God: Can We Find Him?

Light From Modern Science and
Philosophy

By

Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ph.D.,
LL.D.

The University of Notre Dame

“ Today there is but one religious
dogma in debate: What do

you mean by God? And in this
respect, today is like all our

yesterdays

Professor Alfred Whitehead,

Harvard University.

New York

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Street



TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE

I. The Heavens Show Forth 3

II. A World Clock 8

III. The Atom Bears Witness 14

IV. The Testimony of Life 20

V. A Bee Takes the Witness Stand 25

VI. The Human Body Affirms 31

VII. The Mind Testifies 35

VIII. Universal Belief of Mankind 38

IX. The Metaphysical Argument 44

X. Christ Manifests God 53

Questions for Each Chapter 58

Nihit Obstat

:

Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.,

Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur

:

Francis J. Spellman, D.D.,

Archbishop of New York.
New York

,
May 11, 1942.

Copyright, 1942, by

The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle

in the State of New York

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A.

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

DMckffied



CHAPTER I

THE HEAVENS SHOW FORTH

The heavens show jorth the glory oj
God, and the firmament

declareth the work oj His hands (
Psalm xviii. 2)

i

Is there a God? How can I be sure? Where
can I find

Him? Do I have to make an act of faith to
believe in Hod?

Is it possible to prove the existence
of a Supreme Ruler of the

universe by logical reasoning? These are
questions which are

uppermost in the minds of many people today.
They are ot

perennial interest. They have been with us
since the race be-

gan and they will be with us until
the end.

These are the questions of supreme
importance which pre-

sent themselves anew to each generation.
Upon the success

which the individual achieves in answering
them correctly hinge

consequences which jut beyond this life into
eternity. o-

day ” observes Professor Whitehead
of Harvard, there is but

one’ religious dogma in debate: What do you
mean by God?

And in this respect,” he adds, “today is like
all our yester-

^
Immanuel Kant expressed the conviction that

in all phi-

losophy there are but three great
problems, namely, the exist-

ence of God, the freedom of the will,
and the immortality of

the human soul. It is not difficult, however,
to show that of

these three, God’s existence is the
central problem and the

other two are but corollaries of that.
In fact they cannot be

treated adequately or intelligently
except in the light of the

answer reached concerning the existence
of a Supreme Intelli-

The most important knowledge in the world,
therefore, is

the knowledge of God. Uncertainty about
God renders people

‘

miserable and unhappy. It makes them less sure
of them-

selves, of the purpose of life, and of human destiny.
With

wistful eyes and groping hands millions of people
today are

searching for something to steady them, for a
firm hold on

God

In The Adventures oj the Black Girl in Her Search for
God,

George Bernard Shaw pictures his central character
in her

African homeland accosting a white young man wearing
a

Greek tunic. „„ r ,
“Excuse me, baas,” said the black girl. You have know-

ing eyes. I am in search of God. Can you direct me?”

[ 3 ]



“Do not trouble about that,” said the young man. “Take

the world as it comes; for beyond it there is nothing. All roads

end at the grave, which is the gate of nothingness; and in the

shadow of nothingness everything is vanity. Take my advice

and seek no further than the end of your nose. You will al-

ways know that there is something beyond that; and in that

knowledge you will be hopeful and happy.”

“My mind ranges further,” said the black, girl. “It is not

right to shut one’s eyes. I desire knowledge of God more than

happiness or hope. God is my knowledge and my hope.” 1

The black girl may be viewed as the symbol of all hu-

manity, of the learned and of the unlearned, in their search

for God Who alone gives meaning to life. She symbolizes, too,
mankind’s refusal to shut their eyes and to look no farther than

their nose. The theme song of humanity’s quest for meaning

and purpose amidst the confusions of our day is sounded in the

black girl’s memorable cry, so simple and yet so pregnant

with the cry of humanity in every age: “I desire knowledge

of God more than happiness or hope. God is my knowledge
and my hope.”

God-—The Meaning of the Universe
What do we mean by God? God is not a mere dream, not

an hypothesis, nor the projection of our hopes and aspirations

upon the frail canvas of illusion. He is the meaning of the

universe and the hope of humanity. He gives a cosmic value

to the ideals of truth, justice and righteousness, which point

like slanting arrows of light to the Source from which they

emanate. To know God, said Dante, is to learn how to make

our lives eternal.

Long before Dante, St. John proclaimed the important

truth almost lost in the contemporary fog: “this is eternal

life: That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ Whom Thou hast sent.” 2 Back before the dawn of
the Christian era cried the prophet, Hosea: “Thou shalt know

that I am the Lord.” 3 Like a cloud by day and a pillar of
fire by night runs this mighty truth through the pages of the

Old and of the New Testament.
It is our birthright, our priceless heritage. If the birthright

be sold for a mess of pottage, and the heritage be lost in the

confusion of our day, there is no.power on earth that can rescue

1 P. 14. 2 John xvii. 3.

• [4]

8 Hosea ii. 20.



man from his Babylonian captivity
or relieve the nostalgia

and

loneliness of his exile. Uo •
God is the Supreme Ruler of

the universe. He is the

omniscient Mind Who thought out the
myriad laws of nature

and the omnipotent Power Who flung the
uncounted planets,

stars and galaxies out into the
vaStness of immeasurable space

He is the Architect not only of the
stupendous universe but

also of the heart and mind and
soul of man. In Him, as & .

Paul says, “we live and move and
have our being,

created the universe, and He sustains it by
His infinite power.

He created man in His image and
likeness, and endowed hi

with understanding and free-will.
God is infinitely power^u

and infinitely wise. There is not a
sparrow winch falls to the

ground that escapes His all
encompassing vision. He is a

Being Whose center is everywhere
and Whose circumference^

nowhere. ‘‘The measure of Him,”
Sophar reminds Job is

longer than the earth, and broader
than the sea Gods

body,” said Plato, “is truth, and
light, His shadow. He is the

Alpha and the Omega, the beginning
and the end of all things.

He is our heavenly Father, in Whom truth,
justice, mercy, and

love abound in their fullness.

An Appeal to Reason

What is the evidence of the existence of
such a Supreme

Being? In presenting this manifold
evidence, we shall appeal

not to the authority of the Bible
or of the Church but to the

court of human reason. If occasionally we
shall quote a writer

of the Scriptures or a prelate of
the Church, we shall do so

not as an inspired or infallible
spokesman, but as a witness

whose testimony we lay before the bar of
human reason.

In our presentation we shall assume
agreement upon the

validity of but two primary principles, the
ability of the hu-

man mind to know, and the law or principle
of causality.

These need not, and in fact cannot, be
demonstrated because

they are self-evident and shine by their own
light. .

Thus Kant’s investigation of the trustworthiness
of the hu-

man mind to know, as undertaken in his Critique of
Pure, Rea-

son was foredoomed to failure, regardless
of the conclusion he

would reach. If he arrived at the negative
conclusion,

.

as he

did, that conclusion was of no consequence
because the instru-

ment by which he reached that conclusion was
human reason

itself. If he arrived at an affirmative
answer, that too would

4 Act*, ivii 28.
B Job 9 -

m



have been meaningless, because the instrument used in reaching

such a conclusion would be reason, which was ostensibly the

object of investigation. This would be to assume the validity

of reason and would constitute therefore a begging of the ques-

tion. The simple fact is that we must start with the validity

of these two primary principles, which underlie all philosophic

and scientific investigation. To deny them is to close the door

to all discussion and to plunge into the hopeless sea of univer-

sal skepticism.

We shall not ask the reader if he is Protestant, Jew, Catho-

lic, or non-believer. We ask only that he examine the evidence

with an open mind and that he observe the laws of logical

reasoning. In this way he will allow the evidence to write the

verdict on his own mind and heart. From this spirit of open-

mindedness and good will, wherein the inquirer seeks honestly

and earnestly to see the evidence and to feel the weight of its

uncushioned impact upon his mind, he will derive the largest

fruit. We hope, therefore, that our presentation will prove

helpful to all earnest seekers for the truth, of whatever religious

faith or philosophic creed they may be.

For more than a quarter of a century we have been engaged

in the presentation of this subject to the upper class students

in Universities, where technical philosophic language is custo-

mary. Here we shall endeavor to preserve the vigor of reason-

ing, but shall dispense with technical terms. Our aim will be

to make every fact and every line of reasoning clear to all

people of intelligence, whether they have a University back-

ground or not.

The evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being comes

from many fields, from the world of inorganic matter, from

the vegetal and animal worlds, and from the world of human

life. While all of it is valid and cogent, experience has shown

us that different kinds of evidence make appeals of varying

degrees of impressiveness to different individuals. We shall

draw the evidence, therefore, from many sources to carry con-

viction to every reader and to show, furthermore, how the

whole field of nature, from a speck of dust and a blade of

grass, to the farthest star, echoes the Source from which it

comes and bears the unmistakable imprint of the hand of God

upon it. As every shell along the seashore, when placed to

the ear, gives an echo of the mighty deep from which it came,

so every particle of matter in the universe from a grain of

sand and an eagle flying high in the skies to the throbbing

t6]



heart of man, when hearkened to
attentively, gives an echo

of that infinite Power from whose
creative womb it has come.

Evidence of Design

We shall start with the presentation of the evidence
which

we have found to make the widest appeal—
the evidence of

order and law in nature. That is commonly
called the prooi

from design. In philosophy, it is known as
the teleological

argument, that is, the argument built around
the evidence of

ends or purposes in the organization of
nature and in the opera-

tions of its laws.
. , , A A

Thus when Robinson Crusoe perceived a
footprint on the

island of Juan Fernandez, he rightly
concluded that it had

been made by a man. The clear imprint of
the sole of the foot

and the five toes was enough to convince
him that it had been

made, not by a bird or an elephant, or by
the wind and the

rain playing with the sand, but only by a
man.

If a person walking long a seashore
comes suddenly upon a

watch, he will conclude that there
must be a watchmaker.

Why? Because as he looks at the mechanism
of the watch,

with its springs, its cogwheels, its
hour hand and its minute

hand, with its crystal and its face, with the
movement of the

minute hand so co-ordinated that it travels
precisely twelve

times faster than the hour hand, he knows that
this could not

have happened by accident or by blind chance.
The adapta-

tions of parts and the co-ordinations of
movements reflect un-

mistakably the work of a thinking agent who arranged
the

whole to achieve a definite, previsioned end.
There is blind-

ing evidence here of plan, purpose,
order and design, which

leaves him in no uncertainty.

Suppose you were to say to such a person:
There is. no

evidence of a thinking agent behind that
bit of mechanism

Those parts are simply an aggregation of bits of
metal and

glass, and were blown together by the winds of chance.
Earth,

sea wind, sun, sky, air and the blind forces of
nature explain

the making of that watch. Would he not conclude
that you

were either joking or that you were a lunatic?
Would he not

say: Surely you cannot expect an intelligent
person to believe

so wild a fairy tale. Even a child of six would scorn
such an

explanation as an insult to his intelligence. There is
woven

into that watch an artistry of power and intelligence
which

convinces me that nothing on this planet could account for

that watch except a human being who has mastered the craft

of the watchmaker.

[7 ]



CHAPTER IT

A WORLD CLOCK

Let us now glance at the marvelous universe in which our

earth is as a tiny speck. The whole is arranged with wonder-

ful order and design. Our earth rotates on its axis once in

twenty-four hours, bringing to us night and day. The earth

revolves around the sun once in the course of a year, bringing

to us with unfailing regularity the four seasons of the year.

This planet of ours, with its great cities teeming with millions

of inhabitants, with its lofty skyscrapers, with its vast em-

poriums of trade and commerce, with its mountains, rivers and

valleys, is shooting through space at the startling velocity of

68,400 miles per hour. Yet so smoothly does it move, that it

disturbs not a babe in its cradle, nor brings a tremor to the

wings of the bee nestling on the frail petals of an autumn rose.

This fact was brought home to the writer as he was travel-

ing in an airplane from Rome to Budapest. Here was as fine-

a passenger plane as the engineering genius of man has been

able to build. Sailing through the air at the rate of 150 miles

an hour, with music from Vienna echoing softly from its radio,

it would seem to represent the ultimate in skillful organization

and in design. Yet how slow, clumsy and jolting was it in

comparison with the airplane of the earth which sails through

space 456 times faster and with such smoothness that its pas-

sengers are unaware that it is even moving!

The stars move in their appointed orbits with a regularity

and a precision which shames the most accurate chronometer

made by human hands. The most accurate watch or clock

made by horologists will falter by some seconds each week in

the accurate measurement of time, and will have to be cor-

rected by the clock of the stars as caught by the United

States Naval Observatory at Annapolis. Here then is order,

plan, purpose and design which cries out not less imperiously

than the watch found at the seashore for an intelligent and ade-

quate cause.

Inescapable then is the simple conclusion: As the watch

implies a watchmaker, so the universe implies a God. As the

watch demands adequate cause in the form of an intelligent

horologist, so the universe, vastly greater in size, complexity

of organization, and adjustment of parts, demands an adequate

cause in the form of a Being of vastly greater power and in-

m



telligence. This is the Being
Whom we call by the venerable

name of God.
.

. ,

St. Thomas Aquinas gives the
classic statement of the argu-

ment, which we have just presented
and illustrated, in t e

following words: “We observe that some
things which are

without understanding, such as
natural bodies, operate for an

end (as appears from the fact
that always or more frequently

they operate in the same way to arrive
at what is best) : whence

it is clear that they attain
this end not by chance but by in-

tention. Now, these things which do
not possess understand-

ing operate for a purpose only
in so far as they are directed

by a being endowed with
intelligence: just as an arrow is di-

rected by the archer. Therefore, there
is an intelligent Being,

by Whom all the things of nature are directed
to their end.

And this Being we call God.”
1

"The Fool H^th Said ..."

