B L 180 R6 1908 MAIN UC-NRLF B P. 7tM 023 7° *r STUDENT SERIES Number Three "NOT LESS DOUBTING BUT MORE THINKING" — FLINT "NOT LESS THINKING BUT PIORE LIVING " — RODGER A Science of the Ultimate By JAY. G. RODGER President of the "AMERICAN UNIVERSITY UNION" Professor of "The Science of Religion" in the State Chair of California Founded by the California University Union Author of "The Gospel of Science" Published by California University Union, 1 2 7 W. 6th St., Los Angeles "UNIVERSITY UNION" *******^^ ^**^?*^** The name University Union expresses the line of education which it carries on. It is the very highest grade of University work. If the sciences of Astronomy and Geology, of Botany and Zoology are University studies, how much higher is the Science of the Ultimate ! If there be a highest grade of University work, is it not the Science of the Ultimate? The work of the University Union is to help supplement the lack in our national system of education. It does this by establishing State Chairs of the Science of Religion, which teach what Science has to say concerning the Ultimate and our relations to whatever is above, on our plane or below us. The Conditions of Membership. \. Desire for more light along religious lines from the "Book of the Universe." 2. Each member is expected to try to help into the light one doubter each month. 3. That you either give yourself to or help support those who do enter upon this work. The Alpha degree includes all those who assist in this work by five dollars. This is an asso- ciate membership. The first active membership, the Beta, includes all those who assist by ten dollars. The Gamma degree includes all those who assist by twenty-five dollars, and so on by geometrical ratio of increase in gifts to this work. The Omega degree includes all those who give themselves to it. By sending your name and address to J. G. Rodger, Berkeley, Calif., or to C. C. Pierce, 127 West Sixth street, Los Angeles, Calif., a little booklet on this subject can be secured. DEDICATED To people who think sufficiently to question what others give them uL PREFACE The object of this brochure is to call attention to Human Relations and the Duties growing out of them as discovered by scientific investigation. Its object is its excuse, and its method of pro- cedure and results will have to be its justification or its condemnation. Is not the best thought to- day resting on scientific data and folloiving sci- entific methods? BEING Source of the granite and the rose, Soul of the sparrow and the bee ! The mighty tide of Being flows Through all its channels, down, from Thee. Thy glory flames in stars and suns, It springs to life in grass and flowers ; Through every grade Thy Being runs And racjiant shines in human towers. 364622 FOREWORD Modern science has supplied a new viewpoint for all lines of inves- tigation in the various fields of exploration. The view once prevail- ing that this earth and its inhabitants, man included, suddenly came into existence (as a command) a few thousand years ago has now few and still fewer defenders. The scientific View that earth with its inhabitants, man included, is but a part of a developing manifesta- tion of the Ultimate, is facing people as never before. Something without a source, or without self-existence, or the potentiality of what is, is unthinkable. A self-existent something, or a potentiality of what is, with a beginning, is equally unthinkable. But that present exist- ences are a developing manifestation in which earth and man are alike but "parts of one stupendous whole," which, potentially, always has been in the Ultimate, is a coeption which is claiming more and more the consent of thoughtful investigators. Can we have a Science of the Ultimate? It has been said that such a question h "impudent." Some consider it irreverent if not sacrilegious. Still the question will not down by such answers. Yet, in the minds of some, there seems to be such a conflict between knowledge gained by observation and knowledge gained by experience and tradition that they call one sacred and the other secular. So high a wall has been built and so deep a moat has been dug between these two' realms of knowledge that he who would learn what is in each of worth to humanity must scale the wall and swim the moat and face men who look upon him as an enemy in their territory when he scrambles out dripping, dissheveled and ill at ease. So true is this that even some whose names stand high on the roll of scholars and educators have not been able to set a better example to the world. Those on one side say, "We are not to blame, but we must defend the truth." Those on the other side answer, "We certainly are not to blame, for we wish to find out what is the. truth." Even that profound investigator, noble man and beloved teacher, Profes- sor Agassiz, was considered by some of his contemporaries in the scientific field as a Christian and by some theologians as an infidel. Let us rejoice that there have been men too large to be limited by either of these fields of thought, too large to be fully understood and appreciated by men who limit themselves to either of these realms of investigation exclusively. Can we have a Science of the Ultimate? In order to have a science of an object or being, must we know all about the subject? If so, have we a science of Astronomy or Geology or Botany? But if to have sufficient data of an object to enable us to draw one positive conclusion be to have a science of that object, what then? A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE CHAPTER I. A science of any object, force or being implies three things: First, data concerning it, then classification of the data, and logical con- clusions therefrom. One of the great axiomatic scientific data of to- day is that no such thing exists now as chaos in any part of this great universe. The scientific Law of Continuity of Operations drives us to the conclusion that chaos never has existed in any part of this great universe. The logical conclusion is that chaos never will exist in any part of this universe, no matter what strange things may hap- pen. Chaos is an obsolete term, the valueless coin of an ancient mis- conception. All changes today are cosmic. The great universe is a grand cosmos, both as a whole and in every part. At last the scientist sees a great scientific truth in the Poet Laureate's lines : "Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck thee out of the