Whence comes man : from 'nature' or from 'God' / by Arthur John Bell.

  • Bell, Arthur John.
Date:
1888
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Whence comes man : from 'nature' or from 'God' / by Arthur John Bell. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    361/376 (page 345)
    19 — FROM “nature,” or FROM “ GOD ? ” 345 yve are apt to attribute to it “ causation ” before it causes; in short, we speak of it as cause irrespective of the act of “ causing.” There is no gap between causation and effec- tuation, but the}^ are, like all other pairs of 02>posites consti- tuting thoughts, only aiDparently sejwated, not really sepa- rated, but only distinguishable by a “i^oint” of time, which, like the “ jioint ” of ph}'sics, has neither length nor breadth; they begin simultaneously. Also, the cause of an effect seems to cease, while the effect visibly continues. Hut this is a mistake. So long as an effect can be attributed to a given cause, so long as that effect continues, the cause is still in action. But this we are a^Jt to forget. If I communicate to a billiard ball such an amount of force as shall cause it to move ten feet, I am the cause of that effect or motion till the motion ceases, for my force acts so long as it exists. Cause and effect occur simultaneously, and yet they occur ill succession; but there is no (jap of time hcttcccn them. It is only in thoiujht they can be considered as antecedent and consequent; for antecedent and consequent are “ a ” “ thought.” Cause and effect are the respective opposites of a thoujht about an act. Before and after—subject and object—have no other existence but as acts of thinking. Mr. Mansel continues (page 31) ;— “ On the other hand, the conception of the Absolute implies a possible existence out of all ‘ relation ’ [already quoted and commented upon]. We attemjit to escape from this apparent contradiction by introducing the idea of suc- cession in time. The Absolute exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a Cause. But here we are checked by the third conception, that of the Infinite. How can the Infinite become that which it was not from the first ? ” AV e can make no assertion as to the 'ultimate nature of the infinite God. The Infinite does not “ become ” anything, but continues to be that which it was before creation. AVe have seen that creation—seeing that more than one thing