If you wish to get a more vivid
picture of the numerous

galaxies of stars which dot our skies at
night with pm points

of light than is likely to be gained
from textbooks, visit the

Planetarium in Chicago or in New York. There you
will see

the technical skill of our' architects
and engineers harnessed to

the skill of the astronomers in
depicting for us the heavenly

bodies which swing with order tmd precision
in their appointed

orbits through the immeasurable vastness
of stellar space. The

lights in the building are extinguished.
Then on the ceiling,

which is so shaped as to represent the dome of
the heavens,

thousands of pin points of light appear to show us
the number,

the place, and the distance of the stars that stud
our northern

sky These are only inches or fractions of
inches apart, but

they represent millions of miles. The lights
appear as pm

points, but they represent heavenly bodies
whose size would

dwarf our earth. It is a marvelous work of scientific
skill and

engineering genius, which provokes the admiration
of the

stream of visitors.
.

What would you think of the person who, after viewing

this depiction of the wonders of the sky, would say:
This

Planetarium does not imply any intelligent architect or
de-

signer. It is the work of chance. It is a pile of bricks,
mortar,

cement, steel, electric wires, fuses, wood, paint, thrown
together

by chance.

Would you not find it difficult to restrain your indignation

1 Sumtna Th. I, q. 2, a. 2.

iai



at so obvious an expression of utter nonsense? Would you not

say: The arrangement of the seats, the fashioning of the ceil-

ing, the contriving of the lights to represent the galaxy of stars

in the heavens, are blinding evidence of plan and design of a

high order. Only a fool could say that is the work of chance.

If you would be justified in saying that, as you would be

indeed, would you not be justified in expressing an even more

severe condemnation of the folly of the person who would as-

sert that the vast universe, of which the Planetarium was a

fragmentary picture, was itself the result of chance? Would

you not feel more clearly than ever the truth of the words of

the Psalmist: “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no

God.”
2

The great astronomer, Kirchner, had a friend who experi-

enced doubts about the existence of God. Knowing that a sim-

ple illustration would be more effective than a long argument,

Kirchner made a globe and placed it in his study. When his

friend called to see him, he noticed the new globe, and asked:

“Who made this globe?”

“Why,” replied Kirchner, “it made itself.”

His friend laughed heartily at the joke. Whereupon, Kirch-

ner said:

“You laugh at that as absurd, and rightly so. But it would

be a thousand times easier to believe that this little globe made

itself than that the large one on which we live made itself.”

Immensity of the Cosmos

A perception of the immensity of the universe, as disclosed

by the findings of astronomers in the last few decades, will

serve to increase our wonder and deepen our reverence before

the infinite might and power of the Supreme Being who hurled

the millions of worlds out into the midst of space. It will serve

likewise to put richer content into the words omnipotent and

omniscient, which were becoming anaemic in the nineteenth

century. It will show -that the ancient prophets and psalmists

spoke wisely when they spoke of God as all powerful and all

wise.

In the past we have been accustomed to think of our solar

system as involving great distances and great masses. Thus

the sun is 94 million miles from the earth. The planet Jupiter

has a diameter of 88,640 miles, and could accommodate within

itself 1,400 bodies the size of the earth. But now we learn

that Jupiter and even our sun are but specks in comparison

2 Psalm xlil . 1.

I Jv/ J



with other celestial bodies.
The nearest star is Proxima Cen-

tauri, 25 billion miles away.
Indeed, the distances are so great

that they cannot well be
understood in terms of miles.

Accordingly the astronomers have
invented a new measure

called a light year, to make the
distance intelligible. Light

travels at the rate of 186,000
miles per second.

.

A light year

is the distance traveled by light
during that period—6 billion

miles. Light from the moon reaches the
earth in iy2 minutes

and from the sun in 8 minutes. But
light from the star, Betel-

geux, takes over 100 years to
reach the earth. It has a

diameter of 273,000,000 miles or
three times the distance ot

the sun from the earth. Betelgeux,
however, is small in com-

parison with some of the giant stars in
Nubecula Minor which

have diameters of over 1,000,000,000
miles. There are many

stars such as the Cephids which are
more than 60,000 times

as luminous as our sun. .

Moreover, the number of stars and solar
systems floating

about in the regions of interstellar
space seems to be almost

unlimited. The millions and billions of
stars in the Milky

Way are but a tiny fragment of the myriad
worlds coursing

through space. The most powerful
photographic cameras are

continually catching glimpses of new galaxies
of stars beyond

the outermost rim of the previously
charted stellar universe.

Professor Shapley of the Harvard Observatory
has recently re-

ported “island universes” of stars, far
outside the main sidereal

system. These globular clusters are over a
million light years

distant In other words they are so
far distant that light

traveling at the rate of 186,000 miles
per second would take

more than a million years to reach our earth.

For all that astronomers have been able
to discover, this

may be but the nearest fringe, the vestibule of a
universe that

stretches out with its planets, suns, and stars
into immeasura-

ble and boundless space. Indeed, the
question of the fimtude

or infinity of the physical universe
vexes the minds of astrono-

mers, and remains with them a moot question.
8 Truly does

the mind reel and stagger under the weight of
such stupendous

distances, such unimaginable sizes and such baffling
complexity

of galaxies of worlds seemingly without
number.

Solar System—A Grain of Sand
“Such is the aspect,” says Flammarion, “grand,

splendid

and sublime, of the universe which flies through
space before

3 It is not a moot question, however, among metaphysicians,
as we shall show

later when presenting the argument from
metaphysics.

[ 11 ]



the dazzled and stupefied gaze of the terrestrial
astronomer,

born today to die tomorrow on a globule lost
in the infinite

night.” “The spirit of man,” cries Richter, “acheth
with this

infinity.” Similar was the sentiment expressed by
Paschal:

“The silence of these infinite spaces frightens me.” The
status

of our earth in the stellar system is then that of a
dwarf planet

revolving about a dwarf star. It is but as a speck of
dust float-

ing in the reaches of illimitable space.

The eminent English astronomer, Sir James H. Jeans,
helps

us to get some idea of the staggering immensity
of the universe

and of the tinyness of our earth by the following
comparison.

“To fix our ideas we may suppose,” he says, “although it
is

little more than a guess, that the most remote objects
of all

in our universe are at . . . 4,000,000 light
years from us. We

may now attempt to get these ideas into focus by constructing

a model of the complete universe on the scale
of a million

million miles to the foot. The amount of reduction involved

in such a scale is best visualized, perhaps, by thinking
in terms

of motions rather than of distances. Light, which
can circle

the earth seven times in a second, would move in our
model

with a speed rather below that at which a blade of grass
grows

in the spring.

“On this scale the whole universe will be represented by a

sphere of the size of our earth, the star cloud
of which our

sun is a member will be an island of about the size of
York-

shire, while the big Andromeda nebula will be rather
larger

than ’the Isle of Wight, although with very ill-defined
boun-

daries. The whole solar system in this model can be
easily

covered by a grain of sand, while our earth, now shrunk to

less than a ten-millioneth of an inch in diameter,
is hardly

larger than a single molecule in this grain of
sand. Such is

the universe which the modern astronomer hands over
to the

cosmogonist for interpretation.”
4

"The Firmament DecSareth ..."

The findings of modern astro-physicists concerning the im-

mensity and the grandeur of the universe serve therefore
to

emphasize the truth uttered by the Psalmist centuries
before

the dawn of the Christian era: “The heavens show forth
the

glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work
of His

hands.”
5

So, likewise, the writer of the Book of Wisdom,

4 Sir J H Jeans. The New Outlook in Cosmogony, in Annual
Report of

Smithsonian' Institution, 1926. P. 155 f.
o Psalm xviii. 2.

[ 12 ]



bidding us to contemplate the universe
to see the works oi

God declares: “All men are vain in whom there
is not the

knowledge of God, and who, by these good
things that are

seen, could not understand Him that is, neither by
attending

to the works, have acknowledged who was
the workman.

This is the truth sounded likewise by St. Paul,
when ce

declared: “For the invisible things of Him from the
creation

of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things

that are made.”
7 Not less appealing is the utterance of this

mighty truth in the memorable words of Job:
“Ask now the

beasts and they shall teach thee; and the birds
of the air, and

they shall tell thee. Speak to the earth and
it shall answer

thee; and the fishes of the sea shall tell.
Who is ignorant

that the hand of the Lord hath made all these things?”
8

The mighty truth which these great seers and sages
bla-

zoned across the skies of the century finds its
echo in the words

of the scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, who first
formulated the

law of motion governing the heavenly bodies:
“The origin of

the material world must be ascribed to the
intelligence and

wisdom of a most potent Being, always existing and
present

everywhere, who controls according to His good pleasure,
all

parts of the universe much more effectually than our soul
con-

trols by its will the movements of the body united to it.”
9

.

So

too writes one of the most eminent of contemporary
scientists,

Sir James H. Jeans: “We discover that the universe shows

evidence of a designing or controlling power that has
some-

thing in common with our own individual minds— ... the
tendency to think in the way which for want of a better word,

we describe as mathematical.”
10 Thus does this mathematical

astronomer think of God as the Divine Mathematician Whose

thoughts are congealed in the series of mathematical and alge-

braic formulae found in a grain of sand and in the dust of
the

stars.

6 Wisdom xiii. 1.

8 Job. xii. 7-9.

10 Quoted in Now I See, by Arnold Lunn, p. 149.

7 Rom. xi. 20.

9 Optics. B. III.

[ 13 ]



CHAPTER III

THE ATOM BEARS WITNESS

Earth’s crammed with heaven

,

And every common bush afire with God,

But only he who sees takes off his shoes:

The rest sit Wound it and pluck blackberries.

Let us come now from a consideration of the universe which

staggers us with its immensity to a consideration of the tiny

atom. For man may be said to be an isthmus between the

world of the infinitely large and the world of the infinitesimally

small. Great as are the marvels of the starry heavens, the

wonders of the sub-microscopic world are not less remarkable.

The amazing genius of Augustine perceived this back in the

fifth century when he wrote:
u
Deus est maximus in minimis

”

—The power of God shines forth most clearly in the smallest
things.—Whole teeming worlds of life are said to lie in the
non-filterable viruses—organisms so small that they cannot be
seen, photographed or filtered. Yet medical science believes

that some of the most important clues to the solving of many

problems of life and death are locked up within their invisible

dimensions, awaiting instruments that can penetrate their

depths.

As I had been privileged to secure an insight into this new

world from some of the leaders in subatomic physics in Europe

and in America, including the two American Nobel Prize win-

ners in physics, Professors Robert Andrews Millikan and Carl

Compton, I thought it would be interesting to get the reactions

of laymen and others untutored in this field to their startling

discoveries.

“Do you think the particles of that pipe you are smoking

are stationary or are in motion?” I asked of a cultured student

of English literature, Joseph Whitney, who was seated in my

room at Campion Hall, Oxford University.

Joe looked carefully at his meerschaum pipe and after rub-

bing his finger carefully over the stem and the bowl, said: “I

think the particles of the pipe are entirely stationary, but the

particles of smoke issuing from it are in motion.”

“Well,” I replied, “get ready for a shock. The particles

composing that pipe are electrons and protons, and the elec-

trons are constantly moving around the protons. That much

[ 14 ]



I will tell you. But now try to guess how
many times pet

second those electrons are revolving
around their protons.

“Perhaps, if they hurry/’ answered Joe, “they’ll
get around

a dozen times or so.”

“Now, Joe,” I said, “brace yourself for the
shock of your

life. Those electrons in your pipe are shooting
around then-

atomic orbits more than a thousand million
million times per

second.”

“I don’t believe it,” blurted out Joe.
“It sounds crazy to

me Sounds like Gertrude Stein talking physics. Or
perhaps,”

he added with a touch of irony, “some of
your physicists have

been reading James Joyce’s Finnegan's Wake or Lewis
Car-

roll’s Alice in Wonderland, and are trying to
outdo them.

Well, Joseph Whitney, looking at his meerschaum
pipe and

feeling it with his finger, and finding it still
and motionless

may not believe it. And maybe millions of others
may not

believe it. But physicists ask us to believe it as an
established

fact of science. Such distinguished scientists
as Millikan,

Pupin, Eddington, Jeans and Compton tell us that a
whole

new subatomic world of marvelous mystery has
been discov-

ered. The atom has been broken up into proton and
electrons.

The whole concept of matter has been revolutionized.
Instead

of matter consisting of hard, inert pellets, as
the man in the

street still imagines, science has shown these infinitesimal
con-

stituents of matter to be in a state of tremendous activity.

The atom is viewed as a small solar system. Around
its

central nucleus of positive electricity called a
proton, the elec-

trons revolve as the planets revolve about the sun.
The move-

ments, however, apparently follow no fixed path
or orbit.

While the atom is so small as to be invisible to the naked
eye,

science has measured the speed of these electrons and
tells us

that they move in an orbit of less than one-millionth of
an

inch in diameter, faster than an airplane or a bullet
from a

revolver. Thus the average electron revolves around its cen-

' tral nucleus several thousand million million times every
sec-

ond, with a velocity of hundreds of miles a second.
This

amazing orbital speed which is greater than that of the planets

or even of the stars, is achieved in spite of the infinitesimally

small chamber in which it is imprisoned—namely less than
one-millionth of an inch in diameter.

Man—As Science Sees Him
Indeed the whole conception of matter has been revolu-

tionized by the discoveries of nuclear physics. Instead of a

f is ]



stone wall, for instance, being a solid mass with no holes
or

gaps between the particles, it is now declared by physicists to

be full of such openings and to bear a closer resemblance
to

what we might call a wire fence. So all matter, even the hard-

est metals, is permeated by gaping holes which occupy a
vastly

greater amount of the space than the particles of matter which

are in a constant state of lightning-like velocity.

“How much do you weigh?” I asked Milt Piepul, one of

our largest students here at Notre Dame, and a power
full-

back on the football team.

“Two hundred and twenty pounds,” he answered.

“How tall are you?”

“Six feet, two inches.”

“Now if you were all put compactly together, so that all

the empty spaces in your body and in your head—I mean no
disparagement,” I added quickly as the students snickered—

“were eliminated, how large would you be?”

