Part I. — (b) Objections to the Theory. 



12. The Atomic Theory is so useful^ practicall}^^ that even those 

 who theoretically express their disbelief^ themselves continually 

 make use of and profit by its guidance. It is, in fact to the che- 

 mist, in his studies, v^hiit Bradshaw is to the traveller by railway, 

 a sometimes perplexing, but on the whole an absolutely neces- 

 sary, companion to his journey. It is quite true that ''^ though 

 we admit the Atomic Theory, we have no positive proof of its 

 truth, nor are we likely to obtain such proof.^^ No one has 

 ever been able to adduce an atom itself as the best proof of its 

 own existence.'^ The obvious answer to such objections is, that 

 such proof is not consistent with the limited powers of our organs 

 of sense. (Note D.) But there are more formidable intellectual 

 difficulties in the way when we consider the subject either from 

 a mathematical or from a metaphysical point of view. Dr. Mills, 

 a recent writer on the Atomic Theory, reasons thus: — If we 

 must assume at all, let us assume as little as possible. The 

 system of Boscovicli is, in these respects, superior to the 

 Atomic ; it assumes much less, and does not contradict the 

 facts of nature. In it matter and the atom disappeaVj and we 

 find that substances are constituted of centres of force, attrac- 

 tive and repulsive.^^ 



18. This system is, however, much older than Boscovich, 

 since the Indian philosophy from an unknown antiquity has 

 advocated similar views. According to cosmogonies of the 

 Greeks, Eros (or attraction) was the oldest of the gods.* It is 

 curious that Dr. Priestley, whilst attempting to show that 

 mind is not spiritual, was led by the tenor of his argument to 

 push Boscovich^s doctrine so far as almost to deny the mate- 

 riality of body, for he contends that we have no proof of sub- 

 stance being anything more than potvers of attraction and re- 

 fidsion, thus denying to it solidity, impenetrability, and the 

 like. "Since matter, he concludes, '^las in fact no properties 

 but those of attraction and repulsion, it ought to rise in our 

 esteem as making a nearer approach to the nature of spiritual 

 and immaterial beings, as we are tempted to call those who are 

 opposed to gross matter.^^ 



14. Dr. Mills is of opinion that the logical mind will find (if his 

 argument be sound) that the Atomic Theory has no experimental 

 basis, is untrue to nature generally, and consists in the main of 

 a materialistic fallacy derived from appetite more than from 



See Smith's Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, sub voce. 



