mr. gladstone and genesis-第3章

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！



moral　impression；　summary；　which　cannot　but　be　open　to　more　or

less　of　criticism　of　detail。　He　thinks　it　is　a　lecture。　I　think

it　is　a　sermon〃　（p。　5）。





I　note；　incidentally；　that　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　consider

that　the　differentia　between　a　lecture　and　a　sermon　is；

that　the　former；　so　far　as　it　deals　with　matters　of　fact；　may　be

taken　seriously；　as　meaning　exactly　what　it　says；　while　a　sermon

may　not。　I　have　quite　enough　on　my　hands　without　taking　up　the

cudgels　for　the　clergy；　who　will　probably　find　Mr。　Gladstone's

definition　unflattering。



But　I　am　diverging　from　my　proper　business；　which　is　to　say　that

I　have　given　no　ground　for　the　ascription　of　these　opinions；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　I　do　not　hold　them　and　never　have

held　them。　It　is　Mr。　Gladstone；　and　not　I；　who　will　have　it　that

the　pentateuchal　cosmogony　is　to　be　taken　as　science。



My　belief；　on　the　contrary；　is；　and　long　has　been；　that　the

pentateuchal　story　of　the　creation　is　simply　a　myth。　I　suppose

it　to　be　an　hypothesis　respecting　the　origin　of　the　universe

which　some　ancient　thinker　found　himself　able　to　reconcile　with

his　knowledge；　or　what　he　thought　was　knowledge；　of　the　nature

of　things；　and　therefore　assumed　to　be　true。　As　such；　I　hold　it

to　be　not　merely　an　interesting；　but　a　venerable；　monument　of　a

stage　in　the　mental　progress　of　mankind；　and　I　find　it　difficult

to　suppose　that　any　one　who　is　acquainted　with　the　cosmogonies

of　other　nationsand　especially　with　those　of　the　Egyptians　and

the　Babylonians；　with　whom　the　Israelites　were　in　such　frequent

and　intimate　communicationshould　consider　it　to　possess　either

more；　or　less；　scientific　importance　than　may　be　allotted

to　these。



Mr。　Gladstone's　definition　of　a　sermon　permits　me　to　suspect

that　he　may　not　see　much　difference　between　that　form　of

discourse　and　what　I　call　a　myth；　and　I　hope　it　may　be　something

more　than　the　slowness　of　apprehension；　to　which　I　have

confessed；　which　leads　me　to　imagine　that　a　statement　which　is

〃general〃　but　〃admits　exceptions；〃　which　is　〃popular〃　and　〃aims

mainly　at　producing　moral　impression；〃　〃summary〃　and　therefore

open　to　〃criticism　of　detail；〃　amounts　to　a　myth；　or　perhaps

less　than　a　myth。　Put　algebraically；　it　comes　to　this；

x=a＋b＋c；　always　remembering　that　there　is　nothing　to　show

the　exact　value　of　either　a；　or　b；　or　c。

It　is　true　that　a　is　commonly　supposed　to　equal　10；　but

there　are　exceptions；　and　these　may　reduce　it　to　8；　or　3；　or　0；

b　also　popularly　means　10；　but　being　chiefly　used　by　the

algebraist　as　a　〃moral〃　value；　you　cannot　do　much　with　it　in　the

addition　or　subtraction　of　mathematical　values；　c　also　is

quite　〃summary；〃　and　if　you　go　into　the　details　of　which　it　is

made　up；　many　of　them　may　be　wrong；　and　their　sum　total　equal　to

0；　or　even　to　a　minus　quantity。



Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　wish　that　I　should　（1）　enter　upon　a