“I don’t believe there are any appreciable empty places in

my body,” replied Milt, “and I know there’ are none in my

head. But if I were pressed tightly together, perhaps I might

be squeezed down to five feet ten inches or so.”

“Well, prepare yourself for a shock,” I warned. “You

would be about the size of a speck of dust, so tiny as to be in-

visible to the naked eye.”

The students roared with laughter at such a seemingly in-

credible and even ridiculous statement.

Milt’s reaction was identical with that of my young friend

at Oxford.

“I don’t believe it,” said Milt. “I’m from Missouri,” he

added, “and you’ll have to show me.”

“Don’t take my word for it,” I said. “But read the state-

ment of one of -the most distinguished physicists in England,

Arthur S. Eddington, of the University of Cambridge. Read

the very first page of his epochal book, The Nature of the

Physical Universe

I handed him the open book.

. Science Speaks
Milt read:

“When we compare the universe as it is now supposed to

be with the universe as we had originally preconceived it, the

most arresting change is not the rearrangement of space and

time by Einstein but the dissolution of all that we regard as

most solid into tiny specks floating in void. That gives an

l 16 I



abrupt jar to those who think that things are more or less

What they seem. The revelation by modern physics of the

void within the atom is more disturbing than the revelation

by astronomy of the immense void of interstellar space. The

atom is as porous as the solar system. If we eliminated all

the unfilled space in a man’s body and collected his protons

and electrons into one mass, the man would be reduced to a

speck just visible with a magnifying glass
”

Notre Dame Atom Smasher Seeks New Power for Man

This scientific apparatus, weighing twenty tons and capable of de-

veloping eight million volts, is used by physicists at the University of

Notre Dame to discover the structure of the atomic nucleus and the

source of the tremendous power locked up in it. If this atom smasher

could release the energy stored up in matter and harness it to man's

use, it would generate more power than Niagara Falls and revolu-

tionize industry, commerce and modern life. It enables one to obtain

a glimpse at the marvels and the mysteries which the Author of

Nature has imprisoned within a speck of dust and a grain of sand.

Science asks us to believe as literal facts statements which

no amount of reasoning could have induced the previous gen-

eration to accept. What a world of almost infinite potential-

ities are locked up in a small particle of matter, awaiting the

[ 17 ]



skillful hand to release them from their thralldom!
Consider

the energy stored up in a piece of coal
smaller than a pea.

Jeans states it as a scientific fact that
if all the atomic energy

locked up in so tiny a piece of coal could be
released, it would

be sufficient to take the Mauretania

,

a very large passenger

vessel, across the Atlantic and back again!
“If the energy in

a single pound of coal,” he says, “could be
completely utilized,

it would be sufficient to keep the whole British
nation going

for a fortnight, domestic fires, factories, trains,
power stations,

ships and all.”
1

.

In the light of these discoveries of modern physics, a
speck

of dust and a grain of sand become teeming worlds
of marvel

and of mystery. In a speck of dust so small as
to be beyond

our naked vision are more particles than there are.
inhabitants

upon our planet. They are moving in their atomic
orbits, so

silently as to be inaudible, with a velocity which
bewilders our

imagination. Science with its huge cyclotron, or atom
crusher,

is able occasionally to split an atom. Science has
not been

able as yet, however, to penetrate deep enough into
the depths

of the atom to ferret out the network of laws which
stretch

from the heart of an atom to the galaxy of the farthest
stars.

These laws hold the whole vast universe together and
support

the stars in their courses, much as milady’s clothesline
holds

securely the whole family washing flapping in the
summer

breeze.

As far as science has been able to peer into the
depth of

an atom, it has found an amazing network of law.
Indeed,

the working out of the molecular arrangement
in a grain of

sand calls for a knowledge of a higher mathematics
which few

humans possess. The researches of Jeans into the
ultimate

constituents of elements lead him to think of a speck of
dust

as a long series of algebraic symbols. Will
any human ever

learn enough mathematics to decipher fully the
algebraic, for-

mulae written on the heart of a speck of dust or on a
grain of

sand? Only time can tell. But if we do, it is reasonably

certain that such discoveries will only open the door to.
a still

vaster world of marvels and of mysteries, as all the
scientific

discoveries of the past have done.

"Put Off Thy Shoes"

Thus Dr. George L. Clark, Professor of X-ray Chemistry

at the University of Illinois and a world authority in
that

l Jeans. The Universe Around Us, p. 181.

r is
i



field, threw upon the screen an X-ray picture of a
particle of

soot. I can still remember the expressions of
wonderment and

awe which came spontaneously from my students as they per-

ceived the beauty and symmetry of the molecular arrange-

ments therein disclosed. Like flakes of snow on a
window

pane tracing out geometric figures of remarkable
symmetry

and wonderful diversity, so these figures stood revealed
like

frozen pieces of glorious architecture. Indeed within a
speck

of soot which an individual will flip disdainfully from
his

white kid glove, there is a perfection of symmetry in the ar-

rangement of the molecules and an embodiment of mathe-

matical precision which would make the Taj Mahal of India

or St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome seem like child’s play in

comparison.

That is why the scientist who has peered even a little way

into the unfathomed and mysterious depths of a particle of

matter, will stand with reverent eyes and uncovered head be-

fore a particle of dust or a grain of sand. Like Moses stand-

ing before the burning bush, he too hears the voice which says:

“Put off thy shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou

standest is holy ground.”
2 To him there is no common clay.

For every particle of matter is aglow with miracle and with

mystery, singing a refrain in homage to that infinite Power

from Whose Creative hands it came.

In the past the appeal has been to the star-studded sky

as evidence of a Supreme Being. That appeal grows stronger

with each advance of astronomy which deepens our reverence

and fills us with awe as we gaze upon the wonders of the firma-

ment. Not less impressive or awe inspiring is the evidence of

a Supreme Intelligence in the galaxies, solar systems, and

island universes floating about in the mysterious depths of a

speck of dust. In the whirling depths of a grain of sand there

appear to be more particles than there are comets, planets, and

stars in all the heavens. In the algebraic flecked sky of a

speck of dust there may be more geometric symbols and

mathematical formulae than can ever be written in all our

books. Truly, indeed, the world of the infinitesimally small is

not less wonderful than the world of the infinitely large. Nor

does it speak less cogently nor less eloquently of a Supreme

Ruler of the universe. “In all the vast and the minute,” as

the poet, Cowper, says, “we see the unambiguous footsteps of

the God Who gives its luster to the insect’s wings and wheels

His throne upon the rolling worlds.”

2 Exodus iii. 5.

[10 1



CHAPTER IV

THE TESTIMONY OF LIFE

“If 1 have made a single
contribution to biology which 1

feel confident is permanent,
it is the profession that living

Nature is purposive:’—Henry Fairfield
Osborn.

Thus far we have been presenting the
evidence of God’s

existence from the order and design in
the world Our illus-

trations have been taken thus far
solely from the inorganic

world More impressive and wonderful still,
however, is the

evidence of plan in the world of
life. Here we come to a

higher category of being, a category
where matter exemplifies

the reign not only of physical law,
but also of biological law.

In other words, matter bursts
through into a higher realm

where it grows not by accretion, but by
intussusception, that

is by taking lifeless external matter
and changing it into its

own living protoplasm. It lifts matter
from the lifeless inor-

ganic world into the living organic
world. It solves the riddle

which from time immemorial has
baffled the mind of man.

It has found the mysterious bridge
which spans the chasm

which has forever barred man’s own efforts to
carry lifeless

matter over into the domain of life.

How did matter first find that bridge? How does
it con-

tinue to find it, when it eludes the
high-powered microscopes

in the hands of our most penetrating
scientists? “What in-

credible concatenation of circumstances,”
asks Bruce Bliven,

“brought the first cell into being
among the atoms of such

substances as hydrogen and oxygen?”
1 No wonder it was that

the scores of scientists, whom he interviewed, listed
it as among

the most baffling of all the mysteries of
science

In the plant world the process by
which the chlorophyll

in a blade of grass utilizes the
sunlight to break up the carbon

dioxide in the air, retaining the
carbon for its own plasm and

giving back the free oxygen to the air is
called photosynthesis.

After learning the correct label for
this process, most students

hurry along, we fear, without ever pausing
to consider the

teleological significance of this action.
Yet in that elementary

action of all vegetal life, an action we meet at
the very thresh-

old of our study of biology, there is a
teeming world of miracle

and mystery.

l The New Republic, November 17, 1941, quoted in
The Reader’s Digest, De-

cember, 1941.

[ 20 ]



The term photosynthesis, formed by joining
the two Greek

words, photos, meaning light,
and synthesis, meaning put to-

gether, merely indicates that the sun
has had something to do

with the putting together process. It
throws no single ray of

light, however, upon the essential problem:
How does the

chlorophyll use the sun’s rays to perform the
complex chem-

ical operation, whereby an inorganic element
is transmuted

into living matter? What is the technique which the
mole-

cules of chlorophyll have worked out—a technique
which the

greatest scientists in the world are unable to
discover or to

duplicate? What is the principle which guides the
molecules

in the subtle technique of bridging the
gulf between the world

of inanimate matter and the world of life, which
has thus far

baffled the greatest chemists in the world with all
their stores

of knowledge accumulated from a thousand
laboratories? If

the action is merely one of chemical attraction,
why does it

not take place when light falls on the chlorophyll of a blade
of

grass torn from its roots?

Let us push this investigation a step further. For
impli-

cations of profound significance are still to be traced
out. I

took a blade of grass to a distinguished bio-chemist at
a great

university, and I said:

“Analyze this for me and tell me all the elements of which

this is composed.”

He broke it up in his laboratory and after analyzing its

contents, he replied:

“Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, chlorine, phos-

phorus, sodium, potassium and silicon.”

“All right, now,” I continued, “put these lifeless inorganic

elements back together again in such a way that they will per-

form the process of photosynthesis, the rudimentary action
of

all vegetal life.”

“Oh, that’s” impossible. Neither I nor all the chemists in

the world, together with all our wonderful laboratory equip-

ment, can do such a thing.”

“Why can’t you? Aren’t you and your colleagues intelli-

gent?”

“Yes. At least we think we are,” he added with a smile.

“But aren’t the elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and

the other elements which compose a blade of grass unintelli-

gent?”

“Yes.”

“Why then can’t you, with all your intelligence and with

[ 21 ]



the accumulated experience of all
the chemists who ever lived,

do what these unintelligent
chemical elements do with des-

patch, with unfailing regularity,
and with unerring accuracy?

“Oh,” he replied, “there’s some
principle which guides

them in the performance of that
complicated biochemical ac-

tion.” „

“Some principle? What do you mean by
that?

“Oh, some Power, some Intelligence,
call the principle

what you will.”
. T , .

. . .

“The proper name for that Power is, I
think, the Author

of nature, the Ruler of the universe,
the Supreme Intelligence

Who has infused into all the particles of matter in
the universe,

whether they be inorganic or organic,
the laws which guide

them in their operations from the
whirling of electrons and

protons in a speck of dust and in a blade
of grass to the move-

ments of the stars in the galaxies
floating at the rim of the

universe.

"One Step Further"

“Professor,” I continued, “I would like to
push our inves-

tigation one step further.

“You admit that there is some principle or
power or in-

telligence which guides the unintelligent
elements in a blade

of grass in the solving of the
mystery of transmuting lifeless

matter into living matter. From your study of
nature are you

led to believe that the principle
works arbitrarily, or does it

follow the path of a definite law?”
. ,

“From the investigations which scientists have
conducted

in all the fields of nature, we are persuaded
that every opera-

tion in nature follows definite laws.
Nothing happens by acci-

dent or by blind chance.”

“But do not laws indicate the necessity of a
lawmaker?

Can you have a law without a legislator? If
you stand at a

busy intersection and you see cars scurrying
rapidly along a

highway and all coming to a stop when the
traffic light flashes

red, and then all starting again when the
light flashes green,

don’t you conclude that there is a law which
so ordains them

to act?” .
'

“Yes,” replied the scientist. “A law implies a
lawmaker.

But here you are getting outside the field
of science into that

of the philosopher. A scientist sticks to matter and
energy

and the laws of their operations.” . .

“True, indeed,” I said. “But how many are the
scientists

who do not observe the limitations which you so
correctly in-

[ 22 ]



dicate, and who rush in to pontificate in the fields of
phi-

losophy and theology, for which they are utterly untrained.”

An Inescapable Conclusion

Please note that all the data for our conclusion are drawn

from science, namely, that such unintelligent elements as car-

bon, nitrogen and hydrogen in a blade of grass solve unerr-

ingly and with despatch the complicated biochemical opera-

tion of changing lifeless, inorganic matter into living proto-

plasm. This is an operation which transcends the ability of

our most brilliant chemists to duplicate. Therefore, we are

compelled by the laws of logic to say that there is manifested

therein the working of a Power, an Intelligence, a Lawmaker

which far transcends the genius of man. Whether we are just

ordinary laymen, or scientists, or philosophers we are driven

to that inescapable conclusion by the ruthless force of the

laws of logic.

For this is simply to say, what every scientist and phi-

losopher and, in fact, every intelligent person admits, that

every effect must have an adequate and proportionate cause.

Obviously it could not be carbon, nor hydrogen, nor the other

chemical elements which are themselves utterly unintelligent.

Therefore, the complicated operations they perform in solving

a problem which transcends the genius of man to duplicate in-

dicate the existence of an adequate Cause of surpassing Power

and of transcending Intelligence—a mighty Lawmaker Who
holds the whole vast universe, from a blade of grass to the

farthest nebula, subject to the reign of His all-embracing net-

work of law. Such a Supreme Ruler of the universe is essen-

tially what we mean by God.

