Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 39

II

page 13

II.

But leaving this subject, let us next survey the doctrine of cause and effect. This doctrine I accept, though I deny emphatically that it logically conducts us to a first cause or to a final cause. I suppose the materials and forces of the universe—that is, the complete round of existence—to be eternal. I shall not just now attempt to prove the doctrine, or even to give any reason for my faith in it; the reader will please observe that I merely assume it here for the sake of argument. Whether it be true or not, no one can deny that we find ourselves in the very midst of an exceedingly long series of causes and effects. We also find ourselves in the very midst of infinite space, partially occupied, though possibly not entirely so; we are, further, in the very midst of infinite time or duration. I shall not stop to discuss the nature of these two infinities, but assume that most people are agreed respecting their existence, at least.

Now let me ask the theologian if he can put his finger upon the central point in space, or tell us how far off is the circumference or limit of space in any direction he may prefer. To say that this demand is absurd is no objection to it, for I make it for the purpose of exposing another absurdity, exactly parallel, though not quite so obvious. I may assume, I think, that none but an enthusiast, a circlesquarer, or a maniac will try to find either the centre of space or one of its limits.

Next, I ask, will the theologian find for me the middle, the last, or the first moment (or any other unit of time) in eternal duration? I need not press this either, since all must see its absurdity as soon as it is fairly propounded. But why cannot my demands be met? The reason is, Space has no centre, no limit; Time or duration no beginning, no end. We cannot conceive that, though we travelled in one direction for ever, we should ever come to a spot beyond which there was no space, or that we should be any nearer its limit than we now are. It is the same with time or duration; there never was a first moment, there never can be a last.

Well, is it not equally absurd to speak of a First Cause and a First Moment? There were former moments and former causes; but a first is inconceivable in either case. Had theologians set up a First Moment in capital letters, thrown round it an air of mystery, and spoken of it with page 14 bated breath, it would have been worshipped; temples and churches would have started up by thousands, and the priesthood would have grown rich upon devotion's offerings; gushing songs would have been composed to the Great First Moment, the Fount of Eternity, the Source of Being, and the Ever-adorable Mystery! I am afraid it is too late now; but had theologians begun in time, the Great First Moment would have brought them a world of wealth and influence. They have accomplished their purpose, however, by inventing and parading their Great First Cause, a fiction equally absurd with the Great First Moment.

The bewilderment of the theologian is really one of the most amusing features in the history of our race. He cannot account for the succession of events, or of causes and effects, as he sees them occurring around him; so he deliberately concludes that there must have been a Great First Cause, and this hypothesis seems to content him. But sober reason can never rest in such an assumption; for (1) Why suppose a First Cause? The sole reason is to account for phenomena you cannot otherwise explain, and which you think are explained by your assumption. Really, then, the First Cause is but a phrase invented to hide human ignorance, a mere fiction to save appearances, and to keep men from confessing frankly that they do not know what lies beyond the circle of their knowledge. (2) But it won't serve them. To say there is a First Cause is equivalent to the confession, "I don't know anything at all about the matter, and am too idle to inquire further." To assume the existence of a First Cause certainly does shift the difficulty one degree farther back, and affords a fictitious explanation of Nature's phenomena; but it is not logical. A is a mystery you wish to explain; B explains it; but what explains B? C will do it. True; but can we stop at C? "Yes, if we call it the First Cause," say you. But how can you know that D does not precede it?

Besides, as all must admit, if there really is a First Cause, the mystery of its existence must be far deeper than that of all other existences combined. It is not philosophical to explain a phenomenon by something still more inexplicable; to attempt it only deepens the mystery. What then must be said of the attempt to explain an inexplicable chain of causes and effects by the assumption of a great First Cause, which is infinitely more inexplicable still? The attempt may be the result of credulity and ignorance; most certainly page 15 logic never led people to it. The mind can no more rest upon a so-called First Cause than it could on a pretended First Moment; in each case it demands what preceded the one, and what caused the other. This difficulty is not obviated by calling the fiction God, or printing it in capitals; investigation may be forbidden for a time, but at length the human mind demands a sight of your First Cause, walks round, and finds an unexplored region at the back of it. Once tell us how your First Cause rose without a prior cause, and you will teach us to dispense with all causes; for if the infinite First Cause holds his being without cause, surely the finite phenomena of nature may be allowed a similar privilege.

Besides, if the infinite is without cause, why look for cause and effect anywhere? The doctrine is exploded if theologians are correct; and thus, in the discovery of the First Cause they demonstrate that no cause was needed, and they and their system fall together in the very success of their undertaking. If the doctrine of cause and effect be true, every cause must be the effect of some prior cause; if they find a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, the doctrine they start with cannot be true; and thus success in either direction is destructive of their position. If the doctrine of cause and effect be true, no First Cause is possible; if it is not true no such cause is required. Let them take which horn they please.