sort　of　essay　competition　with　the　author　of　the　pentateuchal

cosmogony；　（2）　that　I　should　make　a　further　statement　about　some

elementary　facts　in　the　history　of　Indian　and　Greek　philosophy；

and　（3）　that　I　should　show　cause　for　my　hesitation　in　accepting

the　assertion　that　Genesis　is　supported；　at　any　rate　to　the

extent　of　the　first　two　verses；　by　the　nebular　hypothesis。



A　certain　sense　of　humour　prevents　me　from　accepting　the　first

invitation。　I　would　as　soon　attempt　to　put　Hamlet's　soliloquy

into　a　more　scientific　shape。　But　if　I　supposed　the　〃Mosaic

writer〃　to　be　inspired；　as　Mr。　Gladstone　does；　it　would　not　be

consistent　with　my　notions　of　respect　for　the　Supreme　Being　to

imagine　Him　unable　to　frame　a　form　of　words　which　should

accurately；　or；　at　least；　not　inaccurately；　express　His　own

meaning。　It　is　sometimes　said　that；　had　the　statements　contained

in　the　first　chapter　of　Genesis　been　scientifically　true；　they

would　have　been　unintelligible　to　ignorant　people；　but　how　is

the　matter　mended　if；　being　scientifically　untrue；　they　must

needs　be　rejected　by　instructed　people？



With　respect　to　the　second　suggestion；　it　would　be　presumptuous

in　me　to　pretend　to　instruct　Mr。　Gladstone　in　matters　which　lie

as　much　within　the　province　of　Literature　and　History　as　in　that

of　Science；　but　if　any　one　desirous　of　further　knowledge　will　be

so　good　as　to　turn　to　that　most　excellent　and　by　no　means

recondite　source　of　information；　the　〃Encyclopaedia　Britannica；〃

he　will　find；　under　the　letter　E；　the　word　〃Evolution；〃　and　a

long　article　on　that　subject。　Now；　I　do　not　recommend　him　to

read　the　first　half　of　the　article；　but　the　second　half；　by　my

friend　Mr。　Sully；　is　really　very　good。　He　will　there　find　it

said　that　in　some　of　the　philosophies　of　ancient　India；　the　idea

of　evolution　is　clearly　expressed：　〃Brahma　is　conceived　as　the

eternal　self…existent　being；　which；　on　its　material　side；

unfolds　itself　to　the　world　by　gradually　condensing　itself　to

material　objects　through　the　gradations　of　ether；　fire；　water；

earth；　and　other　elements。〃　And　again：　〃In　the　later　system　of

emanation　of　Sankhya　there　is　a　more　marked　approach　to　a

materialistic　doctrine　of　evolution。〃　What　little　knowledge　I

have　of　the　matterchiefly　derived　from　that　very　instructive

book；　〃Die　Religion　des　Buddha；〃　by　C。　F。　Koeppen；　supplemented

by　Hardy's　interesting　worksleads　me　to　think　that　Mr。　Sully

might　have　spoken　much　more　strongly　as　to　the　evolutionary

character　of　Indian　philosophy；　and　especially　of　that　of　the

Buddhists。　But　the　question　is　too　large　to　be　dealt

with　incidentally。



And；　with　respect　to　early　Greek　philosophy；　the　seeker　after

additional　enlightenment　need　go　no　further　than　the　same

excellent　storehouse　of　information：



The　early　Ionian　physicists；　including　Thales；

Anaximander；　and　Anaximenes；　seek　to　explain　the　world　as

generated　out　of　a　primordial　matter　which　is　at　the　same　time

the　universal　support　of　things。　This　substance　is　endowed　with

a　generative　or　transmutative　force　by　virtue　of　which　it　passes

into　a　succession　of　forms。　They　thus　resemble　modern

evolutionists　since　they　regard　the　world；　with　its　infinite

variety　of　forms；　as　issuing　from　a　simple　mode　of　matter。





Further　on；　Mr。　Sully　remarks　that　〃Heraclitus　deserves　a

prominent　place　in　the　history　of　the　idea　of　evolution；〃　and　he

states；　with　perfect　justice；　that　Heraclitus　has　foreshadowed

some　of　the　special　peculiarities　of　Mr。　Darwin's　views。　It　is

indeed　a　very　strange　circumstance　that　the　philosophy　of　the

great　Ephesian　more　than　adumbrates　the　two　doctrines　which　have

played　leading　parts；　the　one　in　the　development　of　Christian

dogma；　the　other　in　that　of　natural　science。　The　former　is　the

conception　of　the　Word　＇logos＇　which　took　its　Jewish

shape　in　Alexandria；　and　its　Christian　form　in　that　Gospel

which　is　usually　referred　to　an　Ephesian　source　of　some　five

centuries　later　date；　and　the　latter　is　that　of　the　struggle　for

existence。　The　saying　that　〃strife　is　father　and　king　of　all〃

＇。。。＇；　ascribed　to　Heraclitus；　would　be　a　not

inappropriate　motto　for　the　〃Origin　of　Species。〃



I　have　referred　only　to　Mr。　Sully's　article；　because　his

authority　is　quite　sufficient　for　my　purpose。　But　the

consultation　of　any　of　the　more　elaborate　histories　of　Greek

philosophy；　such　as　the　great　work　of　Zeller；　for　example；　will

only　bring　out　the　same　fact　into　still　more　striking

prominence。　I　have　professed　no　〃minute　acquaintance〃　with

either　Indian　or　Greek　philosophy；　but　I　have　taken　a　great　deal

of　pains　to　secure　that　such　knowledge　as　I　do　possess　shall　be

accurate　and　trustworthy。



In　the　third　place；　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　wish　that　I　should