For the present, let us point out that the existence of a

Being of vast power and intelligence is evidenced from the

network of laws which control the functioning of the electrons

and protons in a speck of dust, as well as from those which

guide the particles of matter in a blade of grass in the bio-

chemical operation of photosynthesis. Those who look, there-

fore, with understanding eyes upon a grain of sand or a blade

of grass see mirrored therein flashes of the power and of the

wisdom of the Most High. The subtle and mysterious laws

which the electrons obey in solving problems which transcend

our puny intelligence may be said to be the objectified thought

of the Great Naturalist and the algebraic formulae of the Di-

[ 23 ]



vine Mathematician Whom mankind calls by the venerable

name of God. As Wordsworth has well said:

“To me the meanest flower that blows can give

Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.”

Joyce Kilmer expresses the conclusion that
is forced upon

every thoughtful person who peers deeply into the
wonders

of nature in the memorable lines:

“Poems are made by fools like me,

But only God can make a tree.”

Tennyson likewise perceived that the whole universe
rests

upon the all-encompassing network of the laws of God.
If we

could look deeply enough into the mysterious and
unfathomed

network of law in any single object in all creation, we
would

see God and understand man, nature, and God.
Tennyson

gave admirable expression to this mighty truth
when, in pass-

ing through a woods, he beheld a flower bursting
out in the

crevice of a wall, which he thus apostrophised:

“Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the crannies,

I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,

Little flower—but if I could understand

What you are, root and all, and all in all,

I should know what God and man is.”

Scientist, poet, philosopher and theologian can make those

words their own. The great scientist, Robert Andrews Milli-

kan, expressed this same thought when he described his
re-

searches into the nature of the cosmic ray high up in the

stratosphere of the sky as “the finger printing of God
.” 2

2 The Literary Digest, January 24, 1931, p. 27.

[ 24 ]



CHAPTER V

A BEE TAKES THE WITNESS STAND

“The pedigree of honey

Does not concern the bee;

A clover, any time, to him

Is aristocracy .”

—Emily Dickinson.

u
For so work the honey-bees,

Creatures that by a rule in nature teach

The act of order to a peopled kingdom.

They have a king and officers of sorts,

Where some, like magistrates, correct at home.

Others, like merchants, venture, trade abroad,

Others like soldiers, armed in their stings,

Make boot upon the summer’s velvet buds,

Which pillage they with merry march bring home.”

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2.

We might rest our case here, confident that the evidence

thus far presented points clearly and unmistakably to a Su-

preme Being, in Whose intelligence and power we can find

the only rational explanation for the marvelous prder and de-

sign evident throughout the universe, from a blade of grass to

the uttermost star. We would like, however, to drive this

fact of God’s existence so deeply into the minds of our read-

ers, that God’s presence in the universe will be as palpable as

the chairs whereon they sit, and as luminous as the sun in a

noon-day sky. Accordingly, we shall present the evidence of

design in the field of animal instinct.

Anyone who has watched a bird build its nest, has wit-

nessed an interesting display of plan, purpose and design,

which is organized into the instinctive actions of animals.

Take a robin which for the first time builds a nest in which

to hatch her young. How does she know that a nest is neces-

sary? Where did she learn the art of building one? What

a skillful piece of work it is, to build out of such flimsy mate-

rial as grass and straw a nest which will remain securely in its

perch against the storms and winds which will menace it.

[ 25 ]



What prompts a hen to remain like a prisoner on her eggs

for twenty-one days, scarcely leaving them for food or
drink?

Instinct, we answer glibly. But who fashioned it and twined

it into the nervous system of the hen, so that it does the
deed

as naturally and as spontaneously as it gobbles up a grain
of

corn from the ground? This is a question seldom, if
ever,

raised by the scientist. It is inescapable, however, to anyone

who seeks to penetrate beyond the method of acting to the

principle directing that activity, and to push that inquiry be-

yond the network of physical causes to the First Cause.

Let us take the case of the bee. Insects which
have a

highly organized community life, such as bees,, wasps,
and

ants need the most complex machinery of instinct if
their

polity is to survive. Individual members must render the
most

diverse types of services, working for the common welfare of

the society rather than for the individual’s own profit.. Scarce-

ly are all the parts of a young bee dried, and its wings
in a

state to be moved, than it begins the series of acts it
will do

all the rest of its life. It leaves the hive,
goes out in search

of flowers, goes through the complicated process
of extracting

nectar from them, and after traveling many miles finds its way

alone back to its hive. Maraldi states that he has seen
bees

return to the hive, loaded with large balls of wax, the
same

day they were born. Their instinct told them their first
task

was to build their cells.

A Problem in Mathematics

Now let us consider the problem which the wax-worker bee

must solve if her cell is to give a maximum of strength
and

capacity with a minimum of material. To calculate this
form,

mathematicians must propose to themselves the
following

problem: “To find the construction of a hexagonal prism
ter-

minated by a pyramid composed of three equal and
similar

rhombs, such that the solid may be made of the least quantity

of materials.” This was the manner in which
the French

naturalist, Reaumur, presented it to the noted
mathematician,

Kdnig. This problem resolves itself into
another, namely,

what should be the angles of the rhombs that cut the
hexa-

gonal prism, so as to form with it the figure of
least possible

surface. After prolonged work upon the problem, Konig
cal-

culated the angles at 109°
26' and 70° 34'. The bees had

[ 26 ]



reached a different answer and had formed the angles at
109°

28' and 70° 32'.

Which party was right—the bees or the mathematician?
Further calculation showed that the trifling error was on the

part of the mathematician, or rather in the table of logarithms

which he used. The bees had bested the noted mathematician,

solving the problem with perfect precision. The instance is

a noted one. It throws into clear relief the immediate spon-

taneous manner in which instinct solves for them with marvel-

ous precision a problem over which reason often halts and

stumbles and fails to solve with accuracy.

The mathematical deftness of the working bee does not

end with the solution of this complicated problem. It must

penetrate farther. The bee must have the power of striking

perfect circles from centers, the distance of which from each

other must be accurately adjusted, and the center of the circle

drawn on one side of the comb must be equi-distant from

the centers of the three adjacent circles on the other side. This

is a problem which man, even though equipped with compass

and rule, would not find easy. Yet the bee goes to work and

solves it with unerring despatch. How does it do it? Through

instinct, we answer. We do not solve this problem, however,

by covering it with the name, instinct, any more than we

solve the problem of determining how a blade of grass con-

verts lifeless inorganic matter into living matter, by covering

the mysterious process with the word, photosynthesis. In both

cases the labels cover not only the hidden processes but also

our ignorance of what really occurs within those processes.

Many stop here and fail to raise the relevant questions:

What is instinct? What Power or Intelligence created the

instinct and placed it in the nervous system of the bee? Since

the bee is not endowed with the faculty of reasoning, it obvi-

ously cannot have reasoned out for itself the mathematical and

geometric answers to the problems indicated. Therefore, the

problems must have been solved by an Intelligence equal to

the difficulties involved, and that solution was woven into the

nervous system of the bee to guide it in its life activity. Here

again we are driven to the conclusion that the marvelous func-

tioning of instinct within the animal kingdom, solving difficult

and complex problems with ease and despatch, bespeaks the

work of a Supreme Intelligence whose laws are as operative

in the world of life as in the realm of inorganic matter.

[27]



An Ovum Speaks , for the Record

“O child! O new-born denizen

Of life’s great city! on thy head

The glory of the morn is shed

,

Like a celestial benison!

Here at the portal dost thou stand

,

And with thy little hand

Thou openest the mysterious gate

Into the future’s undiscovered land.”

—Longfellow.

Impressive as is the evidence of order, design and law in

the realm of inorganic matter, and in the domains of vegetal

and of animal life, it is overwhelming in the world of human

life. Here the argument from design sounds its most forceful

and eloquent note. “The proper study of mankind,” rightly

observed Pope, “is man.” For, as the Jungfrau and the Matter-

horn tower majestically up above the plains and the lowly foot-

hills, so the body and the mind of man tower up above all the

other objects in the universe.

We shall consider two phases of man—his beginning as a

single fecundated ovum, scarcely visible to the naked eye, and

his maturity, as a full-orbed human personality. The opera-

tion which for many years has seemed to the writer to be the

most marvelous and awe-inspiring achievement known to man,

aside from the domain of conscious thought, is that by which

a single cell builds itself into a full-blossomed human being.

In comparison with this, the achievements of our engineers in

building Boulder Dam and in erecting the 102 -story Empire

State Building, the accomplishments of our astro-physicists in

peering into the mystery of the atom and in plumbing con-

stellations millions of light years away, and the feats of our

chemists in developing synthetic rubber and in forging ladies’

sheer hose from corn stalks, are but as children’s play.

Let us look for a moment at this microscopic speck of

protoplasm and see what wonders it performs. A female cell,

called an ovum, is secreted and starts down the Fallopian

tubes. It is unable to advance -a single step in its journey to

maturity, however, unless it is united with a male cell, or

spermatazoon. Once fecundated, however, it begins its ma-

jestic upward march. Here then are two distinct cells, each

coming from a different parent. Each has no previous knowl-

edge of the other’s existence. Yet each is unable to do any-

[ 28 ]



thing until one is merged with the other. Locked up
within

the chromosomes of each cell are the physical and
psycholog-

ical characteristics of the parent from which it comes,
and of

the forebears of that parent as well.

When these two cells unite to make one, you have a blend-

ing of these two cargoes of physical and psychical
qualities.

Buried deep down in the mysterious depth of the chromo-

somes are such psychical attributes as those which constitute

the aptitude of a musician, an artist, a poet, a scientist.
How

are such psychological traits carried in suitcases of threads
of

chromatin, we ask in wonderment. But let us pass on to its

achievements. That single fecundated cell then proceeds to

play the roles of physicist, chemist, sculptor and architect—

and to play them like an actor who has long rehearsed his

lines. Out of the blood in the mother’s womb it proceeds to

fashion such divergent structures, of different physical and

chemical elements, as bones, muscle, sinews, nerves, cartilage,

skin, blood, hairs, and teeth. This truly is a bewildering per-

formance—one which makes the achievement of the alchemist
of old in changing the baser metals into the more precious

ones appear simple in comparison.

Different Antennae—Why?
Let us concentrate, however, on one of its achievements

—

that of building nerve cells.

There in the darkness of the mother’s womb, whither

neither light nor color has ever penetrated, the fecundated

ovum, developing into the embryo, takes the common material

and transforms it into nerve cells which will respond later on

only to light and color. How does it do this? How does it

know that there exists light and color? It has had no expe-

rience of either. Then out of that same material it fabricates

there in the silence of the womb other nerve cells which will

respond later on only to stimuli of sound. Others it builds

into nerve cells which are adapted only to stimuli of tempera-

ture. These respective types of nerve cells it places in
their

appropriate places in the developing embryo—in the end or-
gans with corresponding centers in the brain. How does that

fecundated ovum, without hands or tools of any kind, build

finely spun nerve cells with different kinds of antennae, the

details of whose architecture even the trained eye of the neur-

ologist armed with a high-powered microscope is unable to

trace? How does that speck of protoplasm build a heart and

[ 29 ]



gear it into an elaborate musculature that will keep it
pump-

ing blood through the body all the days of a life stretching

perhaps close onto a century? How does it fabricate eyes,

which make the finest camera seem rudimentary and awkward

in comparison? How does it fashion ears which make our

dictaphones seem like crude and unwieldy contraptions? How

does it achieve that miracle of miracles, that mystery of
mys-

teries, the crowning achievement in the biological world
the

brain of man?

These are questions which have never been answered. In

all probability they will never be answered this side of eternity.

They are questions, however, which should be raised to indi-

cate the breath-taking and awe-inspiring achievements of a

speck of protoplasm. If all the chemists, physicists,
physi-

cians, sculptors and scientists in the world could do any one

of the numerous feats which that unicellular organism, per-

forms, we would herald the dawn of a new day in science.

The fact is that science’s coarse thumb and finger cannot

plumb the depths of the fuctioning of a single living cell, much

less duplicate its miracles. Since that speck of protoplasm,
a

fertilized ovum, has neither hands, feet or tools to use, nor

brain to guide it in its complex and mysterious operations, we

are compelled to say that its actions bespeak the work of a

Supreme Intelligence Whose network of laws guide the move-

ments of its molecules from a tiny cell to the journey’s end

—

a full-blossomed human being.

30 1



CHAPTER VI

THE HUMAN BODY AFFIRMS

“What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!

how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and

admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension
how

like a god! the beauty of the world! the
paragon of animals

t”

—Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2.

No treatment of the problem of purpose in nature would

be at all complete, if it did not at least
refer to that marvel of

intricate organization, the human body, reaching its
climactic

expression in the cerebral cortex. If the
structure and func-

tioning of a unicellular organism, such as an amoeba,
manifest

a complexity that baffles the ingenuity of
scientists to unravel,

how much more bewildering is the complexity of the human

organism with its billions of parts functioning as a
unified

whole? The most delicate and complex machine ever devised

by human hands appears as a child’s toy in comparison
with

the human body, self-repairing and self-reproducing.

It is refreshing to see so eminent a scientist as
Professor

Thompson state in so straightforward a manner the conclu-

sion that would seem to flow implicitly from the marvelous

design exemplified in the structure of the human organism.

“Man,” he says, “is fearfully and wonderfully made. We

never fail to be impressed with an intricate mechanical device,

such as a linotype printing machine, a loom, a calculating

machine; and we praise the maker. Why are we not more

generous in our admiration of a living creature, which is more

than any machine? Why are we not more inclined to do hom-

age to the Prime Mover, Who made things make themselves?

“We are confronted, then, with the intricacy of life. We

have twenty-five trillions of red blood corpuscles and four

billions of white blood corpuscles, and each is a living unit of

great complexity. The microscopic capillaries, which Harvey

inferred and Malpighi demonstrated, connecting the end of

the arteries with the beginnings of the veins, are so numerous

that if those of our body were placed end to end they would

stretch across the Atlantic; and a drop of blood, if we could

suppose it to retain its individuality, has a journey of about

a mile a day. The nerve cells of our cerebral cortex, the seat

of the higher intellectual processes, weigh no more than half

[ 31 1



an ounce, yet there are nine thousand, two
hundred millions

of them, between five and six times the number of
people liv-

ing on the earth. And each cell is a complex intricate
living

unit often like a busy telephonic exchange, receiving
calls and

bringing one part of the body into communication
with an-

other.

