05.02 - Appendix 2
SUMMARY
1. ALL men who reflect at all, interpret their experiences in the light of certain broad theories and preconceptions as to the world in which they live. These theories and preconceptions need not be explicitly formulated, nor are they usually, if ever, thoroughly self-consistent. They do not remain unchanged from age to age; they are never precisely identical in two individuals. Speaking, however, of the present age and of the general body of educated opinion, they may be said to fall roughly into two categories which we may call respectively the Spiritualistic and the Naturalistic. In the Naturalistic class are included by common usage Positivism, Agnosticism, Materialism, &c., though not always with the good will of those who make profession of these doctrines (pp. 1-8).
2. In estimating the value of any of these theories we have to take into account something more than their ’ evidence ’ in the narrow meaning often given to that term. Their bearing upon the most important forms of human activity and emotion deserves also to be considered. For, as I proceed to show, there may, in addition to the merely logical incongruities in which the essence of inconsistency is commonly thought to reside, be also incongruities between theory and practice, or theory and feeling, producing inconsistencies of a different, but, it may be, not less formidable description.
3. In the first chapter (pp. 11-32) I have endeavoured to analyse some of these incongruities as they manifest themselves in the collision between Naturalism and Ethical emotions. That there are emotions proper to Ethics is admitted on all hands (p. 11). It is not denied, for instance, that a feeling of reverence for what is right for what is prescribed by the moral law is a necessary element in any sane and healthy view of things: while it becomes evident on reflection that this feeling cannot be independent of the origin from which that moral law is supposed to flow, and the place which it is thought to occupy in the Universe of things (p. 13).
4. Now on the Naturalistic theory, the place it occupies is insignificant (p. 14), and its origin is quite indistinguishable from that of any other contrivance by which Nature provides for the survival of the race. Courage and self-devotion are factors in evolution which came later into the field than e.g. greediness or lust: and they require therefore the special protection and encouragement supplied by fine sentiments. These fine sentiments, however, are merely a device comparable to other devices, often disgusting or trivial, produced in the interests of race-preservation by Natural Selection; and when we are under their sway we are being cheated by Nature for our good or rather for the good of the species to which we belong (pp. 14-19).
5. The feeling of freedom is, on the Naturalist theory, another beneficent illusion of the same kind. If Naturalism be true, it is certain that we are not free. If we are not free, it is certain that we are not responsible. If we are not responsible, it is certain that we are exhibiting a quite irrational emotion when we either repent our own misdoings or reverence the virtues of other people (pp. 20-26).
6. There is yet a third kind of disharmony between the emotions permitted by Naturalism and those proper to Ethics the emotions, namely, which relate to the consequences of action. We instinctively ask for some adjustment between the distribution of happiness and the distribution of virtue, and for an ethical end adequate to our highest aspirations. The first of these can only be given if we assume a future life, an assumption evidently unwarranted by Naturalism (pp. 26-28); the second is rendered impossible by the relative insignificance of man and all his doings, as measured on the scale supplied by modern science. The brief fortunes of our race occupy but a fragment of the range in time and space which is open to our investigations; and if it is only in relation to them that morality has a meaning, our pracdeal ideal must inevitably be petty, compared with the sweep of our intellectual vision (pp. 28-32).
7. With Chapter II. (p. 33) we turn from Ethics to ^Esthetics; and discuss the relation which Naturalism bears to the emotions aroused in us by Beauty. A comparatively large space (pp. 35-61) is devoted to an investigation into the ’ natural history ’ of taste. This is not only (in the author’s opinion) intrinsically interesting, but it is a desirable preliminary to the contention (pp. 61-65) that (on the Naturalist view. of things) Beauty represents no permanent quality or relation in the world as revealed to us by Science. This becomes evident when we reflect (a) that could we perceive things as the Physicist tells us they are, we might regard them as curious and interesting, but hardly as beautiful; (b} that differences of taste are notorious and, indeed, inevitable, considering that no causes exist likely to call into play the powerful selective machinery by which is secured an approximate uniformity in morals; (c) that even the apparent agreement among official critics represents no identity of taste; while (d) the genuine identity of taste, so often found in the same public at the same time, is merely a case of that ’ tendency to agreement’ which, though it plays a most important part in the general conduct of social life, has in it no element of permanence, and, indeed, under the name of fashion, is regarded as the very type of mutability.
8. From these considerations it becomes apparent (pp. 65, 66) that aesthetic emotion at its best and highest is altogether discordant with Naturalistic theory.
