Page 35 (part 5)

The poverty of the argument and logic in this case, is surpassed only by that of Laplace, who, seeking very correctly to substitute motion for Newton's "all-powerful Being," and ignorant of the true nature of that eternal motion, saw in it a blind physical law. "Might not those arrangements be an effect of the laws of motion?" he asks, forgetting, as all our modern Scientists do, that this law and this motion are a vicious circle, so long as the nature of both remains unexplained. His famous answer to Napoleon: " Dieu est devenu une hypothese inutile ," would be correctly stated only by one who adhered to the philosophy of the Vedantins. It becomes a pure fallacy, if we exclude the interference of operating, intelligent, powerful (never " all-powerful ") Beings, who are called "gods." But we would ask the critics of the mediaeval astronomers why should Kepler be denounced as most unscientific , for offering just the same solution as Newton did -- only showing himself more sincere, more consistent and even more logical. Where may be the difference between Newton's "all-powerful Being" and Kepler's Rectores , his sidereal and Cosmic Forces, or Angels? Kepler is again criticised for his "curious hypothesis which made use of a vortical movement within the solar system;" for his theories in general, for his favouring Empedocles' idea of attraction and repulsion, and "Solar magnetism" in particular. Yet several modern men of Science, as will be shown -- Hunt (if Metcalfe is to be excluded), Dr. Richardson, etc. -- favour the idea very seriously. He is half excused, however, on the plea that "to the time of Kepler no interaction between masses of matter had been distinctly recognized which was generically different from magnetism" ( World-Life ) . Is it distinctly recognised now? Does Prof. Winchell claim for Science any serious knowledge whatever of the natures of either electricity or magnetism -- except that both seem to be the effects of some result arising from an undetermined cause. The ideas of Kepler, weeded from their theological tendencies, are purely occult. He saw that: [[Vol. 1, Page]] 499 CHRONIC NEGATION. (I.) The Sun is a great Magnet.* This is what some eminent modern scientists and also the Occultists believe in. (II.) The Solar substance is immaterial.** ( See " Isis Unveiled ," Vol. I. pp. 270 to 271.) (III.) He provided, for the constant motion and restoration of the Sun's energy and planetary motion, the perpetual care of a spirit, or spirits. The whole of Antiquity believed in this idea. The Occultists do not use the word Spirit, but say Creative Forces, which they endow with intelligence. But we may call them spirits also. This theory is tabooed a great deal more on account of the "Spirit" that is given room in it, than of anything else. Herschell, the elder, believed in it likewise, and so do several modern scientists also. Nevertheless Professor Winchell declares that "a hypothesis more fanciful, and less in accord with the requirements of physical principles, has not been offered in ancient or modern times." ( World-Life , p. 554.) The same was said, once upon a time, of the universal Ether, and now it is not only accepted perforce but advocated as the only possible theory to explain away certain mysteries. Grove's ideas, when he first enunciated them in London about 1840, were called as unscientific as the above; nevertheless, his views on the correlation of forces are now universally accepted. It would, very likely, require one more conversant with science than is the writer, to combat with any success some of the now prevailing ideas about gravitation and other similar "solutions" of Cosmic Mysteries. But, let us recall a few objections that came from recognized men of Science; from astronomers and physicists of eminence, who rejected the theory of rotation, as well as that of gravitation. Thus one reads in the French Encyclopaedia that "Science agrees, in the face of all its representatives, that it is impossible to explain the physical origin of the rotatory motion of the solar system." If the question is asked, "what causes rotation?" we are answered: "It is the centrifugal Force." "And this force, what is it that produces it?" "The force of rotation," is the grave answer. ( Godefroy , Cosmogonie de la Revelation.*** ) It will be well, perhaps, to examine both these theories as being directly or indirectly connected. [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * But see Astronomie du Moyen Age , by Delambre. ** In the sense, of course, of matter existing in states unknown to Science. *** We shall be taken to task for contradiction. It will be said that while we deny God , we admit Souls and operative Spirits , and quote from Roman Catholic bigoted writers in support of our argument. To this we reply: "We deny the anthropomorphic god of the Monotheists, but never the Divine Principle in nature. We combat Protestants and Roman Catholics on a number of dogmatic theological beliefs of human and sectarian origin. We agree with them in their belief in Spirits and intelligent operative powers, though we do not worship "Angels" as the Roman Latinists do."