he part is in the whole. But in that sense the statement was hardly
worth the making. What his argument demands is the meaning that as man
is possessed of mind, and as man is part of nature, therefore nature, as
a whole, manifests mind. And that is not true. Mind may be a special
manifestation of a special arrangement of forces, and only occurring
under special conditions. What Sir Oliver says, then, is that the
properties of a part are in the whole, because the part is included in
whole. What he implies, and without this implication his argument is
meaningless, is that the properties of a part belong to all parts of the
whole. And that is a statement so grotesquely untrue that I suspect Sir
Oliver would be the first to disown the plain implications of his own
argument.

And here is Sir Oliver's illustration of his argument:--

"the fact an apple has pips legitimises the assertion that an apple
tree has pips ... but it would be a childish misunderstanding to
expect to find actual pips in the trunk of a tree."

Now, why should the fact that an apple has pips legitimise the
statement that an apple tree has pips, any more than it legitimises the
statement that the soil from which it springs has pips? And if the tree
has not actual pips, in what sense does it possess them? If the reply is
that it possesses them potentially, one may meet that with the rejoinder
that potentially pips, and everything else, including Sir Oliver Lodge,
were contained in the primitive nebulae. As a matter of fact the apple
tree does not contain pips either actually or potentially. In his
championship of theism our scientist forgets his science. What the apple
tree possesses is the capacity for building up a fruit with pips _with
the aid of material extracted from the soil beneath and from the air
around_. These pips are no more in the tree than they are in the air or
the soil--not even as a figure of speech. One might, from any point of
view, as reasonably look for the colour and shape and smell of an apple
in the tree as to look for the pips. The properties of the tree is
really one of the factors in the production of a result. Sir Oliver
makes the mistake of writing as though the tree was the only factor in
the problem.

This is not the place in which to enter on an exhaustive inquiry as to
the nature of causation. It is enough to point out that the whole
theistic fallacy rests here on the assumption that we are dealing wi