Chapter 4 Chapter Three Initial Efforts

I started thinking about philosophical problems when I was fifteen.From then on, until I went to Cambridge three years later, my thinking was solitary and not at all professional.Because I have never read philosophy books.I did not read Mill's Logic until a few months before going to Trinity College.Most of my time is occupied by mathematics.And mostly mathematics dominated my attempts at philosophical thinking.But what drives me emotionally is mainly to doubt the basic dogmas of religion.I noticed my doubts about theology not only because I had taken comfort in religion before, but also because I felt that if I exposed them, it would pain others and make me laugh.

Therefore, it is very lonely and lonely.About my sixteenth birthday, I wrote down my beliefs and unbeliefs, spelling them in Greek letters, so that no one would know them.Below are some excerpts from these reflections. March 3, 1888.I shall write on some subjects which interest me now, especially on religious subjects.As a result of a number of different circumstances, I have examined the foundations of the religion I have been taught since childhood.On several points my conclusions confirm my former beliefs.At other points I was irresistibly drawn to conclusions which would shock not only the family but also pain me.There is nothing of which I am sure.

But my opinion (even non-belief) on some things is almost certain.I didn't have the guts to tell my family that I don't really believe in immortality... Nineteenth.I am going to write down my reasons for believing in God today.First I can say that I believe in God, and, if I had to add a name to my belief, I should call myself a theist.To justify belief in God, then, I will consider only scientific arguments.This is a vow I made.It was a struggle for me to keep this vow, to be rid of all feelings.To find scientific grounds for believing in God, we must go back to the beginning of all things.We know that if the present laws of nature have always been in effect, the amount of matter and force in the present universe must have existed forever.But the nebula postulate states that, not so long ago, the whole universe was filled with undifferentiated nebula matter.Therefore, it is very possible that the existing objects and forces may be created again.That obviously could only be due to the power of God.But even if it is admitted that things and forces have always existed, where does the reason for controlling the forces exerted on things come from?I think it can only be attributed to a kind of divine control, which I call God.

March 22nd.In the last exercise, I used the consistency of nature and the conservation of some laws in the operation of various aspects of nature to prove the existence of God.Now let's see if this reasoning is reasonable or not.We assume that the universe we see now, as some have assumed, arose entirely by chance.Do we then expect each atom to behave exactly like another atom under all circumstances?I think that if atoms are inanimate, there is no reason to expect them to have any activity without a controlling force.If, on the other hand, it has free will, we are compelled to conclude that all the atoms in the universe are united in a solid body, and have made laws which not one of them has violated.

This is obviously an absurd assumption, so we have to believe in God.But to prove his existence in this way, at the same time, it also denies miracles and other manifestations of divine power that everyone believes in.However, this does not disprove its possibility.For, of course, legislators can repeal laws too.We can also disbelieve in miracles in another way.For, if God is the lawgiver, if the law must sometimes be changed, this of course means that the law is not perfect.Such imperfections we can never ascribe to divinity, as God in the Bible repents of his works. April 2nd.Now let me talk about a topic.This was the subject, perhaps more than any other, which interested these poor mortals dearly.I mean the question of not dying.This is the question that frustrates me the most, and it pains me to think about it.There are two ways to look at this issue: The first is to use the theory of evolution and compare humans with animals.The second is to compare man with God.The first is more scientific because we know everything about animals.But about God, we know nothing.I think, then, that if free will is considered first, there is no clear line between man and protozoa.Therefore, if we give free will to humans, we must also give free will to protozoa.This is very difficult to do.Therefore, unless we are willing to give free will to protozoa, we cannot give free will to humans.It's possible though, but it's hard to imagine, if I think it's likely that the protoplasm just came together in an ordinary process without any special providence from God.Then we and all living things move only by chemical forces, and are no more amazing than a tree, and no one would say that a tree has free will.Nay, even if we knew perfectly well the forces acting upon any man at any time, the motives which move or restrain him, the constitution of his mind at any time, we could know exactly what he was about to do.Also, from a religious point of view, it is arrogant to say that we have free will.For, of course, that would be breaking the law of God.For his general law fixes all our actions like stars.I think we must leave to God the first laws, which are never to be transgressed, and determine the conduct of every man.Since then there is no free will, we cannot have immortality.