9. The advocates of Naturalism may perhaps reply that, even supposing the foregoing arguments were sound, and there is really this alleged collision between Naturalistic theory and the highest emotions proper to Ethics and ^Esthetics, yet, however much we may regret the fact, it should not affect our estimate of a creed which, professing to draw its inspiration from reason alone, ought in no wise to be modified by sentiment. How far this contention can be sustained will be examined later. In the meanwhile it suggests an inquiry into the position which that Reason to which Naturalism appeals occupies atcerding to Naturalism itself in the general scheme of things (Chapter III. pp. 67-76).
10. According to the spiritual view of things, the material Universe is the product of Reason. According to Naturalism it is its source. Reason and the inlets of sense through which reason obtains the data on which it works are the products of non-rational causes; and if these causes are grouped under the guidance of Natural Selection so as to produce a rational or partially rational result, the character of this result is determined by our utilitarian needs rather than our speculative aspirations (pp. 67-72).
11. Reason therefore, on the Naturalistic hypothesis, occupies no very exalted or important place in the Cosmos. It supplies it neither with a First cause nor a Final cause. It is a merely local accident ranking after appetite and instinct among the expedients by which the existence of a small class of mammals on a very insignificant planet is rendered a little less brief, though perhaps not more pleasurable, than it would otherwise be (pp. 72-76).
12. Chapter IV. (pp. 77-86) is a summary of the three preceding ones and terminates with a contrasted pair of catechisms based respectively on the Spiritualistic and the Naturalistic method of interpreting the world (pp. 83-86).
13. This incongruity between Naturalism and the higher emotions inevitably provokes an examination into the evidence on which Naturalism itself rests, and this accordingly is the task to which we set ourselves at the beginning of Part II. (See Part II., Chapter I., pp. 89-136.) Now on its positive side the teaching of Naturalism is by definition identical with the teaching of Science. But while Science is not bound to give any account of its first principles, and in fact never does so, Naturalism, which is nothing if not a philosophy, is in a different position. The essential character of its pretensions carries with it the obligation to supply a reasoned justification of its existence to any who may require it.
14. It is no doubt true that Naturalistic philosophers have never been very forward to supply this reasoned justification (pp. 94-96), yet we cannot go wrong in saying that Naturalistic theory, in all its forms, bases knowledge entirely upon experiences; and that of these experiences the most important are those which are given in the ’ immediate judgments of the senses ’ (pp. 106, 107), and principally of vision (p. 108).
15. A brief consideration, however, of this simple and common-sense statement shows that two kinds of difficulty are inherent in it. In the first place, the very account which Science gives of the causal steps by which the object experienced (e.g. the thing seen) makes an impression upon our senses, shows that the experiencing self, the knowing ’ I,’ is in no immediate or direct relation with that object (pp. 107-1 1 1); and it shows further that the message thus conveyed by the long chain of causes and effects connecting the object experienced and the experiencing self, is essentially mendacious (pp. 111-118). The attempt to get round this difficulty either by regarding the material world as being not the object immediately experienced, but only an inference from it, or by abolishing the material world altogether in the manner of Berkeley, Hume, and J. S. Mill, is shown (pp. 118-126) to be impracticable, and to be quite inconsistent with the teaching of Science, as men of science understand it.
16. In the second place, it is clear that we require in order to construct the humblest scientific edifice, not merely isolated experiences, but general principles (such as the law of universal causation) by which isolated experiences may be co-ordinated. How on any purely empirical theory are these to be obtained? No method that will resist criticism has ever been suggested; and the difficulty, insuperable in any case, seems enormously increased when we reflect that it is not the accumulated experience of the race, but the narrow experience of the individual on which we have to rely. It must be my experience for me, and your experience for you. Otherwise we should find ourselves basing our belief in these general principles upon our general knowledge of mankind past and present, though we cannot move a step towards the attainment of such general knowledge without first assuming these principles to be true (pp. 127-132).
17. It would not be possible to go further in the task of exposing the philosophic insufficiency of the Naturalistic creed without the undue employment of philosophic technicalities. But, in my view, to go further is unnecessary. If fully considered, the criticisms contained in this chapter are sufficient, without any supplement, to show the hollowness of the Naturalistic claim, and as it is with Naturalism that this work is mainly concerned, there seems no conclusive necessity for touching on rival systems of Philosophy. As a precautionary measure, however, and to prevent a flank attack, I have (in Part II. Chapter II.) briefly examined certain aspects of Transcendental Idealism in the shape in which it has principally gained currency in this country; while at the beginning of the succeeding chapter (pp. 163170) I have indicated my reason for respectfully ignoring any other of the great historic systems of Philosophy.
