GOD, AND CONNECTED PROBLEMS, IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION
REMARKS BY PROFESSOR LE CONTE
I can only admire, not criticise, the subtle method
of Professor Royce in reaching the conclusion of the
Personal Existence of God. I have my own way of
reaching the same conclusion, but in comparison it is
a rough and ready way. His is from the point of
view of the philosopher; mine, from that of the
scientist. I am not saying that his is not the best and
most satisfactory, but only that it is a different way.
He has given you his; I now give you, very briefly,
mine — as I have been accustomed to give it.
Suppose, then, I could remove the brain-cap of one of you, and expose the brain in active work, — as it doubtless is at this moment. Suppose, further, that my senses were absolutely perfect, so that I could see everything that was going on there. What should I see? Only decompositions and recompositions, molecular agitations and vibrations; in a word, physical phenomena, and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing else there to see. But you, the subject of this experiment, what do you perceive? You see nothing of all this; you perceive an entirely different set of phenomena, viz., consciousness, — thought, emotion, will; psychical phenomena; in a word, a self, a person. From the outside we see only physical, from the inside only psychical phenomena.
Now take external Nature — the Cosmos — instead of the brain. The observer from the outside sees, and can see, only physical phenomena; there is absolutely nothing else there to see. But must there not be in this case also, on the other side, psychical phenomena — consciousness, thought, emotion, will? — in a word, a Self, a Person? There is only one place in the whole world where we can get behind physical phenomena — behind the veil of matter; viz., in our own brain; and we find there — a self, a person. Is it not reasonable to think that if we could get behind the veil of Nature we should find the same, i.e. a Person? But if so, we must conclude, an Infinite Person, and therefore the only Complete Personality that exists. Perfect personality is not only self-conscious but self-existent. Our personalities are self-conscious, indeed, but not self-existent. They are only imperfect images, and, as it were, separated fragments of the Infinite Personality — God.
So much for my habitual preference, as contrasted
with Professor Royce’s, in the matter of proving God
to exist; and there seem to be differences between us
on other matters too, though perhaps these are more
apparent than real.
For instance: Professor Royce accounts it best to state the essential nature of God in terms of Omniscience, and with this my customary preference of thinking would hardly seem to accord. For Professor Royce, God is Thought; conscious, indeed, but passive, powerless, passionless Thought; Omniscience alone is fundamental, and all else flows from that. And yet I cannot but think that the difference between us here is more apparent than real. For example, when he denies God power, is it not a power like that of man that he is talking about? — that is, an action or energy going out and terminating on something external and foreign? God’s power, I grant, is not like that; for there is nothing external or foreign to him. And when he denies him love, at least as a fundamental and essential quality, is it not the human form of love that he is thinking of? — that which stirs the human blood, and agitates the human heart? Doubtless the Infinite Benevolence of God is different from that; but is there not a similar difference in the matter of thought also? Is it not equally true that “His thoughts are not as our thoughts”? All we can say is, that there is in God something which corresponds to all these things in man. The formula of St. John, God is Love, or the popular formula God is Power, is as true as the philosophic formula God is Thought. All of these are truths, but partial truths. A more fundamental formula than either is the formula of the Divine Master, God is Spirit. For Spirit is essential Life, and essential Energy, and essential Love, and essential Thought; in a word, essential Person.
Again: On the great question of Evil, — its nature,
its origin, its reason, — a question inseparably
connected with the conception of God, — there are
apparent differences between Professor Royce and myself; and yet these, too, may be less than they
seem. In a general way, certainly, I agree with his
explanation of the dark enigma of Evil. Evil cannot
be the true meaning and real outcome of the universe;
on the contrary, it is the means, the necessary
means, of the highest good; and thus it is, in a legitimate
sense, nothing but good in disguise. This is a
necessary postulate of our moral nature. Professor
Royce has admirably shown this, in his chapter
entitled “The World of the Postulates.” Our moral and
religious nature is just as fundamental and essential
as our scientific and rational nature. As science is
not simply passionless acquisition of knowledge, but
also enthusiasm for truth, so morality is not passionless
rules of best conduct, but impassioned love of righteousness.
And this last is what we call Religion;
for religion is morality touched and vivified with
noble emotion. Now, the necessary postulate of
science, without which scientific activity would be
impossible, is a Rational Order of the universe;
and, similarly, the necessary postulate of religion,
without which religious activity would be impossible,
is a Moral Order of the universe. As science
postulates the final triumph of reason, so religion must
postulate the final triumph of righteousness. Science
believes in the Rational Order, or in law, in spite of
apparent confusion; she knows that disorder is only
apparent, only the result of ignorance; and her
mission is, to show this by reducing all appearances,
all phenomena, to law. So also Religion is right in
her unshakable belief in the Moral Order, in spite of
apparent disorder or evil; she knows that evil is only apparent, the result of our ignorance and our weakness;
and her mission is, to show this by helping on
the triumph of moral order over disorder. We may,
if we like, — as many indeed do, — reject the faith in
the Infinite Goodness, and thereby paralyse our
religious activity; but then, to be consistent, we must
also reject the faith in the Infinite Reason, and thereby
paralyse our scientific activity.