Monday, April 9th... I wish I could believe in immortality, because it makes me sad to think about it: man is just a machine, and this machine is unfortunately endowed with consciousness for him. But no other doctrine is consistent with the omnipotence of God.I think science has given sufficient proof of God's omnipotence.So I can't be either an atheist or someone who doesn't believe in immortality, one or the other.Finding the former impossible, I accept the second and keep it from anyone.I think, however disappointing this view of man may be, that God created laws in the beginning of time on nothing but a nebula of matter (perhaps just the ether that pervades this part of the universe) It does give us a sense of God's greatness and admiration to think that it works to produce animals like us, not only conscious of our existence, but even, to some extent, able to measure the secrets of God!To all this he did not intervene!Now let us consider the absurdity of the doctrine that the will is not free.If we talk about it to anyone, they kick their legs, or something like that.However, they may be tempted to do so because they have a point to prove.So that gives them an incentive to do so.In this way, whatever we do, we have a motive.It is these motives that define us.Also, there is no dividing line between Shakespeare or Herbert Spencer and a Papuan.But the difference between them and a Papuan is as great as the difference between a Papuan and a monkey.

April fourteenth.But the theory that man cannot be immortal, that he has no free will, that he has no soul, that he is, in short, only a clever machine with consciousness, presents great difficulties.For consciousness in itself is a quality that distinguishes man from dead matter.If man has one thing that makes him different from dead matter, why can't he have another, free will?Free will means that people (for example) do not obey the first law of motion, or at least the direction in which the energy contained in them is not completely dependent on the external environment.Not only that, it seems impossible to imagine that man, who has reason, knowledge of the universe, sense of right and wrong, emotions, love and hatred, and religion, is just a chemical compound that can be destroyed. His character and his good or bad influence depend only and entirely on the particular movements of the molecules in his brain.And all great men are great because one molecule collides with one other more than another!Doesn't that seem totally unbelievable?Whoever believes such nonsense must not be a madman?But what is the alternative path?That is to admit the theory of evolution that has actually been proven.The ape-man gradually increased his knowledge, but God suddenly performed a miracle and gave him astonishing reason.How we come to reason is a mystery.Is man, then, who may indeed be called the glorious work of God, after so many ages of his evolution, destined to be utterly destroyed?We can't say.But I would rather take this statement than take the other, that is, God needs a miracle to give birth to man, and now let man be free to act and do whatever he wants.

April eighteenth.Let us admit, then, that the doctrine of man's inability to die and his lack of free will has never been more than a doctrine.Because, all that kind of stuff is, of course, just speculation.Our "yes" and "no" What else can I think? Many people say that if you mention absurd doctrines such as "predestination" (this is similar to the one mentioned above, although people don't think so), then "conscience" and so on (people say that God directly instilled in people) what about?What I mean is that our conscience is firstly due to evolution (evolution has to develop the instinct for self-preservation of course) and secondly due to culture and education.This greatly improves the idea of ​​self-preservation.

Let us take the Ten Commandments as an example to illustrate primitive morality.Most of the Ten Commandments are helpful in making communal life stable.This is good for preserving the race.Therefore, everyone believes that the greatest crime and the most regrettable is murder.This crime is simply the destruction of the race.Also, we know that the Hebrews believed that having many children was a sign of God's grace, while those without children were considered to be rejected by God.Widows were hated among the Romans.And, I believe, Rome forbade widows not to marry for more than a year.So, what's up with these particular thoughts?Is it not only because these objects of pity or hatred no longer produce man?We can well understand why these ideas grow when men become well-reasoned.Because if homicide and suicide become popular in a tribe, that tribe will perish.Thus, tribes that fear these actions stand to great advantage.Of course, in a more educated society these ideas change.As for my thoughts, I plan to explain them next time.

