Πb e

_

l i t e r a c y < 3 u i6 e

AND R A T IO NALIST R EV IEW .

[ESTABLISHED 1885.]

No. 29. (N ew S e r ie s .)

NOVEM BER 1, 1898.

M o n t h l y ; T w o p en c e .

Contents. T he D r e a d o f M a t e r ia l i sm . By J. McCabe “ T h e C h u r ch has R is en to it s D u t i e s .” By

F. J. G o u l d ........................................................

Is D r . C a r u s a T h e i s t ? B y Amos Waters .

C e n t u r ie s o f D e b a t e a bo u t G od

C h ip s from A n c ie n t W o r k sh o p s

S t a r s a n d St o r ie s . . . .

C h r i s t ia n it y a n d Buddhism C om pared

E th ic s a n d R e l ig io n s \

T he M in d a n d t h e S chool

S ig n s a n d W a r n in g s . . . .

R andom Jo t t in g s . . . . .

R u s k in as R e fo rm e r . . . .

R a t io n a l ism in t h e Magazin e s q u a r t e r l y a n d M o n t h l y Magazines

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

.

Agnosticism or Mysticism ? What Exactly is Agnosticism ?

Lord Gifford’s Rationalist Trust.

PAGE

l6 l

IÓ2

IÓ2

I63

I64

I64

I65

l66

l66

I67

I68

I69

I7O

I7I

173

Œbe ©rcab of íTDateríalísm.

M r . T h eo d o r e W a t t s -D u n t o n , in his long-expected /ty lw in , gives a vigorous expression to the curious feeling which is so prevalent with regard to Materialism. Ever since the cross-fire of transcendental and empirical criticism destroyed the foundations of the older Spiritualist philosophy— the philosophy of Aristotle and the schoolmen— and the marvellous extension of physical science built up a new and more complete theory of the universe, a large section of the community have been veritably haunted by the dread of Materialism. They have depicted to us, in dark and perfervid language, the change that must come over life when the shadow of Materialism falls upon i t ; a change not ineptly figured, if we may believe them, by the lurid change of the face of earth when the shadow of the moon is cast upon it in an eclipse. We may remind them in vain that the Materialistic theory has more than once been accepted by humanity without any such consequences. Under Empedocles and Democritus Materialism became the accepted philosophy at Athens. It does n0t seem to have darkened the life nor perverted the character of the Athenian community. Later Athens, too, was frankly Materialistic ; Rome was largely so. No shadow seems to have fallen on their lives— until the shadow of the cross was cast on them. Hermogenes revived the theory somewhat later, in the bosom of the Christian Church. We do not read that the “ materiarii ” of those days were conspicuous for either melancholy or sensual excess.

But our critics have more faith in the rules of deductive logic than in mere empirical observation. “ You are a Materialist ?” said Mr. C. Voysey to the present writer one ¿ay. I admitted the grave impeachment. “ Well, then,” continued Mr. Voysey, “ you must deny all spiritual and » ¡o ra l distinctions.” I protested— in vain The rules of logic are inexorable. Certain aesthetic and ethical consequences of a dreadful character flow from the Materialistic theory with the certainty of mathematical corollaries. There ¡s no further joy in life when the last spark of hope in immortality is abandoned. There i» no real love in the breast of a Materialist— if we may credit Mr. Watts-Dunton. According to Mr. Balfour, we shall even cease to respond to t be ecstasy of the violin, or the grandeur of scenery, if we learn to interpret our sensations in terms of Materialism. The prospect of coming and speedy annihilation, they say, must poison the wells of happiness, or drive men to a fierce and brutal selfishness. No man would sit content at the banquet of life with that sword of Damocles overhead. The night is fast drawing on that shall have no dawn. Robbed of their immortal hope, men will make merry while the light lasts, under the law of the brute-world.

We are not concerned now with the logical status of Materialism. Our critics are too preoccupied with its consequences to consider the question of its mere truth or falsity. The harrowing prospect of a materialized humanity is thought to be a sufficient argument for the retention of spiritualism. One cannot help recalling that Christianity was greeted with similar vaticinations by the pagan world at its birth. The pale-faced ascetical Galilean, with his apotheosis of mortification, poverty, and self-denial, was a menace to the gladness of humanity. The early Christians, mingling the anti-material and anti-carnal tenets of the Persians with the Buddhistic teaching of their own master, were regarded by the Greek and Roman pagans (mostly Materialists) in precisely the same light as the Christians of to-day regard “ the modern Materialist, who is to dominate the Twentieth Century,” according to one of Mr. Watts-Dunton’s characters. But Christianity has at length falsified the prophecy of its critics. Its central doctrine of the value of self-denial, the most obvious deduction from its theory of life and the sternest lesson of its founder, has fallen into disfavour. It is now propagated in a form which is not inconsistent with the fullest measure of earthly joy. With solemn irony the Christian now turns upon the Materialist and pagan, and accuses him of a desire to corrupt the sources of pleasure and destroy the harmony of life.

It is to be noted, in the first place, that much confusion arises from the ambiguity of the word “ Materialism.” It may be opposed to spiritualism or to idealism. Realism is the more correct antithesis to idealism, but Materialism is often used in its place, and much confusion results. Indeed, even this distinction does not remove all obscurity. Idealism, philosophically, is a view of the universe that excludes even the existence of matter. It is a significant fact that, with all their philosophical extravagances, our poets (the fiercest critics of Materialism) have entirely avoided this theory. There has been no idealist poet since the Eleatic school of two thousand years ago. Our poets are too much steeped in the joys of earth, too full of its imagery, too materialistic, to fall into so sp ir itu a l an error. They leave it to divines and metaphysicians. At the most, they do but profess a pantheism occasionally, which is really identical with Materialism.

But if there is to be any consistency in our use of terms, we must define the much-dreaded Materialism as a theory of the universe which dispenses with spiritual agencies. (Even here ambiguity enters. I once found that one of the most prominent Spiritualists in London meant by “ matter and spirit ” precisely what the physicist calls “ ponderable and imponderable matter.” ) That such a theory of life should have the consequences which are imputed to it is an idle and an ignorant assumption. In the first place, it is impossible to take seriously the man who says that sensuous pleasure will dissolve once it is interpreted in terms of matter and motion. Then, it is to be noted, the criticisms which have been passed upon Materialism are mutually destructive. One half of its critics assume that it will darken life and extinguish pleasure ; the rest think it would lead to so intense a craving for