MR. BALFOUR ON DESIGN

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1995, 28 February 1914, Page 9

MR. BALFOUR ON DESIGN

SECOND GIFFORD LECTURE. HERBERT SPENCER CRITICISED NATURAL SELECTION. : Til!.' Bute Unl), at Glasgow, was again filled to its utmost capacity oil January LI when Mr. Balfour gave his seeond Gilford Lecture. He had another euthuskstic welcome, and. even as he approached the. deeper aspects of iiis high theme sonuj of the younger members of his audience remained conscious of the interest attaching to the personality of the lecturer, When ho happened to take a drink of water just after' introducing a subject with the remark, "1 will.now. fulfil tho pledge J. gave," the sound of, unexpected cheers surprised the lecturer and most of those who were following his argument.. Mo other Gifford lecturer has ever attracted so large and so varied ati audience.

the Arguments from and to Design. Mr. Iklfour began by remarking that his view that beliefs can best be treated as. reasonable in a theistic setting might seem to carry us no .further than the Argument from design, tfcc dregs of old-fashioned -apologetics, and a discussion of that argument'would form the preface to liis lecture. If the argument from design was sound, lyliat, he asked, e'ould it prove? It could answer the question, "Is matter duo tilti-. mately to mind, or is the mind of finite creatures duo solely to matter?" But its reply to this question did not carry n.s very far, for tho mere belief that mind lies behind- matter is compatible with the wildest heresies in the development of thought. Yet tho idea of injud as existing behind matter is a big step towards natural theology. There was force in the argument from 'design when the design they found was a design, which had value for sentient beings, but ho did not think thcro was any .argument from design if tlie£ considered matter alone and -for itself. In other words., t-lio argument -of- design was .sometimes put too high, and those who put it too high had fallen into theerror, as he deemed it to be, which HorHiert Spencer fell into when ho elaborated tlwse cosmic theories of evolution which were associated with his-philoso-phy. Herbert Spencer, they would remember, regarded the whole drama of evolution from first to last as one great continuous \ story, . In the first chapter they ' began'.' frith midiffe-rcnljated nebulae diffused,'through space, aiid in tho last chapter they arrived at the elaborate and highly-developed organisation of human society. It was a very impfeslsvo thought to hiirt. All this was one continuous epic narrative. "Un"fortunately, • from every point- of- view, from ths philosophic point of view, and from tho artistic point of view, Herbert Spencer. missed out the most.;critical chapter oa which tho whole plot, turned. Ho never told tho world how the transition was effected' between this evolving univcrso of matter obeying physical laws and tho biological ai-ul foeiological stages which bo represented as the later .chapters of the same pre-ye-ss of-.evolution. He never wrote of the. transition. He (Mr, Balfour) did not know that he ever made-up his mind—he rather doubted it—how itought to be written, . To liis (Mr. Balfour's) mind, however impressive all this ■ view of a universal evolution 'affecting matter ft-s well as niiiid might be, it was- founded upon error. If titey considered-matterm'and for itself alone, lwr.tjiought,'-.tho.-. word evolution was fiK-sll.Vc -quita out-of- place, for it carried with it consciously or wiwon-s-cionsly always some impression of .working towards a' goal. Herbert .SpoiiCer thought- that ato-ms diffused in." uebuto were in- soi-iie -way' ii-fenoi: atoms, arranged hi siiiis and planets revolving round suns and all tho arc of heaven." But all that was quite anthropomorphic. As far as lie was aware, there was not an atom of reason for supposing that matter which remained constant .in quantity and energy was better distributed in . one fashion than in another fashiod. Unless aiid until they brought ill: the idea, of feeling and intelligence, until tliey brought in consciousness in some shape or another, evolution Was to liijM a quite unmeaning phrase. 9'lidso who iirgtiod from de-sign ia the*' material world' considered..by itself were- open, ho thought, utoro'or less to the criticism that he bad brought against- Herbert, SpWieer. But t-hcy would say to him, "Then sre wo to. seo no marks of the Divine in the niftgi-iificent and -overpowering spectacle of the .grandeur tef Nature?" He did not say that-. Bo shid that for man tho heavens did declare the glory of God. But they only declared .'the glory of God if there were men and if the.ro was God,- and they must- bring in consciousness in, somo shape if they we'ro going to find design in the- inanimate. He held with Bacon tliat if the-universe was, the result of blind chance, the glory, vanishes.

