A Theistic Philosophy
Nature, Man and God. By William Temple, Archbishop of York. (Macmillan. 18s.)-
WE never cease to be astonished at the vigour and versatility of Dr. Temple's mind. The Gifford Lectures which have been published in this volume would be a remarkable per- formance for a man who had devoted his life to the study of philosophy and theology ; how Much more when they are the product of the leisure hours of one who has the care if not of all the churches at least of a good many, and has not been unmindful of the affairs of the State. Dr. Temple's intelligence is essentially constructive and orthodox, by which we do not mean that he is uncritical, hut that he has no special delight in destructive dialectic- for its own sake and has a bias in favour of well-established tradition. He has given us, as the title of his lectures implies, nothing less than the outline of a complete philosophy. of Theism.' Strangely enough, his con= elusions remind us of two thinkers, Martineau and Lotze, who are scarcely mentioned, far more than of Bosanquet and Caird, whose names are prominent in the text.
Dr. Temple is inclined to regard Descartes with his " cogito ergo sum" as a disaster, since he gave modern philci- sophy a false start. We must begin, not with the subject in abstraction from object, but with the subject and object joined in the act of experiencing. It is perhaps not quite clear why, having laid down this principle, our author b4ritS in fact with the objective world of nature, with the standpoint of a rather indefinite realism or even, as he sometimes says, " materialism." But we soon discover that this is only Dr. Temple's fun—or to speak more soberly, only a part of his dialectical method ; for we are shown reason for holding that mind is, if not more real than matter, at least the paramount and significant type of being. • The " emergence " of mind in the process of evolution, when seriously considered, transforms our conception of the nature of Reality. " All attempts to trace in evolution an explanation of the emergence of mind have totally failed." We are driven to seek beyond the process for an explanation of the product. " The more completely we include Mind with Nature, the more inex- plicable must Nature become except by reference to Mind."
It would be unjust to pretend to summarize an argument which proceeds fairly continuously through more than five ,hundred pages. We can indicate only some of the salient points. Of central importance for the whole of Dr. Temple's -position is the question, what is " explanation " ? Though he does not use the phrase, he agrees with the dictum of Leibniz, " causae efficientes pendent a finalibus." There can be no complete and adequate explanation of anything except in terms of purpose. We are thus led to an interesting dis- cussion of value, in which Dr. Temple brings out very clearly both the objective character of the higher values and their indissoluble relation with persons.
Few responsible thinkers today would deny that there is a :respectable case for Theism, but the real difficulties are encountered when we try to think out the implications of belief in a personal creative God. It is the apparent anti- ! nomies which then arise which have led idealistic philosophers to attempt a further dialectical step beyond the God of religion to the super-personal Absolute. Dr. Temple does not deal systematically with the traditional doctrine of the ;divine Attributes, but he grapples with the fundamental problems raised by that doctrine, which are, the relation of the Eternal to the . temporal ; the relation of God to finite selves and the nature of freedom ; the relation of God to evil in its three forms—error, sin and suffering. The Archbishop does not claim to have a complete solution of these problems, but he has shown, at least in some cases, why they must be insoluble by us. He stoutly defends the transcendence and immanence of God and, quite rightly, finds the analogy of an artist and his composition inadequate. • Whether the analogy of a man and his conduct which he preterit is more satisfactory is open to question.
' The discussion of freedom and determination is difficult to follow and will be too Augustinian in its conclusions to please many modern Christians, but the position is in the main . Inevitable if no self-limitation of Gods admitted. Dr. Schiller some years ago propounded a test question for .Theists " Can God be surprised ? " Doubtless Dr. Temple
would refuse to answer the question in this crude form. but if he were compelled he would answer " No." This standpoint becomes important when the question is raised, Does God will evil ? Dr. Temple's answer is perhaps as satisfactory a, could be given on the accepted premises. " That we are finite selves is directly due to God's act and we cannot doubt that God foresaw the issues of conferring selfhood on finite being,, so that sin falls within His purpose, and is even part of it, though it cannot be said that He directly willed or wills it. What He faced was a probability so great as to be distin- guishable only in thought from certainty." This is difficult enough, but it must be confessed that we become completely baffled when Dr. Temple goes on immediately to deny that for the eternal knowledge of God there can be any such thing as probability.
The two concluding chapters on the Sacramental Uniyerse and the Hunger of Natural Religion: are of great interest. because they state the basis on which the author would proceed from philosophy to dogmatic theology. The summary which he himself provides cannot be improved. " The view of the universe which I have called ' sacramental' assert.: the supremacy and absolute freedom of God ; the reality of the physical world and its process as His creation ; the vital significance of the material and temporal world to the eternal Spirit ; and the spiritual issue of the process in a fellowship of the finite and time-enduring spirits in the infinite and eternal Spirit. Matter exists in full reality but at a secondary level. It is created by spirit—the Divine Spirit—to be the vehicle of spirit and the sphere of spirit's self-realization-in and through the activity of controlling it." From this con- clusion there is obviously an easy path to the contention of the final chapter that natural religion establishes the fact of a revelation of God in and through the creation and indicate, the possibility, or even the probability, of a more , Specific and special revelation.
This is a book which is worthy to stand with other memor- able volumes in the series of Gifford Lectures. It cannot ail to stimulate thought on the central problems of religion, and it will guide the reflections of many even among thcise who arc unable to accept some of its theses.
W. R. MArrifEws.
Previous page
