The Scientific Method. 79 



into one substance which is more than either and includes them both, 

 for which we have no better name than God. 



If I have any criticism to make on Dr. Abbot and this may be 

 more of his two noble books than of the lecture of to-night it is with 

 reference to his seeming implication that the world must wait for 

 science to give it assurance of a God, and that the world's belief in God 

 has been heretofore without any real legitimacy. I do not believe this. 

 I believe that the world has experienced religion, that it has experienced 

 God, that the unscientific man has a belief in him which is perfectly 

 legitimate a belief which science may clarify and confirm, but which 

 it has not given and which it can never take away. I speak under cor- 

 rection, and if there is not the implication I have mentioned I am very 

 glad. Perhaps Dr. Abbot would say that as there is much uncon- 

 scious cerebration, so is there much unconscious science which in the 

 past has anticipated rudely what scientific realism or relationism has 

 made wholly clear and bright. 



REV. THEODORE C. WILLIAMS : * 



The lecture of Dr. Abbot, while it illustrates to my mind the saying 

 that " the knowledge of God is full of difficulties," also encourages me 

 to believe that we can finally work through the difficulties and not be 

 compelled to rest content in the negative attitude of agnosticism. I 

 believe that a reconciliation is coming between philosophy and science, 

 though I am not able to believe that it will be brought about in the 

 way set forth by Dr. Abbot. My criticism upon his essay would be 

 that he has spent too much time in knocking down a man of straw, 

 which exists only in his own hypersensitive imagination. I came 

 here to-night hoping to be enlightened by a clear presentation of the 

 lecturer's own theory of knowledge, and have been somewhat disap- 

 pointed that he has spent so much effort in exposing the fallacy of 

 " solipsism," in which no sensible idealist believes. 



A resume of the history of philosophy shows that all the great 

 metaphysicians have been working at this problem. Dr. Abbot has 

 not done justice to their work, nor has he, as far as I can see, given us 

 any new idea. I suppose modern psychology has hardly advanced in 

 its theory of knowledge beyond the statement of Ferrier, which I 

 learned in my school days that the ultimate psychic act makes known 

 to us both subject and object. Beyond this we can hardly go ; and in 



* No complete report of Mr. Williams's remarks was made at the time of their 

 delivery. The accompanying abstract, much condensed, is made up from very 

 insufficient data, hut has b.-rn submitted to Mr. Williams and is recognized by 

 him as substantially correct, though necessarily incomplete. Mr. \v illiams gave 

 a very interesting resumt of the history of philosophy in the course or nis re- 

 marks. 



