​So says the Agnostic, and in not admitting the possibility of any other knowledge but what is acquired by observation and the analysis of obser- vation, he is, if not right, at least quite logical and consistent.

The Christian, on the other hand, acknowledging God, says, "I am con- scious that I exist only because I feel myself to be a rational being. And in feeling myself to be so, I cannot but recognize that my life and that of all that exists must be equally rational. And in order to be so it must have an object. The object of my life must be outside myself, in that Being for which both I and all that exist serve as instruments for the attainment of the object of life. This Being does exist, and I must, in my life, fulfill its law or will. Questions as to the nature of this Being which demands of me the fulfillment of its law, and as to when and how, in time and space, this rational life originated in me, and originates in other beings — that is, 'What is God?' Is He personal or impersonal?' 'Did He create the world, and how?' 'When did a soul awake in me?' 'At what time, and how did it originate in others?' 'Whence has it come and whither will it go?' 'In what part of the body does it reside?' — all these questions I ​must leave unanswered, because I know beforehand that in the region of their observation and analysis I shall never come to a definite answer, as all will disappear into the infinitude of time and space. It is for this reason that I do not accept the answers given by science as to how the universe (the suns and worlds) has originated, how the soul originates, and in what part of the brain it is located."

In the first instance, the Agnostic, acknowledging himself to be a mere animal, and therefore admitting that he is subject only to external sensa- -tions, does not admit a spiritual origin, and resigns himself to that senseless- -ness of existence which violates the demands of reason.

In the second instance, the Christian, acknowledging himself to be only a rational being, and therefore accepting only that which corresponds to the demands of reason, does not acknow- -ledge the adequacy of the data of external experience, and considers those data fantastic and erroneous.

Both are equally right. But the difference between them, and an essential one, lies in the fact that, according to the former conception, everything in the universe is strictly scientific, logical, and rational, except the meaning of the life itself of man ​and the whole universe. And they have no meaning. And consequently, from such a conception, there may proceed very many interesting and amusing considerations ; but, notwithstanding all efforts to the contrary, nothing necessary for guidance in life. Whereas, according to the latter conception, the life of man and of the whole universe acquires a definite, rational meaning, which has the most direct, simple, and universally accessible adaptability to life, at the same time not excluding the possibility of scientific investigations; which, in this case, are put in their proper place.