CHAPTER VII.On Final Causes.
We have pointed out a great number of instances where the mode in which the arrangements of nature produce their effect, suggests, as we conceive, the belief that this effect is to be considered as theendandpurposeof these arrangements. The impression which thus arises, of design and intention exercised in the formation of the world, or of the reality ofFinal Causes, operates on men’s minds so generally, and increases so constantly on every additional examination of the phenomena of the universe, that we cannot but suppose such a belief to have a deep and stable foundation. And we conceive that in several of the comparatively few cases in which such a belief has been rejected, the averseness to it has arisen from the influence of some of the causes mentioned in the last chapter; the exclusive pursuit, namely, of particular trains and modes of reasoning, till the mind becomes less capable of forming the conceptions and making the exertions which are requisite for the apprehension of truths not included among its usual subjects of thought.
1. This seems to be the case with those who maintain that purpose and design cannot beinferredordeducedfrom the arrangements which we see around us by any process of reasoning. We can reason from effects to causes, say such writers, only in cases where we know something of the nature of the cause. We can infer from the works of men, the existence of design and purpose, because we know, from past observation, what kind of works human design and purpose can produce. But the universe, considered as the work of God, cannot be compared with any corresponding work, or judged of by any analogy with known examples. How then can we, in this case, they ask, infer design and purpose in the artist of the universe? On what principles, on what axioms, can we proceed, which shall include this necessarily singular instance, and thus give legitimacy and validity to our reasonings?
What has already been said on the subject of the two different processes by which we obtain principles, and by which we reason from them, will suggest the reply to these questions. When we collect design and purpose from the arrangements of the universe, we do not arrive at our conclusion by a train of deductive reasoning, but by the conviction which such combinations as we perceive immediately and directly impress upon the mind. “Design must have had a designer.” But such a principle can be of no avail to one whom the contemplation or the description of the world does not impress with the perception of design. It is not, therefore, at the end, but at the beginning of our syllogisms, not among remote conclusions, but among original principles, that we must place the truth, that such arrangements, manifestations, and proceedings as we behold about us imply a Being endowed with consciousness, design, and will, from whom they proceed.
This is inevitably the mode in which such a conviction is acquired; and that it is so, we may the more readily believe, when we consider that it is thecase with the design and will which we ascribe to man, no less than in that which we believe to exist in God. At first sight we might perhaps be tempted to say, that we infer design and purpose from the works of man in one case, because we have known these attributes in other cases produce effects in some measure similar. But to this we must reply, by asking how we come to know the existence of human design and purposeat first, andat all? What we see around us are certain appearances, things, successions of events; how come we ever to ascribe to other men the thought and will of which we are conscious ourselves? How do we come to believe that there are other men? How are we led to elevate, in our conceptions, some of theobjectswhich we perceive intopersons? No doubt their actions, their words induce us to do this. We see that the manifestations which we observe must be so understood,and not otherwise. We feel that such actions, such events must be connected by consciousness and personality; that the actions are not the actions of things, but of persons; not necessary and without significance, like the falling of a stone, but voluntary and with purpose like what we do ourselves. But this is not a result of reasoning: we do not infer this from any similar case which we have known; since we are now speaking of thefirstconception of a will and purpose different from our own. In arriving at such knowledge, we are aided only by our own consciousness of what thought, purpose, will, are: and possessing this regulative principle, we so decipher and interpret the complex appearances which surround us, that we receive irresistibly the persuasion of the existence of other men, with thought and will and purpose like our own. And just in the same manner, when we examine attentively the adjustment of the parts of the human frame to each other and to the elements, the relation of the properties of the earth to those of its inhabitants, or of the physical to the moral nature of man, the thought mustarise and cling to our perceptions, however little it be encouraged, that this system, every where so full of wonderful combinations, suited to the preservation, and well-being of living creatures, is also the expression of the intention, wisdom, and goodness of a personal creator and governor.
We conceive then that it is so far from being an unsatisfactory or unphilosophical process by which we collect the existence of a Deity from the works of creation, that the process corresponds most closely with that on which rests the most steadfast of our convictions, next to that of our own existence, the belief of the existence of other human beings. If any one ever went so far in scepticism as to doubt the existence of any other person than himself, he might, so far as the argument from final causes is concerned, reject the being of God as well as that of man; but, without dwelling on the possibility of such fantasies, when we consider how impossible it is for men in general not to attribute personality, purpose, thought, will to each other, in virtue of certain combinations of appearances and actions, we must deem them most consistent and reasonable in attributing also personality and purpose to God, in virtue of the whole assemblage of appearances and actions which constitute the universe, full as it is of combinations from which such a suggestion springs. The vividness, the constancy of the belief of a wise and good Being, thus governing the world, may be different in different men, according to their habit of directing their thoughts to the subject; but such a belief is undoubtedly capable of becoming lively and steadfast in the highest degree. It has been entertained and cherished by enlightened and well-regulated minds in all ages; and has been, at least since the rise of Christianity, not only the belief, but a pervading and ruling principle of action of many men, and of whole communities. The idea may be rendered more faint by turning the mind away from it, and perhaps by indulging too exclusively in abstract andgeneral speculations. It grows stronger by an actual study of the details of the creation; and, as regards the practical consequences of such a belief, by a habit of referring our actions and hopes to such a Governor. In this way it is capable of becoming as real and fixed an impression as that of a human friend and master; and all that we can learn, by observing the course of men’s feelings and actions, tends to convince us, that this belief of the being and presence and government of God, leads to the most elevated and beneficial frame of mind of which man is capable.
