RELIGION AS ADJUSTMENT 



What now are the ethical sanctions recog- 

 nized by science, and by that religious doctrine 

 which I have here proposed to designate as Cos- 

 mic Theism ? In what sense does a scientific 

 philosophy hold to the distinction between 

 sin on the one hand, and crime or tort on the 

 other ? Our questions may readily be answered 

 if, bearing in mind the theoretic attitude of Cos- 

 mism toward Anthropomorphism, we note the 

 anthropomorphic theory of sin and the anthro- 

 pomorphic sanctions for righteousness. On the 

 anthropomorphic hypothesis, sin is an offence 

 against a personal Deity, consisting in the dis- 

 obedient transgression of some one of his re- 

 vealed edicts, and calling for punishment either 

 in the present or in a future life, unless repara- 

 tion be made by repentance or sacrifice. Now 

 the theory of the Cosmist is in substance quite 

 identical with this,^ though expressed by means 

 of very different verbal symbols. From the sci- 

 entific point of view, sin is a wilful violation of 

 a law o{ nature, or — to speak in terms of the 

 theory of evolution — it is a course of thought 

 or action, wilfully pursued, which tends to throw 



^ Saving only the last clause. For, as we shall presently 

 see, science knows of no such thing as reparation for sin. Re-' 

 pentance cannot ward off punishment. And herein the Cosmic 

 hypothesis is as far superior to the Anthropomorphic hypothe- 

 sis from the ethical, as it is from the philosophical point of 

 view. 



295 