cranny; If I but knew thee — what thou art, Root and branch, All in all and all in all, I would know what God (The Ultimate) is." If man but knew, knew, knew any part of this great universe, then would he have some data concerning the Ultimate Source of it. Analysis of the sun's rays shows us that the sun contains elements with which earth has made us acquainted. Thus to know concerning the earth's elements is to know something concerning the sun. So to know any life on this earth thoroughly is to have some data con- cerning the Ultimate Source of this universe life. Man the Data. • What object in this universe is of most interest and importance to man? The almost universal answer is Man and his environment. What elements in the human are most important, and how are these elements best developed? From all sides, and" by men in all lines of investigation and work, we hear the growing verdict: "His recogni- tion of his relations and the performance of the duties growing out of those relations." Today we are studying man scientifically to find out his charac- teristics and those of his environment. With this data we are asking what must his ancestral line have been, and the Ultimate Head of it. For man, then, to collect data concerning himself and his environ- ment is to collect material for the consideration of the Ultimate. For man to possess such data classified is to occupy a new Viewpoint for the investigation of his great ancestral line and the relations he bears to every part of it. Lmless this universe — which includes not only star-dust and neb- ulae and space, not merely suns and solar systems with their planets and moons, not merely rock and water, sand and soil, not merely plant and sensuous animal, not merely man with instinct and intuition but A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE man, rational, personal, capable of loving — is self-existent and eternal, then it must have an Ultimate Source. The Ultimate from which all these have come must possess the potentiality of them all. As in the development of an animal embryo we see a history of its whole ancestral line, so in the earth life we have at least a partial history of its ancestry and Ultimate Source. Man the Investigator. Some may fear that this change of Viewpoint of this universe, man included, may affect, detrimentally, man's highest development. When he sees himself part of a developing manifestation of the "stu- pendous whole," will he not think himself in the clutch of a fatalism in- surmountable? Will he not loose the bonds of duty and leave free rein for all which he finds he can do? While some relations may be recognized as less important than before, some will be recognized as more important. May we not rest assured that the complement of duties growing out of those relations will be improved in quality if not in quantity and the consequent development of character increased rather than diminished, and the standard of life elevated, not lowered? Is it not safe to follow truth wherever she leads, whether in paths of former thinking or in newly blazed ways? Clearer conceptions of the relations of things, a fuller grasp of them, makes for freedom. Truth is the great liber- ator. Instead of this new Viewpoint working detrimentally, will it not prompt him to fix his eyes upon himself and his neighbor, visible and tangible objects, and to raise the question in him as never before. "Whence?" His answer to this question comes now with a direct- ness and emphasis which can not be gainsaid or neglected, tor it brings him face to face with a greater though invisible reality, pres- ent. Consequently, to know man and his universal environment more perfectly is to know more of The Ultimate. Data in Matter. Scientific data touching some of The Ultimate's characteristics — Have we any? Is it not a scientific axiom that whatever exists is either self-existent and eternal, or that it has come ultimately from such a source? Is not self-creation an absurdity? If nothing comes from nothing, is there any such thing as self-creation ? Even time and space do not reproduce themselves. Can you conceive of space where no being is? Can you conceive of time where no being is? If you can not, may not time and space be considered characteristics of some form of existence? If nothing can not be the parent of some- thing, then whatever is must have an Ultimate parenthood in some self-existent, eternal potentiality. Whatever characteristics we see in this present universal environment, then, must represent some of the characteristics of this Ultimate Parent. Let us select a few of the characteristics of this universe. A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE Space and Time. As we look around we become conscious of an element we call space. We do not occupy all of it. We do occupy a part of it. We recognize ourselves as in space, not of it, but occupying part of it. In a certain sense, to occupy space is one of our physical character- istics. In a certain sense, if there were no physical objects to occupy space there would be no space. The only way we can recognize boundless space is in our imagination to project far, far away, imag- inary boundaries. As I study my own existence I become conscious that I am not only in space, but also in what is called time. I occupy in this state a part of duration.' When I ask myself how much time I occupy, and try to- get back to the beginning of time or to look for- ward to the end of it, I see no beginning nor ending. Scientifically, these elements of existence we call space and time are boundless, or, if they have bounds, then they are existences in a larger time and space. So back and back, test on test, till we come to the boundless time and space which are elements of the Ultimate Source. Elemental Substances. Again, as we look around, we recognize air, in which are ele- ments we call oxygen and nitrogen. We also see water, in which are oxygen and hydrogen. If we ask the scientist what is oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen, and the many other elements we see in rock, sand, soil, he will answer: Oxygen exhibits such and such character- istics, hydrogen exhibits these other characteristics. But what is each of these, not how do you distinguish between them? What are these objects, existences, you call elemental substances? He will an- swer: We know these. only as contrasted with each other. Farther than this the scientist gives us no data as to the what