The Philosophical Basis of Theism

49. THE GOOD ESTIMATED BY REASON.-I. The rational standard defined.—II.
The rational idea is that of worthiness or worth.-III. Presupposes the
ideas of the true, the right, the perfect.-IV. Distinction of good from

evil, eternal and immutable.-V. Error of Ethics confounding the good

and the right.-VI. The question as to the true good distinguished

from that as to the highest good.-VII. Worth estimated by reason

distinguished from value in political economy.-VIII. Good is the ob-

ject acquired, not the object served. Teleology. . .
. 266-271

250. IN WHAT THE GOOD RATIONALLY ESTIMATED CONSISTS.-I. In what the
essential good consists. 1. Personal perfection. Inference from the
foregoing. Begins in right moral character. Right choice the essential
germ of character is good in itself. Development of all the powers to
perfection. Realized only by action in love. No absolute perfection
to the finite but progressive. 2. Harmony with himself, with God, and

xvi

the constitution of things. 3. The happiness necessarily resulting. 4.

These three distinguishable but inseparable. 5. Stoicism excluding hap

piness is false. False ethics resulting. Objections of Hedonism are

against this error. Hedonism excludes the rational element of good;

Christian Ethics recognizes both elements.-II. Relative good.-III. The

evil. Essential. Relative.-IV. A man's good is in his own power. 271-281

251. MERIT AND DEMERIT.-I. Definition.-II. He that merits true good attains
it. 1. Because reason is supreme in the universe. 2. Every right act receives
immediate reward. 3. Answer to objection from the inequalities of this
life. 4. The true good is the highest good.

281-283

52. THE FEELINGS PERTAINING TO THE IDEA OF THE GOOD.-I. The feel-

ings presuppose the idea.-II. Subdivisions: 1. Self-respect. 2. Pru-

dential. The two are called self-love.

53. PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IN THE CONDUCT of Life.

CHAPTER XII.

FIFTH ULTIMATE IDEA OF REASON.

283-284

284-285

254. THE ABSOLUTE.-I. Definition.-II. Known by rational intuition arising

in the effort to complete the process of thought in any line of investiga-

tion. In the back-ground of human consciousness and at the basis of

knowledge. Opens a new sphere of reality.-III. What the absolute is,

is known not a priori, but only in its accounting for man and nature.

The absolute is the All-conditioning. Kant's objection. Significance if

explained as the registered experience of the race transmitted by

heredity..

286-288

255. THE PSEUDO-ABSOLUTE.-I. The Pseudo-absolute; some forms originate in
attempting to develop the idea a priori; others from developing it em-
pirically; the sum total of all things mistaken for the Absolute; also the
largest logical concept.-II. Current objections founded on false ideas of
the Absolute. 1. The Absolute is "pure being" "the thing in itself,"

"out of all relations." 2. Objections founded on the false idea of the
Absolute as "the ALL," or sum total of all things. 3. Agnostic objec-
tion that personality is incompatible with the absolute.

289-291

56. PERSONALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE.-I. The Absolute may be a person.-

II. The Absolute must be a person.

291-292

CHAPTER XIII.

THREE GRADES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

57. DEFINITION OF SCIENCE.

293-294

58. THE THREE GRADES DEFINED-I. First Grade: Empirical Science.
Its two divisions.-11. The Second Grade: Noetic or Rationalistic science.
Why called Noetic. Three divisions of it. 1. Mathematics. J. S. Mill
that Mathematical axioms learned by experience. 2. Logic. 3. Phi-
losophy. Subdivisions: Speculative, Ethical, Esthetic, Teleological.—
III. Third Grade: Theology.-IV. Must pass through all three in the
complete knowledge of any being.-V. Knowledge in each grade is sci-
ence. Appropriation of "science" to natural science only.

294-301

59. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE.-I. From the constitution of the mind. 1."
Why it begins as Empirical science. 2. Why two spheres of mind and
matter opened in perceptive intuition. 3. Rational intuition necessitates
noetic and theological.-II. Common recognition in history of thought.
III. Reciprocal dependence.

. 301-304
2 60. HARMONY OF THE THREE.-I. Science in a lower grade, depends on the
principles of the higher. 1. Empirical science depends on rational in-
tuitions. 2. Noetic science depends on Theology. 3. Theology contains
its principles in itself.-II. Science in a higher grade depends on the
lower for content. 1. Noetic science depends on empirical for content.
Also for discipline in empirical methods. 2. Theology depends on noetic
and empirical science. Cannot develop the idea of the absolute a priori.
Misrepresentation of Theological method. 3. Source of contents of Em-
pirical.-III. Science in a lower grade raises questions for science in a
higher grade to answer. 1. Empirical. 2. Noetic. Theology ulti-
mate.-IV. Also depends on the higher grade, to complete the unity of
thought and things.-V. Scientific thought legitimately culminates in
Theology.—VI. Science in a higher grade stimulates inquiry in the
lower. VII. Claim that empirical natural science alone is science.-
VIII. Science in the three grades must be in harmony with itself.

304-319

8 61. THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF NATURAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.-I.

Arises only from error or ignorance. 1. From incompleteness of know-

ledge incidental to its progressiveness. 2. From error of method. 3.

From the claim of science in one grade to be the whole of knowledge.—

II. Reconciliation possible only by correcting error and attaining know-

ledge of truth. 1. How to meet the exclusive claim of natural science.
2. The alleged error of method. 3. How to treat conflict arising from
ignorance or error.-III. The alleged historical antagonism exagger-
ated. 1. The great natural scientists have been believers. 2. Theo-
logical antagonism to scientific discovery comparatively rare. The real
influence of Christianity on civilization. 3. Discoveries more opposed
by scientists than by theologians.-IV. Correction of theological opinion
to meet discoveries in science.-V. Principle as to the competence of

non-scientists to reason on scientific discoveries.-VI. Legitimate to

oppose atheism and agnosticism promulgated under the guise of science.

1. Because the promulgator transcends empirical science. 2. Danger of

a scientific hierarchy. 3. Legitimate moral interest in opposing atheism.

4. Is not opposition to science but to atheism.-VII. No extraordinary

reason for alarm now. 1. Overlooking God's action in it. 2. Skepticism

not more prevalent now than in former epochs of skepticism. 3. Epochs

of skepticism incidental to the progress of Christianity. 4. Christian

progress destroys no truth. 5. Common representation of existing decay

of faith exaggerated. .
319-344