none, did not some eminent investigators in the field of natural science claim to have covered the entire realm of legitimate inquiry, and deny the right to raise further questions or entertain beliefs, however strongly they may be prompted by our very constitution, concerning the origin and end of things, the meaning of the world, and man's place in it. To the well-rounded nature, faith is not necessarily limited to the physical world, and the credulity implied in unwarranted denial is at least as unscientific as positive faith.
Human nature rebels against conclusions wholly discordant with its best instincts, and, in the light of the most recent data and speculation, begins anew a discussion as old as philosophy. The subject is all the more important, because the uneducated mind, misled by superficial catch phrases of materialism, fails to know the reverent spirit of true science.
Here is an illustration relating to the general theme. A prominent biologist puts this statement before the reading public: "There is no ego except that which arises from the coördination of the nerve cells." I might take the contrary of the proposition and reply: "There is an ego not adequately described by your 'colonial consciousness' theory." Regarding each position as dogmatic, perhaps mine is as good as the biologist's. As to evidence, he founds his belief on the general fact of evolution and specifically upon the functions, partly known, partly conjectured, of nerve cells in the brain. He has no knowledge that a unit-being called the ego does not exist. His is the faith of denial of something which from his standpoint he can neither
