The Conception of God: A Philosophical Discussion Concerning the Nature of the Divine Idea As a Demonstrable Reality

An 1895 Colloquium on Philosophical Idealism

Since its beginnings, philosophy has frequently proceeded through discussions among competing points of view. Thus, in 1895, the Philosophical Union of the University of California sponsored a colloquium on the subject "The Concept of God: A Philosophical Discussion Concerning the Nature of the Divine Idea as a Demonstrable Reality." The lead speaker for the event was the Harvard philosopher Josiah Royce (1855 -- 1916), an early graduate of the University of California who was nearing the middle of his career as professor of philosophy at Harvard. Royce presented a paper followed by three commentators: Sidney Mezes, a former student of Royce and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin where he would enjoy a long career as a teacher and as the president of the university. Joseph Le Conte, Professor of Biology at the University of California and a former teacher and colleague of Royce, and George Howison, professor of philosophy at the University of California.

The four speakers broadly shared the position of philosophical idealism -- the view that the nature of reality was mental or spiritual. Idealism is not a widely held philosophical position today but still has adherents. The primary purpose of the discussion was to explore the view of God that Royce had propounded in an earlier book, "The Religious Aspect of Philosophy" written ten years earlier in 1885. Royce there propounded a doctrine of Absolute Idealism or idealistic monism. He presented an "argument from error" which argued that human error was possible only if there existed an omniscient knower or Absolute.

The book begins with an introduction by an (unnamed) editor placing the speakers and the issues in context and pointing out how Darwin's theory of evolution and its impact on religion was a driving force behind much then-current philosophical thinking and behind idealism and the views of the speakers in particular The issue of evolutionary theory and its impact on religion is, of course, alive in current popular culture and in philosophy and theology. It is valuable to compare the current discussion to the discussion in this book of more than a century ago..

Royce began the discussion with a paper in which he defended his position while restating his argument in terms of human finitude and fallibility and its relationship to God or the Absolute. He thought finitude and fallibility implied the existence of a perfect Knower. Then, the other three participants offered comments. Mezes offered short but insightful remarks in which he argued that Royce did not show how the Absolute he had proved (and Mezes agreed with the proof) constituted God. He also argued that Royce's Absolute did not account for the nature of human goodness or ethical behavior. Le Conte broadly agreed with Royce's position, but he offered an argument for God's existence and for immortality based on a view of the theory of evolution -- evolutionary theism.

The final speaker, Howison, offered the longest and most substantive critique of Royce in his paper "The City of God and the True God as its Head." He argued that Royce's absolute was not at all the God of theism or Christianity but was instead an immanent, pantheistic God which Howison equated to the religions of the East. He argued that Royce's Absolute left no room for human individuality or for choice but was instead an entirely fatalistic or deterministic theory. Howison urged strongly that religion was based on individuals and on respect for individual persons. Howison did not fully articulate his own position but it became known as Idealistic Personalism -- the doctrine that reality consisted of multitudes of individuals rather than an over-arching Absolute. Howison's paper concluded the evening's discussion, and the book includes a useful summation of the positions of the four participants.

Howison's criticisms had an impact on Royce. He returned to Harvard and over the next year wrote an essay: The Absolute and the Individual". The essay was added to the colloquium for publication of the book. At 200 pages, it is substantially longer than the remarks of the four speakers. In a wandering, sometimes polemical essay, Royce restated his argument for the Absolute and for Absolute Idealism. He also tried to flesh out his concept of the Absolute by developing the concept of Will and of Love rather than the seemingly intellectualized Absolute Howison had sharply criticized. Using the work of medieval philosophers, Royce also developed his view of the nature of human individuality and he argued at length that human individuality and choice were fully consistent with and in fact included in the Absolute. He argued that free will was possible even given the all inclusive necessary character of the Absolute. In a final section of his essay, Royce replied to his critics using his new elaboration of Absolute Idealism.

While much of this debate may seem dated, it is fascinating in itself and for its issues and fascinating for readers interested in the history of American philosophy. The debate proved, in particular, a turning point for Royce. His subsequent works would discuss human individuality at length in an attempt to show its importance to an Idealistic philosophy. In has late works, according to some scholars, Royce moved away from the teaching of a metaphysical Absolute, but this point is open to doubt. In any event, Royce's philosophy seemed to move closer to that of Howison and the Personalists. The discussion and its aftermath helps to show how philosophers respond to criticism and expand or modify their stated views.

Early in his career, Royce scholar Dwayne Tunstall, wrote a book, "Yes, But Not Quite: Encountering Josiah Royce's Ethico -Religious Insight" which discusses the Royce-Howison debate and its impact on Royce. Tunstall's book is useful for its approach to Royce's thought and for its discussion of Royce's encounter with Howison.

"The Conception of God" debate and Royce's supplementary essay make difficult reading. They will reward attention for readers interested in American philosophy and the philosophy of religion.

Robin Friedman