of elemental substances. If you ask the scientist when these strange elements came into existence he will answer: We have no scientific data as to when they came into existence. Has oxygen on this earth a begin- ning? Only in the sense that this earth has a beginning, a separa- tion of existence from the sun and the solar system. If this earth is simply a part of the- solar system, then earth-elements must be in the sun. Had oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in the sun a beginning? Only in the sense that the solar system has a beginning, a separation of existence from the great universal nebulae, these elements in the sun must have been potentially, in the universal nebulae. Did oxy- gen and nitrogen have a beginning in the universal nebulae? Only in the sense that the universal nebulae had a beginning in the great Ultimate Source of this universe. Potentiality of What Is. What do you mean by the Ultimate Source of this universe, or the Ultimate? We mean that eternal, self-existent potency of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and of the material elements so-called, for whatever is must be either self-existent and eternal or come from A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE something preceding it. Trace anything back and back, do you not sooner or later find the only stopping place is a self-existence which always has been? If it has not always existed, and has no something preceding, then there must have been a point in time as we go back when time and space had nothing in them, and also time and space were not. Later, from this nothingness appeared the first something with time and space as its characteristics, which is contrary to the scientific principle. Every effect has a cause adequate to the effect. So hydrogen, nitrogen and the other so-called material elements must have been potentially eternal in the Ultimate. CHAPTER II. DATA IN LIFE. Again, as we continue to examine our environment, we see what we call a plant. What is a plant? A plant is a material organism living and developing, is it not? It takes up its nourishment from soil, atmosphere and sunshine, and builds of these elements its plant body. It builds itself? What do you mean? Is the material organ- ism the worker? The life in the plant does the work. But what is life? Had you asked this question a few years ago the scientist would have answered "Life is the function of organism," but today he is compelled to answer: "Life is not only the builder of organism, but life-energy is the generator in matter of organization. What caused him to change his definition of life? Life Then Organism. A few years ago, when we thought of • life as the function of organism, our attention was called, in the study of embryology, to phenomena presented by two embryos. The two embryos in ques- tion were so nearly alike that under the strongest microscope we could not distinguish any perceptible difference. There was not a streak in one which was not in the other. The nuclei looked identi- cally alike. Had you blindfolded the operator and changed their places he could not have asserted that you had done so. But let one of these embryos develop — it becomes a horizontal, four-footed ani- mal. Let the other develop — it becomes an erect, two-footed being. Why does one of these embryos develop into a dog, the other into a child? Why? I know of no better scientific answer than: Because the life-energy in the one embryo could best express itself in a hori- zontal, four-footed body, while the life-energy in the other could best express itself in an erect two-footed body looking upward. One life- worker wanted the body of a dog in which to live ; the other needed the body of a man. You asked me what life is : Is life a function of organism, or is life the generator and builder of organism? Organism does not precede life and make life, but life precedes organism, gen- erates it and builds, suiting its edifice to its kind of life-energy. You say life is the worker, the builder of organism? Well, then, A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE Whence Is Life? Let Professor Huxley in that famous Belfast address answer: "I see in matter the promise and potency of every form of life." What did he mean? I know of no fairer answer, in lieu of his own declaration, than his scientific efforts. Previous to this utter- ance, not only Professor Huxley but many other biologists of note had been experimenting with matter to get data along the line of the origin of life. The hay infusion experiments are a fair sample of the whole class. The effort was to eliminate all germs of life from ele- mental material substances used, and then to watch and see if some form of life would not still manifest itself. In the case of the hay infusions the wisps of hay were baked in an oven at a temperature which was supposed to destroy all germs of life. The water in which the wisps were immersed was boiled at a temperature which was supposed to kill all germs of life in the water. This combination was then hermetically sealed and placed on laboratory shelf and daily examined. Life from Matter? After several fruitless efforts he got, as he supposed, an organ- ism. It was then that biologists declared : "We see in matter the promise and potency of every form of life." What did he mean? Let every man draw his own conclusions. In view of the efforts to eliminate all life germs, and to retain only what might have been denominated dead elements, what did he mean. Did he not mean that he saw a living principle dwelling in matter an unliving element, or that the so-called dead material elements were possessed of the poten- tiality of organizing themselves into living organisms, were capable of producing life even though they were not living? A subsequent utterance also confirms me in this conclusion. Continuing his experimentations with several precautions to insure tfie destruction of germs in the elements used, he found no such appearances of life as he had before seen, and concluded that in the former experiments germs of life had been left, either on the hay or in the water. Pie then frankly admitted : "We have no scientific data for saying that life can come from anything less than life." In the light of what biologists were experimenting upon, namely: Ma- terial elements devoid of life germs, what did they mean by this first utterance : "We see in matter the promise and potency of every form of life?" Did