simply to jump over
the difficulty by an infinite assumption. Ingersoll, on the other hand,

claimed that the material universe has always existed; apparently
unaware that he thus was guilty of the same fallacy of which he
accused others, by assuming infinite existence without a cause. The
difference is that the believer's assumption gives us a personal God, a
kind, loving heavenly Father who provides for the eternal bliss and
welfare of his children, while Ingersoll's assumption gives death and
darkness and despair.
An object thrown from one point to another is always at some point,
therefore it has no time to move from one point to another. And yet we
know that it does move, even though we cannot conceive how it can do
so. Again, suppose that the hour-hand of your clock is at eleven and the
minute-hand at twelve. Now, you cannot conceive how the
minute-hand can overtake the hour-hand, although you know by
observation that it does overtake it. For by the time the minute-hand
gets to eleven, the hour-hand has passed on to twelve, and by the time
the minute-hand has reached twelve, the hour-hand has passed beyond
it. Every time the minute-hand comes to where the hour-hand now is,
the hour-hand has passed beyond. The distance becomes less and less,
but theoretically, or in conceivability, the one can never overtake the
other.
Through this line of reasoning I learned, clearly and once for all, that
_inconceivability is not a proof of impossibility;_ but, on the other
hand, that we know many things to be true that are not conceivable to
the finite mind, and therefore we must follow truth learned by
experience and observation, irrespective of rationalism. In this way the
mighty fetters of rationalism that held me in bondage were cut and I
was set free to search for the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. I learned the
limitations of the finite intellect and the truth of God's word when he
says: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your
thoughts." "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For
after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

After the empirical school of philosophy had taught me that we must
follow inductions based on experience and observation rather than
rationalism or conceivability, I began to value Paul's admonition,
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." If inductive
philosophers have often been opposed to religion and the Bible, it is
because they have not carried their inductions far enough to cover the
entire world of facts. It is admitted by all historians and observers that
prayer and faith and religious convictions have been among the
mightiest forces at work in the world, and any system of reasoning that
does not take these facts into consideration is neither philosophical nor
scientific.
To illustrate what is meant by saying that we must follow experience
rather than conceivability, let us suppose that you are suffering from a
malignant disease and you hear of a medicine that has cured this
disease whenever it has been tried, and you know of nothing else that
will cure it. Would it not be foolish for you to refuse to use the
medicine because you cannot conceive how it produces the cure? It
might be discovered later that it was not the medicine, but your belief
in its curative qualities, that produced the result. But this would not
affect your common-sense duty in the matter. If certain desirable results
follow the doing of a certain thing, we are bound to do that thing until
we know how to get the good results without doing it.
This reveals the folly and inhumanity of the conduct of some infidels
towards religious people. When I was minister of a church in Ohio, I
was visited by a noted infidel. After he went on in a tirade against
preachers and Christians, I asked him if he was not an unhappy man. At
first he denied it; but I called his attention to some of his utterances,
and he soon admitted that he was a very