So much for a rational justification of the indestructible faith Religion has in the Infinite Righteousness, even in the presence of abounding evil. It is founded on the same ground as our indestructible faith in the Reign of Law in the natural world, and is just as reasonable. Why is it, then, it may be asked, that every one is willing to admit the postulate of science, while so many doubt that of religion? I answer: Partly because of the feebleness of our moral life in comparison with our physical life; but mainly because the steady advance of science, with its progressive conquest of chaos, and its extension of the domain of order and law, is a continual verification of the postulate of science, and justification of our faith therein; while, on the contrary, the progress of morality and religion is uncertain and often unrecognised, the increase of righteousness and decrease of evil doubtful and even denied. In the presence of such uncertainty, our faith is often sorely tried. We cry out for some explanation — for some philosophy which shall show us how evil is consistent with the Infinite Goodness. We know it is, for that is a necessary postulate. But — how?
In regard to moral evil, or sin, — which, I need not say, is the really dreadful form, — Professor Royce’s explanation (which, by the way, is the same as that given in the last chapter of my book entitled Evolution and Religions Thought) is, I believe, the true one. It is, that the existence or at least the possibility of what we call Evil is the necessary condition of a moral being like that of man. There are some things which God himself cannot do, viz., such things as are contrary to his essential nature, and such things as are a contradiction in terms and therefore absurd and unthinkable. Such a thing would be a moral being without freedom to choose right or wrong. God could not make man eternally and of necessity sinless, for then he would not be man at all. To make him incapable of sin would be to make him also incapable of virtue, of righteousness, of holiness; for he must acquire these for himself by free choice, by struggle and conquest. Professor Royce brings this out admirably; but it seems to me this view is singularly emphasised by the evolutional account of the origin of man. For if humanity gradually emerged out of animality, then it is evident that man’s higher nature — his distinctive humanity — was at first very feeble, and that the whole mission of man is the progressive conquest of the animal by the distinctively human nature. It has been a long and hard struggle, and even yet, as we all know and feel, is far from complete.
As already said, then, I believe Professor Royce gives a true answer so far as moral evil is concerned, although he misses the emphasis which evolution gives that view. But other evil — physical evil — he gives up, in his book, in despair. And yet, from the point of view of evolution, this is exactly the form of evil that is most explicable. For as moral evil is a necessity for a progressive moral being, just so, and far more obviously, is physical evil a necessity for a progressive rational being. As the one form of evil is closely connected with our moral nature, so is the other indissolubly connected with our intellectual nature. Let me explain: The necessary condition of any evolution is a struggle with an apparently inimical environment. For example, the end and goal, the significance, the only raison d’être, of organic evolution in general, is the achievement of a rational being — man. The necessary condition of that achievement was the struggle with what seemed at every stage an inimical, i.e. evil, environment. But looking back over the course in the light of its glorious result — the achievement of man — we at once see that what seemed evil is really good. Now, it is equally the same with human evolution in relation to physical evil. The goal and end, the raison d’être, of social progress is the achievement of the ideal man — perfect both in knowledge and in character. But the attainment of perfect knowledge is impossible except in the presence of what seems at every stage an evil environment, and by conflict with it. But, evidently, such an environment is evil only through ignorance of the laws of Nature. Evil is therefore the necessary spur that goads us on to increase of knowledge. We are but foolish little children, at school. Nature, our schoolmistress, chastises us relentlessly until we get our lessons. It is quite evident, that, without the scourge of evil, humanity would never have emerged out of animality, or, having emerged, would never have advanced beyond the lowest stages. It is also evident that perfect knowledge of the laws of Nature would remove every physical evil. Looking back over the course, then, from the elevated plane of perfect knowledge, and perceiving that the attainment of that plane was conditioned on the existence of evil — on punishment for ignorance — shall we any longer call it evil? Is it not really good in disguise?
