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
We may make two separate affirmations: as, for example, that ‘the
thermometer is 6° F. below zero,’ and that ‘water has become solid;’
or, again, we may state, ‘my fingers rest upon the key-board of an
organ,’ and ‘now they move, and a symphony of Beethoven’s is floating
in the air.’ These are ‘sequences;’ but is that enough? No. Instantly
the mental act that _interprets_ them is supplied. In both cases, our
consciousness and reason are compelled to demand the exercise of power,
by means of which one event succeeds the other. We are absolutely
and irresistibly certain, in the latter case, that it must be so. A
direct act of volition changed the fingers from rest into rhythmic
motion, causing the organ to pour out music; and, by an intellectual
necessity, we see that a diminished temperature, and frozen water, are
not sequences merely; they must be related: and this conviction is
not changed, though, by means of research, we find their sequential
relation to be the result of the continuity of prior effects; we still
retain the unaltered judgment, that, if we go back far enough, we must
be in the presence of a cause. The mind cannot dispense with the link
of power uniting sequences.
Then, if by long trains of sequential effects and secondary causes we
are led up, not by demonstration, but by irresistible moral conviction,
to a Primordial Power, a source of all, what is such creative cause?
Is it inevitably God? Is the universe, as we know it, infinite? Who
dare say? Though we know that the vast looming firmament, in which
the ‘milky way’ stretches its depths and winds its awful amplitudes,
is beyond all finite power to follow; yet, it may be but a complex
particle in a universe of universes, stretching on, and for ever on,
over the bourneless immensity of the unknown.
If that be so, we can make no useful inference from our finite
universe. We could infer only a finite creator from a finite cosmos.
To be finite is to be infinitely less than infinite; and such a
being could not be the ineffable majesty of mind and might, which we
apprehend, but cannot comprehend, as the Creator.
If such a limited power could be conceived, because it is finite, it
of necessity began to be; and therefore its very existence was of
necessity caused. We seek _its_ cause, as we do that of all other
secondary causes; until at last we reach the only position in which
there is mental rest, an infinite cause of all causes, the primordial
and ultimate reality of all being.
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