discuss　with　him　the　question　whether　the　nebular　hypothesis　is；

or　is　not；　confirmatory　of　the　pentateuchal　account　of　the

origin　of　things。　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　be　prepared　to　enter

upon　this　campaign　with　a　light　heart。　I　confess　I　am　not；　and

my　reason　for　this　backwardness　will　doubtless　surprise　Mr。

Gladstone。　It　is　that；　rather　more　than　a　quarter　of　a　century

ago　（namely；　in　February　1859）；　when　it　was　my　duty；　as

President　of　the　Geological　Society；　to　deliver　the　Anniversary

Address；　I　chose　a　topic　which　involved　a　very　careful　study

of　the　remarkable　cosmogonical　speculation；　originally

promulgated　by　Immanuel　Kant　and；　subsequently；　by　Laplace；

which　is　now　known　as　the　nebular　hypothesis。　With　the　help　of

such　little　acquaintance　with　the　principles　of　physics　and

astronomy　as　I　had　gained；　I　endeavoured　to　obtain　a　clear

understanding　of　this　speculation　in　all　its　bearings。　I　am　not

sure　that　I　succeeded；　but　of　this　I　am　certain；　that　the

problems　involved　are　very　difficult；　even　for　those　who　possess

the　intellectual　discipline　requisite　for　dealing　with　them。

And　it　was　this　conviction　that　led　me　to　express　my　desire　to

leave　the　discussion　of　the　question　of　the　asserted　harmony

between　Genesis　and　the　nebular　hypothesis　to　experts　in　the

appropriate　branches　of　knowledge。　And　I　think　my　course　was　a

wise　one；　but　as　Mr。　Gladstone　evidently　does　not　understand　how

there　can　be　any　hesitation　on　my　part；　unless　it　arises　from　a

conviction　that　he　is　in　the　right；　I　may　go　so　far　as　to　set

out　my　difficulties。



They　are　of　two　kindsexegetical　and　scientific。　It　appears　to

me　that　it　is　vain　to　discuss　a　supposed　coincidence　between

Genesis　and　science　unless　we　have　first　settled；　on　the　one

hand；　what　Genesis　says；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　what

science　says。



In　the　first　place；　I　cannot　find　any　consensus　among　Biblical

scholars　as　to　the　meaning　of　the　words；　〃In　the　beginning　God

created　the　heaven　and　the　earth。〃　Some　say　that　the　Hebrew　word

bara；　which　is　translated　〃create；〃　means　〃made　out　of

nothing。〃　I　venture　to　object　to　that　rendering；　not　on　the

ground　of　scholarship；　but　of　common　sense。　Omnipotence　itself

can　surely　no　more　make　something　〃out　of〃　nothing　than　it　can

make　a　triangular　circle。　What　is　intended　by　〃made　out　of

nothing〃　appears　to　be　〃caused　to　come　into　existence；〃　with　the

implication　that　nothing　of　the　same　kind　previously　existed。

It　is　further　usually　assumed　that　〃the　heaven　and　the　earth〃

means　the　material　substance　of　the　universe。　Hence　the　〃Mosaic

writer〃　is　taken　to　imply　that　where　nothing　of　a　material

nature　previously　existed；　this　substance　appeared。　That　is

perfectly　conceivable；　and　therefore　no　one　can　deny　that　it　may

have　happened。　But　there　are　other　very　authoritative　critics

who　say　that　the　ancient　Israelite　who　wrote　the　passage　was

not　likely　to　have　been　capable　of　such　abstract　thinking；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　philology；　bara　is　commonly　used　to

signify　the　〃fashioning；〃　or　〃forming；〃　of　that　which　already

exists。　Now　it　appears　to　me　that　the　scienti