Was Man Created? Part 6

There is no question at all but that the mental powers in the earliest progenitors of man must have been more highly developed than in the ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but the constant advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind to enable it to carry on longer trains of thought. "A complex train of thought," says Darwin, "can no more be carried on without the aid of words, whether spoken or silent, than a long calculation without the use of figures in algebra. It appears also that even an ordinary train of thought almost requires or is greatly facilitated by some form of language; for the dumb, deaf, and blind girl, Laura Bridgman, was observed to use her fingers while dreaming.[60] Nevertheless a long succession of vivid ideas may pa.s.s through the mind, without the aid of any form of language, as we may infer from the movements of dogs during their dreams."

The struggle for existence is going on in every language; one after another will be swept out of existence, and the languages best fitted for the practical uses of the ma.s.ses of people will alone survive. Max Muller has well remarked: "A struggle for life is constantly going on amongst the words and grammatical forms in each language. The better the shorter; the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to their own inherent virtue."[61]

It must not be thought for a moment that that which distinguishes a man from the lower animals is the understanding of articulate sounds--for, as every one knows, dogs understand many words and sentences; and Darwin says, at this stage they are at the same stage of development as infants, between the ages of ten and twelve months, who understand many words and sentences, but still cannot utter a single word. It is not the mere articulation which is our distinguishing character; for parrots and other birds possess the power. Nor is it the mere capacity of connecting definite sounds with definite ideas; for it is certain that some parrots, which have been taught to speak, connect unerringly words with things, and persons with events." The lower animals, as has already been stated, differ from man solely in his almost infinitely larger power of a.s.sociating together the most diversified sounds and ideas; and this obviously depends on the high development of his mental powers.

We now come to the consideration of a very delicate subject--a subject which is certainly at best very unsatisfactory to handle, as far as popular sentiment is concerned; for, no matter how successfully it may be handled, according to one cla.s.s of thinkers, to another cla.s.s of more orthodox thinkers it would be entirely at fault. The subject is, _Man's Moral Sense, Belief in G.o.d, Religion, Conscience, and Hope of Immortality_.

It has been stated by some writers that where "faith commences science ends." How erroneous is such a statement as this! for, as Krauth has said, "The great body of scientific facts is actually the object of knowledge to a few, and is supposed to be a part of the knowledge of the many, only because the many have faith in the statements of the few, though they can neither verify them, nor even understand the processes by which they are reached."[62]

"We believe," says Lewes, "that the sensation of violet is produced by the striking of the ethereal waves against the retina more than seven hundred billions of times in a second. * * * These statements are accepted _on trust_ by us who know that there are thinkers for whom they are irresistible conclusions." It is evident that it is to faith that science owes, to a very great extent, her progress and development; for it is impossible for man to prove by experimental demonstration all the facts of science, and since a certain number of facts have got to be accepted before a new experiment can be attempted, he has to accept on faith that such and such a statement is a fact, because such and such a scientist has claimed to have demonstrated it. "We are not _responsible_ for the fact," says Krauth, "that under the conditions of knowledge we _know_, or in defect of them do not know; we are responsible if, under the conditions of a well-grounded faith, we disbelieve."[63]

Let us look, then, at the belief in G.o.d. The question under consideration at first will not be whether there exists a G.o.d, the creator and ruler of the universe--for this will be afterward considered--but is there any evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the enn.o.bling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent G.o.d.

Schweinfurth relates that the Niam-niam, that highly interesting dwarf people of Central Africa, have no word for G.o.d, and therefore, it must be supposed, no idea; and Moritz Wagner has given a whole selection of reports on the absence of religious consciousness in inferior nations.

The idea that conscience is a sort of permanent inspiration or dwelling of G.o.d in the soul, I think, on consideration, any reasonable man will not a.s.sume. "It is a purely human faculty," says Savage, "like the faculty for art or music; and it gets its authority, as they do by being true, and just in so far as it is true. Consciousness is our own knowledge of ourselves and of the relation between our own faculties and powers. Conscience is our recognition of the relations, as right or wrong, in which we stand to those about us, G.o.d and our fellows.

_Con-scio_ is to know with, in relation.

