The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation — John Shaqi
The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creationDallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Religion
The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation
Dallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Creation; Evolution; God; Religion and science
No search into the relations of matter and motion can ever affect our
consciousness of causality. We cannot be conscious of our own being
without being simultaneously conscious that whatever begins to be, must
have a cause, a reason, for its being. The very validity of our mental
acts is imperilled, if the congruity of the principle of causality
be doubted. Permit an illustration: a minute and beautiful crystal
of unknown nature is before us. By a mental necessity we know—we
cannot free ourselves from the conviction—that this crystal occupied a
measurable time to become a crystal, and that being such, it occupies
a measurable portion of space. May we rely on this fundamental act of
mind? Is it truth? If not, there is not a mental act that ever was,
or ever can be, veritable. But if it be true, then, since for man to
produce a physical effect involves (1) the consciousness of _power_ to
do it, and (2) the volitional exercise of that power; and since the
human mind is absolutely without a trace of knowledge of any other
way in which power can be exercised, in earth or heaven; is not the
insistence of reason that there must be a cause for cosmic phenomena, a
mental act of the _same order_ as that which insists on time and space
as inseverable factors in the origin and existence of a crystal?
Causality in its mere mechanical relations may be considered for
convenience, and translated as, ‘mechanical law:’ contemplated in its
relation to a living organism, we may render it by such an expression
as a ‘law of life’. But carry causality to its spring, trace it back to
consciousness and thought, and it admits of no disguise; it is power,
it is volition; there is no halting in its phrase; it is, ‘I can,’ ‘I
will.’
Herbert Spencer himself affirms, ‘The force by which we ourselves
produce changes, and which serves to symbolize the causes of changes in
general, is the final disclosure of analysis.’[3] ‘I can,’ ‘I am able,’
is a knowledge that emerges within us simultaneously with ‘I am.’ It
involves a consciousness of power, which is the essence of causality.
We possess it, in precisely the same way as we possess ourselves, or
our thoughts. Our knowledge of power is not even derived from effort
or resistance. We know as clearly what we mean by ‘I am able,’ as we
do when we affirm ‘I am here.’ Being able, and _knowing_ we are able,
are absolutely different. A telephone is mechanically able to transmit
vocal sounds and language. But how different to man, who is not only
able, but knows that he is able. This knowledge of our power to act is
the immutable foundation of our belief in causation.
[Footnote 3: _First Principles_, §50, pp. 169, 170.]
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