But it may be answered: “Yes, this is all true if we accept evolution by struggle as a necessary process; but why may not the same result have been attained in some less expensive, less distressing way?” I answer: Because, as already seen, no other process is conceivable that would result in a moral being, and achievement of such a being is the purpose of all evolution. One law, one process, one meaning and purpose, runs through all evolution, and that purpose is only revealed at the end. As in biology the laws of form and structure are best studied in the lowest organisms, where these are simplest, but those of function are studied best in the highest organisms, because only there clearly expressed, just so the laws of process in evolution are best understood in its lower and simpler stages, but the end, the purpose and meaning of the whole process from the beginning, is not fully declared until the end. That end is the achievement of a moral being; and a moral being without struggle with evil is impossible because a contradiction in terms, and the same law must run throughout.
Finally: The true conception of God, as this appears to me, and especially in his relation to us, is closely bound up with the absorbing question of Immortality. And on this I surmise that Professor Royce and I differ; though I am less sure that we do, judging by his hints of what is coming in his more esoteric lectures next week.[1] But in his book he gives up the question of Immortality as insoluble by philosophy. Well, — perhaps it is; but upon this question, as upon that of Evil, I think a great light is thrown by the evolutional view of the origin of man.
Until recently, man’s mind was studied wholly apart from mind as appearing in all the rest of Nature. Thus an elaborate system of philosophy was built up without the slightest reference to the psychic phenomena of animals. The grounds of our belief in immortality were based largely on a supposed separateness of man from brutes — his complete uniqueness in the whole scheme of Nature. This is now no longer possible. If man came by a natural process from the animal kingdom, — his spirit from the anima of animals, — then the psychical phenomena of man should no longer be studied apart from those of animals nearest approaching him. As anatomy, physiology, and embryology became scientific only by becoming comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and comparative embryology, so psychology can never become scientific and rational until it becomes comparative psychology — until the psychical phenomena of man are studied in comparison with those foreshadowings and beginnings of similar phenomena which we find in animals most nearly approaching him. Evolution is not only a scientific theory; it is not only a philosophy; it is a great scientific method, transforming every department of thought. Every subject must be studied anew in its light. The grounds of belief in immortality must be thus studied anew. It is well known that I have striven earnestly to make such a study. I know that many think that this method of study destroys those grounds completely and forever; but I also know that those who think so take a very superficial view of evolution and of man. At the risk of tediousness, I will bring forward, once more, an outline of my view, but in a different way, which I hope will be understood readily by those who have followed my previous writings.
I assume, then, the immanence of Deity in Nature. Furthermore, as you already know, I regard physical and chemical forces, or the forces of dead Nature, as a portion of the omnipresent Divine Energy in a diffused, unindividuated state, and therefore not self-active but having its phenomena determined directly by the Divine Energy. Individuation of this Energy, i.e. self-activity, begins, as I suppose, with Life, and proceeds, pari passu with organisation of matter, to complete itself as a Moral Person in man. Mr. Upton,[2] in his Hibbert Lectures, given in 1893, takes a similar view, except that he makes all force — even physical force — in some degree self-active; and thence it goes on with increasing individuation and self-activity to completion in man, — as in my view. The difference is unimportant. To use his mode of expression, God may be conceived as self-sundering his Energy, and setting over against himself a part as Nature. A part of this part, by a process of evolution, individuates itself more and more, and finally completes its individuation and self-activity in the soul of man. On this view, spirit — which is a spark of Divine Energy — is a potential in dead Nature, a germ in plants, a quickened embryo in animals, and comes to birth into a higher world of spirit-life in man. Self-consciousness — from which flows all that is distinctive of man — is the sign of birth into the spiritual world. Thus an effluence from the Divine Person flows downward into Nature to rise again by evolution to recognition of, and communion with, its own Source.
Now observe, and this is the main point: The sole purpose of this self-sundering of the Divine Energy is thereby to have something to contemplate. And the sole purpose of this progressive individuation of the Divine Energy by evolution is finally to have, in man, something not only to contemplate but also to love and to be loved by, and, in the ideal man, to love and to be loved by supremely. Thus God is not only necessary to us, but — we also to him. This part of God, self-separated and, as it were, set over against himself, and including every visible manifestation or revelation of himself, may well be called a Second Person of the godhead, which by eternal generation developes into sons in man, and finally into fulness of godhead in the ideal man — the Divine Man — as his well-beloved Son. By this view, there is a new significance in Nature. Nature is the womb in which, and evolution the process by which, are generated sons of God. Now, — do you not see? — without immortality, this whole purpose is balked — the whole process of cosmic evolution is futile. Shall God be so long and at so great pains to achieve a spirit, capable of communing with him, and then allow it to lapse again into nothingness?
Notes edit
- ↑ For the substance of what is here referred to, see The Absolute and the Individual, pp. 322-326 below. Cf. also pp. 348-353.
- ↑ C. B. Upton: Bases of Religious Belief. Hibbert Lectures for 1893. London: Williams and Norgate, 1894.