Acerca deste livro
A minha biblioteca
Livros no Google Play
Criticism of Kant's mode of using the Cosmological argument.
Abortive character of the causal argument
161
Theistic philosophy and the idealism of Professor Royce, of
Matter, cause, and effect in recent philosophy of theism
165
CONTENTS.
How the philosophy of theism must here proceed
Criticism of Professor Flint's dealing with order and design Relation of Teleological to Cosmological Argument
Difficulty of dismissing design
Loose scientific thinking here
Considerations as to the purport of this argument
Former faults of the teleological presentation
Criticism of Kant's mode of dealing with this proof
Kant's Critique of Judgment'
173
174
Considerations as to relation of form and essence or substance
176
Relation of Teleology to Eutaxiology
177
Criticism of Kant's errors and confusions as to finality.
Criticism of Professor Flint's treatment of analogy of nature
and art
178
The true tendency of the argument as expressed by Pro-
180
181
182
Breadth of the teleological vision
Narrowness of earlier modes of view
Possibilities of questioning remain
Criticism of Principal Caird's view
Moral aims of the Will in nature and in man
The strange anomalies of Nature
185
Arraignment of the order of nature by Mill, Hartmann, and
others.
The darkest facts must be faced.
Discriminations and considerations in the problem of suffering
Teleological traces not lost in residual shadow or mystery
The whole ground-plan of creation not ours
Relative character of the present
Importance of spiritual evolution as against pleasure or
186
187
happiness
Criticism of Rev. J. Morris on the actuality of the universe
Ideality in our view of the universe
Bearings of the Darwinian speculations on creation as a pres-
ent process
188
The origination of variations
Large synthetic movement of thought and final causes
Criticism of Professor Royce on design
A true interpretation of the law of survival of the fittest
Darwin's modified notions of scope and power of natural selection
xxix
Development and design.
Criticism of scientific exclusive preference for efficient causes
How the teleological plea for intelligence is to be maintained.
Blind forces associated with intelligence
Theory of "blind immanence" insufficient
Criticism of the philosophy of the unconscious
Criticism of Paulsen's treatment of the theistic view
196
197
.
198
Teleological reference of universe taken as a whole
Criticism of Agnosticism in relation to final cause
201
Dr George Matheson on the designing principle in man
Criticism of Büchner's views
203
204
The central power postulated by Trendelenburg
205
Order in, and Power behind, the protoplasmic evolutionary
process
Psychological aspects as real as any facts of the physical and
What we claim for theistic thought on purposeful activity of
the Designing Intelligence
207
Final cause and beauty, order, and harmony of nature
Weisse on the danger of the argument from order
Constructive working of the forces of science
No scientific advances can sweep away teleological view
Postulation of Supreme Intelligence demanded by well-ordered
208
The universe as unfinished
The teleological argument and implications of Personality
Criticism of Professor Romanes on the evidences of design
Permanent guiding influences presupposed
Limitations of the argument and its implicates.
Difficulties remaining in the presentation of this proof.
Mere intelligence insufficient, but intelligence need not be by
Agreement with Rev. J. Morris on nature as process
Nature processes to be more deeply studied
Dr F. E. Abbot on the bearings of teleology on personality
Ripest results of the teleological argument still to appear
Argument points to Immortality for man
209
210
211
212
219
Failure yet fascination of the argument.
Criticism of the Anselmic mode of presentation.
Criticism of Kant's treatment of the Anselmic position.
Criticism of argumentation of Descartes.
Various forms of its presentation.
Virtues and defects of Kant's criticism of the ontological proof.
Why Kant's criticism could not be final or conclusive.
Kant's strange shortcoming in respect of a posteriori side of
the argument.