they not mean that material elements devoid of life germs possess the potentiality of all life? Whence then this plant? According to that utterance, from matter is it not? Not from a life dwelling in a material substance, imminent in material elements. Not that, but from these material elements devoid of all life germs. His first statement meant there is only one element essential to life and that element we call matter. That the first and lowest earth life was the offspring of this inorganic matter devoid of germs. That the next higher species of earth life was the offspring of the first species and its environing forces and laws ; that the third higher species was A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE the offspring of the second and its environing material energies operat- ing according to laws, and so on up the rising series of earth life to the highest, even man. Each higher species was the child, so to speak, of the preceding species and the environing forces operating according to laws. In other words, according to this first utterance, all life on this earth, man included, comes from a! material Ultimate. v V Life Distinct from Matter. What did they mean by this second utterance? Was it not that material substance must be accompanied by the life-principle or it can not organize? In other words, was not this second statement the recognition of two essential elements, matter and life-energy? Did they not recognize that wherever these life germs were not found, they had no scientific data for saying that the potentiality of life did exist? In the light of this second utterance, can we ever admit that the first utterance can ever be used with the broad meaning that material elements are also living? With these two utterances before us, can we refine matter, endowing it with life-potentiality? Are we not driven to recognize the life-generating principle as distinct from the organism, material, substance, or whatever it may be called? Moreover, are we not just as impotent to get life out of material elements alone today as we have ever been? Should any biologist today succeed in so re-arranging and recombining material elements that an organism is the result, who is the parent of that organism? Is it matter devoid of germs, operated upon by its environing forces work- ing according to laws — are these the parents of that organism ? Must ■we not include with all these the Professor's thought, planning and experimentation? In other words, has not such a life a source of life, even the professor's? Whence then this plant? In view of what has been said of a pre- ceding germ or life? But a germ of life is scientific evidence of a preceding life. Whence then? From a preceding life is it not? But whence that life? From one still preceding and so back until we reach the first earth plant. Whence it? CHAPTER III. MATERIAL GERM OR ENERGY GERM. Whence is earth life? Whence came it originally? From a germ of life, did it not? Here we are faced by two theories. The material organism germ and the life energy germ. By a ma- terial organism germ is meant that a germ of life floated to earth from some other planet on which was life. By the life-energy germ is meant that the great Universal life energy shot a ray of life energy into the sand, and Mother Earth con- ceived and brought forth the first life. In examining these two theories carefully, are we not driven to the conclusion that the first has no scientific basis in the solution of our A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE present problem? Suppose the first earth life was the result of a stray germ of life from some other planet, floating in space. Whence the first life germ on that planet? Whence the first plant germ on the first planet in this great Universe? Are we not driven to the conclu- sion that the first material life organism in this universe must have been begotten by the great universal life energy on some part of uni- versal matter, developed to the state of sustaining life? Must not this great universal life energy have shot a ray of life energy into some part of universal matter, and lo, a conception just as wonderful as any conception to-day. Scientifically considered, I do not see how we can get around the conclusion that the first plant life in the universe must have come ultimately from the life energy germ. A material organism plant germ is scientific evidence that a plant has existed somewhere, at some time, or that a life energy capable of producing it has existed. Scientifically we know that there was a time in the history of this earth when no plant life existed. W r e know also, if the nebular hy- pothesis be true, there was a time when there were no planets in this universe, and consequently no plant life anywhere in this universe. Mother Earth Conception. Whence the first germ of plant life? Was it not the result of a conception by mother matter in the embrace of father Universal Life- Energy? Was the source of life as high as the germ? Can you con- ceive of anything begotten being higher than the parent, or anything emanated higher than the emanating source, or anything formed higher than the former? Does not the question answer itself? As we continue to examine our environment we note a wonderful series of plant life, families, genera, species from protoplasm to peach. What causes this rising grade of plant life? Is it primitive life un- folding, developing, or is it more life added, begotten ? The Unknown Increment. Let Mr. Darwin answer this question, than whom of his time no one was better able. Mr. Darwin says, briefly expressed, that in his study of a higher species he notes at least three elements, which constitute the parent of the. new species. First. The lower species of life. Sec- ond. The environing forces operating according to laws. Third. What may be termed the unknown increment of life energy. In every new plant species, from the lowest to the highest, there is a change so great that the parent lower species and the environing forces, operating according to laws, do not fully account for it. In each new species there is manifest the workings of an unknown incre- ment of life energy. This unknown increment is manifest step by ste'p to the highest plant species of the series. This is the admission also of other scientific authorities. Mr. Wallace gives testimony to the same conclusion after he has reached a certain point in the series of life seen on this earth. 