170 Conclusion. 



istic and monistic theories. But we would modestly 

 advise all modern naturalists to subject these theistic 

 views and doctrines to a thorough study, 1 before de- 

 claring them untenable. Such is the modern "fash- 

 ion." Otherwise we might justly reply that their opin- 

 ions are the result of ignorance and prejudice. It is 

 a pity to behold, how even naturalists who reason 

 logically, deem themselves free from this earnest duty 

 in endeavoring to solve the highest metaphysical prob- 

 lems. Instead of disproving these theistic views in 

 their real and true shape, they frame for themselves 

 seme fantastic caricature. Then, of course, they easily 

 arrive at the conclusion, that the claims of theism have 

 been brushed away and must necessarily yield to 

 monism. Even Mr. Aug. Forel fell into this very 

 error in his lecture on "Brain and Soul." Although 

 we must acknowledge that he strove with full con- 

 viction to retain the notion of God in science, we earn- 

 estly regret that he entertained very imperfect ideas 

 concerning the theistic notion of God. Prof. Emery 

 likewise deemed it necessary, towards the close of his 

 treatise on instinct and intelligence in animals, to op- 

 pose our previously established conclusion, that the 

 study of "animal instinct" naturally led to the assump- 

 tion of a personal Creator. He would rather return 

 to the "ignoramus," than "assume the interference of 

 a mystical Creator." If Emery's assertion were true 

 that the incompleteness of a mechanico-biological ex- 

 planation of nature forces us to choose the "ignoramus" 

 or to "deify the unknown causes of natural phenomena 



1 ) For this purpose we recommend Tilmann Pesch's "Die grossen 

 Weltraetsel," 2d Vol. 