| Life, Filing, Thought. Bnt this is an argument, not- i'roiii do-1 sign,' but to design, Tho 'fargumeirt to • desigpa"-became the keynote of the le.c-j , tufa. ' TJio two arguments are, Mr. Balfour insisted, vitally different, and he would Ufcvo frequent' occasion to refer to the latter, but Jig had >rtili something, to say about the former.. Bio argument from design is. from an. I adaptation to n contriver, and it Jias force in-dealing rib orguitia-Hfe. Recent advance iii biology , has increased its force.a.thausaiid times. "Why, then, i ■do ive not that, we camiat lie. i'dealing with mere fhaix-e 'i Tlie answer |1s that Darwin has shovn that, given | certain conditions, you could bMi.td up i an iuiinito ivealtk of varied organic life. Natural selection shows a'method of which design can be liiinikvlied, given 1 ho' promises oi' life and variation, arul yet ho fhoiiglit. thut Kelvin's ..view st® stands, that if wo trace back tlie~present. distribution of energy into tho. past. We come tq a time wlieii our argtimeius fail' lis. There was a beginning ! of the physical.universe as we know it, [and we are'apjwofldmig n time, fmi to be absolutely reached till after an in- | finite,duration,-in which there will be no more 11 ;'.i«lV>rmaiion of ciersy out of wfiicli work may l>ft obtained. Wo have a regnbr )>reeftss hefore and after which vre can ini'cr nothing;; in ti« jiaiddie 'we, life, feeling. tiioui;llf. The , equations wlrieh settle the. relations of . energy and matter remained the same, j but. there were added tJio feelings .of : feoHng beings and the thought of thinkiiio: beings. This fact, important' from the point' of view of the argu-' ment from design,- lie said, still more important i'roiii tiie point of view of tlio argument to design, for it •is reasonable to conclude thrtt beeanso matter cannot make will and reason,• then will and reason must Irnvo made matter.

the Rational Values of our Solids. ' The discussion of the argument frtwi . ctesign occupied, the (traitor part of tho lecture, and Mr. lialfonr, in eonchrdiuc, reverted to .his position that ail our beliefs belong to;a logical seres,.'pass* ing from ■ premises to conclusions iiiu'l to a series of causes, and effects Vooted in the general procession of events in tho natural world, l'lw causal. series must iiiivo a reaction upon tho value 0? tho rational sorios, arid Mr. Balfour iUkstratwl this point by a remark made to' him by a famous aguestic: "It is only noeessniy to cspiaiij, hot to refute, Christianity." It »yas a iiahmii view for an opponent of Christianity, but ho. 1 himself thought that all beliefs could' ho eKpkumHi'/if we knew enough to follow. .flw wholes train of aritflccijents, :md if the epigram were to be accepted,

it followed that all beliefs could ho refined, The moral of tho aiieccloto' fol* lowed. _ The relation .between t-ljb- two series is «if great philosophic- jfuiporti, though ■ it Isas not greatly interested philosophers. The causal series niaj ; seriously affect the- rational value of! the logical process, and to preserve the rational values of the great body of otif beliefs we must find a causal pedigree which will not prove dest-rurtm* of the values in which tit® wlwkj trust and confidence in life naturally rests. Unless behind our reasoning there is -ultimate* ly a rational cause, behind our ethics a' moral, euuse, a.ml behrwl -our belief in. beauty.a belief in a God tfho cares for beauty, tlioH our scientific, oti-r ethical, trod «uf aesthetic beliefs ail lose value to a degree which nobody cat! seriously contemplate. It might be asked, "Caiijiot natural selection which ea*i mimic design niimic also creative reason?" This, said Mr. Balfour, is an impartant objection which lie proposed to keep in view, but for some reason <#r another ail things which have the greatest value for thought) for morality, and for beauty seemed to Mm t« liavo .no survival virtue, at all, and thoy cannot be mimicked because they do not, alfoct the survival nf the fittest of the multi* plication of the race.

With this answer to an. attempt, : tb tura his position, Mr. Balfour indicated that in succeeding '•tectums l»o would show how oui' aesthetic vaiues, our moral values, and the great body of intellectual, and especially of scientific, beliefs are dependant upon the t'keistic principle. , .

IA report of the first of Mr. Balfour',j lectures appeared in yesterday's issue,]