II.] that the Will is not free. 93 another region where the conditions are essentially different. Our conclusion that the motion of matter is the only possible cause of other motions of matter is derived from observation of matter where it is free from the influence of the human will-of matter, in fact, which lies apart from any organism; and we have no right to extend it to the very case which we purposely avoid in selecting the conditions of our experiment. Of course no one believes that when a man's will acts he violates the doctrine of the conservation of matter, or the conservation of energy, or the conservation of momentum. The will may nevertheless have a true determining action subject to all these conditions. You have only to imagine a stress between two particles of matter which are moving in opposite directions in parallel lines, a stress namely at right angles to the motion of each, to see that we should then have a change of this motion, and consequently an indefinitely large influence, without any change of the matter or the energy or the momentum of the system. And if we believe that certain molecular movements in the brain cause states of consciousness, it seems unreasonable to deny that the converse relation may also hold that a state of consciousness may be the cause of physical movement. No scientific test that we can ever apply to an organism can prove that an undetermined will has not a true determining power over the actions of the organism-no test short of the complete prediction, in all cases, of the actions which the organism will perform. No one will be bold enough to say that we shall, with any practicable extension of our knowledge, succeed in forecasting men's deeds as American meteorologists succeed in forecasting the weather; and hence there seems no reason to hope that the old question of freedom or necessity will ever find a solution at the hands of science. In any case we may feel sure that our sense of freedom, and with it our sense of moral responsibility, will survive 94 Conclusion. [LECT. II. any intellectual speculation on or even conviction of physical determinism. The distinguished men who have advocated this view of human activity would be the first to repudiate the idea that they are on that account less alive to the distinction of right from wrong, or less earnest in their efforts to abhor evil and cleave to good. Their case is curiously parallel to that of the Calvinists, who hold, as part of a religious philosophy, that all our acts are not only foreknown but predetermined by God. Far from letting this belief lessen their sense of moral responsibility, the Calvinists furnish many of the noblest examples of Christian faith and practice the world has ever seen. We need have no fear that physiology or any other science will make men either immoral or irreligious: if it drives them into Calvinism they will, after all, have small reason for complaint. We have gone over so much ground that your patience must be grievously overtaxed, but the time will not have been wasted though you carry away nothing more than my text, that the study of nature does not conflict with the worship of God through Christ. I have tried to show this in two ways:-by reference to the opinions of scientific men; and by an examination of those parts of science which have a bearing on religious ideas, especially the theory of Evolution, which you are sometimes taught to regard as acting on Christian beliefs in a manner like that in which carbolic acid acts on cholera germs. With that kind of teaching you are more than sufficiently familiar, and I would have you take it for just what it is worth. To give you the means of doing this has been my object, and, if I have succeeded, you will be able to judge for yourselves how widely removed from the true scientific spirit is the temper of those who outrage the name of science and prostitute her authority, by attempts to discredit a religion which they do not understand and cannot injure. AN INTERLUDE.' REVIEW OF MR. H. SPENCER'S "FIRST PRINCIPLES." Hold thou the good: define it well For fear divine philosophy Should push beyond her mark, and be You have seen that modern science, when true to itself, is no enemy, but rather a friend to Christianity. It remains yet for us to face the question, whether the new philosoply of the present day is equally friendly or is antagonistic. I have no hesitation in asserting that all truth is essentially one in the midst of great variety, whether the truth in common every-day life, in science, in art, in poetry, in philosophy or in religion. What is true in one cannot clash with or destroy that which is true in another department of thought. If there is clashing 1The immediate cause of the preparation of this interlude was the reception of a letter from a Japanese student in response to our invitation to the public to make criticisms or enquiries. This letter contained a number of objections to Christianity, so obviously inspired by the "New Philosophy" that I thought it wise to answer not only the questions contained in the letter, but to expose the fallacy of the fountain from which the youth of Japan are now so largely drawing their intellectual stimulus. There seems to be a good deal of temerity connected with such an undertaking. To bring a "great philosophy" to task should be the work of one deeply read and widely experienced in fields of thought. No criticism should be second-hand; to avoid the seeming of this I have tried to learn Mr. Spencer's meaning from his own works; to avoid the charge of impertinence on account of limited years of experience, I quote the thoughts of others whose years and philosophical standing place them beyond the possibility of such a charge, and whose thoughts have contributed largely to the consolidation of my own independent opinion. 96 High Claims of Philosophy [INTER that cannot be explained simply by the imperfection of our knowledge, and that may not be removed in time,-an antagonism of fundamental principles which cannot by any possibility both be true, then of course one must be rejected as false. Now, thus far a great many philosophical systems have risen in antagonism to Christianity, every one of which in so far as that antagonism extended, had to be abandoned, and is now known chiefly to the historian of thought. A new philosophy, or what calls itself a new philosophy, has come to the front with great éclat, which professes to herald in a better day over the ruins of a shattered Christianity and of all existing religious systems-the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. If the first principles of that philosophy are true, I see no place for Christianity in human hearts. If Christianity is true, that philosophy must be a mistaken view of awful questions. now remains for us to enquire whether this philosophy can scientifically claim the homage of our reason, and replace in civilized lands the Christianity which, if successful, it must destroy. Or, will it, like the long line of its predecessors, come up and flash for a moment, and then be consigned by the common consent of mankind to the philosophical antiquarian, along with its unnumbered forefathers, while Christianity still marches calmly on, advancing from high to higher honor? It Mr. Herbert Spencer has been hailed by many as the apostle of a new era of progress for human thought as having reconquered for England the foremost place in philosophy. His works are widely read in every civilized land; and, if I am rightly informed, his philosophy is moulding the mind of young Japan. And there can be no doubt as to the colossal powers of the man who has for a quarter of a century held imperial sway over thousands of thoughtful men; who aims at, and to many seems to succeed, in giving philosophical consistency to the LUDE.] Natural Science not all Science. 97 constitution of the universe, as seen through the lense of modern natural science. But when essential elements are ignored, and at the start a slight deviation from the truth is allowed, the greatness of the ultimate error will be in exact proportion to the strength which speeds along the deviating path, the crash of ultimate fall will be proportionate to the heights ascended.1 The vast advance of physical science in these modern times has been lauded and emphasized as the dawn of a brighter era, having in its forces the "promise and potency" of all things worthy of consideration, and beyond whose reach there could be no thought worth thinking, no fact worth knowing. I would be the last man in the world to decry the legitimate work of natural science, or to minify her splendid achievements. But natural science unlocks only one of the many avenues of research and effort, fits and satisfies but one phase of mind and of humanity, deals with but one side of truth. Most men with brains enough to become first class specialists in their chosen branch of science, are able also clearly to see that their science, and all natural science combined, does not remove the necessity for logical philosophy and the study of metaphysics; and does not make them authorities in matters outside of their sphere, and they may themselves take high rank as thinkers. But the study of the natural sciences as they come within the reach of the great multitude, does not tend to strengthen the faculties for philosophical thought, rather the contrary; producing in many who claim to be scientists,-and are so as far as their capacity gives them scope, but having none left for other purposes, an aversion to metaphysical philosophy, and revealed religion. And these men prophesy the death of metaphysics, 1 Bacon shrewdly remarks that "a cripple on the right road will beat a racer on the wrong," adding language which at times might be applied to Spencer: "This is farther evident that he who is not on the right road will go the farther wrong the greater his fleetness and ability."-McCosh. |