10 A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE Electrical Data. The chief electrician at Schenectady, N. Y., of the great American Electrical Company's manufacturing plant, for whom the company has built a private laboratory where he may pursue original electrical experimentations, said to the author, in answer to the question : "Have you been led to the conclusion, by your investigations in electricity, as some scientists claim they have been led, that electricity is the basis of all earth life?" Looking down thoughtfully for a moment, as if to prepare to give a careful answer, he said : "So far as my experi- mentations have brought me scientific data to lead me to that conclu- sion, I have n6ne. We can take a small organism, plant or animal, dissect it and analyze it down to its elements. We can measure and weigh those elements ; we can have them all collected in our laboratory within reach, but we are just as impotent to recombine them into life by electricity as ever. Doubtless electrical energy is a part of life energy, an element in it, but that electrical energy is the whole of life, is life, and can alone be transmuted into life, I have no scientific data for asserting." What now and whence is this unknown increment of life recognized by the authorities in scientific investigation? Must it not have come ultimately, either directly or indirectly, from the Great Ultimate of the Universe ? An Ultimate Center of Convergence. Things we see around us have not always existed as they are now. But we recognize that they have come from something preceding them, either by a process of creation, evolution or emanation. We recognize too as we go back on the lines of scientific investigation that these objects, forces, existences, converge and converge, are reducible to fewer and still fewer elements, until as we look at that ultimate center of convergence through the astronomer's telescope and the microscopist's glass and the chemist's crucible and the electrician's volt, we find there in that Ultimate Center not only the potentiality of all objects, forces and laws which preceded life on this earth, but also the potentiality of the first life on this earth. An equally important point for us to note is this, that we fail to find in the earth objects and elements as we go back in this investigation scientific data for concluding that the life element was here in this earth prior to a certain stage of development. Should we not conclude then that this ultimate center is not matter alone nor life alone, but that this Ultimate Center possesses the potentiality of matter and of life? Are we not turned then toward the conclusion that not only the first life on this earth was from this Ultimate of life directly or indirectly, but also that this unknown increment recognized by biologist and electrician alike is also from that same Ultimate Source, either directly or indirectly? Active and Passive Elements. Are we not face to face in plant fife with what we must have noted A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE . 11 before in lower organisms, viz., what might be termed an active ele- ment and a passive element? In the block of rock there are the passive quartz, feldspar, mica and then the active cohesive force or forces which hold these together and constitute them the solid block of granite or whatever species of rock it may be. In the globule of water there are the passive elements of H. and O, then the active chemical energy which combines them and transforms them by the combination into the watery fluid. So in the plant we see a worker, an active energy, and a worked upon or passive material elements which it fashions into a plant organism. But more, do we not see in the first plant an organism which though living is passive in com- parison to an unknown increment of working energy which infuses itself into the passive organism and expands it into a plant organism of so much greater complexity as to make it a new species? Have we any scientific data that any change in a plant organism making it more complex ever took place except as a higher grade of life entered in, ab extra, working the change? As we continue to examine our en- vironment we notice next (after material elements O. and H., etc., and plant life, organizing energy on the life plane but unconscious and unsensuous) sensuous life in the animal (capacity to feel pain and pleasure). Whence this higher grade or quality of life? Is it a devel- opment from unsensuous life by the operation of environing forces? If it is would we not have nothing producing something? Can two or more unsensuous energies produce sensuousness? Mr. Darwin says in substance we have here a manifestation of an unknown increment of life. Is not the only conclusion we can reach that this unknown increment of sensuousness is from a sensuous life element in the Ultimate potentiality of this universe, directly or indi- rectly? If nothing cannot produce something then is it reasonable to affirm that one or any number of unsensuous elements or forces can produce sensuousness? Must we not conclude that sensuousness in animals must have come ultimately from a sensuous source, directly or indirectly, or from an ultimate source possessing the potentiality of sensuousness, which is virtually the same? As we examine the animal still further we find that it possesses a degree of life we denominate instinct. By virtue of this capacity or degree of life it performs feats of self preservation and nourishment which even man by his reason cannot surpass. Whence now this higher degree of life? Can it have come from or been produced by unconscious, unsensuous force or forces, any num- ber of them, alone? Can even sensuous life energy of itself or com- bined with any energy lower produce it? If they could would we not have a case of nothing producing something, viz.. an energy lacking instinct producing an energy possessing instinct? What is instinct? What is oxygen? Is it not a manifestation in time and space and substance of the ultimate potentiality of this uni- verse? In that potentiality of this universe has not oxygen been so long as that potentiality has existed? And if the direct potentiality of this universe be not the Ultimate Potentiality then is not the direct 12 A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE dependent on the Ultimate and thus eternal in the Ultimate Poten- tiality? Does not self existence imply that the potentiality of the