“How glibly we say ‘a single cell’; but a cell is a little

world in itself. The living matter is in a colloidal state;
that

is to say, it shows a motley multitude of jostling
particles and

immiscible droplets suspended in a fluid, and divided
some-

how into eddies so that diverse chemical processes can go
on

at the same time side by side. In the cell-substance
there

are, in many cases, strands and rods and other definitely

formed bodies, which are of at least three different
kinds and

bear many different names—as long as the things themselves

are minute—such as mitochondria, chromidia, and Golgi’s ap-
paratus. In many animal cells there are two minute central

corpuscles, or centrosomes, which play an important
part as

weavers at the loom when the cell is going to divide into
two.

In the center of the cell-substance, or cytoplasm—a
whirlpool

of eddies, with its diverse flotsam—there floats the nucleus, a
little world in itself. Inside its membrane, through

which ma-

terials are ever permeating out and in, there are the
readily

stainable chromosomes, usually definite in number for
each

species. Thus the number for man is probably forty-eight.

But each of these rodlets, or chromosomes, is built upr
of mi-

crosomes, like beads on a string. Our heads begin to
reel-

body, organs, tissues, cells, nucleus, chromosomes,
microsomes,

and beyond that, though we cannot see, there are smaller
units

still.”
1

Is there any possible escape from the conclusion that
the

amazing complexity of the human body with its 9,200,000,000

nerve cells delicately intertwined in the cerebral
cortex weigh-

ing only half an ounce, manifests plan and purpose in
its ar-

rangement and demands, therefore, the attribute of intelli-

gence in its Cause? Such is the conclusion that is
dictated

not only by the common sense of the generality of mankind,

but also by the disciplined reasoning powers of a high order
of

intellect. Any effort to escape from such a conclusion would

lead to the negation of the most basic laws of human reason-

ing and to a chaos in the universe that would be deep
and

hopeless.

An insight into the marvelous organization of the universe

1 J. A. Thompson, op. cit., pp.
120-122.

r S2

1



and the operation of its laws, such as we have
sought to afford

in the instances cited, reveals nature
as a vast mirror, reflect-

ing the power and intelligence of a Supreme
Mind. Glimpses

of the workings of that Mind, and of the
divine plan may be

had by the person who painstakingly endeavors
to decipher

the story written in mysterious hieroglyphics
across the face

of nature. If the story be read aright,
nature herself supplies

the answer to some of the deepest questionings
of the human

It was this truth which Carlyle perceived when he
said:

“We speak of the volume of Nature and truly a volume it
is

—whose author and writer is God. To read it—dost thou—
does man so much as know the alphabet thereof? With

its

words, sentences and grand descriptive pages,
poetical and

philosophical, spread out through our solar systems,
it is a

volume written in celestrial hieroglyphs, in the
true sacred

writing of which even the prophets are happy when they
can

read a line here or a line there.” The lines which we
have

been able to decipher, however, tell a uniform story
of plan,

order, and design. Purposiveness written into the
mosaic of

nature is the universal Esperanto by which mind discerns
the

work of mind and loses the sense of its cosmic loneliness
in

the realization of the abiding omnipresence
of Intelligence

throughout the universe.

Mirrors Divine Lawmaker

The ceaseless research conducted by medical science into

the structure and functioning of the human body, resulting in

continued new discoveries of secrets previously hidden from

our eyes, far from lessening the admiration of scientists,
in-

creases it with every new discovery. It is only when the work

is that of a magician, that our admiration is dissipated
on

learning of the deception, tricks, and legerdemain by which

the end was achieved. But no student familiar with the pro-

foundly realistic methods of nature has ever accused her of

being a charlatan.

It is to be acknowledged, however, that the fact that the

technique employed by living matter to bridge the gulf sep-

arating it from inanimate matter has thus far surpassed the

capacity of the human mind to discover or comprehend, tends

to enlighten the impression of awe we experience for the

power and intelligence which first tied- these forces of nature

together in so remarkable a union, and then endowed them

[ 33 ]



with such fecundity of offspring as disclosed in the hiero-

glyphics of the evolutionary story. Yet if the human mind

should ultimately succeed in fathoming the depths of the

present mystery of life, may it not truthfully be said that while

perhaps some of the feeling of awe would disappear with the

discovery, the intellectual admiration would only be deepened

by the revelation of new marvels of delicate co-ordination of

forces and synchronization of movements on the part of bil-

lions of infinitesimally small protons and electrons which

course about in a cell of protoplasm as stars traverse the re-

gions of almost infinite space? Then, too, this additional

achievement of the human mind would mirror forth more strik-

ingly than ever the intelligence of that ultimate cause which

fashioned the nature of its complex organization and formed

the laws for the processes of thought.

After having premised these interpretations of the implica-

tions of such a discovery, the writer hastens to agree with all

careful students of the subject that life today remains as baf-

fling a mystery as it ever was. All efforts to explain it in terms

of mechanisms and physico-chemical forces fail abysmally to

account for the principle directing its activities. Mechanisms

and physico-chemical forces there doubtless are. But that

“something else,” that entelechy which eludes the scales, es-

capes from the test tube, and hides from the microscope

remains about as mysterious as in the days when Aristotle, the

ancient Stagirite, sought for it in vain amid the plants and

flowers on the Grecian hillsides.

This, however, we can say with certainty that the myste-

rious process of life reflects the work of a Supreme Mind, a

Divine Lawmaker, whose thought is mirrored in the laws

which guide the movements of every proton and electron in

every particle of matter, living or non-living, in the universe.

[ 34 ]



CHAPTER VII

THE MIND TESTIFIES

“The proper study of mankind is man.”
—Pope.

In our last illustration we considered man,
first in his be-

ginning as a unicellular organism and then
as a fully developed

organism. We saw how plan is written in every lineament
of

its structure, and purpose in every
movement of the organism

and of all its parts. Our attention has
been riveted, however,

upon merely the physical aspects. The
intellectual is far more

wonderful. When we reach the mind of man, we
reach the

pinnacle of all creation. It is the
apex in the pyramid of

values to be found in the universe. It is
this which consti-

tutes the dignity of man as a moral personality,
and makes

him a being of surpassing worth.

It is in the processes of thinking,
especially in abstract

thinking, wherein the mind reaches the concept
of what Plato

calls “universal,” such as truth, justice,
right, stripped of all

material notes or attributes, that we find the supreme
evidence

of plan, purpose and design. While the
material universe, as

disclosed to us by modern astronomy, is indeed
marvelous in

its order and staggering in its immensity, still
more marvelous

is the mind of man which no scale can measure,
because it

transcends the properties of matter and reaches into
the world

of spirit. How wonderful, indeed, is the mind of man
which

measures the girth of Betelgeux and weighs stars
a million

light years from our planet! There is the supreme
evidence of

design, and the crowning argument of God’s
existence.

Man is a microcosm, a small universe, in which are found

the properties of the material world, of
the vegetal and of the

animal kingdoms, and of the spiritual world. He is a
walking

argument of God’s existence, a moving advertisement
of God s

power, an articulate herald of God’s intelligence.
As man is

the crowning work of God, so we affirm man is the
supreme

argument and the blinding evidence of God s existence.
Well

might we alter the famous syllogism of Descartes, “I think.

Therefore, I am,” to read: “I think. Therefore, God exists.”

For only in God do we find a suitable Cause for the
mysteri-

ous power of human reason. Among all the objects in
the

visible universe, the mind of man sounds the loudest and the

most eloquent note, proclaiming the existence of a
Supreme

Being, an Omniscient Mind, and an Infinite God, Who is, in

1 J



the words of St. Paul, “the Alpha and the Omega, the begin-

ning and the end of all things.”

With this, we conclude our presentation of evidence of

plan, order, and design in the universe, demonstrating the

existence of a Supreme Designer and an Infinite Lawmaker.

In concluding, we thus summarize the line of reasoning run-

ning all through this discussion: The universe as a whole and

all its parts are arranged with marvelous order and design.

Now this order must be effected either by matter itself or by

a cause outside of matter. Order, however, is the suitable

arrangement of parts into a harmonious whole and requires

intelligence. But matter itself is unintelligent. Therefore,

the existence of order and design in the world demands the

existence of an Intelligent Cause to produce it. But such an

Intelligent Cause, external to the universe, and yet directing

by His power and His all-encompassing laws the movement of

every particle of matter in the universe, is what we mean by

God. Therefore, God exists.

The Origin of Life

“Life, like a dome of many-colored glass,

Stains the white radiance of Eternity
”

—Shelley.

A proof of God’s existence may be drawn from the univer-

sally accepted findings of two different sciences. First, the

science of biology affirms, as one of its most basic generaliza-

tions, that life comes only from pre-existing life. Since the his-

toric experiments of Pasteur, the old theory of spontaneous

generation has been universally discredited. “Under no cir-

cumstances whatever,” declares the eminent botanist, Reinke,

“can chemical and mechanical forces produce a living being.”
1

J. W. N. Sullivan, recognized by scientists as a
competent

reporter of their work, states: “So far as science has gone at

present, a mechanical explanation of life has not been even

approached.”
2 Not less forceful are the words of Tyndall:

“I affirm that no shred of trustworthy experimental testimony

exists to prove that life in our day has ever appeared inde-

pendently of antecedent life.”
3

Now the science of geology assures us that there was a

time when the earth was a molten mass, so exceedingly hot,

l Die Welt als Tat, p. 315. 2 Science: A New Outline, p. 196.

8 Quoted by F. J. Koch, A Manual of Apologetics, p. 19.

r.i6i



that no form of life could
possibly have existed thereon

The

fossil remains of life first
appear in the strata which were

deposited when more temperate
conditions prevailed. In the

igneous rocks the paleontologist
can find no trace of living

organisms. Science affirms
likewise that life has been

found

on no other planet in the
universe. Therefore h e must have

been produced or created by a
Living Cause external to this

universe. But such a living,
supramundane Being is substan-

tially what we mean by God.
Therefore, God exists.

Here then is a demonstration
which should appeal to ail

those who want to have their
philosophical conclusions based

upon the findings of science.
This conclusion follows with

inescapable necessity from the
universally accepted findings

of biology and geology. Nor can
its validity be impaired by

asserting that in previous
epochs life sprung spontaneously

from inorganic matter. There is
not a shred of scientific evi-

dence to support that hypothesis,
and it is thoroughly unscien-

tific to forge hypotheses unsupported
by a shred of evidence.

The whole tendency of scientific
thought is to affirm me

constancy, the invariability and the
universality of nature s

laws. Furthermore, even if we grant
the hypothesis that me

emerged in past eons from inorganic
matter, even though that

be unsupported by a shred of
evidence, we would still be

forced to raise the query: What caused it to.
emerge from life-

less matter? Since blind chance
or fortuity is ruled out by

all reputable scientists, we are back again
at our previous con-

clusion that life could have been
originally produced only by

a Living Cause, which is merely
another name for what we

mean by God.



CHAPTER VIII

UNIVERSAL BELIEF OF MANKIND

Father of all! in every age

,

In every clime adored

,

By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord.

—Pope.

Human reason is fundamentally a trustworthy faculty. It
is the means by which we discriminate between truth and

error. It is the basic tool by which we have ferreted out the

laws of nature, discovered her sources of energy, and harnessed

them to do our bidding. It is the fundamental means by

which we have achieved our mastery of nature and reached

our present state of civilization. To impugn the reliability of

man’s intellect would mean, therefore, the repudiation of the

findings of modern science in which we take such glory and

such pride. You might as well ask a modern to deny his own

existence as to deny either the verified discoveries of modern

science or the trustworthiness of the intellect by which those

truths were ascertained.

Now it is a fact abundantly established by historians and
anthropologists that mankind in all ages, in all countries and

in all stages of civilization has believed in the existence of a

Supreme Being. No matter whether the race or tribe was
civilized or uncivilized, whether it was in communication with

other races or whether it was isolated in the darkness of an

African jungle, we find the clear and unmistakable evidence

of the belief in a Ruler of the universe. True, individuals who

doubted or denied the existence of such an Infinite Power can

be found here and there. These are the exceptions, however,

which prove the rule.

They are, moreover, so infinitesimally small in comparison

with the overwhelming majority of mankind that they do not

affect the moral unanimity of the judgment of the human

race. Mankind in all ages has affirmed with moral unanimity

the existence of a Supreme Being. Can such a deep, universal

conviction of the race be an illusion? If “fifty thousand

Frenchmen can’t be wrong,” can all the race be wrong? If we

have been endowed with reason to ascertain the truth, can the

functioning of that reason in all mankind have served but to

lead them to a gigantic conspiracy against the truth?

[ 38 ]



Could it have served but to mislead
them in answering the

most important question which the
human mind is called upon

to answer? To answer in the
affirmative is to impugn the

trustworthiness of the intellect to
know the truth. It is to

plunge the race into universal
skepticism. But the facts dis-

covered in science, the truths of
philosophy pounded out on

the anvil of free discussion, and the
general experience of man-

kind that our intellect is a light and
not a darkness, preclude

such a conclusion. Therefore,
we are obliged to regard as

valid the argument for God’s existence
that is drawn from the

universal consent of mankind.

No Exceptions

Let us look at the scope and sweep of
that belief. In the

light of the investigations of the
past half century into the

religious belief of primitive peoples,
we can now confidently

assert that no race has been found
without a belief in a Su-

preme Being. Travelers have from time
to time

.

reported

certain tribes to be devoid of such a
belief. Closer investiga-

tion, however, by experts familiar with
their language, and

capable of penetrating the veil with
which such beliefs are

sometimes concealed from strangers, have
invariably disclosed

belief in a Supreme Power or Deity.