2. How natural and almost inevitable is this persuasion of the reality of Final Causes and consequent belief in the personality of the Deity, we may gather by observing how constantly it recurs to the thoughts, even of those who, in consequence of such peculiarities of mental discipline as have been described, have repelled and resisted the impression.
Thus, Laplace, of whom we have already spoken, as one of the greatest mathematicians of modern times, expresses his conviction that the supposed evidence of final causes will disappear as our knowledge advances, and that they only seem to exist in those cases where our ignorance leaves room for such a mistake. “Let us run over,” he says, “the history of the progress of the human mind and its errors: we shall perpetually see final causes pushed away to the bounds of its knowledge. These causes, which Newton removed to the limits of the solar system, were not long ago conceived to obtain in the atmosphere, and employed in explaining meteors: they are, therefore, in the eyes of the philosopher nothing more than the expression of the ignorance in which we are of the real causes.”
We may observe that we have endeavoured to give a very different, and, as we believe, a far truer view of the effect which philosophy has produced on our knowledge of final causes. We have shown, we trust, that the notion of design and end is transferredby the researches of science, not from the domain of our knowledge to that of our ignorance, but merely from the region of facts to that of laws. We hold that, in this form, final causes in the atmosphere are still to be conceived to obtain, no less than in an earlier state of meteorological knowledge; and that Newton was right, when he believed that he had established their reality in the solar system, not expelled them from it.
But our more peculiar business at present is to observe that Laplace himself, in describing the arrangements by which the stability of the solar system is secured, uses language which shows how irresistibly these arrangements suggest an adaptation to its preservation as anend. If in his expressions we were to substitute the Deity for the abstraction “nature” which he employs, his reflection would coincide with that which the most religious philosopher would entertain. “It seems that ‘God’ has ordered every thing in the heavens to ensure the duration of the planetary system, byviewssimilar to those which He appears to us so admirably to follow upon the earth, for the preservation of animals and the perpetuity of species.[40]This consideration alone would explain the disposition of the system, if it were not the business of the geometer to go further.” It may be possible for the geometer to go further; but he must be strangely blinded by his peculiar pursuits, if, when he has discovered the mode in which these views are answered, he supposes himself to have obtained a proof that there are no views at all. It would be as if the savage, who had marvelled at the steady working of the steam engine, should cease to consider it a work of art, as soon as the self-regulatingpart of the mechanism had been explained to him.
The unsuccessful struggle in which those persons engage, who attempt to throw off the impression of design in the creation, appears in an amusing manner through the simplicity of the ancient Roman poet of this school. Lucretius maintains that the eye was not made for seeing, nor the ear for hearing. But the terms in which he recommends this doctrine show how hard he knew it to be for men to entertain such an opinion. His advice is,—
Illud in his rebus vitiumvehementeret istumEffugere errorem, vitarequepræmeditator,Lumina ne facias oculorum clara creata,Prospicere ut possimus.iv. 823.
Illud in his rebus vitiumvehementeret istumEffugere errorem, vitarequepræmeditator,Lumina ne facias oculorum clara creata,Prospicere ut possimus.iv. 823.
Illud in his rebus vitiumvehementeret istum
Effugere errorem, vitarequepræmeditator,
Lumina ne facias oculorum clara creata,
Prospicere ut possimus.iv. 823.
’Gainst their preposterous error guard thy mindWho say each organ was for use design’d;Think not the visual orbs, so clear, so bright,Were furnish’d for the purposes of sight.
’Gainst their preposterous error guard thy mindWho say each organ was for use design’d;Think not the visual orbs, so clear, so bright,Were furnish’d for the purposes of sight.
’Gainst their preposterous error guard thy mind
Who say each organ was for use design’d;
Think not the visual orbs, so clear, so bright,
Were furnish’d for the purposes of sight.
