Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith: Three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with special replies by Mr. C. BradlaughBradlaugh, Charles
Religion
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith: Three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with special replies by Mr. C. Bradlaugh
is a reduction of the phenomena, not merely to an order of facts, but to
an order of thought.” I use law only as denoting observed concurrence or
sequence of events. When it is said to be a law that water poured from
the glass shall fall to the ground, it is not, or should not, be meant
that the water falls by command emanating from personal will, but only
that this is the recorded experience of all competent observers without
exception. Jonathan Edwards, relying on Isaiah xlvi. 9 and 10, xiv. 27,
Acts xv. 18, Psalms xxxiii. 10 and 11, and other texts, declared that the
absolute and perfect foreknowledge of God, asserted in the Bible, was
inconsistent with freedom of volition, as it implied the certainty of the
happening of the events foreknown. The Duke of Argyll says, “There is
nothing to object to or deny in the doctrine that if we knew everything
that determines the conduct of a man, we should be able to know what the
conduct will be. That is to say, if we knew all the motives which are
brought by external agencies to bear upon his mind, and if we knew all
the other motives which that mind evolves out of its own powers, and out
of previously acquired materials, to bear upon itself; and if we knew the
character and disposition of that mind so perfectly as to estimate
exactly the weight it will allow to all the different motives operating
upon it, then we should be able to predict with certainty the resulting
course of conduct.” Sir William Hamilton, for I prefer to quote from
antagonists, says, “How the will can possibly be free, must remain to us,
under the present limitation of our faculties, wholly incomprehensible.
We are unable to conceive an absolute commencement, we cannot, therefore,
conceive a free volition. A determination by motives cannot, to our
understanding, escape from necessitation. Nay, were we even to admit as
true what we cannot think as possible, still the doctrine of a motiveless
volition would be only casualism; and the free acts of an indifferent,
are, morally and rationally, as worthless as the pre-ordered passions of
a determined will. How, therefore, I repeat, moral liberty is possible
in man or God, we are utterly unable, speculatively, to understand.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account