THE CONCEPTION OF GOD A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE IDEA AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY BY JOSIAH ROYCE PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOSEPH LE CONTE AND G. H. HOWISON PROFESSORS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SIDNEY EDWARD MEZES PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS fforfc THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD. 1898 SEEN BY All rights reserved PRESERVATION SERVICES r*. A ft- COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and electrotyped September, 1897. Reprinted February, 1808. XortoootJ J. S. Gushing & Co. Berwick fc Smith Norwood Mass. U.S.A. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITOR . THE CONCEPTION OF GOD: ADDRESS BY PROFESSOR ROYCE INTRODUCTORY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . 3 I. God as the Omniscient Being, and Omniscience as Abso lute Unity of Thought and Experience ... 4 II. First Definition of Human Ignorance, apparently exclud ing Knowledge of Reality 15 III. Higher Definition of Human Ignorance, vindicating a Knowledge of Reality 18 IV. Ignorance defined as Unorganised Experience, and as . 22 implying an Experience Absolutely Organised V. Reality and Experience as Correlative Conceptions 30 : Mean VI. Analysis of the Conception Absolute Experience ing of its Reality 33 VII. Proof of the Reality of an Absolute Experience . 38 V11I. of the Whole Argument for the Reality of the " Summary K I Omniscient 4 2 Historic IX. This Conception of God in its Relations to Philosophy and Faith 44 II WORTH AND GOODNESS AS MARKS OF THE ABSOLUTE: CRITICISM BY PROFESSOR MEZES PRELIMINARY REMARKS of the Absolute I. No Worth and Dignity proved 54 with Goodness II. Absoluteness not shown Compatible VI CONTENTS III GOD, AND CONNECTED PROBLEMS, IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION: REMARKS BY PROFESSOR LE CONTE PAGE INTRODUCTORY CONTRAST BETWEEN THE AUTHOR S METHOD AND PROFESSOR ROYCE S 67 to I. The Problem of the Divine Personality, in regard (i) its Proof, and (2) to its Nature 67 as II. The Problem of Evil : its Evolutional Explanation Good in Disguise 69 III. The Problem of Immortality : its Proof from Evolution 75 IV THE CITY OF GOD, AND THE TRUE GOD AS ITS HEAD : COMMENTS BY PROFESSOR HOWISON PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE . .81 I. The Criterion of Reality in a Conception ... 84 II. The Criterion condemns the Monistic Conception of God , -89 of III. The Monistic Conception of God not the Theism the West, but the Pantheism of the Orient 94 IV. Worth of Monistic Idealism as against Agnosticism : its Failure as a Religious Metaphysic . .100 V. Precise Analysis of Professor Royce s Argument: its 108 Mystic and Anti-Ethical Tendency .... VI. Criticism of the System of Professor Le Conte . .114 VII. The Fundamental Assumption in Professor Royce s Ar Basis 120 gument : its Kantian this Kantian VIII. Suggestions towards transcending Assump I2 3 tion . 128 NOTE: The Discussion recapitulated in Questions CONTENTS v ji V THE ABSOLUTE AND THE INDIVIDUAL: SUPPLEMENT ARY ESSAY BY PROFESSOR ROYCE PAGE INTRODUCTION . 135 PART I THE CONCEPTION OF REALITY .... 141 I. The Consciousness of Reality 144 II. The Possibilities of Experience 149 III. The First Argument for Realism 153 IV. The Second Argument for Realism, and its Idealistic 160 Interpretation V. The Third Argument for Realism : Transition to Abso lute Idealism I 7 l PART II THE CONCEPTION OF WILL AND ITS RELATION TO THE ABSOLUTE l % 2 of the I. The Essential and the -Non-essential Elements Will l8 7 II. The Relation of the Will to the Absolute . 193 III. General Review of the Argument . PART III THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUATIOX . .217 I. Definition of the Problem II. The Thomistic Theory of Individuation III. The Scotistic Theory of Individuation . IV. Critical Comparison of these Theories . V. The Individual as Undefinable by Thought, and as Un 2 47 presentable in Experience Interest VI. The Individual as the Object of an Exclusive VII. The Reality of the Individual VIII. Individuality and Will . VJii CONTENTS PAGE PART IV THE SELF-CONSCIOUS IxnivmrAi 272 I. Empirical Self-Consciousness, and its Contents . .276 II. Genesis of the Empirical Ego 278 III. Reality of the Ego 289 IV. The Self-Consciousness of the Absolute . 296 V. The Absolute and the Finite Individual . 303 VI. The Temporal Relations of the Individual . 315 VII. The Immortality of the Individual .... 322 PART V REPLIES TO CRITICISMS 327 I. Professor Hovvison, and the Antinomy of the Moral World . .328 II. Professor Mezes, and the Contents of Reality . 337 III. Professor LeConte, and the Concept of Evolution . 