How covetous we all are for the material side of things! That we may truthfully know and really possess the material side of the universe, we put forth prolonged and painful effort. Our striving, however, to know and to possess the _Soul_ of the universe is pitifully meager. If we strove no harder for the former than we do for the latter we should be ignorant and poor beyond recognition. Having long neglected the Soul of the universe we look up, occasionally, and demand proof that the world has a Soul. However, it is not _proof_ that we need, but religious insight. If I ask proof that classical music is beautiful, I must either take other people's word for it or else acquire musical sense by living with classical music and classical musicians. The senses of the average man pronounce classical music very ugly. Mathematical or business ability will not suffice; it will more likely hinder, because as a rule it has been acquired at the expense of musical development. There are those who actually make fun of classical music without any realization of their personal defect which they are advertising. Charles Darwin was probably never surpassed in the amount of data gathered for scientific observations. And yet, there are persons in every civilized village in the world who are better judges of music; and Paul, to say nothing of Jesus, was so far ahead of him in religious insight that the contrast is painful. In every realm of knowledge known to man, so-called proof is but seeing and understanding and appreciating. Logic does not prove anything. If for our major premise we say all normal men are rational, we rest our belief on observation. If for our minor premise we affirm that here is a normal man, we do so on the ground of observation. If both observations are correct, then we need no proof that the man of the minor premise is rational because it is self-evident. Logic is often a convenient method of seeing, but it is never a proof. Even in mathematics we do not prove, we see. Not a single proposition in mathematics is proved; its truth is only perceived. The so-called proof is but a method of separating the elements of a condensed proposition so that these elements, one by one, may be recognized. The certainty began with one or more axioms, and proceeded with rules built upon observation, and the certainty at every step to the finish rested on something self-evident. A prominent man assured me that he could prove that two and two were four. However, the first thing I learned in Geometry was that an axiom was too self-evident to be capable of proof. The highly complex methods which we have devised for reducing intricate mathematical statements of their axiomatic verities we call proof, but the term proof can only be used in this accommodated sense, for fundamentally we have proved nothing; we have simply increased our intelligence by using a speedy and ingenious method of looking. When it