objective, and, one may say, empirical rather than a priori. Plato's greatest contribution to social science was the passage in which he shows, with admirable clearness and in profuse detail, how the whole organization of the state is based on the division of labor. In formulating this principle he was not satisfied, like Adam Smith, with the mere conception of a plan for regulating the trades; he sought to enunciate a universal law of social development. Here, likewise, his reasoning was firmly grounded on knowledge of actual conditions, and he had the discernment to examine, both separately and in their relations, three factors which are of primary significance in economics, production, exchange, and distribution of wealth. The concern with which Plato studied the vital question of property may be inferred from his picture of the degenerating state in the eighth and ninth books of the Republic. Money is the root of most of the evil there exhibited.
Belief in the existence of God is the last stronghold of intolerance. Dogmatists still declare, as they always have done, that atheistical doctrines are unspeakably dangerous to society. But in practice society does not appear to have any fear of atheism. One reason is that the word atheism conveys no precise meaning. It is necessarily just as shifting and vague as the term to which by derivation it stands opposed. A critical study of theism reveals the extent of this indefiniteness. At least three conceptions of God may be distinguished. There is the God of popular religion, the God of pure metaphysics, the God of mysticism. Not only do these conceptions differ in themselves, but their functions in human life are different. Who, then, may fairly be called an atheist? Can the name be applied to anyone who will not sub- scribe to this, that, or the other idea of God? Socrates was an atheist in the opinion of his contemporaries, and so were Xenophanes and Parmenides before him, although their religious views were much more like those of modern times than were pagan religious views in general. Similarly Descartes was regarded by Pascal as almost an atheist, and Spinoza by Malebranche. The list could be extended indefinitely; and all because people have not understood that before they make the charge of atheism they ought to define the God whom they accuse the atheist of denying. It is often said that in dealing with the idea of God the critical method is illegitimate, the argument being that between theism and atheism there is no middle ground: who is not for God is against him. If the question were a practical one of pressing importance, there might be some basis for this objection. Yet even so the critical attitude would still be justified. Practical considerations are not all on the side of theism. It is still to be proved, for example, that the idea of God is an indispensable safeguard of society. Granted that some strong bond is needed to hold society together, it does not follow that the traditional religious sanction is the only instrument which will serve the purpose. In the absence of a common
