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