April 20th.So I think primitive morality always stems from the idea of ​​preserving race.But is this a rule that a civilized society should abide by?I don't think so, the rule of life that guides my conduct (and to deviate from it I consider a crime) is to take the action that I believe is most likely to produce the greatest happiness, either in terms of its intensity or the number of people who receive it For the sake of.I know my grandmother thought that was an unrealistic rule of life and said, since, you can't know what will produce the greatest happiness, you might as well follow your inner calling.It is not difficult to see, however, that conscience depends largely on education, (for example, the average Irishman does not think it is wrong to tell a lie.) This fact alone seems to me to disprove the sanctity of conscience.As far as I can see, since conscience is nothing more than the combination of evolution and education, it is obviously absurd to follow conscience instead of reason.And, my reason tells me, it is better to act in order to produce the greatest happiness than to act otherwise.For I have tried to see any other object to put before my eyes, but I cannot see it.This is not for my personal happiness, but for everyone's happiness, whether it be my own, relatives, friends or complete strangers.In real life, if other people disagree with me, it doesn't matter much to me.Because, obviously, if there is a chance of being discovered, it is better to do what the family members think is right.The reasons for my opinion are, first of all, having been compelled to give up the old way of asking one's own conscience (as anyone who has seriously thought about evolution has to do), I can't find any other goal.Secondly, I feel that happiness is a great thing to seek, and indeed it is what all honest people seek.Applying this doctrine to practical life, I would say this: If there is a thing that concerns me only (if there is such a thing), I should of course act for my own sake and to please myself.To take another example, suppose I have an opportunity to save a man, whom I know to be a bad man, who had better be out of this world, and it is obvious that I should, for my own happiness, jump into the water to save him.Because, if I die, this is the most refreshing way.If I save him, I get the pleasure of being praised.But if I let him drown, I will lose a chance to die, and I will suffer from being blamed.But his death will be good for the world, and my life may also be good for the world.

