RELIGION AND E VOLUTION
Evolution in the Light of Modern Knowledge. (Blackie and
Son. 21s. net.)
ONCE philosophers were accounted the arch-enemies of religion ; at another time, artists ; at a third, scientists.
And there will always be some measure of rivalry between these human activities, sometimes latent, sometimes manifest. Let us take philosophy, for example. People of simple faith (or simple hope, we might call it) were indignant to see God, their stay and comforter, attenuated into modes and cat- egories of existence, or into a necessary first assumption.
Who will deny that there is something heartless and impractical in a point of view which sees the doctrine of the Trinity notably exhibited in the expression A = B ? It need not astonish us that men of religious enthusiasm were often violent in the denunciation of " vain philosophy." We live by religion ; we appear self-consistent by philosophy. Sup. pose religion and philosophy to be ultimately at one ; still there are few who reach the end of philosophy, and meanwhile the two ways may have diverged very far. Here is one count against philosophy ; but its worst crime is this : quite definitely, of its nature, it extracts from its terms all impulse to action, all creativeness in deed. We need only glance at a philosophical library to know how those religious enthusiasts felt in the presence of philosophy, what bitterness and gloom came over them to see so much talk and talk and talk.
But the rivalry between philosophy and religion was manifest only when philosophy was great and flourishing— when it was in the making, when it was striving to overhaul life and produce in its own way a system which should explain everything. Nowadays religion and philosophy are on fairly good terms ; religion appropriates the achievements of philosophy and applies them to its own purposes. They both take for enemy the extravagant pretensions of science. It is well that scientists should come forwaid with an explanation of the universe derived only from the analytic study of phenomena ; but so long as science remains materialistic; it must expect to he at odds both with philosophy and religion ; it must expect to appear absurd to people of other fixations.
Nowadays, we said ; but perhaps we should have said " yesterday." For the elan of science is fading a little, and scientists are beginning to make allowances {and to leave small loopholes for religion. The large volume on Evolution published by Messrs. Blackie offers a good instance of the growing charity and open-mindedness of scientists. It is a most valuable book for the mere " stuff " of science. There are articles by high authorities upon CosmogonY, The Earth as a Planet, Geology, Biology, Botany, Zoology, Physiology; Anthropology, Mental Evolution, Physics and Chemistry, Time and Space, Philosophy, and Religion—upon the effects the doctrine of evolution has produced in all these branches of theory. It would hardly be possible to have a more comprehensive or more compressed survey ; and enough particular facts are given for an alert reader to check and criticize the conclusions of the writers. Of course, where we have such a diversity of writers we cannot expect absolute conformity of approach. This list of contributors must be quoted—James H. Jeans, Harold Jeffreys, William W. Watts, Conwy Lloyd Morgan, Frederick 0. Bower, Ernest W. MacBride, Marcus S. Pembrey, G. Elliot Smith, William M`Dougall, Frederick Soddy, Alfred A. Robb, A. E. Taylor, James Maurice Wilson. But it does seem to emerge that scientists are becoming less intransigeant and dogmatic, and more aware of the difficulties and assumptions that underlie every attempt to synthesize observations.
The chief point at issue between religion and the physical sciences is in the mode of outlook, or the aspect from which the world is seen ; indeed, the two have quite opposite con- ceptions of reality. The mind which knows itself immortal knows that quite simply and undeniably. It knows • that it
existed as it is in essence from eternity, and that it will exist to eternity the same. It knows, that is to say, a plain, anti-evolutionary truth. The question of forms of existence,
or vehicles of consciousness, scarcely enters : here the only thing a man of religious conviction will deny is that man's mind can have developed from a monkey's--he knows that the two are different in kind and quality, and that no ladder or hierarchy can explain away their difference or make the one seem to have been born from the other. The scientist studies only forms and may well be impatient with a man who meets him with a conviction of immortality. It says much for the accommodating nature of modern scientists that they grow less and less impatient.
It is none the less to be hoped that religion will not accept the loopholes granted in charity by science. For if religion is to be a typical and a great human activity, if it is, indeed (as we believe), the central and most urgent activity of man, then it is the truth of religion which sets the standard of truth, and if any subservience is necessary, then science and philosophy and even art must fit themselves into that revelation of the soul. And this is by no means to say that religion must be ill-informed or lazy. At every moment religious hope must be chastised and civilized and corrected by the impact of facts : it must examine itself perpetually to see whether something silly or trivial or impure has not crept in. Only we pray for men of so absolute a conviction that they know what they speak of and are at liberty to examine the whole of the world without blushing for their faith.
Previous page