object has always been and that it is a part, a manifestation, of the Ultimate? Consequently, can there be any such thing as several inde- pendent and self existent origins and potentialities, as, for exa-rcple, time and space and substance, unsensuous energy and unconscious life and instinct? Is not this universe a oneness? Are not all these simply elements in this universal oneness? Must there not then be a uni- versal Ultimate Potentiality from which all these secondary potential- ities have emanated, upon which they are all dependent? What Is Water? Is it not a manifestation in time and space of at least three elements of the Ultimate Potentiality, oxygen and hydrogen and chemical affin- ity, for example? In other words, the Ultimate Potentiality has drawn together two elements by a third, and lo, Water ! a manifestation of the Ultimate Potentiality, or Water. What is a Rose? A manifestation in time and space of several ele- ments of the Ultimate Potentiality organized into a living organism by another element of the Ultimate, we call it life energy. Lo, the Rose ! Does not the Ultimate Potentiality draw from the soil by rose rootlets, from atmosphere and sunlight by its branches and leaves nourishment for its construction? Does not the Ultimate Potentiality select for it and through it the needed elements of nourishment and reject elements not needed? What is an Animal? An Animal is a manifestation in time and space of several material elements of the Ultimate Potentiality combined into a living sensuous organism by another Ultimate element, sensuous life energy. Now, this sensuous organism which we call an Animal exhibits a wonderful characteristic we call Instinct. What is Instinct? Is it not the Ultimate Potentiality, manifest in the animal organism directing the animal to choose what is for its good and to shun what is injurious? If that capacity in the animal enables it or some potentiality through it to perform feats which man cannot surpass by his rational calculation and forethought, what would you conclude was the nature of that Potentiality? CHAPTER IV. DATA OF INTUITION. As we continue the examination of our environment we observe a capacity in the human which we call Intuition. With what data does it supply us concerning the Ultimate? In the last chapter we reached the data supplied by Instinct in the animal. Instead of discussing it with you, I left you with this question to consider, "If that capacity in the animal which we call instinct enables it to perform feats of self-preser- vation, development, nourishment and discrimination which even human reason cannot surpass, is it not a manifestation of mind in the Ultimate ASCI ENCE OF THE ULTIMATE 13 Potentiality, working in the animal organism involuntarily? As the involuntary activity of lungs, stomach and heart is the Ultimate life potentiality working directly or indirectly in the animal organism, so is not the involuntary activity called instinct the Ultimate instinct poten- tiality working in the animal brain organism directly or indirectly? Does it matter, then, as to the validity of the evidence whether the Ultimate Potentiality be working directly or indirectly? What would be scientific evidence of rationality in the Ultimate? Can anything less than ration- ality in the Ultimate effect consequences equal to the rational? Does not the great law of attraction and repulsion, motion, mind, rest on the universal principle, an adequate cause for every effect? Can anything less than mind be an adequate cause for rational effects? Can anything less than the capacity to observe, compare and draw conclusions some- where be the adequate cause of effects which involve such involuntary activity here? What now is intuition? Is it not to the man what instinct is to the animal, an involuntary choosing activity? If so, what data does it bring us concerning the Ultimate Potentiality? If intuition in the man be the Ultimate directing the man involuntarily, then has not the Ultimate the power of discernment? If intuition be not the Ultimate directing the man, then what is it? You say nature? What is nature? A something without man, or something within man, or both? If both, then nature is but this universe, which includes all the substances, forces, laws, life, which exist, man included. Whence this universe? ''It always has been." In its present form? "No, but in some form, entity or potentiality." Very well, then, that form, entity or potentiality of this universe as far back in this universal existence as man can go in thought let us call the Ultimate Potentiality of this universe. Whence man's intuition? From the Ultimate Potentiality, is it not? If so, must not the Ultimate dis- criminate between means for ends, between causes for effects? Is, then, the Ultimate Potentiality of human intuition conscious and directing the human through this capacity, or is the Ultimate Potentiality of human intuition unconscious and automatically directing the human through this capacity of intuition? In other words, is the Ultimate, this universe and more, even conscious being, or is this universe all and just coming to consciousness on this earth in man? Is intuition the Ultimate living in man only, or transcending man also? As we proceed with the examination of our environment we find in man another set of capacities. We find him observing objects, comparing them and drawing conclusions. For convenience let us term the whole process reasoning. Man is a reasoning being. Has the human always possessed this capacity — rather this group of capacities ? ' The possession of this capacity is part of the human char- acteristics, is it not? To say that the human has not always possessed it is equivalent to saying the human has not always been human. If we ask, has this capacity in the human always been developed to the extent we see it in man today? we are face to face with another proposition. How has this latent capacity in man been developed to its present degree 14 A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE as seen in man? Suppose we admit that these latent capacities have developed by man's contact with the objects of his environment, his experience with them and the knowledge thus gained of their working and the laws by which they are operated. We are still left with the question, whence those latent capacities? Is not the Ultimate Poten- tiality of those latent rational capacities rational? Does the indirect development of