COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



that is diabolic, or else to include elements of 

 diabolism in the character of the first Agency 

 itself. And in the latter case the blasphemy — 

 if we choose to call it so — lies at the door of 

 those who, by urging upon us their anthro- 

 pomorphic hypothesis, oblige us to judge the 

 character of the Deity by human standards ; and 

 not at the door of those who simply reveal the 

 true character of that anthropomorphic hypo- 

 thesis by setting forth its hidden implications. 



Thus from every point of view the doctrine 

 of a quasi-human God appears equally unsatis- 

 factory to the scientific thinker. It rests upon 

 unsupported theories of causation, upon a mis- 

 taken conception of law, and upon a teleologi- 

 cal hypothesis whose origin renders it suspi- 

 cious, and whose evidence fails it in the hour of 

 need. The inductive proof alleged in its sup- 

 port is founded upon the correspondence be- 

 tween the organism and the environment, and 

 where the correspondence fails, just there the 

 doctrine is left helpless. The Doctrine of Evo- 

 lution thus not only accounts for the origin 

 and apparent justification of the anthropomor- 

 phic theory, but also reveals its limitations. 

 And when thus closely scrutinized, the hypo- 

 thesis appears as imperfect morally as it is in- 

 tellectually. It is shown to be as incompatible 

 with the truest religion as it is with the truest 

 science. Instead of enlightening, it only mysti- 

 226 