This question, formerly a subject of warm dispute,
has now

been relegated, as the competent
authority, F. B. Jevons,

writes, “to the limbo of dead controversies.”
1 The findings

of research workers approaching the
problem from widely dif-

ferent points of view, such as Professor
Tylor, Max Muller,

Ratzel, de Quatrefages, Tiele, Waitz, Gerland,
Peschel, and the

greatest of them all, Father Wilhelm Schmidt of
Vienna, are

in agreement that no race, no matter how primitive,
has been

found without religious beliefs and practices.
While many

superstitious elements, such an animism, fetishism,
totemism

and magic may be found in them, at the core of their
religion

will be found the belief in a Supreme Ruler of the
universe.

As to the manner in which the different branches
of the

race first acquired the idea of God, we express no
opinion.

The long period of darkness, which preceded recorded history,

and which has been penetrated only by a few pin
points of

light, suggests to us the wisdom of suspending judgment
on

the various theories proposed in answer to this
question .

2

1 Introduction to the History of Religion

,

p. 7.

2 Cf. W. Schmidt, Origin and Growth of
Religion and G. H. Joyce, S.J., Prin-

ciples of Natural Theology, p. 181.

f 10 1



Idea of God

It is to be noted that an idea of God may exist, and be

worthy of that name, even though it be inadequate and faulty.

Thus mankind has always believed in the existence of the sun.

Yet what strange conceptions of its nature have existed among

the peoples of the past? What odd notions about it are to be

found today not only among uncivilized tribes but among

highly civilized nations as well. Stop any ten people passing

you on the street in an American city, and ask them how the

sun gives heat and light to a planet 96,000,000 miles away. In

all probability not a single one will come within speaking dis-

tance of the scientific explanation of the molecular action

which enables the sun to send us its beneficent rays. How

different is the popular conception from the views held by

astrophysicists. How greatly do they differ even among them-

selves. Yet, would anyone be justified in saying that the peo-

ples of the world do not have in consequence a real idea of the

sun? Not at all. A real idea of that luminous body exists in

the minds of all people, even though they may not understand

everything about its nature and its operations. So it is with

their conceptions of God.

It is not necessary that God be conceived of as omnipotent,

omniscient or as Creator. It is sufficient that He be regarded

as the Supreme Being, to Whom man owes homage and rev-
erence. Much confusion and error may exist in regard to the

attributes of the Deity, and in regard to the manner of paying

honor and homage* without invalidating a conception as con-

taining a true idea of the existence of a Supreme Being. Plato

and Socrates believed in the eternity of matter, and held some

erroneous notions about somfe of the attributes of the Deity.

Yet no informed person would deny that they reached an

exalted conception of God.

So, likewise, primitive peoples may possess a true idea of

the Deity, even though they have no notion of the universality

of His providence or of the infinitude of His knowledge and

power. Nor is this conclusion in any way impaired by the

many superstitions, beliefs, and even revolting practices which

may be interwoven into their conception of the Deity and into

their crude efforts to acknowledge His sovereign dominion over

life and death. There have been, and there still are, certain

savage tribes which have been arrested in their development

and have been subjected to long periods of degeneration.

It seems inevitable that their religious practices would be

[ 40 ]



affected and colored by the deforming
and degenerating con^“

tions under which they lived—that
myth and magic would

spread like a fungus over their
religious practices. There are

two currents,” observes A. Lang,
“the religious and the myth-

ical flowing together through
religion. The former current,

religious, even among very low savages, is
pure from the mag-

ical, ghost-propitiating habit.
The latter current, mytholog-

ical is full of magic, mummery and scandalous
legend. Some-

times the latter stream quite pollutes
the former, sometimes

they flow side by side, perfectly
distinguishable, as m Aztec

ethical piety, compared with the bloody
Aztec ritualism.

The attention of travelers and of anthropologists
has at

times been so attracted by the gross
superstitions and unusual

rites which too frequently overlay the
religion of primitives,

that they have occasionally failed to
penetrate to the central

core—the belief in a Supreme Being Who was to be reverenced

and propitiated. Closer and more scientific
investigation has

invariably disclosed such a central belief.
The results of re-

cent investigations are aptly summed up in Hasting’s
Encyclo-

pedia of Religion and Ethics as follows:
4 “Increasing research

into the mental habits of the least advanced
races of mankind

now living tends to demonstrate that side by
side with the

most foolish, tedious, and often repulsive myths,
there is al-

most invariably a high if vague conception
of a good Being

Who is the Maker of all things, the undying Guardian of the

moral life of man.”

Testimony of Civilized Races

Coming now to the civilized races of the ancient world,
we

find the evidence of their belief in a Supreme Being
so impres-

sive as to be beyond all dispute. It is woven into
their art and

civilization and is found inscribed upon their monuments
and

tombs. Indeed, in visiting the Museum in Cairo, Egypt,

wherein were exhibited the numerous objects excavated
from

the tomb of Tutankhamen, carrying us back to the
dawn of

civilization along the Nile, the writer was especially
impressed

with the numerous objects pointing to a belief in a
Supreme

Being.
, .

-

Among the Babylonians the supreme deity was Marduk.

Among the Romans, Jupiter was supreme; while among the

Greeks, Zeus held the highest place. In the early
Chinese

writings Shang Ti is represented as supreme. In the
Iranian

a Making of Religion, 2nd ed., p. 183. 4 Article
on “Creation.”

[ 41 ]



religion, Ahuramazda is the name given to the Supreme Being,

while in the Vedic religion, the same deity is known as Varuna.

In Egypt, the chief deity differed with the district, each local-

ity representing its own god as supreme.

The universality of the belief in a Supreme Being among

the ancient civilizations is authentically mirrored in the writ-

ings of Herodotus and Plutarch among the historians, of Aris-

totle, Plato, Cicero and Seneca among the philosophers, and

of Homer, Hesiod, Virgil and Ovid among the poets. “If you

traverse the earth,” observes Plutarch, “you may find cities

without walls, or literature, or laws, or fixed habitations, or

coin. But a city destitute of temples and gods—a city that
employeth not prayers and oracles, that offereth not sacrifice

to obtain blessings and avert evil, no one has ever seen, or

ever shall see.”
5

Similar is the testimony of Plato: “The earth, the sun and

stars, and the universe itself; and the charming variety of

the seasons, demonstrate the existence of a Divinity. More-

over, the barbarous nations unite with the Greeks in proclaim-

ing this truth.” Again he asserts: “No man has persisted from

youth to old age in the opinion that there are no gods.”
6

Aristotle, “the master of those who know,” sums up the

case thus succinctly: “According to the avowal of the whole

human race, God is the Cause and Principle of things.” 7

How weighty was thfs argument from universal belief to

the ancient world is thus stated by Seneca: “We are accus-

tomed to attach great importance to the universal belief of

mankind. It is accepted by us as a convincing argument.

That there are gods we infer from the sentiment engrafted in

the human mind; nor has any nation ever been found, so far

beyond the pale of law and civilization as to deny their exist-

ence.”
8

The following inscription on one of the most ancient monu-

ments of the Egyptians bears eloquent witness to their belief

in God:

“Sovereign of life, health, and strength, Chief of the gods,

We worship Thy Spirit Who alone hast made us;
We whom Thou hast made, thank Thee, that Thou hast given

us birth;

We give to Thee praises for Thy mercy towards us.” 9

5 ConPra Coloten., C. XXXI. 6 De Legibus, Lib. XI.

7 Metaphysics, II, 11, 820. 8 Epis., CXVII.

fl See Hoare’s Religion of the Ancient Egyptians.

[ 42 ]



Testimony of Moderns

We conclude our list of witnesses with the
testimony of

one of the foremost scientists of
our day, Robert Andrews

Millikan. Because of his wide
acquaintance with scientists

and scholars in many fields, he is in a
position to testify con-

cerning contemporary thought on this
subject. I have never

known,” he declares, “a thinking man who
did not believe in

God. . . . Everyone who reflects at all
believes, in one way or

another, in God. ... To me it is unthinkable
that a real athe-

ist should exist at all. ... It seems
to me as obvious as breath-

ing that every man who is sufficiently in
his senses to recog-

nize his own inability to comprehend the
problem of existence,

to understand whence he came and
whither he is going, must

in the very admission of that
ignorance and finiteness recog-

nize the existence of a something, a
Power, and Being ij1 W^om

and because of Whom he himself dives and moves and
has his

being.’ That power, that something, that
existence, we call

God
” 10

To sum up: We have shown that the belief in a Supreme

Being has existed among all races and all lands
and in all ages

and that it exists in the same universal
manner among the

peoples of the world today. But a belief so
universal that it

cannot be attributed to one nation or to a
set of circumstances

must be rooted in the realities of the objective
world. Other-

wise the faculty of intellect, by which we discern
truth from

error would be deceiving us and working a
gigantic hoax upon

all mankind. But such a conclusion would impair
the validity

of all knowledge and would plunge us into
universal skepti-

cism from which there could be no escape.
Therefore we are

compelled to conclude that the belief of all mankind in a
Su-

preme Being reflects the fundamental validity of
the human

mind to perceive truth and mirrors authentically the
existence

and the objective reality of God. Careful study
of this line of

reasoning will show that it is not a mere superficial
attempt

to determine truth by counting noses, but is based
upon the

fundamental validity of the human mind to know, and upon

the recorded facts of human history. It is a valid and irrefu-

table proof of God’s existence.

10 World’s Work, April, 1926, pp. 665, 666,

[ 43 ]



CHAPTER IX

THE METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT

“Let the chain of second causes be ever so long, the first

link is always in God’s hand.”—George Lavington.

We come now to considerations of a metaphysical char-

acter which demonstrate the existence of an infinitely perfect

Being. While many persons are apt to be somewhat fright-

ened at the prospect of reasoning along metaphysical lines,

and to regard themselves as incapable of following the logic of

the argument, there can be no gainsaying that the arguments

from metaphysics are among the most valid and indestructible

of all the proofs of God’s existence. They call, however, for

rigorous thinking and sustained attention. They are not so

popular as the arguments already presented. We would not

use the metaphysical argument in discussing the subject with

the untutored man in the street.

After much debating with ourselves, we have decided to

present one of the metaphysical proofs. We have reached this
decision for three reasons. Firstly, there may be some of our

readers with philosophical training, to whom this line of rea-

soning will appeal with a finality and a conclusiveness, more

categorical and absolute than in the other lines of evidence.

Secondly, we think that the person who carefully follows the

line of reasoning, even though he have no technical philosophic

training, can appreciate its cogency.

Thirdly, we think that the presentation of the evidence of

God’s existence would be lacking in that full, rounded balance

at which we aim, and would be sadly incomplete, if we did not

give our readers at least a glimpse into that serene stratosphere

of thought wherein Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine and St.

Thomas Aquinas, and the mightiest intellects of the race per-

ceived the indestructible and inescapable evidence of the Abso-

lute, the Eternal, and the Infinite Being Whom we call God.
There are four historic metaphysical arguments. They are:

(1) the cosmological argument—God as the First Cause; (2)
the argument from contingency—God as Necessary Being;
(3) the argument from motion—God as the Prime Mover;
(4) the henological argument—God as the One and the Per-
fect. When we say they are metaphysical proofs, we mean

that they flow directly from the primary principles of reason so

that it is impossible to reject them without calling into ques-

[441



tion the validity of
human reason itself. Moreover,

our proof

is drawn not from the working
of physical law in the

umverse,

nor from the nature of man as a
moral agent but simply from

the nature of finite being
as such. Any visible object in

the

universe is a finite being, and is
capable of furnishing us with

all the data for the reasoning
which leads us at last to the

one

Necessary Being—God.

Argument from Contingency

We will present the argument from
contingency. This is

closely related to the
cosmological argument, which is

some-

times called the argument from
efficient causation, and. may

indeed be more accurately described
as the same proof viewed

under a new aspect. Running
through all the metaphysical

arguments and through all the
other arguments already pre-

sented, is the thread of
causality. The principle that every

effect must have an appropriate
cause may be said to consti-

tute the spinal column of all
scientific reasoning and of all phil-

osophic thinking as well. It is
fundamental m all the lines

of our reasoning concerning
the existence of God.

Having taught this subject matter
to university students

for more than a quarter of a
century, we are quite familiar

with those aspects which present
too abstract and lackluster

a countenance to the student,
and so we shall present illustra-

tions which would not be necessary
for professional philoso-

phers. With a view of making the
presentation as interesting

and as effective as possible we shall throw
it into the form of a

discussion which we had with a university
student of skeptical

“Is it true, Herbert, that you have
had some doubts about

the existence of God?”
#

“Yes too true. They have bitten into
me, and they are

unsettling me about many things. For, if I’m
not sure about

God, how can I be sure about the meaning
of life or the end

for which I should be striving?” , . V1 .

“You are quite logical, Herbert. Doubt about
God is likely

to paralyze your striving for altruism
and nobility of life and

make you grovelingly egocentric. Why die for an
ideal* if

there is no Power that sustains and
underwrites that ideal, and

will ultimately reward your self-sacrifice?
Would I surprise

you however, if I were to tell you that
everything in the uni-

verse proclaims the existence of God—not excepting your very
act of doubting Him?”

[ 45 ]



“Do you mean that you can deduce the existence of God

from the fact that I doubt His existence?”

“Yes, paradoxical as it may seem, that is precisely what I

mean.”

“Well, go ahead. But you’ll surprise me all the more if

you succeed in proving God’s existence from such a strange

starting point.”

"Be Logical"

“All right. All I ask is that you be rigorously logical and

that you admit whatever is logically implied in your prem-

ises.”

“That’s fair enough.”

“In acknowledging that you doubt, you must admit all that

is essential to doubt. By the essence of anything is meant

that without which it could not exist. For example, the es-

sence of water is HO. Whoever, therefore, admits the exist-

ence of water, ipso facto
,
or by that very act, admits the chem-

ical compound, HO. To admit water and to deny H2O is in-

deed an absurd procedure. Similarly, a circle is a figure in

which every point of its circumference is equi-distant from

its center. No one can admit the one and deny the other

without involving himself in obvious absurdity. One cannot,

therefore, admit the existence of anything and deny its es-

sence without manifest contradiction. Is this clear so far, Her-

bert?”

“Crystal clear so far. Certainly no one could quarrel with

anything you have said thus far. Go on.”

