knowledge of psychology dispose men to atheism, a deeper knowledge of
both, and, still more, a deeper thought upon their relations to one
another, will lead men back to some form of religion, which if it be
more vague, may also be more worthy than that of earlier days.'
Some time before 1889 three articles were written for the _Nineteenth
Century_ on the _Influence of Science upon Religion_. They were never
published, for what reason I am not able to ascertain. But I have
thought it worth while to print the first two of them as a 'first part'
of this volume, both because they contain--written in George Romanes'
own name--an important criticism upon the _Candid Examination_ which he
had published anonymously, and also because, with their entirely
sceptical result, they exhibit very clearly a stage in the mental
history of their author. The antecedents of these papers those who have
read this Introduction will now be in a position to understand. What
remains to be said by way of further introduction to the Notes had
better be reserved till later.
C.G.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] p. 7.
[2] p. 173.
[3] See p. 110.
[4] But see an interesting note in Romanes' _Mind and Motion and Monism_
(Longmans, 1895) p. 111.
[5] Published in Truebner's _English and Foreign Philosophical Library_
in 1878, but written 'several years ago' (preface). 'I have refrained
from publishing it,' the author explains, 'lest, after having done so, I
should find that more mature thought had modified the conclusions which
the author sets forth.'
[6] At times I have sought to make the argument of the chapter more
intelligible by introducing references to earlier parts of the book or
explanations in my own words. These latter I have inserted in square
brackets.
[7] p. 24.
[8] p. 28.
[9] p. 28.
[10] p. 45.
[11] p. 47.
[12] p. 50.
[13] p. 63.
[14] pp. 58 ff.
[15] With reference to the views and arguments of the _Candid
Examination_, it may be interesting to notice here in detail that George
Romanes (1) came to attach much more importance to the subjective
religious needs and intuitions of the human spirit (pp. 131 ff.); (2)
perceived that the subjective religious consciousness can be regarded
objectively as a broad human phenomenon (pp. 147 f.); (3) criticized his
earlier theory of causation and returned _towards_ the theory that all
causation is volitiona
|