ers into life.
FOOTNOTES:
[83:1] As Plato interprets the scepticism of Protagoras to mean that one
state of mind cannot be more _true_ than another, but only _better_ or
worse. Cf. _Theaetetus_, 167.
[88:2] Quoted with some omissions from _I Kings_, 18:21-29. The Hebrew
term _Yahweh_, the name of the national deity, has been substituted for
the English translation, "the Lord."
[90:3] _Iliad_, Book IX, lines 467 _sq._ Translation by Chapman.
[91:4] The supposed abode of departed spirits.
[91:5] Lucretius: _De Rerum Natura_, Book III, lines 1 _sq._ Translated
by Munro.
[91:6] _Ibid._, Book II, lines 644 _sq._
[92:7] It would be interesting to compare the equally famous criticism
of Greek religion in Plato's _Republic_, Book II, 377 _sq._
[92:8] Cf. W. Robertson Smith's admirable account of the Semitic
religions:
"What is requisite to religion is a practical acquaintance with the
rules on which the deity acts and on which he expects his worshippers to
frame their conduct--what in II Kings, 17:26 is called the 'manner,' or
rather the 'customary law' (_mishpat_), of the god of the land. This is
true even of the religion of Israel. When the prophets speak of the
knowledge of God, they always mean a practical knowledge of the laws and
principles of His government in Israel, and a summary expression for
religion as a whole is 'the knowledge and fear of Jehovah,' _i. e._, the
knowledge of what Jehovah prescribes, combined with a reverent
obedience." _The Religion of the Semites_, p. 23.
[93:9] _Proverbs_, 18:10; 11:19; 21:3.
[93:10] _Ecclesiastes_, 2:13 _sq._
[94:11] _Psalms_, 51:17; _Isaiah_, 57:15.
[94:12] In this discussion of Judaism I am much indebted to Matthew
Arnold's _Literature and Dogma_, especially Chapters I and II.
[104:13] James Thomson: _The City of Dreadful Night_. Quoted by James,
in _The Will to Believe, etc._, p. 45.
[106:14] _Revelation_, 19:11-13.
CHAPTER V
NATURAL SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
[Sidenote: The True Relations of Philosophy and Science. Misconceptions
and Antagonisms.]
Sect. 39. In the case of natural science we meet not only with a special
human interest, but with a theoretical discipline. We are confronted,
therefore, with a new question: that of the relation within the body of
human knowledge of two of its constituent members. Owing to the militant
temper of the representatives of both science and philosophy, this has
long since ceased to be
|