3

CHAPTER II.

THE EMOTIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT 47

CHAPTER III.

THE RATIONAL POSTULATES OF THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT 87

CHAPTER IV.

THE PRAYER AND ITS ANSWER 117

CHAPTER V.

THE MYTH AND THE MYTHICAL CYCLES 155

CHAPTER VI.

THE CULT, ITS SYMBOLS AND RITES 199

CHAPTER VII.

THE MOMENTA OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 231

THE BEARING OF THE LAWS OF MIND ON RELIGION

SUMMARY.

The distinction between the Science and the Philosophy of religion.
It is assumed (1) that religions are products of thought, (2) that
they have a unity of kind and purpose. They can be studied by the
methods of natural science applied to Mind.

Mind is co-extensive with organism. Sensation and Emotion are
prominent marks of it. These are either pleasurable or painful; the
latter _diminish_ vital motions, the former _increase_ them. This
is a product of natural selection. A mis-reading of these facts is
the fallacy of Buddhism and other pessimistic systems. Pleasure
comes from continuous action. This is illustrated by the esthetic
emotions, volition and consciousness.

The climax of mind is Intellect. Physical changes accompany thought
but cannot measure it. Relations of thought and feeling. _Truth_ is
its only measure. Truth, like pleasure, is desired for its
preservative powers. It is reached through the laws of thought.

These laws are: (1) the natural order of the association of ideas,
(2) the methods of applied logic, (3) the forms of correct
reasoning. The last allow of mathematical expression. They are
three in number, called those of Determination, Limitation and
Excluded Middle.

The last is the key-stone of religious philosophy. Its diverse
interpretations. Its mathematical expres ion[TN-1] shows that it
does not relate to contradictories. But certain concrete analytic
propositions, relating to contraries, do have this form. The
contrary as distinguished from the privative. The Conditioned and
Unconditioned, the Knowable and Unknowable are not true
contradictions. The synthesis of contraries is theoretic only.

Errors as to the limits of possible explanation corrected by these
distinctions. The formal law is th