Anthropomorphism [pp. 120-144]

THE PRINCE TON RE VIEW
is relative to our minds to assert that there is no God. The idea
of God is formulated under the conditions of human thought.
The idea of existence is relative to the thinking mind. We con ceive existence only as we experience it in our finite being. How
dare we assert or deny it of infinite being? Dogmatic atheism
is as untenable as dogmatic theism.
But if atheism be relative to human thought, and therefore
unphilosophical, it is hopelessly relative and unphilosophical to
assert that Something is, and is Unknowable. The idea of exist ence is a human thought. The idea of Something, capital S and
all, is a human thought. And when we assert that it must be
an attribute of the Sublime Something, that it cannot be known
by human thought, the statement is the product of a whole sys tem of human metaphysics, and the Unknowable becomes known,
in so far, at least, as its necessary attribute of "unknowability"
is concerned.
Mr. Spencer, admitting this, endeavors to explain it by an
appeal to the "indefinite consciousness" behind "pure logic,"
and in this case contradictory of it. But if we examine his
philosophy of the -Unknown, we shall find that it is through a
very definite and logical process that the predication of the unknowability of the Unknown is made. The Unknown is known
to possess certain attributes because of which it is unknown
and unknowable. The very argument assumes the infinity of
the Unknown; for, if finite, it might be known by finite mind.
But when we assert that the Unknown Something is infinite, we
have, to use Mr. Spencer's phrase, "surreptitiously brought in
a number of unavowed data," all of which are formulated by
human thought. And if we assert that the Unknown is Force,
and, still more, if we assert that it is Cause, we are far advanced
in the dogmatism of human forms of representation. We have
clothed the infinite Unknowable in the subjective forms of finite
knowledge.
It is "transcendent audacity" for the Christian to "go be.
hind the throne" and give his own laws of thought to the infil.
nite Power. What, then, can we call the audacity which formu.
lates the infinite Power under the laws of matter?
Let us have fair play here. It is not honest logic to reject
the theistic hypothesis under the principle of the relativity of
I40