848 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Although combating various of 

 Spencer's positions, chiefly on the meta- 

 physical side, Dr. Fairbairn fully ac- 

 cepts the doctrine of evolution. Many 

 give it a cautious and qualified approval 

 in the lower sphere of life. Dr. Fair- 

 bairn takes it without reservation as 

 a comprehensive law, true not only in 

 the domain of inferior life, but also in 

 the higher sphere of humanity, and 

 emphatically in the realm of relig- 

 ious sentiments and ideas. He says: 

 " There is to be no attempt here to 

 question or deny the doctrine of evo- 

 lution; it is indeed frankly accepted. 

 . . . The creational method is here 

 held to be evolutional. Its history nar- 

 rates a progress and exhibits a process 

 best named developmental. Without 

 this notion a philosophy of religion 

 were impossible, for without it there 

 could be no scientific study of man 

 and his religions. We can not refuse 

 to apply the principle or idea that un- 

 derlies and vivifies the study of man in 

 history to the interpretation alike of 

 man and nature, to the master-prob- 

 lems that relate to their being and be- 

 coming, to their birth and growth." 



Now, this great principle is the per- 

 vading and characteristic idea of the 

 synthetic philosophy. It is there first 

 expounded as a universal law, devel- 

 oped as a method of thought, and car- 

 ried out in its main applications. Dr. 

 Fairbairn holds it to be true, and a 

 truth of such moment, that its establish- 

 ment makes an epoch even in the study 

 of religion. But is this fact that Spen- 

 cer's system has a great and all-influenc- 

 ing truth at its foundation which he has 

 so profoundly mastered that he has been 

 enabled to throw it into philosophic 

 form is this fact to count for nothing 

 in estimating the elements of its ad- 

 mitted " remarkable success " ? What 

 kind of a notion has Dr. Fairbairn of 

 the value which his readers attach to 

 the quality of truthfulness in systems 

 of thought submitted to their judg- 

 ment ? We propose to show that what 



he has here overlooked is precisely that 

 attribute of Spencer's system which has 

 been most potent in commending it to 

 the best intelligence of the age. It not 

 only " speaks the language of science," 

 but it embodies the truths of science, it 

 organizes the principles of science, it 

 conforms to the methods of science, it 

 is a scientific philosophy ; and the hos- 

 tility it has encountered on the one 

 hand and the favor that has been ex- 

 tended to it on the other are due to 

 its supposed identification with science 

 in spirit, substance, and method. 



Dr. Fairbairn's omission to recog- 

 nize this fundamental trait of Spencer's 

 system, when accounting for its exten- 

 sive influence, may not have been in- 

 tentional, but it is significant. What 

 is the state of mind that could allow 

 such an oversight? It is simply the 

 general state of mind exhibited by our 

 so-called cultivated classes toward sci- 

 entific truth. Let us see what this is. 



Opposition to science is not the ex- 

 clusive reproach of any one school of 

 thought ; it has been manifested by all. 

 Theology withstood science, because it 

 was itself identified with the old erro- 

 neous explanations of nature. Philoso- 

 phy made a stand against science, be- 

 cause science circumscribed its field and 

 subverted its ideals. Literature strove 

 against science, because of its devotion 

 to fact and its supposed unfriendliness 

 to imagination. Art resisted science 

 as unfavorable to the inventive and 

 creative spirit. Science studied matter 

 to understand its mysterious processes 

 and discern its laws; the schools of 

 culture all contemned the' occupation 

 of mind, and shrank from it as a de- 

 scent into groveling materialism. Phi- 

 losophy was most potent in its opposi- 

 tion, because it gave law to education 

 and gave reasons to theology, litera- 

 ture, and art. 



The antagonism of so-called philoso- 

 phy to the scientific spirit was inevita- 

 ble. In the childhood of knowledge it 

 entered upon speculations which could 



