And Huxley and I do sweetly agree.
At the late meeting of the Association, August 10, at Columbia College, New York, Prof. Morse made an address in which he is reported as saying that “Dr. Darwin’s theory was accepted by science, although ecclesiastical bodies now and then rose up to protest against it. He asserted that the missing links for which there was such a clamor were being supplied with such rapidity that even the zoölogist had to work to keep up with his science. It was a singular fact that no sooner did some one raise an objection to the theories of derivative science, than some discovery was made which swept down the barrier. It was safe enough for an intelligent man, no matter what he knew of science, to accept as true what science put forth, and to set down as false whatever the church offered in opposition. Every theory and declaration of science had been opposed by the church. The penalty of original sin, according to a scientific writer, was the penalty of man being raised to an upright position. Laughter.] Cannot it be proved without question that the illiteracy of Spain was the result of centuries of religious oppression and of the inquisition?”
One of the scientists told a World reporter (says the Truth Seeker) that at last year’s convention in Buffalo, Prof. Morse made an address that was so full of infidelity that the Catholic diocesan authorities there forbade the clergy from attending the meetings.
However, the Association has a small orthodox element in it, and on Sunday about one-eighth of the members held a prayer-meeting at Columbia College, at which allusions were made to the ungodly character of the majority of their associates, which the said associates on Monday regarded as a very objectionable proceeding.
In the contests between scientists and theologians it has long been apparent that the theologians are steadily receding. The time was, two or three hundred years ago, when fearless scientists were imprisoned or burned by theologians. Now, the scientists who lead the age treat theology with contempt and the press sustains them. Meanwhile, scientific scepticism is invading the pulpit, and all that distinguishes the Bible from any treatise on moral philosophy is gradually being surrendered by leading theologians; they are losing religion as well as theology.
Good Psychology.—Prof. Wm. James, of the chair of Philosophy in Harvard College, and apparently the most philosophic gentleman in that conservative institution, has published in the Popular Science Monthly an essay on Human Instincts, characterized by a vigorous common sense and close observation. When he asserts (contrary to the old metaphysics) the existence of such instincts as fear, acquisitiveness, constructiveness, play (or, properly, playfulness), curiosity, sociability, shyness, secretiveness, cleanliness, modesty, shame, love, coyness or personal isolation, jealousy, parental love, etc., he shows the spirit of science. But is it not self-evident, Mr. James, to a man of your fine intelligence, that all strong impulses (or instincts, as you call them) must have a special nervous apparatus in the psychic region of the brain; and that loving, blushing, stealing, and fighting cannot be functions of the same organs concerned in perceiving color, or comprehending music? If I have traced these instincts to the special convolutions in which they reside, and given innumerable demonstrations of their locality, even in Boston, and before critical observers, why have you not interested yourself in the question of the cerebral localities and the complete demonstration of all the instincts by that method?
I have even found an instinct of the love of truth among the higher sentiments, which, to a few rare individuals, is the predominant impulse of their lives, though, alas, in college professors, as well as in other classes generally, it is “inhibited” by a great variety of opposing instincts, interests, and social influences. Nowhere is it more completely “inhibited” than in Boston and Cambridge, as I have been informed by the most intelligent old citizens.
The Far-away Battle.—In the quiet home the sounds of the far-away strife are not heard. The war of the cannon is determining the destiny of empires, but it is unheard in the cottage. The myriad sounds of commerce in the city do not disturb the quiet of that home. Its quiet life attracts no attention. But there is something in that home more important than war or commerce or king-craft—something that concerns human welfare more profoundly. In that quiet home, a human life is developing; a human soul preparing for its life work—a work that will change the destiny of coming generations. In many quiet homes such a work is in progress, determining a nation’s future.
All important movements are quiet and obscure in their origin. As the magnificent forest was slowly and obscurely germinated in darkness, in the seeds from which it sprung, so are the great discoveries in science and philosophy matured in quietness and obscurity. The thinker hears afar the sound of strife and the agitation of parties warring for power. He knows the follies and errors that agitate mankind, but he is withheld from entering the strife, for he has a more important work to accomplish—a work for the future. It is to such work that the Journal of Man is devoted; laying the foundation of that philosophy in which future thinkers shall find the principles of social reorganization. It does not join in the strife of contending parties, nor does it recognize any existing party as entirely free from error. It gives its care to new and growing truths, knowing that, as Carlyle says, “The weak thing weaker than a child becomes strong one day if it be a true thing.”
How not to do it.—The Seybert commission having made a splendid failure to find interesting and valuable facts where other investigators have succeeded, their blundering ignorance is now assisted by newspaper mendacity. The New York Times, of Aug. 22, concludes an extremely stupid article on this subject, by the following paragraph, which, if the writer gave any indications of intelligence, would be set down as a pure specimen of mendacity, but is more probably a specimen of indolent ignorance: