2l8 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



ized into harmlessness. That Lucretius really believed in fven this 



dreamy existence of the gods I am strongly inclined to doubt ; but even 



if he did, it is hardly necessary to point out that gods v^ho are rationalized 



into distant, graceful, non-interfering spectators of the march of the 



universe are for all practical purposes the same as no gods at all. The 



attitude of such a rationahst may even be more atheistic in effect than 



atheism itself.^ 



2. The Freedom of the Will^ 



In theory Haeckel is an unconditional determinist, because he is an 

 unconditional scientist.^ His conclusion runs: "The great struggle 

 between the determinist and the indeterminist, between the opponent 

 and the sustainer of the freedom of the will, has ended today, after more 

 than two thousand years, completely in favor of the determinist. The 

 human will has no more freedom than that of the higher animals, from 

 which it differs only in degree, not in kind. In the last century the 

 dogma of liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological 

 arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different weapons 

 for its definitive destruction — the powerful weapons which we find in the 

 arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We now know that each 

 act of the will is as fatally determined by the organization of the indi- 

 vidual and as dependent on the momentary condition of his environ- 

 ment as every other psychic activity. The character of the inclina- 

 tion was determined long ago by heredity from parents and ancestors; 

 the determination to each particular act is an instance of adaptation 

 to the circumstances of the moment wherein the strongest motive pre- 

 vails, according to the laws which govern the statics of emotion. 

 Ontogeny teaches us to understand the evolution of the will in the 

 individual child. Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development 

 of the will within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors." 



With this Lucretius, for all his thoroughgoing atomism, could not 



• Compare Mr. Gladstone's vigorous presentation and condemnation of the Lucretian attitude in modern 

 life. He quoted the six "plangent " lines (II, 646-651) with tremendous effect in a speech that both Mr. Bryce 

 and Mr. Morley select as one of the most impressive of his later efforts. Vide Morley, Life oj Gladstone, III 

 18-20; and The Quarterly Review, September, 1903. 



" For the current interest about this question in scientific circles, and an attempt at a combination of 

 monism with this postulate of practical reason, see W. H. Mallock, "The Reconstruction of Religious Belief" 

 (Harper'.s, 1905), particularly pp. 354 seq. 



■5 WR., 129-131. 



