darwin and modern science-第147节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


in　order　to　orientate　society　towards　their　ideals　each　school　tries　to　show　that　the　authority　of　natural　science　is　on　its　side。　　But　even　in　the　most　objective　of　theories；　those　which　systematically　make　abstraction　of　all　political　tendencies　in　order　to　study　the　social　reality　in　itself；　traces　of　Darwinism　are　readily　to　be　found。

Let　us　take　for　example　Durkheim's　theory　of　Division　of　Labour　（〃De　la　Division　du　Travail　social〃；　Paris；　1893。）　　The　conclusions　he　derives　from　it　are　that　whenever　professional　specialisation　causes　multiplication　of　distinct　branches　of　activity；　we　get　organic　solidarityimplying　differencessubstituted　for　mechanical　solidarity；　based　upon　likenesses。　　The　umbilical　cord；　as　Marx　said；　which　connects　the　individual　consciousness　with　the　collective　consciousness　is　cut。　　The　personality　becomes　more　and　more　emancipated。　　But　on　what　does　this　phenomenon；　so　big　with　consequences；　itself　depend？　　The　author　goes　to　social　morphology　for　the　answer：　　it　is；　he　says；　the　growing　density　of　population　which　brings　with　it　this　increasing　differentiation　of　activities。　　But；　again；　why？　　Because　the　greater　density；　in　thrusting　men　up　against　each　other；　augments　the　intensity　of　their　competition　for　the　means　of　existence；　and　for　the　problems　which　society　thus　has　to　face　differentiation　of　functions　presents　itself　as　the　gentlest　solution。

Here　one　sees　that　the　writer　borrows　directly　from　Darwin。　　Competition　is　at　its　maximum　between　similars；　Darwin　had　declared；　different　species；　not　laying　claim　to　the　same　food；　could　more　easily　coexist。　　Here　lay　the　explanation　of　the　fact　that　upon　the　same　oak　hundreds　of　different　insects　might　be　found。　　Other　things　being　equal；　the　same　applies　to　society。　　He　who　finds　some　unadopted　speciality　possesses　a　means　of　his　own　for　getting　a　living。　　It　is　by　this　division　of　their　manifold　tasks　that　men　contrive　not　to　crush　each　other。　　Here　we　obviously　have　a　Darwinian　law　serving　as　intermediary　in　the　explanation　of　that　progress　of　division　of　labour　which　itself　explains　so　much　in　the　social　evolution。

And　we　might　take　another　example；　at　the　other　end　of　the　series　of　sociological　systems。　　G。　Tarde　is　a　sociologist　with　the　most　pronounced　anti…naturalistic　views。　　He　has　attempted　to　show　that　all　application　of　the　laws　of　natural　science　to　society　is　misleading。　　In　his　〃Opposition　Universelle〃　he　has　directly　combatted　all　forms　of　sociological　Darwinism。　According　to　him　the　idea　that　the　evolution　of　society　can　be　traced　on　the　same　plan　as　the　evolution　of　species　is　chimerical。　　Social　evolution　is　at　the　mercy　of　all　kinds　of　inventions；　which　by　virtue　of　the　laws　of　imitation　modify；　through　individual　to　individual；　through　neighbourhood　to　neighbourhood；　the　general　state　of　those　beliefs　and　desires　which　are　the　only　〃quantities〃　whose　variation　matters　to　the　sociologist。　　But；　it　may　be　rejoined；　that　however　psychical　the　forces　may　be；　they　are　none　the　less　subject　to　Darwinian　laws。　　They　compete　with　each　other；　they　struggle　for　the　mastery　of　minds。　　Between　types　of　ideas；　as　between　organic　forms；　selection　operates。　　And　though　it　may　be　that　these　types　are　ushered　into　the　arena　by　unexpected　discoveries；　we　yet　recognise　in　the　psychological　accidents；　which　Tarde　places　at　the　base　of　everything；　near　relatives　of　those　small　accidental　variations　upon　which　Darwin　builds。　　Thus；　accepting　Tarde's　own　representations；　it　is　quite　possible　to　express　in　Darwinian　terms；　with　the　necessary　transpositions；　one　of　the　most　idealistic　sociologies　that　have　ever　been　constructed。

These　few　examples　suffice。　　They　enable　us　to　estimate　the　extent　of　the　field　of　influence　of　Darwinism。　　It　affects　sociology　not　only　through　the　agency　of　its　advocates　but　through　that　of　its　opponents。　　The　questionings　to　which　it　has　given　rise　have　proved　no　less　fruitful　than　the　solutions　it　has　suggested。　　In　short；　few　doctrines；　in　the　history　of　social　philosophy；　will　have　produced　on　their　passage　a　finer　outcrop　of　ideas。