18. The conclusion of this part of the discussion, therefore, is that neither in Naturalism, with which we are principally concerned, nor in Rationalism, which is Naturalism in the making (pp. 174-180), nor in any other system of thought which commands an important measure of contemporary assent, can we find a coherent scheme which shall satisfy our critical faculties. Now this result may seem purely negative; but evidently it carrier with it an important practical corollary. For whereas the ordinary canons of consistency might require us to sacrifice all belief and sentiments which did not fully harmonise with a system rationally based on rational foundations, it is a mere abuse of these canons to apply them in support of a system whose inner weaknesses and contradictions show it to be at best but a halting and imperfect approximation to one aspect of absolute truth (pp. 180, 181).
19. Chapter IV. in Part II. (pp. 182-189) may be regarded as a parenthesis, though a needful parenthesis, in the course of the general argument. It is designed to expose the absurdity of the endeavour to make rationalising theories (as denned on pp. 174-180) issue not in Naturalism but in Theology. Paley’s ’ Evidences of Christianity ’ is the best known example of this procedure; and I have endeavoured to show that, however valuable it may be as a supplement to a spiritualistic creed already accepted, it is quite unequal to the task of refuting Naturalism by extracting Spiritualism out of the Biblical narrative by ordinary historical and inductive methods.
20. With Part II. Chapter IV. ends the critical or destructive portion of the Essay. With Part III. (p. 194) begins the attempt at construction. The preliminary stage of this consists in some brief observations on the Natural History of beliefs. By the natural history of beliefs I mean an account of beliefs regarded simply as phenomena among other phenomena; not as premises or conclusions in a logical series, but as antecedents or consequents in a causal series. From this point of view we have to ask ourselves not whether a belief is true, but whence it arose; not whether it ought to be believed, but how it comes to be believed. We have to put ourselves, so to speak, in the position of a superior being making anthropological investigations from some other planet (p. 197), or into the position we ourselves occupy when examining opinions which have for us only an historic interest.
21. Such an investigation directed towards what may roughly be described as the ’ immediate beliefs of experience’ those arising from perception and memory shows that they are psychical accompaniments of neural processes processes which in their simpler form appear neither to possess nor to require this mental collaboration. Physiological co-ordination, unassociated with any psychical phenomena worthy to be described as perception or belief, is sufficient for the lower animals or for most of them; it is in many cases sufficient for man. Conscious experience and the judgments in which it is embodied seem, from this point of view, only an added and almost superfluous perfection, a finishing touch given to activities which often do excellently well with no such rational assistance (pp. 197-201).
22. Empirical philosophy in its cruder form would have us believe that by some inductive legerdemain there may be extracted from these psychological accidents the vast mass of supplementary beliefs actually required by the higher social and scientific life of the race (pp. 200, 201). We have already shown as regards one great scientific axiom (the uniformity of Nature) that this is not logically possible. We may now say more generally that from the point of view of Natural History it is not what in fact happens. Not reasoning, inductive or deductive, is the true parent of this numerous offspring: we should be nearer the mark if we looked to Authority using this as a convenient collective name for the vast multitude of psychological causes of belief, not being also reasons for if, which have their origin in the social environment, and are due to the action of mind on mind.
23. An examination into this subject carried out at considerable length (Part III., Chapter II., pp. 202-240) serves to show not merely that this is so, but that, if society is to exist, it could not be otherwise. Reasoning no doubt has its place both in the formation of beliefs and in their destruction. But its part is insignificant compared with that played by Authority. For it is to Authority that we owe the most fundamental premises on which our reasonings repose; and it is Authority which commonly determines the conclusions to which they must in the main adapt themselves.
24. These views, taken in connection with the criticism on Naturalism contained in Part II., show that the beliefs of which Naturalism is composed must on its own principles have a non-rational source, and on any principles must derive largely from Authority: that Naturalism neither owes its origin to reason, nor has as yet been brought into speculative harmony with it. Why, then, should t be regarded as of greater validity than (say) Theology? Is there any relevant difference between them? and, if not, is it reasonable to act as if there were? (pp. 243* 246).
25. One difference there undoubtedly is (p. 246). About the judgments which form the starting-point of Science there is unquestionably an inevitableness lacking to those which lie at the root of Theology or Ethics. There may be, and are, all sorts of speculative difficulties connected with the reality or even the meaning of an external world; nevertheless our beliefs respecting what we see and handle, however confused they may seem on analysis, remain absolutely coercive in their assurance compared with the beliefs with which Ethics and Theology are principally concerned (pp. 246, 247).