“Splendid. Let me apply this now. If, as vou admit, one

cannot admit the existence of anything and deny its essence,

then one cannot doubt the existence of God without admitting

whatever is essential to this doubt. What then is essential to

doubt? We may say at once that intelligence is essential to
doubt or denial. One without intelligence can no more doubt

or deny than he can believe or affirm. Whoever doubts the

existence of God must, therefore, affirm the intelligence with-

out which doubt or denial is impossible. Do you agree?”

"Where Does This Get Us?"

“Perfectly. What you say so far is beyond all question.

But where does this get us?”

“I’ll show you presently. For the same principle which

you acknowledged in regard to doubt applies with equal rigor

to intelligence. Having admitted intelligence, one must admit

[ 46 ]



whatever is essential to intelligence
under penalty of denying

what has been affirmed. We now ask
what is essential to in-

telligence? The answer is not far to
seek. The intelligible is

essential to intelligence. By intelligence
we understand the

power or faculty by which we know.
Quite obviously, to know

necessarily implies something to
be known. If one knows at

all, he must know something.
He cannot know nothing.

Knowledge, therefore, implies two
things, the intelligent sub-

ject which knows, and the
intelligible object which is known.

Suppress either of these and you
suppress the possibility of

knowing. Whoever, therefore,
doubts the existence of God,

must admit the intelligible. Don’t
you agree, Herbert?

“Certainly. But I’m still waiting for
you to prove that

God really exists.” .

“One step at a time, Herbert, and we
are coming to that

by single steps which are so clear
that you will never fail to

see the why of each step we take. Now the
intelligible must

be something or being. It cannot
be nothing because nothing

is unintelligible.
Therefore, something or being is affirmed

in the very act of doubt. But
the something or being thus

affirmed must be either contingent or
necessary being.’

Contingent Being Means What?

“But what do you mean by contingent being?”

“By contingent being, Herbert, is meant
that which de-

rives its existence from another. It
can neither exist nor be

intelligible without that upon which it depends.
No matter

how far we may be disposed to extend a series
of contingent

beings, even if, by impossible hypothesis, it
were unto infinity,

no one of them singly and no series
of them can, either exist

or be intelligible without the being
upon which they depend

and without which they cannot exist.”

An Infinite Series?

“But,” interjected Herbert, his face lighting
up, as though

he saw a way of escape from the iron chain
being forged

around him, “why can’t you account for your
series of con-

tingent beings by stretching the series out to
infinity?”

“Well, Herbert, that assumption has been
made by those

who thus sought to escape from the being
upon whom the

series depends. Now while I do not really believe that the

series either is or can be infinite, I am willing, for the
sake of

[47 1



the argument, to grant your assumption. It will not long

deflect us from the inevitable conclusion. For the point we

are here making is that even though an infinite series of con-

tingent beings were admitted, you have not decreased, but

rather increased, the necessity of a being, on which they de-

pend, or the necessary being.”

“Would you please illustrate this?”

“Yes, Herbert, gladly. An idiot is not a reasonable being.

If you multiplied the number of idiots to a million, or to an

infinite series, would they ever suffice to constitute one reason-

able being?”

“Of course not.”

“Well, it would be as logical to suppose that an infinite

series of idiots would constitute a reasonable being, as to sup-

pose that an infinite series of contingent beings would consti-

tute an uncontingent or necessary being.”

“Capital. I’m beginning to see. The illustration helps

mightily.”

“Well, then, Herbert, here’s another. Each link in a sus-

pended chain is kept from falling only because it hangs on

another. Now, if you stretch the chain to any length what-

soever, will that escape the need of some support to keep it

from falling?”

“Obviously not. It would make it fall all the faster unless

the support were proportionately strengthened.”

Infinite Series—No Escape
“Right you are, Herbert. Yet it would be as logical to

assume that by the mere expedient of multiplying the links

in a suspended chain you could keep it from falling, as it

would be to assume that by multiplying the series of contin-

gent beings you could ever escape the necessity of coming ul-

timately to the uncontingent being upon whom the whole

series, be it infinite or not, depends.”

“Who said that reasoning along metaphysical lines was

difficult to understand? Those illustrations make it so clear

that even a child could understand the point you make.”

“Thanks, Herbert. As this point is crucial, I shall clinch

it once and for all with still another illustration. For if one

clearly perceives that no manner of multiplying the number of

contingent beings will ever yield a being of an altogether dif-

ferent nature, an uncontingent being, he will have no difficulty

in grasping this entire metaphysical argument demonstrating

[ 48 ]



clearly and unmistakably the existence of a necessary
uncaused

Being, which is the metaphysical description of God.”

“Well, I’m eager for the third illustration. What is it?”

“Suppose you have a clock with five wheels driven by
a

spring. It is evident that the movement of the wheels
is de-

pendent upon the spring, and is neither possible nor
intelligible

without that spring. Suppose now that you multiply
the

wheels by a million, or by any number you please, or
raise the

number to the nth power, the movement of the wheels would
be

neither possible nor intelligible unless the strength of
the spring

were increased correspondingly. If, therefore, it
were possible

to raise the number of wheels to infinity, it would
require an

infinite force to set them in motion. Must we not conclude

then that an infinite series of contingent or dependent
beings,

if such were possible, would demand an infinite, necessary

being without which they could neither exist nor be
intelli-

gible?”

“I don’t see how anyone,” said Herbert with enthusiasm,

“can escape from that conclusion. I see now that the breast-

works I threw up in the form of an assumption of an
infinite

series of contingent beings has completely
crumbled under

your reasoning, lit up by illustrations which allowed no
vestige

of obscurity to remain.”

Necessary Being

“You’ll make me blush, Herbert, if you’re not more modest

in your praise. I hasten to assure you that the line of rea-

soning is not original with me, but has been forged out by

some of the most profound thinkers of the race .
1 Now, let me

continue. From the existence of contingent being,, or from

any such series of contingent beings, we are compelled, as we

have already seen, to demand the existence of a necessary

being which is dependent upon no other, which has the reason

of its being in itself, whose non-existence is therefore incon-

ceivable, because that would be self-contradictory.”

“Here then in brief,” resumes Herbert, “are the links in

the chain of our reasoning so far: One cannot doubt the exist-

ence of God without affirming intelligence. But intelligence

necessarily implies the intelligible or being. Now being is

either contingent or necessary. Contingent being, however,

can neither exist nor be intelligible without necessary being.

Therefore it follows with all the inexorable force of logical

l l am indebted to my colleague of former years, Rev. Dr. W. J: Bergin, C.S.V.,

for his scholarly aid in the formulation of this argument.

I *9 J



necessity that whoever doubts the existence of God must im-

plicitly affirm necessary being. But tell me now just how you

get from necessary being to God. I’m anxious to see how you

will get to God.”

“That’s the next step. We get to God by tracing out the

inescapable, logical implications of necessary being. I call

them inescapable because no man can escape what is logically

contained in his affirmations and negations without abdicat-

ing his reason. The first conclusion which forces itself upon

us is that necessary being is eternal. What is not eternal had

a beginning. What had a beginning must have had some cause

which brought it into existence. It cannot be the cause of its

own existence. What does not exist cannot be a cause. There-

fore a being which is not eternal must owe its existence to

some other being which is prior to it. But it is a simple con-

tradiction in terms to say that a necessary being owes its ex-

istence to another being, for that would make it contingent,

not necessary. Since, therefore, every being which is not

eternal is contingent, we are compelled to conclude that the

necessary being is eternal.”

How Establish Infinite?

, “Yes,” said Herbert, “that conclusion follows logically

enough. But isn’t God also infinite? How do you establish

that?”

“By a similar process of reasoning we are forced to con-

clude that the necessary being is infinite. It cannot be finite

or limited. Whatever is limited must be limited either by

itself or by another. But the necessary being can be limited

in neither way. Therefore, it cannot be limited at all. It can-

not be limited by itself. For to limit is to act. But action

necessarily presupposes existence. What does not exist cannot

act. Therefore, the existence of the necessary being .is pre-

supposed before any self-limiting action is possible or conceiv-

able.

“Neither can the necessary being be limited by another. If,

by impossible hypothesis, the necessary being should be lim-

ited by another, then unmistakably it would depend upon

that other to make it what it is—a finite being. But a being
which depends upon another is a contingent being, not a nec-

essary being. Therefore, the necessary being cannot be limited

by another. But beyond all shadow of doubt, a being which

is limited neither by itself nor by another is not limited at

rsoi



all, and is infinite. Therefore, the necessary being is
infinite.

The same conclusion may be reached by other equally valid

lines of reasoning, but the argument already advanced is
suffi-

cient to establish the point on a thoroughly
demonstrative

basis.”

How Establish Infinitely Perfect?.

“Yes, I see,” said Herbert. “You have demonstrated that

the necessary being, which is the metaphysician’s name for

God, is eternal and infinite. But isn’t God all perfect? How

do you establish that?”

“If the necessary being is infinite, then it must be perfect.

It cannot be imperfect, because imperfection necessarily
implies

limitation of being. But limitation is so incompatible with the

idea of the infinite that they are mutually contradictory
and

exclusive. Consequently by its very nature the infinite is and

must be perfect. Since, as we have already shown, the neces-

sary being is infinite, it follows at once that the necessary

being is perfect.”

“The links in your chain of reasoning are closing in around

me. You have established the existence of a Being, necessary,

eternal, infinite and perfect. But one more link remains to be

forged. How can you prove that there can be only one such

infinitely perfect Being, or only one God?”

“If the necessary being is infinitely perfect, then it must

follow that it is one. For only one being is or can be infinitely

perfect. If it be supposed that two infinitely perfect beings

exist, then there must be something by which they are dis-

tinguished one from the other. Otherwise, they would be

identical and therefore one, not two. Now that by which they

are distinguished must either be a perfection or an imperfec-

tion. It cannot be an imperfection because that would contra-

dict that which is supposed—an infinitely perfect being.
“For the same reason the characteristic which distinguishes

the one from the other cannot be a perfection. If one is dis-

tinguished from another by a perfection, then one must have

a perfection which the other has not. It is manifestly impossi-

ble to suppose that the infinitely perfect is wanting in any per-

fection. Therefore, two infinitely perfect beings are impossible

because such a concept is self-contradictory. The infinitely

perfect being consequently can only be one. We arrive then,

at last, at the existence of one necessary, eternal, infinite, per-

fect Being, which is what the metaphysician means by God.”

“Well, for the life of me,” said Herbert, “I do not see a

[ 51 ]



single step you have taken in all this logical Odyssey which

did not follow from the premises. It gives me a new and deeper

respect for the marvelous faculty of reason which is able to

trace a path from the analysis of any finite or contingent object

in the world, such as a man, a rose, or a grain of sand, to the

infinite Being from Whose creative power the whole universe

has come. It shows me that the marvels which scientists have

achieved in the domain of matter have their counterpart in the

wonderful structures of logical reasoning which philosophers

have established in the realm of thought. They are not less

worthy of our homage and respect.”

Inexhaustible Being of God

“Thanks, Herbert. It has been a real pleasure. You de-

serve more credit for whatever has been achieved than you

imagine. For an open mind and a willingness to recognize a

point when one is made are two of the greatest sources of

stimulation which can be given to any teacher. Then, too,

remember that this great edifice of logical thought, erected over

the span of centuries, embodies the cumulative work of a

mighty host of the most penetrating thinkers of the race. We

acknowledge that the description given by the metaphysician,

like that given by the scientist, the mathematician, the natural-

ist, the poet, is inadequate to mirror in halting, finite words the

inexhaustible being of God. The description is accurate, how-

ever, as far as it goes.

“Moreover, it gives us a clear and distinct idea of God be-

cause it enables us to distinguish God from every other being

whatsoever. God, and God alone, can or does possess the at-

tributes which have been enumerated. Furthermore, whatever

other perfections can exist or be conceived must be ascribed to

God, since He is an infinitely perfect being. Since, therefore,

power, wisdom, mercy, justice, goodness, truth and beauty are

perfections, they must all be found in God—the one, eternal,
infinitely perfect Being in the universe.”

[ 52 }



CHAPTER X

CHRIST MANIFESTS GOD

“Thou art a true speaker, and .teachest the way of God
in

truth
”—Matthew xxii. 16.

So much then for the proofs of God’s existence
fashioned

by human reason from the data of science and
philosophy.

That they are convincing, we think, no one who has
followed

this discussion with an open mind, can doubt.
Throughout

the entire discussion we have appealed to no external
author-

ity, such as the Bible or the Church, but
have directed our

.

appeal exclusively to the tribunal of human reason.
We

s

frankly admit, however, that the knowledge of God gained by

the unaided intellect is meager and sketchy, and without
the

richness which is supplied by divine revelation. Where rea-

son ends, revelation begins. It carries the mind to such
heights

of vision that reason grows dizzy. Consequently, it is the
part

of wisdom to supplement the knowledge of God with the pene-

trating insights and the richness of the revelation of God sup-

plied by the Bible.

Indeed, the best picture we can ever acquire of God is that

afforded us by the person of Jesus Christ, the untarnished

mirror of the Most High. “No one has at any time seen God,

declares St. John. “The only-begotten Son, Who is in the

bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him
.” 1 Uniting in

Himself the nature of man and the nature of God, Christ gives

us a better and a truer picture of God than can be found in the

writings of all the philosophers, theologians, prophets and mys-

tics since time began. God stands revealed to us in the char-

acter of Him Who cleanses the lepers, hea'ls the sick, restores

sight to the blind, forgives the woman taken in adultery,

washes the feet of His disciples, and sheds His Blood for the

redemption of mankind.

See Him as He walks over the dusty roadsides of Judea

and Galilee and says to His disciples: “Learn of Me, for I am

meek and humble of heart.” It was His ministry of mercy and

love that inspired His disciple, St. John, to give the noblest

definition of God ever uttered, when he said simply: “God is

love.” “If any one love Me,” said Christ, “he will keep My

word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him

and make Our abode with him.”