There is such a thing, of course, as a _false conscience_ and a _true conscience_. All the false "conscientiousness grows out of the fact that men suppose they stand in certain relationships that do not really exist. Thus they imagined duties that are not duties at all." The virtues which must be practised by rude men, so that they can hold together in tribes, are of course important. No tribe could hold together if robbery, murder, treachery, etc., were common; in other words, there must be honor among thieves. "A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honored by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. The murder of infants has prevailed on the largest scale throughout the world, and has been met with no reproach; but infanticide, especially of females, has been thought to be good for the tribe, or at least not injurious. Suicide during former times was not generally considered as a crime, but rather, from the courage displayed, as an honorable act; and it is still practised by some semi-civilized and savage nations without reproach, for it does not obviously concern others of the tribe. It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travelers as did his father before him."[64]

See how weak the conscience of even more highly civilized men are in their dealings with the brute creation; how the sportsman delights in hunting-scenes, Spanish bull-fights, c.o.c.k-fights, etc.; how indignant was the sensitive Cowper, if any one should "needlessly set foot upon a worm"! The rights of the worm are as sacred in his degree as ours are, and a true conscience will recognize them. What, then, is a true conscience? Savage states in a few words, it is "one that knows and is adjusted to the realities of life. When men know the truth about G.o.d, about themselves--body and mind and spirit--about the real relations of equity in which they stand to their fellow-men in state and church and society, and when they appreciate these, and adjust their conscience to them, then they will have a true conscience. An absolutely true conscience, of course, cannot exist so long as our knowledge of the reality of things is only partial."

It is evident, then, that the conscience of man depends on his education and environments, and therefore is the subject of improvement. It becomes, then, the duty of every man to search for truth, for his conscience is not infallible, and by so doing he will bring it to accord with the real facts of G.o.d. "Throw away," says Savage, "prejudice and conceit, seek to make your conscience like the magnetic needle. The needle ever and naturally seeking the unchanging pole." As conscience, then, is but a faculty capable of development, it is not so difficult to understand a race of people whose conscience was in just the first stages of development; and, finally, a race which did not possess this faculty at all, as in the inferior nations which Wagner speaks of.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Butcher's Shop of the Anziques, Anno 1598.

(From Man's Place in Nature, by _Huxley_.)]

What kind of conscience and intelligence had the people near Cape Lopez, called the Anziques, which M. du Chaillu describes. They had incredible ferocity; for they ate one another, sparing neither friends nor relations. Their butcher-shops were filled with human flesh, instead of that of oxen or sheep, for they ate the enemies they captured in battle.

They fattened, slayed, and devoured their slaves also, unless they thought they could get a good price for them; and moreover, for weariness of life or desire for glory (for they thought it a great thing and a sign of a generous soul to despise life), or for love of their rulers, offered themselves up for food. There were, indeed, many cannibals, as in the East Indies and Brazil and elsewhere, but none such as these, since the others only ate their enemies, but these their own blood relations.

There is therefore, combining the fact mentioned by Wagner with the fact that some nations have no idea of one or more G.o.ds, not even a word to express it (proving that they have no idea), I say, there is therefore no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with any such belief as the existence of an Omnipotent G.o.d; and in this a.s.sertion almost all the learned men concur. "If, however," says Darwin, "we include under the term religion, the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less civilized races. Nor is it difficult to understand how it arose."

The savage has a stronger belief in bad spirits than in good ones. "The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to very strange superst.i.tions and customs.

Many of these are terrible to think of: such as the sacrifice of human beings to a blood-loving G.o.d, the trial of innocent persons by the ordeal of poison, of fire, of witchcraft, etc.; yet it is well occasionally to reflect on these superst.i.tions, for they show us what an infinite debt of grat.i.tude we owe to the improvement of our reason, to science, and to our acc.u.mulated knowledge."[65] As Sir J. Lubbock has well observed: "It is not too much to say that the possible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure. These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals."

The belief, then, of the existence of an Omnipotent G.o.d came with the development of the mental faculties; and although there does exist such a belief in the minds of men whose conscience is in a normal condition, still there are temptations to unbelief, and these have led men to atheism. I cannot think of an atheist unless I a.s.sociate in my thoughts the words:

"The ruling pa.s.sion, be it what it may-- The ruling pa.s.sion conquers reason still."

