at the drama of human life from his own standpoint, that he would as soon worship "a wilderness of apes as the Positivist's rationalised conception of humanity. But the comparison with which he concluded, in which he referred to the considerable progress made by Mormonism as contrasted with Positivism, has its explanation when viewed in the light of the foregoing conclusions. Mormonism may be be a monstrous form of belief, and one which is undoubtedly destined to be worsted in conflict with the forms of Christianity prevailing round it; yet it is seen that we cannot deny to it the characteristics of a religion. Although, on the other hand, the 'Religion of Humanity" advocated by Comte may be, and is, a most exemplary set of principles, we perceive it to be without those characteristics. It is not, apparently, a religion at all. It is, like other forms of belief which do not provide a super-rational sanction for conduct, but which call themselves religions, incapable, from the nature of the conditions, of exercising the functions of a religion in the evolution of society.1 1 It is very interesting to notice how clearly G. H. Lewes, himself a distinguished adherent of Comte, perceived the inherent antagonism between religion and philosophy (the aim of the latter having always been to establish a rational sanction for conduct), and yet without realising the significance of this antagonism in the process of social evolution the race is undergoing. Speaking of the attempt made in the past to establish a "Religious philosophy," he remarks upon its innate impossibility because the doctrines of religion have always been held to have been revealed, and therefore beyond and inaccessible to reason. "So that," he says, "metaphysical problems, the attempted solution of which by Reason constitutes Philosophy, are solved by Faith and yet the name of Philosophy is retained! But the very groundwork of Philosophy consists in reasoning, as the groundwork of Religion is Faith. There cannot, consequently, be a Religious Philosophy: it is a contradiction in terms. Philosophy may be occupied about the same problems as Religion; but it employs altogether different criteria, and depends on altogether different principles. Religion may, and should call in Philosophy to its aid; but in so doing it assigns to Philosophy only the subordinate office of illustrating, In the religious beliefs of mankind we have not simply a class of phenomena peculiar to the childhood of the race. We have therein the characteristic feature of our social evolution. These beliefs constitute, in short, the natural and inevitable complement of our reason; and so far from being threatened with eventual dissolution they are apparently destined to continue to grow with the growth and to develop with the development of society, while always preserving intact and unchangeable the one essential feature they all have in common in the ultra-rational sanction they provide for conduct. And lastly, as we understand how an ultra-rational sanction for the sacrifice of the interests of the individual to those of the social organism has been a feature common to all religions we see, also, why the conception of sacrifice has occupied such a central place in nearly all beliefs, and why the tendency of religion has ever been to surround this principle with the most impressive and stupendous of sanctions.1 reconciling, or applying its dogmas. This is not a Religious Philosophy, it is Religion and Philosophy, the latter stripped of its boasted prerogative of deciding for itself, and allowed only to employ itself in reconciling the decisions of Religion and of Reason" (History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 409). These are words written with true scientific insight. But a clearer perception of the fundamental problem of human evolution might have led the writer to see that the universal instinct of mankind which has recognised that the essential element in a religion is that its doctrines should be inaccessible to reason has its foundation in the very nature of the problem our social evolution presents; and that the error of Comte has been in assuming that a set of principles from which this element has been eliminated is capable of performing the functions of a religion. 1 It is the expression of the antagonism between the interests of the individual and those of the social organism in process of evolution that we have in Kant's conception of the opposition between the inner and outer life, in Green's idea of the antagonism between the natural man and the spiritual man, and in Professor Caird's conception of the differences between self and not self. We would not be precluded from accepting religion in To the consideration of the results flowing from this recognition of the real nature of the problem underlying our social development we have now to address ourselves. If we have, in the social system founded on a form of religious belief, the true organic growth with which science is concerned, we must, it would appear, be able then to discover some of the principles of development under the influence of which the social growth proceeds. If it is in the ethical system upon which a social type is founded that we have the seat of a vast series of vital phenomena unfolding themselves in obedience to law, then we must be able to investigate the phenomena of the past and to observe the tendencies of the current time with more profit than the study of either history or sociology has hitherto afforded. Let us see, therefore, with what prospect of success the biologist, who has carried the principles of his science so far into human society, may now address himself to the consideration of the history of that process of life in the midst of which we are living, and which we know under the name of Western Civilisation. Fichte's sense-as the realisation of universal reason- —if we can understand universal reason involving the conception that the highest good is the furtherance of the evolutionary process the race is undergoing. But once we have clearly grasped the nature of the characteristic problem human evolution presents we see how absolutely individual rationalism has been precluded from attaining this position: it can only be reached as Kant contemplated -"by a faith of reason which postulates a God to realise it" (ie. the ultra-rational). Individuals repudiating ultra-rational sanctions may feel it possible to willingly participate in the cosmic process in progress; but conclusions often drawn from this involve an incomplete realisation of the fact that the feelings which render it possible are-like our civilisations themselves the direct product of ethical systems founded on ultra-rational sanctions. We live and move in the midst of the influences of these systems, and it is only by a mental effort of which only the strongest minds are capable that we can even imagine what our action, or the action of others, would be if they were non-existent. CHAPTER VI WESTERN CIVILISATION To obtain even a general idea of that vast organic growth in the midst of which we are living, and which for want of a better name we call Western Civilisation, it is absolutely necessary that the point of view should be removed to some distance. When this is done the resulting change in aspect is very striking. We are apt to imagine that many of the more obvious features of the society in which we live go to constitute the natural and normal condition of the world; that they have always existed, and that it is part of the order of things that they should always continue to exist. It is far more difficult than might be imagined for the average mind to realise that the main features of our modern society are quite special in the history of the world; that institutions which seem a necessary part of our daily life and of our national existence are absolutely new and exceptional; and that under the outward appearance of stability they are still undergoing rapid change and development. We have only to look round us to immediately perceive how comparatively recent in origin are many of the most characteristic features of our social life. Our trades, commerce, and manufactures, our banking systems, our national debts, our huge systems of credit, are the growth of scarcely more than two centuries. The revolution in methods of travel and means of communication, and our systems of universal education, are the products of the century in which we are still living. The capitalism and industrialism of to-day, and the world market which they seek to supply, are but recent growths. The immense revolution which applied science has made in the modern world, dates its beginning scarcely more than a century back, is still in full progress, and is yet far from having reached a point at which any limits whatever can be set to it. Yet all these things are brought before the mind only with an effort. "It is," says Sir Henry Maine, "in spite of overwhelming evidence, most difficult for a citizen of Western Europe to bring thoroughly home to himself the truth that the civilisation which surrounds him is a rare exception in the history of the world." It is a still more difficult task for the observer to realise that, in point of time, it is all a growth occupying a very small space in the period with which history deals, and an almost infinitesimal span of time in the period during which the human race has existed. When we bring ourselves to look, from this point of view, at the times in which we live, we begin to perceive that no just estimate of the tendencies of our civilisation, or of the nature of the forces at work therein, can be arrived at by merely taking into account those new forces which have been unloosed amongst us during the last century or two. One of the most characteristic features of the social literature of our time is, nevertheless, the attempt which is often made therein to consider our social problems as if they were the isolated growths of a short period. It would appear 1 Ancient Law, p. 22. |