"Again, how can the relative be conceived as coming into being? Ifit is a distinct reality from the absolute, it must be conceived as passingfrom non-existence into existence. But to conceive an object as non-existent,is again a self-contradiction; for that which is conceived exists, as anobject of thought, in and by that conception. We may abstain from thinkingof an object at all; but, if we think of it, we cannot but think of it asexisting. It is possible at one time not to think of an object at all, andat another to think of it as already in being; but to think of it in theact of becoming, in the progress from not being into being, is to think thatwhich, in the very thought, annihilates itself. * * *"To sum up briefly this portion of my argument. The conception ofthe Absolute and Infinite, from whatever side we view it, appears encompassedwith contradictions. There is a contradiction in supposing such an objectto exist, whether alone or in conjunction with others; and there is a contradictionin supposing it not to exist. There is a contradiction in conceiving it asone; and there is a contradiction in conceiving it as many. There is a contradictionin conceiving it as personal; and there is a contradiction in conceivingit as impersonal. It cannot, without contradiction, be represented as active;nor, without equal contradiction, be represented as inactive. It cannot beconceived as the sum of all existence; nor yet can it be conceived as a partonly of that sum." §14. And now what is the bearing of these results on the questionbefore us? Our examination of Ultimate Religious Ideas has been carried onwith the view of making manifest some fundamental verity contained in them.

Thus far, however, we have arrived at negative conclusions only. Passingover the consideration of credibility, and confining ourselves to that ofconceivability we have seen that Atheism, Pantheism, and Theism, when rigorouslyanalyzed, severally prove to be wholly unthinkable. Instead of disclosinga fundamental verity existing in each, our inquiry seems rather to have shownthat there is no fundamental verity contained in any. To carry away thisconclusion, however, would be a fatal error, as we shall shortly see.

Leaving out the accompanying code of conduct, which is a supplementarygrowth, a religious creed is definable as a theory of original causation.

By the lowest savages the genesis of things is not inquired about: only strangeappearances and actions raise the question of agency. But be it in the primitiveGhost-theory, which assumes a human personality behind each unusual phenomenon;be it in Polytheism, in which such personalities are partially generalized;be it in Monotheism, in which they are wholly generalized; or be it in Pantheism,in which the generalized personality becomes one with the phenomena; we equallyfind an hypothesis which is supposed to render the Universe comprehensible.