The modern scientist for practical purposes postulates the existence of conscious ideas, of the outer material world, of space and time. He accepts axiomatic truths. He goes farther; he postulates the uniformity of nature, and the validity of his reasoning processes. He discovers natural laws, and propounds theories concerning them. He investigates the physical correlates of mental processes. He has his favorite hypotheses concerning phenomena that defy his powers of analysis. He shows the process of the world as a whole to be evolution.
So far we have no controversy and should have none, did not some eminent investigators in the field of natural science claim to have covered the entire realm of legitimate inquiry, and deny the right to raise further questions or entertain beliefs, however strongly they may be prompted by our very constitution, concerning the origin and end of things, the meaning of the world, and man’s place in it. To the well-rounded nature, faith is not necessarily limited to the physical world, and the credulity implied in unwarranted denial is at least as unscientific as positive faith.
Human nature rebels against conclusions wholly discordant with its best instincts, and, in the light of the most recent data and speculation, begins anew a discussion as old as philosophy. The subject is all the more important, because the uneducated mind, misled by superficial catch phrases of materialism, fails to know the reverent spirit of true science.
Here is an illustration relating to the general theme. A prominent biologist puts this statement before the reading public: “There is no ego except that which arises from the coördination of the nerve cells.” I might take the contrary of the proposition and reply: “There is an ego not adequately described by your ‘colonial consciousness’ theory.” Regarding each position as dogmatic, perhaps mine is as good as the biologist’s. As to evidence, he founds his belief on the general fact of evolution and specifically upon the functions, partly known, partly conjectured, of nerve cells in the brain. He has no knowledge that a unit-being called the ego does not exist. His is the faith of denial of something which from his standpoint he can neither prove nor disprove. I also accept the facts of evolution and of the mechanism of the brain. I base my belief in the ego on certain views of other biologists, and on data of consciousness, morality, and religion, and the insight of all subjective philosophy. My faith is one of assent to something not admitting demonstrative proof. Have I sufficient reason for my faith in passing beyond the inductions of material science?
We present some latest views of eminent biologists. While evolution must be accepted as a fact, there is great uncertainty as to the factors that produce changes in the organic world. To-day there is small evidence that variations are produced by direct influence of environment. In the germ is the “whole machinery and the mystery of heredity.” Since the microscope fails to reveal the causes, either of normal development or of variations, some are forced to accept, as the simplest and most rational hypothesis, the existence of a psychic principle in the germ. The facts appear to support the doctrine of purpose in evolution. So earnest and able a thinker as Professor LeConte frankly affirms: “With the appearance of Man another factor was introduced, namely, conscious coöperation in his own evolution, striving to attain an ideal.”
Professor Muensterberg is of high authority in experimental psychology and besides has a keen philosophic mind. His paper entitled “Psychology and the Real Life” is instructive and significant. He shows that it is the business of psychology to analyze the ideas and emotions, the whole content of consciousness, into sensations, to investigate the whole psychological mechanism, but that the primary reality is not a possible object of psychology and natural science. By his view it takes an act of free will to declare the will unfree; there can be no science, thought, or doubt that is not the child of duties; even skeptical denial demands to be regarded as absolute truth; there is a truth, a beauty, a morality independent of psychological conditions; psychology is the last word of a materialistic century, it may become the introductory word of an idealistic century. His views are maintained with force and power of conviction.
But these references are only incidental to the purpose of this discussion. They may serve to show (1) that science has no real proof against the dictum, “Evolution is God’s way of doing things;” (2) that on the contrary it may support the spiritual view of the world; (3) that there are grounds of faith with which science properly has no business.
Evolution is according to nature’s laws. Man is a product of evolution. Man possesses poetry and sentiment, conceives the beauty of holiness, and has speculative reason. None of these can properly be explained by merely materialistic evolution; they are not necessary to preservation of life. We have tried to wholly account for the ideals, emotions, and aspirations of human nature by analyzing them into primitive sensations and instincts. This is the fatal error of materialistic philosophy. The process of evolution is not analysis; it is synthesis, development, the appearance of new factors—a gradual revelation. It is our business to analyze, but, also, to try to understand the higher complex, the perfected product. The first stand of spiritual philosophy is faith in the validity of our own evolved being, and to this we have as much right as to faith in the reliability of our five senses.