Page 49 (part 1)

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 1 [[Vol. 1, Page]] 668 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. [[This page continued from previous section ]] XVIII. SUMMARY OF THE MUTUAL POSITION. T HE reader has had the whole case presented to him from both sides, and it remains with him to decide whether its summary stands in our favour or not. If there were such a thing as void, a vacuum in Nature, one would find it produced, according to a physical law, in the minds of helpless admirers of the "lights" of science, who pass their time in mutually destroying their teachings. If ever the theory that "two lights make darkness" found its application it is in this case, when one half of the "lights" imposes its Forces and "modes of motion" on the belief of the faithful, and the other half opposes the very existence of the same. "Ether, Matter, Energy" -- the sacred hypostatical trinity, the three principles of the truly unknown God of Science, called by them P HYSICAL N ATURE! Theology is taken to task and ridiculed for believing in the union of three persons in one Godhead -- one God as to substance, three persons as to individuality; and we are laughed at for our belief in unproved and unprovable doctrines, in Angels and Devils, Gods and Spirits. And, [[Vol. 1, Page]] 669 THE EXACT SCIENCES OF -- NEGATION. indeed, that which made the Scientists win the day over Theology in the Great "Conflict between Religion and Science," was precisely the argument that neither the identity of that substance, nor the triple individuality claimed, after having been conceived, invented, and worked out in the depths of Theological Consciousness, could be proved by any Scientific inductive process of reasoning, least of all on the evidence of our senses. Religion must perish, it is said, because it teaches mysteries. Mystery is the negation of Common Sense , and Science repels it. According to Mr. Tyndall, metaphysics is fiction , like poetry. The man of Science takes nothing on trust; rejects everything that is not proven to him , while the Theologian accepts everything on blind faith. The Theosophist and the Occultist, who take nothing on trust, not even exact Science, the Spiritualist who denies dogma but believes in Spirits and in invisible but potential influences , all share in the same contempt. Very well, then; what we have to do now, is to examine for the last time whether exact Science does not act precisely in the same way as Theosophy, Spiritualism, and Theology do. In a work by Mr. S. Laing, considered a standard book on Science, "Modern Science and Modern Thought," the author of which, according to the laudatory review of the Times , "exhibits with much power and effect the immense discoveries of Science, and its numerous victories over old opinions, whenever THEY HAVE THE RASHNESS TO CHALLENGE CONCLUSIONS WITH IT," one reads in chapter III. , "On Matter," as follows: " W HAT IS THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE COMPOSED OF? ETHER , MATTER , ENERGY" . . . . . is the answer. We stop to ask, "What is Ether?" And Mr. Laing answers in the name of Science: -- " Ether is not actually known to us BY ANY TEST OF WHICH THE SENSES CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE, but is a sort of mathematical substance which WE ARE COMPELLED TO ASSUME in order to account for the phenomena of light and heat. " And [[sic]] what is matter? Do you know more about it than you do about the "hypothetical" agent, Ether? " In perfect strictness , it is true that chemical investigations can tell us . . . . NOTHING DIRECTLY of the composition of living matter , and . . . . it is also in strictness true , THAT WE KNOW NOTHING about the composition of ANY ( material ) BODY WHATEVER AS IT IS." ( Lecture on Protoplasm by Mr. Huxley. ) And Energy? Surely you can define the third person of the Trinity of your Material universe? " T HE E NERGY IS THAT WHICH IS ONLY KNOWN TO US BY ITS EFFECTS . " ( Books on Physics. ) Pray explain, for this is rather hazy. " I N MECHANICS THERE IS ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL ENERGY: WORK [[Vol. 1, Page]] 670 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. ACTUALLY PERFORMED, AND THE CAPACITY FOR PERFORMING IT. A S TO THE NATURE OF MOLECULAR E NERGY OR F ORCES, THE VARIOUS PHENOMENA WHICH BODIES PRESENT SHOW THAT THEIR MOLECULES ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF TWO CONTRARY FORCES -- ONE WHICH TENDS TO BRING THEM TOGETHER, THE OTHER TO SEPARATE THEM. . . . . T HE FIRST IS MOLECULAR ATTRACTION, THE SECOND FORCE IS DUE TO vis viva , OR MOVING FORCE." . . . . ( Ganot's Physics .) Just so: it is the nature of this moving force , the vis viva that we want to know. What is it? . . . . . " WE DO NOT KNOW !" IS THE INVARIABLE ANSWER. " I T IS AN EMPTY SHADOW OF MY IMAGINATION," explains Mr. Huxley in his Physical Basis of Life. Thus the whole structure of Modern Science is built on a kind of "mathematical abstraction," on a Protean "Substance which eludes the senses," (Dubois Reymond,) and on effects , the shadowy and illusive will-o'-the-wisps of a something entirely unknown to and beyond the reach of Science, " Self - moving " atoms! Self - moving Suns, planets, and stars! But who, then, or what are they all, if they are self-endowed with motion? Why then should you, physicists, laugh and deride our "Self-moving ARCHAEUS"? Mystery is rejected and scorned by Science, and " MYSTERY is the fatality of Science ," as Father Felix has truly said. . . . . Science cannot escape it!" The language of the French preacher is ours , and we quote it in " Isis Unveiled " ( Vide Vol. I. 338-9). Who -- he asks -- who of you, men of Science: ". . . . has been able to penetrate the secret of the formation of a body, the generation of a single atom? What is there, I will not say at the centre of a sun, but at the centre of an atom? Who has sounded to the bottom the abyss in a grain of sand?