Accepting the universe : $b Essays in naturalismBurroughs, John
Philosophy
Accepting the universe : $b Essays in naturalism
Burroughs, John
Natural history; Natural history -- Philosophy; Philosophy; Science
It is unfortunate that these words connote things purely human, and
to that extent are likely to lead us astray. But are not all our
terms human, even the word “astray” itself? Can we have any other?
Emerson says that anything may be affirmed or denied of the Infinite,
and that God can be hinted only in signs and symbols. In trying to
describe time, we need a new language that differs as much from our
ordinary speech as algebra differs from arithmetic. The circle and
sphere are the only complete types of Infinity.
In Professor Loeb’s mechanistic conception of life there is no hint
of mind or soul; all is matter and force. All the mechanists and
energists and materialists unconsciously endow their matter and force
with creative power, thus elevating them to the rank of a _Deus_.
Science knows no mysteries; it knows only insoluble problems and
comparatively few of them. But may not one see mysteries in nature
without being a mystic? Physical facts may be inexplicable, but we
do not call them mysteries. The birth and development of the cell is
wonderful, but can we say that it is mysterious? Does not mystery
imply something occult and unknowable? Is a biologist or evolutionist
to be charged with mysticism because he refuses to admit that the
development of species is all a matter of chance? If he believes,
for instance, that the horse as we know him was inevitable in that
small beast of Eocene times, the eohippus, is he to be charged with
a teleological taint? Or if we speak of the predestined course of
evolution are we unfaithful to the true scientific spirit? Is not the
acorn predestined to become an oak? Does growth imply a mysterious
guiding force or principle? The little brown house wren that fusses
and chatters here around its box on my porch has come all the way
from Central America. Did something guide it? Life is full of this
kind of guidance. Not much of nature can be explained by addition and
subtraction; not much of it can be explained by mere mechanics, or
physics; not much of it can be explained by the doctrine of chance.
There are reasons behind reasons. You may give good physiological
reasons why the heart beats, why the liver secretes bile, why the
digestive processes go on and our food nourishes us, but can you find
the mind by dissecting the brain or connect mind with matter?
Mysticism belongs to the sphere of our religious emotions, and when
we read natural phenomena through these emotions we are mystical.
We cannot say that the course of evolution has been directed, and
we cannot say it goes by chance. The changes of the seasons are not
directed; the circuit of the waters from the earth, through the sea
to the clouds and back to the earth, is not directed; the orbs in
their courses are not directed; the sap in the trees, the blood in
our veins, are not directed; neither are these things by chance. “An
inward perfecting principle” is the divinity that shapes the ends of
all organisms.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account