242 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



which, man is taken is spiritual. Further, from these statements 

 each writer deduces a similar moral. The only difference "between 

 them is, that Mr. Spencer puts it positively, and Prof. Huxley 

 negatively. Mr. Spencer says that a consciousness of the un- 

 knowable nature of the universe fills the mind with religious 

 emotion. Prof. Huxley says that the same consciousness will pre- 

 serve from destruction the emotion that already exists in it. We 

 will examine the positive and negative propositions in order, and 

 see what hearing, if any, they have on practical life. 



Mr. Spencer connects his religion with practical life thus : The 

 mystery and the immensity of the All, and our own inseparable 

 connection with it, deepen and solemnize our own conception of 

 ourselves. They make us regard ourselves as " elements in that 

 great evolution of which the beginning and the end are beyond 

 our knowledge or conception " ; and in especial they make us so 

 regard our " own innermost convictions." 



"It is not for nothing," says Mr. Spencer, "that a man has in him these sym- 

 pathies with some principles, and repugnance to others. ... He is a descendant 

 of the past ; he is a parent of the future ; and his thoughts are as children born to 

 him, which he may not carelessly let die. He, like every other man, may properly 

 consider himself as one of the myriad agencies through whom works the Unknown 

 Cause : and when the Unknown Cause produces in him a certain belief, he is 

 thereby authorized to profess and act with this belief/ 1 * 



In all the annals of intellectual self-deception it would be hard 

 to find anything to outdo or even to approach this. What a man 

 does or thinks, what he professes or acts out, can have no effect 

 whatever, conceivable to ourselves, beyond such effects as it pro- 

 duces within the limits of this planet; and hardly any effect, 

 worth our consideration, beyond such as it produces on himself 

 and a few of his fellow-men. Now, how can any of these effects 

 be connected with the evolution of the universe in such a way as 

 to enable a consciousness of the universe to inform us that one 

 set of effects should be aimed at by us rather than another ? The 

 positivists say that our aim should be the progress of man ; and 

 that, as I have said, forms a standard of duty, though it may 

 not supply a motive. But what has the universe to do with the 

 progress of man? Does it know anything about, it or care any- 

 thing about it? Judging from the language of Mr. Spencer and 

 Prof. Huxley, one would certainly suppose that it did. Surely, in 

 that case, here is anthropomorphism with a vengeance. " It is 

 not for nothing/' says Mr. Spencer, " that the Unknowable has im- 

 planted in a man certain impulses." What is this but the old 

 theologic doctrine of design ? Can anything be more inconsistent 

 with the entire theory of the evolutionist ? Mr. Spencer's argu- 



* " First Principles," p. 123. 



