contemplating the same truth. The scientific or Darwinian view cannot deny positively the existence of a plan, or prove the world to be "accidental," or irrational. But it implies an important modification. It appeals to experience, and therefore asserts that the plan, if there be a plan, can be known only by observation. The facts must be given, and we can then work backwards or forwards to the past or the future. It binds us, then, to appeal simply to experience. We must accept its verdict impartially. We cannot apply the old "theodicées," or argue upon a-priori grounds that this is the "best of all possible worlds." We can know of no other world and appeal to no transcendental principle. We cannot argue from our own conceptions as to the proper course of proceeding for infinite wisdom and intelligence. Things, as a philosophic divine observed, are what they are; and it is idle to ask what they ought to be. Pessimists and optimists may argue as much as they please, but the only real criticism is the observation of the actual distribution of misery and happiness. This, indeed, seems to amount only to admitting the ancient truth that the “origin of evil" is an insoluble problem. It was already admitted to be hopeless; and we only admit more openly that it is really also meaningless. Our ultimate explanation could only be a systematic account of the actual order, and not a deduction of its order from abstract reason. We can abandon the old method with the less regret because it never achieved any plausible result. Darwinism, indeed, alarms religious minds by what might appear to be its ultimate tendency. As scientific, and applying the methods of the physical sciences, it would lead straight to materialism. To trace the origin of organic beings back to the period at which no life existed is to imply that nothing except matter exists. We are nothing but a whirl of atoms, or mechanical automata, and though we can be spectators of the world, the belief that we can react upon it is a mere illusion. To me, it seems that the problem remains where it was. It is as hard as ever thoroughly to carry out the materialist doctrine; and the supposed argument implies an illegitimate transference from scientific to "ontological" ground. The philosophers of coming generations may apply themselves to solve that problem. In any case, as I have tried to show, evolutionist theories mean, in the first place, a systematic application of the principle of continuity to every department of thought. Tacitly assumed in all reasoning about fact, it has come to be explicitly adopted as the horizon of thought has extended; and, in the next place, it implies the frank recognition of the necessity of basing all knowledge upon experience; of applying the methods which have created the physical sciences; and of accepting the coherent body of scientific knowledge as the nucleus round which all knowledge must crystallise into definite form. This involves the transformation of the old religious conceptions, and the rejection of the many traditional attempts which were at bottom totally inconsistent with an acceptance of the scientific principles. But, on the other hand, whatever metaphysical theory may be adopted, it involves the perception of the immense importance of the functions discharged by religion in the past. Their nature was wrongly conceived by the believers themselves. They took the supernatural for the foundation. They supposed the dogmas and the legends to be the whole principles, whereas they were incidental results of the great forces at play. Evolutionist doctrines can only lead us to understand more clearly what those forces were. Religion, it is often said, is an essential part of human nature. We may fully accept that doctrine in a certain sense. Men must always need some theory of the world, and of their position in it, as consonant as possible with the best established truths; some mode of uttering the emotions and of setting forth the ethical ideals congenial to the theory; and a social organisation which may help to soften, purify, and elevate human relations. The evolutionist perceives the importance of making the framework of theory strong and sound, such as may have nothing to dread from the most unequivocal acceptance of the results of scientific and historical inquiry. Therefore, however great may be the change, the evolutionist must recognise the true value of the religious instinct in its place, and admit the vast importance of finding a mode of embodying it in the future. How that is to be done is the great problem of the coming generations. The generation which is passing away has learned to perceive its importance; and the acceptance of evolution has modified the ancient creeds in many ways, which shows that men are becoming conscious of the necessary conditions of a satisfactory solution, however far they may still be from the solution itself. |