The atheist has decided not to believe in the existence of a G.o.d, unless he can see Him and understand Him; in other words, the finite would comprehend the infinite. Following the logical method of reasoning of an atheist, the simple fact of seeing G.o.d in no way ought to prove his existence. For when you say you see a person, and that you have not the least doubt about it, I answer, that what you are really conscious of is an affection of your retina. And if you urge that you can check your sight of the person by touching him, I would answer, that you are equally transgressing the limits of fact; for what you are really conscious of is, not that he is there, but that the nerves of your hand have undergone a change. All you hear and see and touch and taste and smell are mere variations of your own condition, beyond which, even to the extent of a hair's-breadth, you cannot go. That anything answering to your impression exists outside of yourself is not a _fact_, but an _inference_, to which all validity would be denied by an idealist like Berkeley, or by a skeptic like Hume.[66]

Thomas Cooper[67] said:

"I do not say--there is no G.o.d; But this I say--I KNOW NOT."

Mr. Bradlaugh says: "The atheist does not say, 'There is no G.o.d'; but he says, I know not what you mean by G.o.d; I am without idea of G.o.d; the word 'G.o.d' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.

I do not deny G.o.d, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me."

Austin Holyoake[68] says: "The only way of proving the fallacy of atheism is by _proving_ the existence of a G.o.d."

If it is logical proof that is wanted, there is plenty. The following arguments, although not all meeting my approbation, are still of interest:

The _Ontological Argument_ has been presented in different forms. 1.

Anselm,[69] Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), states this argument thus: We have an idea of an infinitely perfect being. But real existence is an element of infinite perfection. Therefore an infinitely perfect being exists; otherwise the infinitely perfect, as we conceive it, would lack an essential element of perfection.

2. Descartes[70] (1596-1650) states the argument thus: The idea of an infinitely perfect being which we possess could not have originated in a finite source, and therefore must have been communicated by an infinitely perfect being.

3. Dr. Samuel Clark[71] (1705) argues that time and s.p.a.ce are infinite and necessarily existent, but they are not substances. Therefore there must exist an eternal and infinite substance of which they are properties.

4. Cousin[72] maintained that the idea of the finite implies the idea of the infinite as inevitably as the idea of the "me" implies that of the "not me."

The _Cosmological Argument_ may be stated thus: "Every new thing and every change in a previously existing thing must have a cause sufficient and pre-existing. The universe consists of a series of changes.

Therefore the universe must have a cause exterior and anterior to itself.

The _Teleological Argument_, or argument from design or final causes, is as follows: Design, or the adaptation of means to effect an end, implies the exercise of intelligence and free choice. The universe is full of traces of design. Therefore the "First Cause" must have been a personal spirit.

The _Moral Argument_ may be thus stated: "In looking at the works of G.o.d there is," says Rev. Dr. Hopkins, "I suppose, evidence enough, especially if interpreted by the moral consciousness, to prove to a candid man the being of G.o.d." The educated man is a religious being. The instinct of prayer and worship, the longing for and faith in divine love and help, are inseparable from human nature under normal conditions, as known in history.

It is evident from the above that it is not for logical reasoning or arguments that the atheist is led to say, "that up to this moment the world has remained without knowledge of a G.o.d."[73] It is from the folly of his heart; and, as Solomon says, that "though you bray him and his false logic in the mortar of reason, among the wheat of facts, with the pestle of argument, yet will not his folly depart from him."[74] I fully agree with Hobbes when he says, "where there is no reason for our belief, there is no reason we should believe," but I think the several arguments given above, which could be greatly expanded, affords sufficient reason for a perfect belief in an Infinite G.o.d. For--

"G.o.d is a being, and that you may see In the fold of the flower, in the leaf of the tree, In the storm-cloud of darkness, in the rainbow of life, In the sunlight at noontide, in the darkness of night, In the wave of the ocean, in the furrow of land, In the mountain of granite, in the atom of sand; Gaze where ye may from the sky to the sod-- Where can you gaze and not see a G.o.d."