26. There is here no doubt a real difference though one which the Natural History of beliefs may easily explain (p. 249). But is it a relevant difference? Assuredly not. The coercion exercised by these beliefs is not a rational coercion. It is due neither to any deliberate act of reason, nor to any blind effect of heredity or tradition which reason ex post facto can justify. The necessity to which we bow, rules us by violence, not by right.
27. The differentiation which Naturalism makes in favour of its own narrow creed is thus an irrational differentiation, and so the great masters of speculative thought, as well as the great religious prophets, have always held (pp. 252-255).
28. And if no better ground for accepting as fact a material world more or less in correspondence with our ordinary judgments of sense perceptions can be alleged than the practical need for doing so, there is nothing irrational in postulating a like harmony between the Universe and other Elements in our nature ’ of a later, a more uncertain, but no- ignobler growth ’ (pp. 256-260).
29. Nor can it be said that, in respect of distinctness or lucidity, fundamental scientific conceptions have any advantage over Theological or Ethical ones (pp. 261-265). Mr. Spencer has indeed pointed out with great force that ’ ultimate scientific ideas,’ like ’ ultimate religious ideas,’ are ’ unthinkable.’ But he has not drawn the proper moral from his discovery. If in the case of Science we accept unhesitatingly postulates about the material world as more certain than any reason which can be alleged in their defence; if the needs of everyday life forbid us to take account of the difficulties which seem on analysis to becloud our simplest experiences, practical wisdom would seem to dictate a like course when we are dealing with the needs of our spiritual nature.
30. We have now reached a point in the argument at which it becomes clear that the ’ conflict between Science and Religion,’ if it exists, is not one which in the present state of our knowledge can or ought to require us to reject either of these supposed incompatibles. For in truth the difficulties and contradictions are to be found rather within their separate spheres than between them. The conflicts from which they suffer are in the main civil conflicts; and if we could frame a satisfying philosophy of Science and a satisfying philosophy of Religion, we should, I imagine, have little difficulty in framing a philosophy which should embrace them both (p. 273).
31. We may, indeed, go much further, and say that, unless it borrow something from Theology, a philosophy of Science is impossible. The perplexities in which we become involved if we accept the Naturalistic dogma that all beliefs ultimately trace their descent to non-rational causes, have emerged again and again in the course of the preceding argument. Such a doctrine cuts down any theory of knowledge to the root. It can end in nothing but the most impotent scepticism. Science, therefore, is at least as much as Theology compelled to postulate a Rational Ground or Cause of the world, who made it intelligible and us in some faint degree able to understand it (pp. 277-283).
32. The difficulties which beset us whenever we attempt to conceive how this Rational (and therefore Spiritual) cause acts upon or is related to the Material Universe, are no doubt numerous and probably insoluble. But they are common to Science and to Religion, and, indeed, are of a kind which cannot be avoided even by the least theological of philosophies, since they are at once suggested in their most embarrassing form whenever we try to realise the relation between the Self and the world of matter, a relation which it is impossible practically to deny or speculatively to understand (pp. 283-286).
33. It is true that at first sight most forms of religion, and certainly Christianity as ordinarily held, seem to have burdened themselves with a difficulty from which Science is free the familiar difficulty of Miracles. But there is probably here some misconception. Whether or not there is sufficient reason for believing any particular Wonder recorded in histories, sacred or profane, can only be decided by each person according to his general view of the system of the world. But however he may decide, his real difficulty will not be with any supposed violation of the principle of Uniformity (a principle not always accurately understood by those who appeal to it (pp. 289-292)), but with a metaphysical paradox common to all forms of religion, whether they lay stress on the ’ miraculous ’ or not.
34. What is this metaphysical paradox? It is the paradox involved in supposing that the spiritual source of all that exists exercises ’ preferential action ’ on behalf of one portion of his creation rather than another; that He draws a distinction between good and bad, and having created all, yet favours only a part. This paradox is implied in such expressions as ’ Providence,’ ’ A Power that makes for Righteousness,’ ’ A Benevolent Deity,’ and all the other phrases by which Theology adds something to the notion of the ’ Infinite Substance,’ or ’ Universal Idea or Subject,’ which is the proper theme of a non-theological Metaphysic (pp. 297-302).
35. In this preferential action, however, Science and Ethics seem as much interested as Theology. For, in the first place, it is worth noting that if we accept the doctrine of a First Cause immanent in the world of phenomena, the modern doctrine of Evolution almost requires us to hold that there is in the Universe a purpose being slowly worked out a ’ striving towards something which is not, but which gradually becomes, and, in the fulness of time, will be’ (pp. 301-302).