XXIV。　　THE　INFLUENCE　OF　DARWIN　UPON　RELIGIOUS　THOUGHT。

By　P。N。　WAGGETT；　M。A。；　S。S。J。E。

I。

The　object　of　this　paper　is　first　to　point　out　certain　elements　of　the　Darwinian　influence　upon　Religious　thought；　and　then　to　show　reason　for　the　conclusion　that　it　has　been；　from　a　Christian　point　of　view；　satisfactory。　　I　shall　not　proceed　further　to　urge　that　the　Christian　apologetic　in　relation　to　biology　has　been　successful。　　A　variety　of　opinions　may　be　held　on　this　question；　without　disturbing　the　conclusion　that　the　movements　of　readjustment　have　been　beneficial　to　those　who　remain　Christians；　and　this　by　making　them　more　Christian　and　not　only　more　liberal。　　The　theologians　may　sometimes　have　retreated；　but　there　has　been　an　advance　of　theology。　　I　know　that　this　account　incurs　the　charge　of　optimism。　　It　is　not　the　worst　that　could　be　made。　　The　influence　has　been　limited　in　personal　range；　unequal；　even　divergent；　in　operation；　and　accompanied　by　the　appearance　of　waste　and　mischievous　products。　　The　estimate　which　follows　requires　for　due　balance　a　full　development　of　many　qualifying　considerations。　　For　this　I　lack　space；　but　I　must　at　least　distinguish　my　view　from　the　popular　one　that　our　difficulties　about　religion　and　natural　science　have　come　to　an　end。

Concerning　the　older　questions　about　originsthe　origin　of　the　world；　of　species；　of　man；　of　reason；　conscience；　religiona　large　measure　of　understanding　has　been　reached　by　some　thoughtful　men。　　But　meanwhile　new　questions　have　arisen；　questions　about　conduct；　regarding　both　the　reality　of　morals　and　the　rule　of　right　action　for　individuals　and　societies。　　And　these　problems；　still　far　from　solution；　may　also　be　traced　to　the　influence　of　Darwin。　　For　they　arise　from　the　renewed　attention　to　heredity；　brought　about　by　the　search　for　the　causes　of　variation；　without　which　the　study　of　the　selection　of　variations　has　no　sufficient　basis。

Even　the　existing　understanding　about　origins　is　very　far　from　universal。　　On　these　points　there　were　always　thoughtful　men　who　denied　the　necessity　of　conflict；　and　there　are　still　thoughtful　men　who　deny　the　possibility　of　a　truce。

It　must　further　be　remembered　that　the　earlier　discussion　now；　as　I　hope　to　show；　producing　favourable　results；　created　also　for　a　time　grave　damage；　not　only　in　the　disturbance　of　faith　and　the　loss　of　mena　loss　not　repaired　by　a　change　in　the　currents　of　debatebut　in　what　I　believe　to　be　a　still　more　serious　respect。　　I　mean　the　introduction　of　a　habit　of　facile　and　untested　hypothesis　in　religious　as　in　other　departments　of　thought。

Darwin　is　not　responsible　for　this；　but　he　is　in　part　the　cause　of　it。　　Great　ideas　are　dangerous　guests　in　narrow　minds；　and　thus　it　has　happened　that　Darwinthe　most　patient　of　scientific　workers；　in　whom　hypothesis　waited　upon　research；　or　if　it　provisionally　outstepped　it　did　so　only　with　the　most　scrupulously　careful　acknowledgmenthas　led　smaller　and　less　conscientious　men　in　natural　science；　in　history；　and　in　theology　to　an　over…eager　confidence　in　probable　conjecture　and　a　loose　grip　upon　the　facts　of　experience。　　It　is　not　too　much　to　say　that　in　many　quarters　the　age　of　materialism　was　the　least　matter…of…fact　age　conceivable；　and　the　age　of　science　the　age　which　showed　least　of　the　patient　temper　of　inquiry。

I　have　indicated；　as　shortly　as　I　could；　some　losses　and　dangers　which　in　a　balanced　account　of　Darwin's　influence　would　be　discussed　at　length。

One　other　loss　must　be　mentioned。　　It　is　a　defect　in　our　thought　which；　in　some　quarters；　has　by　itself　almost　cancelled　all　the　advantages　secured。　　I　mean　the　exaggerated　emphasis　on　uniformity　or　continuity；　the　unwillingness　to　rest　any　part　of　faith　or　of　our　practical　expectation　upon　anything　that　from　any　point　of　view　can　be　called　exceptional。　　The　high　degree　of　success　reached　by　naturalists　in　tracing；　or　reasonably　conjecturing；　the　small　beginnings　of　great　differences；　has　led　the　inconsiderate　to　believe　that　anything　may　in　time　become　anything　else。

It　is　true　that　this　exaggeration　of　the　belief　in　uniformity　has　produced　in　turn　its　own　perilous　reaction。　　From　refusing　to　believe　whatever　can　be　called　exceptional；　some　have　come　to　believe　whatever　can　be　called　wonderful。

But；　on　the　whole；　the　discontinuous　or　highly　various　character　of　experience　received　for　many　years　too　little　deliberate　attention。　　The　conception　of　uniformity　which　is　a　necessity　of　scientific　description　has　been　taken　for　the　substance　of　history。　　We　have　accepted　a　postulate　of　scientific　method　as　if　it　were　a　conclusion　of　scientific　demonstration。　　In　the　name　of　a　generalisation　which；　however　just　on　the　lines　of　a　particular　method；　is　the　prize　of　a　difficult　exploit　of　reflexion；　we　have　discarded　the　direct　impressions　of　experience；　or；　perhaps　it　is　more　true　to　say；　we　have　used　for　the　criticism　of　alleged　experiences　a　doctrine　of　uniformity　which　is　only　valid　in　the　region　of　abstract　science。　　For　every　science　depends　for　its　advance　upon　limitation　of　attention；　upon　the　selection　out　of　the　whole　content　of　consciousness　o