them modify the necessity of our recognizing the fact of Ultimate Potential Reason to account for capacities producing reason? Exercise of muscle rightly developed makes it stronger, but exercise of mud does not make muscle. It makes dust. Exercise of the capacities to observe, compare and draw conclusions makes reason, but you must have the capacities to exercise. The Ultimate Potentiality of these must possess these elements, for the exercise of the sensuous (capacity to feel pain) does not give reason, it produces pain. Something more must be added to the pain, an "unknown increment of life," before the pain organism be developed so as to observe rationally. Consequently the scientific data supplied by man's capacity to reason leads us, does it not? to the inevitable conclusion that man's Ultimate Potentiality must also possess this same capacity or a capacity which includes reason ? • The human guided by intuition is a living machine running in the groove of universal forces operating according to universal laws, as is the animal guided by instinct. These self-existent, universal substance elements and force elements and law, life and reason elements are at least parts of the Ultimate Potentiality. Said intuitional guidance in the human reaches not merely his physical being, as in the case of the animal, but also his moral and spiritual natures. He discerns great relations in life, or truths, when in this condition, by simply opening his nature to the inflow of truth either as to his physical or moral nature. But when he began to observe, compare and draw conclusions, he ceased to be guided by the Ultimate and began to be self-directed, or guided by reason. Since now the human exhibits self-direction within certain limits, must not the Ultimate Potentiality of this universe possess this element of existence also? Can the Ultimate's self-direction be less in quality or quantity than the human aggregate, than the aggregate of finite intelli- gences wherever found in this great universe? Does not, then, the Ulti- mate choose, will? As we continue to examine our environment for data touching our question, "What must the Ultimate of this universe be?" we find our- selves face to face with another set of phenomena — human consciousness of self, of individuality, of responsibility. Man asserts unhesitatingly, "/ am, I am distinct from every other man, an individual. I ought to do this rather than the other, responsibility." If, now, this characteristic of self-consciousness, this conscious energy, this entity of selfness, be here, must it not be in the Ultimate also? In the human we are accustomed to associate with consciousness of self, of individuality, of responsibility, that human characteristic we call personality. In the human it is by no means an unimportant element, A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE 15 characteristic, energy, entity. So important is it that we recognize it as the main. A man with no personality is no man. A man with a strong personality, consciousness of self, of individuality and of responsibility, is usually a strong man along some line. A man with a weak conscious- ness is not usually a strong man in any respect. Can an element so important in the man be absent in the Ultimate Potentiality of this universe? Is not this element of personal consciousness coupled with ability to choose, to will, the greatest energy in this universe, even all- creative ? As we continue our explorations of our universal environment in search of scientific data, we find in addition to the human character- istics already noted this other — the capacity of attracting and of being attracted by some human beings, of repelling and being repelled by others. This power of attracting and repelling other humans some call love or hatred, affinity or definity. That such a power exists in this universe no human worthy of the name will think of denying. Must not the Ultimate Potentiality of this universe, in which man is included, possess it? If the Ultimate did not possess it, would the human have it? Scientifically expressed, whatever man possesses has come from his Ultimate ancestor, directly or indirectly. The method of its coming to its present degree of manifestation in the human does not affect either the universal potentiality or its realization in the human. The finite manifestation becomes the evidence that the universal potentiality, or Ultimate, possesses this element. The question has been asked, "Is this characteristic in the Ultimate active or passive, real or only possible?" Word the' question a little differently and it answers itself. Must not the universal potentiality, the Ultimate, possess both elements of this characteristic, the passive and the active, the real and the potential? The Ultimate cannot but be reality as truly as possibility, activity as well as passivity. We see these negative and positive elements right before us, we feel them within us. The Ultimate's potentiality must include them both. Is not the passive the transcendent and the active the immi- nent? Is not the potential the Ultimate and this present only the earth manifestation or becoming? Is there anything in common in the three views of the appearance of this universe, the theory of Creation, of Emanation and of Evolution? Did you ever hear of a creation by nothing, an emanation from nothing or an evolution out of nothing? Looking at the question from this view- point, do not the three views expressed by these three words creation, emanation and evolution imply an , Ultimate possessing the potentiality of whatever is? Since we see around us and feel within us not merely sensuous life, but conscious Being, must not the Ultimate possess this characteristic or element also? Can we get around the conclusion that the Ultimate must be a Being, not a thing, a conscious Being-, not an unconscious energy, an active Being, not an inert mass of substance, force, law and order? The question will yet face us, How has this Ultimate Being wrought in the past ? How is He working in the present ? If we can discover this it will help us to answer the previous question, 16 A SCIENCE OF THE ULTIMATE at least in part. When what we term new objects or organisms appear today, whence and how come they? Do they not come from previous objects, organisms, transformed, recombined, transmuted, and lo! the new? Mark, also, these changes are effected by forces working accord- ing to laws. Mark further that so