Chapter 8:Cosmic Purpose , n.3 The Bishop rejects pantheism, as we saw, because, if the world is God, the evil in the world is in God ; and also because “we must hold that God is not, like his Universe, in the making.” He candidly admits the evil in the world, adding : “We are puzzled that there should be so much evil, and this bewilderment is the chief argument against Christian theism.” With admirable honesty, he makes no attempt to show that our bewilderment is irrational. Dr. Barnes’s exposition raises problems of two kinds – those concerned with Cosmic Purpose in general, and those specially concerned with its theistic form. The former I will leave to a later stage, but on the latter a few words must be said now. 出典：Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: Cosmic Purpose 情報源：https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-030.HTM
これら３つの形態の全てが、既に言及したＢＢＣ（英国放送協会）の談話（talks 形式張らない講演）を収録した本のなかに表われている。バーミンガムの主教（Bishop）は有神論的形態を、ホールデン教授は汎神論的形態を、アレキサンダー教授は「発現的」形態を ーただし，ベルグソンとロイド・モルガン教授はもしかするとこの３番の形態の最も典型的な代表者かも知れない－ を主張している。これらの学説はそれらの主張者自身の言葉で述べられていることにより，おそらく，より明らかになるであろう。バーミンガムの主教は、「宇宙には人間の理性（rational mind）に類似した合理性があり」また「このこと（それ）が、宇宙の（進化の）過程は心(心的なもの)によって方向付けされているのではないだろうか（←方向付けされていないことを疑う）という疑問を抱かせる」と主張している。この（バーミンガムの主教の）疑いは長く続かない。（彼によれば）我々はすぐに以下のように学ぶのである。（即ち） 「この（宇宙の）巨大なパノラマの中に、文明人の創造において頂点に達した進歩が明らかに存在してきた。そのような進歩は盲目的な力から出てきたものであろうか？ この疑問に『そうだ』と答えることは空想的であると私（バーミンガムの司教）には思われる。・・・事実、今日科学的な方法によって勝ち取られた知識から自然に得られる結論は、この宇宙は思考 －意志によって明確な目的に向って導かれた思考－ の振動の支配下にある（注：subject to the sway of thought 物質は現象にすぎず，宇宙の本質は心的なものである，という考え方）。人間の創造は、こうして（従って），電子や陽子の特性，あるいは，そういう表現がお好みなら，時空における非連続性の，まったく解釈不能で全てありそうもない結果ではなかった（のである）。（即ち）それは何らかの宇宙の目的の結果であった。そうして、その（宇宙の）目的がめざして向かっている終局（ends 最後の目的地）は、人間の際立った性質と能力との中に発見されなければならない。事実、人間の道徳的及び霊的能力は、その頂点において、人間の存在の源泉であるところの宇宙の目的の本質を示している（のである）。」
Chapter 8:Cosmic Purpose , n.2 All these three forms are represented in the volume of B.B.C. talks already mentioned. The Bishop of Birmingham advocates the theistic form. Professor J. S. Haldane the pantheistic form, and Professor Alexander the “emergent” form – though Bergson and Professor Lloyd Morgan are perhaps more typical representatives of this last. The doctrines will perhaps become clearer by being stated in the words of those who hold them. The Bishop of Birmingham maintains that “there is a rationality in the universe akin to the rational mind of man,” and that “this makes us doubt whether the cosmic process is not directed by a mind.” The doubt does not last long. We learn immediately that “there has obviously, in this vast panorama, been a progress which has culminated in the creation of civilized man. Is that progress the outcome of blind forces? It seems to me fantastic to say ‘yes’ in answer to this question. … In fact, the natural conclusion to draw from the modern knowledge won by scientific method is that the Universe is subject to the sway of thought – of thought directed by will towards definite ends. Man’s creation was thus not a quite incomprehensible and wholly improbable consequence of the properties of electrons and protons, or, if you prefer so to say, of discontinuities in space-time : it was the result of some Cosmic Purpose. And the ends towards which that Purpose acted must be found in man’s distinctive qualities and powers. In fact, man’s moral and spiritual capacities, at their highest, show the nature of the Cosmic Purpose which is the source of his being.” 出典：Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: Cosmic Purpose 情報源：https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-020.HTM
この説には －有神論的，汎神論的，及び「発現的（emergent）」と呼んでよいだろうものの－ 三つの形態がある。 第１の形態は，最も単純かつ最も正統的なものであり，神はいずれある種の善が展開することを予見したので宇宙を創造し，自然の法則を定めたのだと考える（holds that ～と考える）。この見解においては，目的は創造主の心の中に意識的に存在しており，そうして神は神の創造物（His creation）の外側に残っている。 汎神論的形態においては，神は宇宙の外側に存在するのではなく，神とは一つの全体として考えられた宇宙にすぎない。従って，創造行為はありえず，宇宙の中に一種の創造的力が存在し，その力が宇宙をこの創造力が発展の全過程を通して心に持っている計画に従って宇宙を発展させる（cause A to develop :Ａを発展させる）。 「発現的」形態においては，目的はより盲目的である。初期の段階においては宇宙にあるものは後の段階をまったく予見しないが，しかし，一種の盲的目な衝動がより発展した形態を生じさせる変化へと導く。従って，ある程度曖昧な意味で，目的はその始まりにおいて内包されている。
Chapter 8:Cosmic Purpose , n.1
Modern men of science, if they are not hostile or indifferent to religion, cling to one belief which, they think, can survive amid the wreck of former dogmas – the belief, namely, in Cosmic Purpose. Liberal theologians, equally, make this the central article of their creed. The doctrine has several forms, but all have in common the conception of Evolution as having a direction towards something ethically valuable, which, in some sense, gives the reason for the whole long process. Sir J. Arthur Thomson, as we saw, maintained that science is incomplete because it cannot answer the question why? Religion, he thought, can answer it. Why were stars formed? Why did the sun give birth to planets? Why did the earth cool, and at last give rise to life? Because, in the end, something admirable was going to result – I am not quite sure what, but I believe it was scientific theologians and religiously-minded scientists.
The doctrine has three forms – theistic, pantheistic, and what may be called “emergent.” The first, which is the simplest and most orthodox, holds that God created the world and decreed the laws of nature because He foresaw that in time some good would be evolved. In this view the purpose exists consciously in the mind of the Creator, who remains external to His creation. In the pantheistic form, God is not external to the universe, but is merely the universe considered as a whole. There cannot therefore be an act of creation, but there is a kind of creative force in the universe, which causes it to develop according to a plan which this creative force may be said to have had in mind throughout the process. In the“emergent”form, the purpose is more blind. At an earlier stage, nothing in the universe foresees a later stage, but a kind of blind impulsion leads to those changes which bring more developed forms into existence, so that, in some rather obscure sense, the end is implicit in the beginning. 出典：Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: Cosmic Purpose 情報源：https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-010.HTM