Undoubtedly the poet is so far right, that a most “vehement” caution and vigilant “premeditation” are necessary to avoid the “vice and error” of such a persuasion. The study of the adaptations of the human frame is so convincing, that it carries the mind with it, in spite of the resistance suggested by speculative systems. Cabanis, a modern French physiological writer of great eminence, may be selected as a proof of this. Both by the general character of his own speculations, and by the tone of thinking prevalent around him, the consideration of design in the works of nature was abhorrent from his plan. Accordingly, he joins in repeating Bacon’s unfavourable mention of final causes. Yet when he comes to speak of the laws of reproduction of the human race, he appears to feel himself compelled to admit the irresistible manner in which such views force themselves on the mind. “I regard,” he says, “with the great Bacon, the philosophy of final causes as barren; but I have elsewhere acknowledgedthat it was very difficult for the most cautious man (l’homme le plus reservé) never to have recourse to them in his explanations.”[41]
3. It may be worth our while to consider for a moment the opinion here referred to by Cabanis, of the propriety of excluding the consideration of final causes from our natural philosophy. The great authority of Bacon is usually adduced on this subject. “The handling of final causes,” says he, “mixed with the rest in physical inquiries, hath intercepted the severe and diligent inquiry of all real and physical causes, and given men the occasion to stay upon these satisfactory and specious causes, to the great arrest and prejudice of farther discovery.”[42]
A moment’s attention will show how well this representation agrees with that which we have urged, and how far it is from dissuading the reference to final causes in reasonings like those on which we are employed. Final causes are to be excludedfrom physical inquiry; that is, we are not to assume that we know the objects of the Creator’s design, and put this assumed purpose in the place of a physical cause. We are not to think it a sufficient account of the clouds that they are for watering the earth, (to take Bacon’s examples,) or “that the solidness of the earth is for the station and mansion of living creatures.” The physical philosopher has it for his business to trace clouds to the laws of evaporation and condensation; to determine the magnitude and mode of action of the forces of cohesion and crystallization by which the materials of the earth are made solid and firm. This he does, making no use of the notion of final causes: and it is precisely because he has thus established his theories independently of any assumption of an end, that the end, when after all, it returns upon him and cannot be evaded, becomes an irresistible evidence of an intelligent legislator. Hefinds that the effects, of which the use is obvious, are produced by most simple and comprehensive laws; and when he has obtained this view, he is struck by the beauty of the means, by the refined and skilful manner in which the useful effects are brought about;—points different from those to which his researches were directed. We have already seen, in the very case of which we have been speaking, namely, the laws by which the clouds are formed and distribute their showers over the earth, how strongly those who have most closely and extensively examined the arrangements there employed (as Howard, Dalton, and Black) have been impressed with the harmony and beauty which these contrivances manifest.
We may find a further assertion of this view of the proper use of final causes in philosophy, by referring to the works of one of the greatest of our philosophers, and one of the most pious of our writers, Boyle, who has an Essay on this subject. “I am by all means,” says he, “for encouraging the contemplation of the celestial part of the world, and the shining globes that adorn it, and especially the sun and moon, in order to raise our admiration of the stupendous power and wisdom of him who was able to frame such immense bodies; and notwithstanding their vast bulk and scarce conceivable rapidity, keep them for so many ages constant both to the lines and degrees of their motion, without interfering with one another. And doubtless we ought to return thanks and praises to the divine goodness for having so placed the sun and moon, and determined the former, or else the earth, to move in particular lines for the good of men and other animals; and how disadvantageous it would have been to the inhabitants of the earth if the luminaries had moved after a different manner. I dare not, however, affirm that the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies were made solely for the use of man:much less presume to prove one system of the world to be true and another false; because the former is better fitted to the convenience ofmankind, or the other less suited, or perhaps altogether useless to that end.”
This passage exhibits, we conceive, that combination of feelings which ought to mark the character of the religious natural philosopher; an earnest piety ready to draw nutriment from the contemplation of established physical truths; joined with a philosophical caution, which is not seduced by the anticipation of such contemplations, to pervert the strict course of physical inquiry.
It is precisely through this philosophical care and scrupulousness that our views of final causes acquire their force and value as aids to religion. The object of such views is not to lead us to physical truth, but to connect such truth, obtained by its proper processes and methods, with our views of God, the master of the universe, through those laws and relations which are thus placed beyond dispute.
Bacon’s comparison of final causes to the vestal virgins is one of those poignant sayings, so frequent in his writings, which it is not easy to forget. “Like them,” he says, “they are dedicated to God, and are barren.” But to any one who reads his work it will appear in what spirit this was meant. “Not because those final causes are not true and worthy to be inquired, being kept within their own province.” (Of the Advancement of Learning, b. ii. p. 142.) If he had had occasion to develope his simile, full of latent meaning as his similes so often are, he would probably have said, that to these final causes barrenness was no reproach, seeing they ought to be, not the mothers but the daughters of our natural sciences; and that they were barren, not by imperfection of their nature but in order that they might be kept pure and undefiled, and so fit ministers in the temple of God.