April 29th.I have made a vow that no matter what I do, I will follow my reason and not my instinct.The instinct was partly inherited from my ancestors, gradually strengthened by selection, and partly my education. In matters of right and wrong, it is absurd to follow instinct.For, as I said before, the part which comes from heredity can only be for the preservation of the race, or the part of the race to which I belong.The part that comes from education is good or bad because of an individual's education.But this inner voice, this God-given conscience, which made bloody Marys burn Protestants alive, is what we reasonable people ought to heed, and I think the idea is madness.I will try to follow reason.What I think is ideal is that which ultimately produces the greatest happiness.Then I can apply my intellect and find the path that best leads to that result. But personally, because of my good education, I can more or less follow my conscience.But it is strange that there is a great reluctance to give up animal impulses in favor of reason... May 3rd... There is another strong argument which I have not put in place, namely, that earthly souls are good It seems that it is connected with the body and cannot be separated. It grows with the body, decays with it, sleeps with it, affects the brain, and is affected by abnormal conditions in the brain.Wordsworth's is a lie.Because how the soul and body grow is obvious, not perfect from the beginning, as he said. June 3rd.The extraordinary thing is that there is no single principle or dogma that has convinced me.I found that beliefs that I had never doubted before slipped away one by one and slipped into doubtful places.For example, I never before doubted that access to truth is a good thing.But I'm very skeptical and hesitant right now.For seeking the truth has led me to the results written in this book, and I should have been comfortable if I had been content to accept the teachings of my childhood.Seeking the truth has shattered most of my previous beliefs, making it possible for me to commit a crime that I would not have committed otherwise.I do not think that seeking the truth has made me in any way happier than it had been; certainly it has deepened my character, and made me dismissive of trifles or ridicule.But at the same time, it also loses the joyful mood, and it is even more difficult to make close friends.Worst of all, it hindered my rapport with my family.This keeps them completely ignorant of some of my innermost thoughts.If these thoughts leaked out accidentally, I would immediately become a laughing stock.This made me feel unspeakable pain, although they were not originally malicious.So as far as I am concerned, I have to say that the result of seeking the truth is more harm than good.But the so-called truth I accept may not be the truth, and it may be said to me that if I get the real truth, it will make me happier, but this is a very doubtful statement.So I'm skeptical about the sheer benefits of truth.There is no doubt that the truth in biology lowers our view of man. This must be painful.More than this, the truth alienates old friends and prevents new ones from being made. This is also a bad thing.Maybe we should think of these things as martyrdom.For the truth which one man acquires may increase the happiness of many others, if not himself.On the whole, I am inclined to seek the truth, though the kind of truth in this book (if it is the truth at all) I have no intention of spreading, but I try to prevent it from being spread. My mood at this time is in a state of confusion.This state of affairs arises from the desire to synthesize viewpoints, modes of feeling belonging to three different centuries.As the excerpts above indicate, my thoughts generally proceeded along almost Cartesian lines.At that time, I was familiar with the name Descartes, but I only knew that he was the inventor of Cartesian coordinates, and I didn't know that he had already written philosophy.I deny free will because free will is detrimental to the omnipotence of God.This might lead me to a philosophy like Spinoza's.The reasons which lead me to take this seventeenth-century view are the same as those which led to it originally: namely, familiarity with the laws of mechanics and my belief that they explain all motion of matter.After a while, however, I stopped believing in God and took a position much like that of the French philosophers of the eighteenth century.I agree with them in my fervent belief in rationalism; I like Laplace's computer; I hate what I consider superstition; I am convinced that the combination of reason and machinery can make man perfect. I'm enthusiastic about all of this, but not emotionally.At the same time, however, I have a strong emotional attitude for which I cannot find intellectual support.I regret the loss of my religion; I am a fanatical lover of natural beauty; I read with sympathy (albeit intellectual rejection) the emotional defenses of religion by Wordsworth, Carlyle, and Tennyson.Before reading Mill's Logic, I never came across any book other than Burkel's which seemed to me intellectually justifiable.But even so, I was moved by eloquence that I could not accept.Carlyle's "Never" and "Always Be" I think are great, even if I think, after all, they're all gibberish.Of the writers I knew at that time, only Shelley was completely to my taste.He is to my taste not only in his strengths, but also in his weaknesses.I was comforted by both his self-pity and his atheism.I simply cannot combine the knowledge of the seventeenth century, the faith of the eighteenth century, and the zeal of the nineteenth century into a harmonious whole. Not only do I have doubts about theology, I also have doubts about mathematics.Some of Euclid's proofs, especially those using the superposition method, I think are very difficult to stand up.One of my tutors mentioned non-Euclidean geometry to me. I know nothing about it except that it exists.Until many years later, when I learned that there was such a subject, although I was very excited and intellectually happy, it caused a lot of doubts in geometry, which made people uneasy. Those who taught me calculus have no idea what a valid proof of its fundamental theorem is.They tried to persuade me to accept the accepted sophisms as beliefs.I know that calculus is useful in practice, but I don't understand why. But I took such pleasure in learning this technique that I often forgot my doubts.Then, in a way, there was a book that quieted my doubts.This book delighted me, namely, W. K．Clifford's Common Sense for the Exact Sciences. Although full of the anguish of youth, I have been working hard these years because of my desire for knowledge and my desire to achieve academically.At that time, I thought that it should be possible to clarify the confused things, and I thought that in a world where machines work for people and the distribution is fair, everyone will be happy.I hoped then that sooner or later there would be a mathematics that leaves no room for doubt, perfected, and which would gradually extend the field of certainty from mathematics to the other sciences.During these three years, my interest in theology has diminished.I am truly relieved to have thrown away the last remnants of orthodox theology.