348 INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITOR THE first volume of the projected Publications of the Philosophical Union of the University of Cali fornia, delayed by unavoidable circumstances, here at length appears, as promised at the time of issuing the volume counted as second, Professor Watson s It consists I of the docu Christianity and Idealism. ( ) ments of the public discussion held at the seat of the a few University in 1895, reprinted with only very in Article two or trifling verbal alterations, and, IV, three additional sentences; (2) of a new Supple in which he mentary Essay by Professor Royce, developes his central doctrine in a more systematic of way, discusses afresh the long-neglected question to his critics. Individuality, and, in conclusion, replies The contents of the book very rightly take the form of a for discussion is the method of discussion, phi-^ chief which losophy. Of the three objects upon and philosophy directs its search, God, Freedom, the essential Immortality, notable as also objects in its aimed at of religion, this discussion, outset, only But the the first the nature and the reality of God. in the direct feature of eminent interest in it is, that becomes pursuit of its chosen problem it presently and even more engaged on the problem of Freedom, of Immor cannot forego, either, the consideration conceive so true it is that the attempt to God, tality ; x THE CONCEPTION OF GOD and to establish his existence, is futile apart from grappling with the other two connected ideals. The interest of the discussion at length unavoidably concentrates about the question of Freedom, and this turn in the pressure of the contest is what gives the debate its significance for the world of philosophy and of religion. One cannot but feel that this sig nificance is marked, and for reasons that will in the sequel appear. On the initial question : Is the fundamental belief of religion valid, is a Personal God a ? all reality j ; the participants in the discussion are to be under stood as distinctly intending to maintain the affirma tive. But as soon as this question is deliberately apprehended, it becomes evident that no settlement of it can be reached until one decides what the word "God" and also what or veritably means, "reality" " " existence can rationally mean. Here, accordingly, the divergence among the participants begins. Very largely agreeing in an idealistic interpretation of what must constitute Reality if the word is to have any explicable meaning, they nevertheless soon ex pose a profound difference as to what Idealism re quires when one comes to the question of the reality of spiritual beings, above all, of a being deserving to be called divine. Thence follows, of course, a like deep difference as to the nature and the conception of God himself. More specifically, these differences concern the following points : (i) Whether the novel method of proving God real, put forward by the leader of the discussion, and here given a fresh form, different from that in his INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITOR xi is to es Religious Aspect of Philosophy, adequate tablish in the Absolute Reality a nature in the strict sense divine. the of God which (2) Whether conception upon fthe whole argument of the leader proceeds is in God, truth a conception of a Personal this is with (3) Whether conception compatible mankind in its that autonomy of moral action which civilisation, and especially under fully enlightened the Christian consciousness, has come to appreciate as the vital principle of all personality. and Professor On the first matter, Professor Mezes Professor Howison differ with Professor Royce. Le Conte declines any critical opinion upon it, though an different argument he prefers, and offers, entirely God. for the reality of a Personal extreme division is be On the second point, the tween Professor Royce on the one side (apparently Professor and Pro supported by his pupil, Mezes), the fessor Howison on the other. Here, question the of an Immanent disputed being in fact question distinct from his creation, God as against a God based Professor Le Conte offers a mediating theory, which he on the doctrine of Cosmic Evolution, by of God as immanent in would conjoin the conception as Nature with the conception of man eventually the of : process a literally free intelligence through the indwelling in it, evolution, operated by the God extricated from human being is at length completely and Nature, hence becomes strictly self-active, for rec immortal. To this proposal intrinsically - God with a Personal God, ciling an Immanent Xli THE CONCEPTION OF GOD test of personality being the possession by God of a World of Persons, all really free, with whom he shares in moral relations, acknowledging Rights in them, and Duties towards them, Professor Howi- son demurs, urging that no such World of Freedom can arise out of a process of natural evolution, as this is always a process of efficient causation, ai, 1 so works by a vis a tergo, whose law is necessitation. On the third question, which is thus brought strongly to the front, the divergence between Pro fessor Howison and Professor Royce comes out at its sharpest.