far as man in his work is concerned these changes all depend on an initial energy, will power, human choice. If, then, man possesses this capacity of willing and exercises it directly or indirectly in whatever he does, must not this capacity be from the Ultimate? If, now, all initial stages, changes which man effects are by will power exercised, what shall we say of the work of the Ultimate? Whence Universe initials? From Universal will? The Ultimate? APPENDIX. I. If intuition be the Ultimate intelligence guiding the finite, would it not have been better for the human never to have developed beyond this intuitional stage and become self-directing or a reasoning and choosing being? Which is the highest being, one guided by another (even if the other be good), doing his will automatically, or one self-guiding, having the ability to choose whom he will follow, with whom he will come into harmony? Right or wrong, is not the consensus of the best of humans, "Give me the ability to choose even though I must take with it the responsibility of choosing right? Let me be a god even if it involve the danger of becoming a devil." II. If whatever we see on this earth is a manifestation of the Ultimate Potentiality, whence evil? What is evil? All suffering? No. some suffering is a good, the very greatest good which could come to us under the circumstances. What is evil? Is it not voluntarily getting out of harmony with our environment, the Ultimate included? Choosing to work at some point in opposition to this universal harmony and thus in opposition to the Ultimate? What, then, is evil? The misuse of ability to do good. The ability to do good comes from the Ultimate, the misuse of it is from man or finite intelligence. III. Can we discover, then, the law of attraction and repulsion between the Ultimate and the finite? We are accustomed to say that in the so- called material realms opposites attract and likes repel. But is this the law when we reach the rational, the volitional stages of existence? Do we not find here that beings of like tastes, interests, pursuits, attract each the other, while those of opposite tastes, interests, pursuits, repel? Sportsmen attract sportsmen, students attract students and business men are drawn together by similar interests, while those who love study and investigation repel sportsmen, and they in turn repel men who love business or affairs of state. Between the Ultimate and the finites. what then is probably the law? Is it not that the finites wishing and seeking to live in harmony with the Ultimate are attracted by and in turn attract Him in proportion to their Volitional strength? While the finites wishing to live out of harmony repel and are repelled by this same Ultimate Being? The American University Union **************?******* The American University Union — An Educational In- stitution composed of students and teachers in all parts of the country. It is carrying on a system of Religious Education from the Scientific Viewpoint in our State and National Institutions. Its definition of Religion is "the recognition of our relations and the performance of the duties growing out of those relations" — our relations to whatever is above us, to what is on our plane, and to what is below us. Chairs of the Science of Religion. One of the most important movements in the development of the Univer- sity Union is that of establishing in each of the United States, a chair of the Science of Religion. The University Union, which is an incorporated insti- tution, has decided to extend this Religious Educational movement until it takes on an International Character. Dr. J. G. Rodger, President of the American University Union, is a graduate of Yale and of Union Theological Seminary, New York. He was a graduate student for four years in Harvard, Edinburgh, and Leipzig Univer- sities. He has been delegated to visit Japan, and, if the way is open, establish- a Chair of the Science of Religion in Japan. He is also to visit China and India for the same purpose. The Modus Operandi of this Religious Educational work is very simple. The Professor, for example, who holds the Chair of the Science of Religion, visits the vari- ous State Normals, Colleges and State University, and gives short courses of lectures on Religion, not from the Biblical Standpoint — that is prohibited by law — but from the Scientific Viewpoint, which neither National nor State laws of any country prohibits. He next visits private and denominational colleges and universities and does the same work if they desire it. In the cities where there are no State Institutions he holds Religio-Scientific Insti- tutes. These Institutes consist of a course of six lectures which are altogether undenominational and unsectarian. This "Higher Religious Education," as it has been termed by some, being based on Scientific data, and using Scientific methods of research, is destined to become an International System of Religious Thought, for scientific data and methods of research are the same the world over. All tribes and peoples and nations see the same stars, sun and planets, come in contact with soil and plant, animal and fellow man. In other words, are study- ing the same great Book of the Universe. In view of this fact may we not expect that the day is coming when we shall have an international religion? Head Office— Washington, D. C. Western Offices — Berkeley, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif. * * *■ ? * OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Rev. Jay. G. Rodger, Ph. D., President and Professor in the California Chair of the Science of Religion. Rev. Edward Everet Hale, D. D., LL. D., Vice-President and Chaplain of the Senate of the United States. Prof. B. L. Seawell, Sc. D., Secretary and Professor of Biology, Warrensburg, Mo. ' Mr. D. N. Day, 154 Fourth Ave., N. Y., Treasurer. Mr. C. C. Pierce, 127 W. Sixth St., Los Angeles, Calif., Assistant Treasurer. Ex-Governor R. C. Powers, Los Angeles, Chairman of the Calif. Univ. Union. President W. E. Garrison, Las Vegas, New Mexico. And the officers of the various State University Unions. In addition to the above the officers of the Religious Education Association have been chosen by the American University Union as honorary Directors and Advisers. Price, 50c. Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y. PAT. JAN. 21,1908 YD 03 U.C. BERKELEY UBR/J CDM3EDD23 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. RFCTD LP NOV 3 - mi