36. But, in truth, much stronger reasons have already been advanced for holding that both Science and Ethics must postulate not merely a universal substance or subject, but a Deity working by what I have ventured to call ’ preferential methods.’ So far as Science is concerned, we have already seen that at the root of every rational process lies a non-rational one, and that the least unintelligible account which can be given of the fact that these non-rational processes, physical, physiological, and social, issue in knowledge is, that to this end they were preferentially guided by Supreme Reason (PP. 303-306).
37. A like argument may be urged with even greater force in the case of Ethics. If we hold as teachers of all schools profess to hold that morality is a thing of intrinsic worth, we seem driven also to assume that the complex train of non-moral causes which have led to its recognition, and have at the same time engendered the sentiments which make the practice of it possible, have produced these results under moral i.e. preferential guidance (pp. 306, 307).
38. But if Science and Ethics, to say nothing of ^Esthetics (pp. 307, 308), thus require the double presupposition of a Deity and of a Deity working by ’preferential’ methods, we need feel no surprise if these same preferential methods have shown themselves in the growth and development of Theology (p. 310).
39. The reality of this preferential intervention has been persistently asserted by the adherents of every religion. They have always claimed that their beliefs about God were due to God. The one exception is to be found in the professors of what is rather absurdly called Natural Religion, who are wont to represent it as the product of ’ unassisted reason.’ In face, however, of the arguments already advanced to prove that there is no such thing as unassisted reason, this pretension may be summarily dismissed (pp. 309-311).
40. Though we describe, as we well may, this preferential action in matters theological by the word Inspiration, it does not follow, of course, that what is inspired is on that account necessarily true, but only that it has an element of truth due to the Divine co-operation with our limited intelligences. And for my own part I am unwilling to admit that some such element is not to be found in all the great religious systems which have in any degree satisfied the spiritual needs of mankind (pp. 311-314).
41. So far the argument has gone to show that the great body of our beliefs, scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and theological, form a more coherent and satisfactory whole in a Theistic than in a Naturalistic setting. Can the argument be pressed further? Can we say that those departments of knowledge, or any of them, are more coherent and satisfactory in a distinctively Christian setting than in a merely Theistic one? (p. 317). If so, the a priori presuppositions which have induced certain learned schools of criticism to deal with the Gospel narratives as if these were concerned with events intrinsically incredible will need modification, and there may even on consideration appear to be an a priori presupposition in favour of their general veracity (PP- 317-325).
42. Now it can, I think, be shown that the central doctrine of Christianity, the doctrine which essentially differentiates it from every other religion, has an ethical import of great and even of an increasing value. The Incarnation as dogma is not a theme within the scope of this work; but it may not be amiss, by way of Epilogue, to enumerate three aspects of it in which it especially ministers, as nothing else could conceivably minister, to some of the most deep-seated of our moral necessities.
43 (a). The whole tendency of modern discovery is necessarily to magnify material magnitudes to the detriment of spiritual ones. The insignificant part played by moral forces in the cosmic drama, the vastness of the physical forces by which we are closed in and overwhelmed, the infinities of space, time, and energy thrown open by Science to our curious investigations, increase (on the Theistic hypothesis) our sense of the power of God, but relatively impoverish our sense of his moral interest in his creatures. It is surely impossible to imagine a more effective cure for this distorted yet most natural estimate than a belief in the Incarnation (pp. 326-330).
44 (b). Again, the absolute dependence of mind on body, taught, and rightly taught, by empirical science, confirmed by each man’s own humiliating experience, is of all beliefs the one which, if fully realised, is most destructive of high endeavour. Speculation may provide an answer to physiological materialism, but for the mass of mankind it can provide no antidote; nor yet can an antidote be found in the baretheistic conception of a God ineffably remote from all human conditions, divided from man by a gulf so vast that nothing short of the Incarnation can adequately bridge it (pp. 330-333).
45 (c). A like thought is suggested by the ’ problem of evil/ that immemorial difficulty in the way of a completely consistent theory of the world on a religious basis. Of this difficulty, indeed, the Incarnation affords no speculative solution, but it does assuredly afford a practical palliation. For whereas a merely metaphysical Theism leaves us face to face with a Deity who shows power but not mercy, who has contrived a world in which, so far as direct observation goes, the whole creation travails together in misery, Christianity brings home to us, as nothing else could do, that God is no indifferent spectator of our sorrows, and in so doing affords the surest practical alleviation to a pessimism which seems fostered alike by the virtues and the vices of our modern civilisation (pp. 333-337).