1 John i. 18.

[ 53 ]



God then is infinite Beauty, Truth, Goodness, Mercy, Love.

It is this vision of God which has inspired the noblest enter-

prises of Christianity, built hospitals, orphanages, homes for

the friendless, and has prompted man to find in the service of

the poor and the lowly his title to nobility. When Christians

have allowed this vision of a God of love to fade, and to be

replaced by a God of vengeance, cruelty and wrath, they have

stained the pages of history with some of the worst crimes in

its long annals. It was this false picture which prompted John

Calvin to burn his theological opponent, Michael Servetus,

which caused the fanatics to kindle the fagots under Joan of

Arc at Rouen, which stirred the Torquemada to torture the

heretics in Spain.

Rufus Jones tells of a little child who was being put to bed

by his mother. After she had given him her good-night kiss,

she turned out the light and started for the door. Suddenly

the little child realized the loneliness and the darkness which

he would be enduring alone.

“Am I to be left all alone, and in the dark, too?” he asked

anxiously.

“Yes, my dear,” replied the mother, “but you know you

have God with you all the time.”

“Yes, I know God is here,” said the child, “but I want

some one who has a face.”

Such too is the anxious, wistful cry of all humanity. “We

know in the abstract,” observes Rufus Jones, “that God is

Mind and Spirit and that He is near us, but we want to have

a more vivid sense of His reality and His presence in our

world, and above all, we want to see Him and to discover Him

as a real Person with an actual Life and Character. It is that

that Christ does for us. It is in Him that the Face is seen and

the personal character is revealed.”
2

A Pure Heart

To know God, mere intellectual groping is not enough.

More helpful in seeing God than intellectual subtlety is a pure

heart and a clean conscience. When Ignatius, Bishop of Anti-

och, was being led to martyrdom, a Roman soldier asked him

leeringly: “Who is this Christian God of yours?” Gazing into

his sensual, brutal face, Ignatius replied: “You shall know Him

when you are worthy of Him.”

The person who suffers persecution for justice* sake, who

2 Pathways to the Reality of God, p. 125.

r 54

1



sacrifices for truth, who hungers for righteousness,
who lives

a godly life, penetrates to the deepest
understanding of God.

Virtue is more important than knowledge in
enriching one’s

vision of God. Live a holy life and God will
dwell in you

and make Himself known to you. “God’s thoughts,”
observes

George Macdonald, “His will, His love, His
judgments are all

man’s home. To think His thoughts, to choose His
will, to

love His loves, to judge His judgments, and thus to
know that

He is in us, is to be at home.”

When God dwells in the soul of a person, a radiance shines

in his face, a spiritual resonance in his voice,
and peace fills

his heart. Nothing in the universe can supply
the radiance

lost when God is banished from a human life. The
experi-

ence of humanity the world over verifies the finding
of St.

Theresa: “Where God is, there is Heaven. Where God is
not,

there is Hell.” Plato too caught a glimmering of
this mighty

truth when he declared: “To escape from evil we must
be

made, as far as possible, like God; and this resemblance
con-

sists in becoming just, holy, and wise.”'

God then is the answer to the cry of the human soul
for

happiness. In the partial possession of God in this life, we

catch glimmerings of that supreme ecstasy which the
soul will

experience when it will be in intimate union with
infinite

Beauty, Truth, and Love, when the unveiled majesty of
the

eternal King will ravish the soul with beauty and still its
rest-

less yearning with a love that knows no ending. “Eye
hath

not seen,” says the great Apostle of the Gentiles,
“nor hath

ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of
man the joy

that is prepared for those who love and serve Him.” A fore-

taste of that ineffable bliss is experienced by all who walk
in

the paths of peace and righteousness, who keep always the

joy of a good conscience, and who feel the immanence of
God

in their hearts by the radiance of a love that embraces
all

mankind.

Such a one can make his own the words which Henry VI

addressed to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, after relieving

him of his office of protector to the king, that he might find
in

God his sure defense:

“God shall be my hope,

My stay, my guide, and lantern to my feet”
3

8 Shakespeare: Henry VI, Second Part, Act 2, Scene 3.

[55 1



"Nothing Ever Happens"

While we have studied with some care a few objects to de-

cipher thereon the handwriting of the Most High, the fact is

that every object in the universe, from a speck of dust, a dan-

delion, a crawling ant, to the nebula so distant that it floats

in the uncharted regions of cosmic space, proclaims the exist-

ence of a Supreme Being. Blades of grass are the handwriting

of God and flowers are His capital letters. What would you

think of the traveler who, standing on Inspiration Point above

the Canyon of the Colorado River, gazes at all the beauties of

nature spread out in profusion before him, yet sees no beauty.

The gorgeous coloring of the mountain rock reflecting the sun-

sets of a thousand centuries, the vast expanse of grass and

wild flowers that stretches like a verdant carpet through the

valleys, the mighty ocean of pine and spruce tumbling oyer

the mountain sides, the thousands of vari-colored birds making

a symphony of music in the branches, the snow-covered peaks

reaching up to kiss the virgin cheeks of the skies, produce no

stirring of his imagination, no tug at his sease of awe, rever-

ence and mystery.

Such a person cannot say with Browning: “A spark dis-

turbs my clod.” He should, however, utter the prayer of

Stevenson: “Stab my spirit wide awake.” For all the argu-

ments of philosophers and theologians, written in all the vol-

umes since printing began, seem wraithlike and anaemic in com-

parison with the blinding evidence which nature pours in upon

the eye that is wide awake. Would you not say that such a

man, though capable of physical vision, was mentally blind

and spiritually dead?

Persons such as he, who look but do not see, are well de-

picted in the character of Otternschlag in Vicki Baum’s Grand

Hotel . Comedy, romance, tragedy are crammed into the

scenes being enacted in the different rooms of that hotel. Just

the night before, Kringelein living on borrowed time and out

for a last fling, commits suicide. Baron von Gaigern, caught

pilfering in the room of the magnate, Preysing, is murdered.

In the midst of all the alarms vexing the brow of the hotel

manager, Senf, he learns that his wife is having a baby.

As the casket containing the body of the murdered Baron

is being carried out the door, a wedding party with their peals

of gleeful laughter drive up to the entrance. Lewis Stone,

playing the role of Otternschlag, blase, tired of life, and blind

to all the colorful and moving drama being enacted before his

[SI]



very eyes, gazes upon the departing
hearse and the disembark-

ing bridal party with, unseeing
eyes, and flicking the ashes

from his cigarette, remarks in a bored
manner: “People come;

people go. Nothing ever happens.”

Such is he who gazes at all the
marvelous beauties ot

nature, at all the blinding evidence
of plan, order and design

written in the handwriting of the
Most High upon every par-

ticle of dust, upon every leaf of the
tree, upon every flower

and upon every star, and yet says:
“I see no fingerprint of

God, no evidence of a Supreme Designer.”
It was of a per-

son of this blind and stupid type, of whom the
Psalmist spoke:

“The fool hath said in his heart: There is
no God.” The

thousands of intervening years have
produced, we think, no

better characterization. For every one who has
eyes to see

can say with the Psalmist: “The heavens show
forth the glory

of God, and the firmament declareth the
work of His hands.

i

L 57 ]



QUESTIONS

Chapter I

1. Why is the question of God’s existence
of supreme

importance ?

2. What does Professor Whitehead say
about it?

3. What did Immanuel Kant say are
the three great prob-

lems in philosophy?

4. Describe the adventures of
the Black Girl.

5. What do we mean by God?

6. Why was Kant’s investigation of the
trustworthiness

of the human mind foredoomed to failure?

7. With what two primary principles
do we begin our in-

vestigation ?

8. Why is it well to begin our investigation in a
spirit of

open-mindedness and good will?

9. What is meant by the proof from design?

10.

What conclusion are you obliged to draw
from the

existence of a watch? Why?

Chapter II

1. Describe the order existing in
the solar system and on

our earth.

2. How does our earth compare with an airplane
in the

smoothness of its flight through space?

3. How does the best clock made by human
hands com-

pare with the clock of the stars?

4. How does St. Thomas state the argument from
order

and design?

5. Compare our universe with a
Planetarium, and state

the conclusion that follows from such a
comparison.

6. Narrate the incident about
Kirchner and his friend.

[58]



7. Describe the immensity of the cosmos.

8. Why may our solar system be described as a grain of

sand?

9. What truth do the findings of modem astronomers

serve to emphasize?
10.

State the conclusions of Sir Isaac Newton and of Sir

James H. Jeans.

Chapter III

1. Where did St. Augustine perceive the greatest expres-

sion of the power of God? Why?

2. Narrate the conversation with Joseph Whitney.

3. Tell what you can about the atom, and state why it

may be viewed as a small solar system.

4. Narrate the conversation with Milt Piepul.

5. What is the scientific conception of matter, including

the body of man?

6. How much energy is stored up in a piece of coal

smaller than a pea?

7. Describe the velocity with which the particles move in

their atomic orbit.

8. Compare the architecture of the molecular arrange-

ment with St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome.

9. Why should one stand with reverent eyes before a

particle of dust?

10.

Why is the evidence of design in the smallest particle

of matter not less impressive than the evidence of de-

sign in a solar system?

Chapter IV

1. State some of the differences between living matter and

non-living matter.

2. What is meant by photosynthesis, and what mystery

does it present?

r 59

1



3. What are the constituents of a blade
of grass?

4. Can scientists put them together so
they will function

as living matter ? Why ?

5. State the conversation
with the professor of bio-chem-

istry in regard to a blade of grass.

6. Why do laws indicate the necessity of a
lawmaker?

Illustrate.

7. How do you establish the existence of God
from the

functioning of a blade of grass?

8. State the conclusion of
Wordsworth.

9. What philosophic conclusion is
contained in the lines

of Kilmer?

10.

Memorize the poem of Tennyson showing
that the

complete knowledge of a little flower
would entail the

knowledge of God and man.

Chapter V

1. What marvels of animal instinct can
you mention ?

2. What prompts a bird to build its
nest? What do you

mean by instinct?

3. Describe the organized
community life of bees.

4. What problem in mathematics do the
bees solve?

5. What conclusion do you draw from
their feat in solv-

ing so complex a mathematical
problem?

6 Compare the achievement of
engineers in building the

Empire State Building with the feat of
an ovum in de-

veloping into a human being.

7. What part of the cell carries the
psychological char-

acteristics of the parents?

8. Describe some of the feats of
the cell in building dif-

'

ferent structures.

9. What prompts the cell to build
different types of nerve

cells?’

10. Why may the brain of man be said to be the
crowning

achievement in the biological world?

[ 60 ]



Chapter VI

1. Compare the human body with the most delicate and

complex machine you have ever seen. Which is the

more marvelous? Why?

2. Why are we not more inclined to do homage to the

Prime Mover, Who made things make themselves?

3. Tell what you can of the complexity of the organiza-

tion of the human body. If the microscopic capillaries

within the human body were placed end to end, how

far would they stretch?

4. How many nerve cells are there in the cerebral cortex,

and what do they weigh?

5. Show how a cell is a little world in itself.

6. What conclusion follows from the delicate organiza-

tion found within the cerebral cortex?

7. What did Carlyle say about the volume of nature?

8. When is our admiration for a work dissipated? Why?

9. If scientists were to discover the secret of life, would

that discovery lessen the evidence of design and plan?

10.

How do the processes of life mirror the work of a Di-

vine Lawmaker?

Chapter VII

1. Why is the mind of man the pinnacle of all creation?

2. Wherein do we find the supreme evidence of plan and

purpose? Why?

3. Why may man be said to be a microcosm?

4. How might we alter the famous syllogism of Des-
cartes? Why?

5. Why can’t we attribute the marvelous order found in
nature to matter itself?

6. Summarize the line of reasoning running through this

entire discussion.

[ 61 ]



7. What is a basic generalization of modern
biology?

8. Was there a time when no life could
have existed on

the earth? Why?

9. What conclusion follows from these two
basic laws of

biology and of geology?

10.

Is there any escape from the conclusion
that the origin

of life must be attributed to God?

•i

Chapter VIII

1. Is human reason fundamentally a
trustworthy faculty?

Why?

2. Is the belief in a Supreme Being
universal?

3 Can the functioning of reason in
all mankind have

served but to lead them to a gigantic
conspiracy

against the truth? Why?

4. State the testimony of Jevons and of
other investi-

gators.

5. Explain the comparison between
different conceptions

of the sun and different notions of God.

6. May primitive people possess a true idea of God
even

though their religion is marred by superstitions?

7. Sum up the results of recent investigations.

8. What is the testimony of civilized races?

9. What does Millikan say about belief in God?

10. Sum up this whole argument.

Chapter IX

1. Why is it worth-while to learn at least one metaphysi-

cal argument for God’s existence?

2. What is meant by metaphysical proofs?

3. What principle may be said to constitute the
spinal

column of all scientific reasoning? Why?

[ 62 ]



4. What does a contingent being mean?

5. Why does an infinite series offer no escape from
necessary being? Illustrate.

6. What is meant by a necessary being?

7. How do you prove that God is eternal?

8. How do you establish that God is infinite?

9. How can you prove that God is infinitely perfect?

10.

Mention some of the perfections in the inexhaustible

being of God.

Chapter X

1. Why is it wise to supplement the knowledge of God
gained by the unaided intellect with the richness of

Divine Revelation?

2. Why may Christ be said to be the untarnished mirror
of the Most High?

.

3. Why does the person of Christ give us a better picture
of God than is to be found in the writings of philoso-
phers and theologians?

4. Describe the character of Christ.

5. Tell the incident narrated by Rufus Jones, and explain

its significance.

6. Why is a clean conscience more helpful in seeing God
than mere intellectual subtlety?

7. How does the experience of humanity verify the find-
ings of St. Theresa?

8. What blinding evidence does nature offer concerning
the existence of God?

9. Narrate the incident from the play, Grand Hotel.

10.

How does this incident apply to the person who looks
at nature with unseeing eyes? How does the Psalmist
characterize such a person?

[ 63 ]