The Grounds of Unbelief.
What guarantee or evidence can they produce reject the Gospel, for the security of the position they prefer to that of faith? Among the refusers of the message of God's salvation now, as in former days, arguments and attitudes are many and varied. Some mock, sonic say, " We will hear thee again of this matter," or hope vainly that some future day will 'move a more convenient season for definitely considering the issue raised.
But, though the arguments and attitudes of unbelievers are many, one position only is common to all, in respect to the message given. All alike are "outside the gates," and without that Which is offered in the announcement; and this is as true of him who may be arguing for the authenticity of the message, if he has not himself accepted the terms, as of him against whom lie is arguing.
It is often assumed, that a man is safe if he abides where he finds himself to be, while honestly to accept the claims of the Gospel is like stepping forth upon the waters. Perhaps the latter assumption is true. But still he who does step forth " to go to Jesus," in obedience to the divine invitation, proves that his path, is one of light, and has a security beyond what the water or his faith can give. And he has no desire, though he has the opportunity, to return to that path in the dark, leading he knows not whither, though it be as dry,—very dry,—ground.
But if tested by what can be known, is this ground so solid as to merit the unbounded confidence placed in it? The reasons for such confidence, and for the assumption that the definite claim fin: faith in the Gospel can be rejected or neglected with impunity, when there is the specific warning against doing so, may well be asked for. Philosophy and science are the only two sources to which unbelief can look for support, and we will consider their evidence.
The Evidence of Philosophy
It is popularly thought that the phenomena of the world are being progressively explained on a rationed basis by Scientific philosophy, and that in time everything will be. And so faith in anything that is not understood is regarded as mere superstition, and it is imagined that as the phenomena of nature become subjects of investigation and research they prove themselves to be self-existent and self-subsisting, and consequently are no testimony whatever to a Creator.
The position of the scientist philosopher is assumed to be that of one who believes only that which he can understand, while science is supposed to be that which to him makes all things in nature plain, simple, and explicable. The teachers looked upon as the authorities fir such views would undoubtedly deny such assumption, and guard their remarks with metaphysics. But then popularly, and with more truth, the consequences lying latent are seized upon and carried beyond the limits thus set. People assume boldly a position which they think the teachers assume the responsibility of teaching; while the teachers relieve themselves of the responsibility by refinements of metaphysics which carry them so far and no farther.
The principle of clericalism is found to wield as subtle and wide an influence through science as through religion. The sense and remembrance that man is individually responsible for his own position before God, and will have to answer for it to Him, is effectually stifled and deadened by it. As the Scripture says, "The prophets prophecy falsely, and. the priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" "As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me and every tongue shall confess to God." Rom. 14:1111For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (Romans 14:11)
But to return. As to philosophy, the remarkable fact is that the one thing learned for certain from philosophy is the exact opposite of that which it is popularly supposed to prove. The one thing certain is, that what cannot be explained on any ground of reason or understanding, and is even paradoxical in its nature, has to be received, One instance of this may he found in what is generally called the law of gravitation. To quote from a work before referred to:
"There is a somewhat general impression abroad in the world, that whatever is scientific is clear and free from doubt or difficulty. But such an opinion is as far as possible from the truth. . . . The Newtonian theory of gravitation is far from being so simple as it seems, and this its author clearly saw, and was free to acknowledge. In reality Newton's law of gravitation is simply a mathematical statement of facts established by observation. The statement that all material objects act as if attracted toward each other by a three which is directly as the product of the combined masses, and inversely as the square of the distance, has been verified as completely as any matter of human experience. Newton's hypothesis as to the cause of this uniform action of law is, however, incapable of absolute verification, while its acceptance impales us on one or other horn of a 'dilemma from which it is not easy to be extricated. We must either believe that bodies act upon each other from a distance through a vacuum, or that matter is continuous in space, so that there is no such thing as a vacuum
So keenly were the difficulties of this paradox felt, that many of Newton's eminent contemporaries, especially upon the continent, refused to accept the theory of gravitation, thus delaying its final triumph for a century. Huyghens declared the theory to be absurd; John Bernoulli, that it was “revolting to minds accustomed to receiving no principle in physics save those, which are incontestable and evident;" while Leibnitz called gravitation” an incorporeal, an inexplicable power." To the contemporaries of Newton, and indeed as we have seen, to Newton himself; that one material body should act upon another at a. distance seemed not only inconceivable but absurd.
The philosophical statements of this difficulty are easily understood and incapable of refutation. A material body can no more act where it is not than when it is not. . . . Nor have the difficulties of Newton's theory disappeared since his day. The acceptance of the law' as a fact has taken place in spite of the paradoxes which his theory involves, and mathematicians and physicists are as much puzzled as ever to find an ultimate, explanation of the law."
The difference in the principle upon which philosophy and' facts call for recognition, deserves attention. Facts, because of" the evidence they themselves give of their own truth, have to be received although they cannot be explained. Philosophy on the other hand' is' held together by reason and logic, and its tenets, are recognized because of the explanation they are, thought to afford.
These Opposite principles may bring philosophy and fact into collision, and we may inquire what is their respective weight and solidity when this is the case. To this the logician has as satisfactory and conclusive an answer as can be asked. “No one now feels any difficulty in conceiving gravity to be, as much as any other property is, "inherent and essential to matter," nor feels the comprehension of it facilitated in the smallest degree by the supposition of an ether (though some recent inquirers do give this as an explanation of it); nor thinks it at all incredible that the' celestial bodies can and do act where they, in actual bodily presence, are not. To us it is not more wonderful that bodies, should net upon one another “without mutual contact," than that they should do so when in contact; we are familiar with both these facts, and we find them equally inexplicable, but equally easy to believe."
And further, anyone who is ever tempted to pronounce a fact impossible because it appears to him inconceivable, is advised, to have always before him some constant reminder of this “a priori " fallacy. If the principles of philosophy are chosen as that on which the feet are to rest, they are already proved, by what is known, to be ready at any moment to betray, him who trusts them, and to confound him in his very confidence."
We have seen that at least some certainties are attainable from the principles of materialistic philosophy:
(1). It is incapable of explaining phenomena as they are.
(2). On the attempt to do so by its principles, it comes into collision with facts of nature, and annihilating itself proves its " vanity."
(3). Facts have to be received, even by philosophers, which are inexplicable and paradoxical.
It is then from the evidence philosophy gives that we learn the folly and ignorance of any who would choose an " a priori fallacy " and object to the facts of the Gospel as incredible, merely merely because their power and glory are beyond human powers of explanation and understanding.