Yes, the infinite G.o.d must include all. If he is not in the dust of our streets, in the bricks of our house, in the beat of our hearts, then he is not infinite, but is finite, having boundaries. Yes, G.o.d's power it was that set the nebulous ma.s.s into vibration, and caused the world to be formed; it was His force which first shaped the atoms into molecules, and then into more complex chemical products, till finally "organizable protoplasm" was reached, which, by evolution, climbed up to man. 'Tis G.o.d we see in the family, in society, in the state, in all religions, up to the highest outflowings of Christianity. 'Tis Him we see in art, literature, and science; and so proclaims Evolution. "G.o.d is the universal causal law; G.o.d is the source of all force and all matter."

"For us," says Haeckel, "all nature is animated, _i. e._, penetrated with Divine spirit, with law, and with necessity." We know of no matter without this Divine spirit.

The "ultimate repulsion, const.i.tuting the extension and impenetrability of the atoms of matter," says Dr. Samuel Brown, "could be conceived of in no other way than as the persistent existence of the will of G.o.d himself, in whom we live and move and have our being, and which, if but for an instant withdrawn, the whole material universe and its forces in all their vastness, glory, and beauty, would collapse and sink in a moment into their original nothingness."

The advancement of science, instead of depriving man of his G.o.d, only deprives men of their earlier and ruder conceptions of Deity, only to impart a larger and grander thought of Him. "It is true, in the educational process some few minds have lost sight of Him altogether, but these are the exceptional, and therefore notable instances; with the great body of men, the conception of G.o.d has steadily enlarged with the progress of science."[75] If science can demonstrate that Evolution is true, then it is G.o.d's truth, and as such it is man's religious duty to accept it; if he rejects it, superst.i.tiously or unreasonably, he not only defrauds himself but insults the Author of truth.

What, then, has science demonstrated? Science has demonstrated the UNITY OF THE FORCES: Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, motion, are all correlated to one another, and are all mutually convertible one into another. Heat may be said to produce electricity--electricity to produce heat; magnetism to produce electricity--electricity, magnetism, and so on for the rest.

UNITY OF MATTER AND FORCE.--"For if matter were not force, and immediately known as force, it could not be known at all--could not be rationally inferred."

UNITY OF THE LIFE SUBSTANCE IN ALL ORGANIC AND ANIMAL BODIES.--"A unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial composition."

UNITY OF ANIMATE AND INANIMATE NATURE IN MATTER, FORM, AND FORCE.

UNITY OF THE LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT.--Hence we can proclaim the unity of all nature and of her laws of development.

In the beautiful words of Giordano Bruno: "A spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine substance within itself, by which it is animated." Hence we arrive at the sublime idea, since we can in no other way account for the ultimate cause of anything, that it is G.o.d's spirit which pervades and sustains all nature. By this admission we are not led to say: "There is no G.o.d but force;" but rather, "There is no force but G.o.d." G.o.d is infinite, and therefore includes nature; but is nature all? It is all that our finite minds can discover, 'tis true; but can there not exist another nature or world unknown to us; and if so, since G.o.d is infinite, he will include that world also. Let us look to this and see what science can answer.

It will be necessary for us to consider before proceeding, what is meant by the term soul; and this becomes a somewhat difficult task, as the term has been variously applied to signify the principle of life in an organic body, or the first and most undeveloped stages of individualized spiritual being, or finally, all stages of spiritual individuality, incorporeal as well as corporeal.[76] The popular belief is, that the soul is not material but substantial, a divine gift to the highest alone of G.o.d's creatures; but scientific men, such as Carl Vogt, Moleschott, Buchner, Schmidt, Haeckel, consider the phenomena of the soul to be functions of the brain and nerves. Schmidt says: "The soul of the new-born infant is, in its manifestations, in no way different from that of the young animal. These are the functions of the infantine nervous system, with this they grow and are developed together with speech."

The idea of the immortality of the soul was not aboriginal with mankind, as Sir J. Lubbock has shown that the barbarous races possess no clear belief of this kind, and Rajah Brook, at a missionary meeting in Liverpool, told his hearers there that the Dyaks, a people with whom he was connected, had no knowledge of G.o.d, of a soul, or of any future state.

Darwin remarks, that "man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future."