228

To which there are two alternative solutions 228

And modern science is so confused that it will accept neither 228

As Dr. Tyndall's treatment of the subject very forcibly shows us 230

And Dr. Tyndall in this way is a perfect representative of the
whole modern positive school 231

Let us compare the molecules of the brain to the six moving
billiard-balls 231

The question is, are these movements due to the stroke of one
cue or of two 233

The positive school profess to answer this question both ways 234

But this profession is nonsense 236

What they really mean is, 1st. That the connection of consciousness
with matter is a mystery; as to _that_ they _can_ give no
answer. 2nd. That as to whether consciousness is wholly a
material thing or no, they _will_ give no answer 237

But why are they in this state of suspense? 238

Though their system does not in the least require the hypothesis
of an immaterial element in consciousness 239

They see that the moral value of life does 239

The same reasons that will warrant their saying it _may_ exist,
will constrain them to say it _must_ 240

Physical science, with its proofs, can say nothing in the matter,
either as to will, immortality, or God 242

But, on the other hand, it will force us, if we believe in will, to
admit the reality of miracles 243

So far as science goes, morality and religion are both on the same
footing 243

CHAPTER X.

MORALITY AND NATURAL THEISM.

Supposing science not to be inconsistent with theism, may not
theism be inconsistent with morality? 247

It seems to be so; but it is no more so than is morality with
itself. Two difficulties common to both:--1st. The existence of
evil; 2nd. Man's free will and God's free will 248

James Mill's statement of the case represents the popular
anti-religious arguments