THE ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTION TO RELIGION.
1. Such astronomical views, then, as those just stated, we may suppose
to be those to which Chalmers had reference, in the argument of his
_Astronomical Discourses_. These real or supposed discoveries of
astronomers, or a considerable part of them, were the facts which were
present to his mind, and of which he there discusses the bearings upon
religious truths. This multiplicity of systems and worlds, which the
telescopic scrutiny of the stars is assumed to have disclosed, or to
have made probable, is the main feature in the constitution of the
universe, as revealed by science, to which his reflections are directed.
Nor can we say that, in fixing upon this view, he has gone out of his
way, to struggle with obscure and latent difficulties, such as the bulk
of mankind know and care little about. For in reality, such views are
generally diffused in our time and country, are common to all classes of
readers, and as we may venture to express it, are the _popular_ views of
persons of any degree of intellectual culture, who have, directly or
derivatively, accepted the doctrines of modern science. Among such
persons, expressions which imply that the stars are globes of luminous
matter, like the sun; that there are, among them, systems of revolving
bodies, seats of life and of intelligence; are so frequent and
familiar, that those who so speak, do not seem to be aware that, in
using such expressions, they are making any assumption at all; any more
than they suppose themselves to be making assumptions, when they speak
of the globular form of the earth, or of its motion round the sun, or of
its revolution on its axis. It was, therefore, a suitable and laudable
purpose, for a writer like Chalmers, well instructed in science, of
large and comprehensive views with regard both to religion and to
philosophy, of deep and pervasive piety, and master of a dignified and
persuasive eloquence, to employ himself in correcting any erroneous
opinions and impressions respecting the bearing which such scientific
doctrines have upon religious truth. It was his lot to labor among men
of great intellectual curiosity, acuteness, and boldness: it was his
tendency to deal with new views of others on the most various subjects,
religious, philosophical, and social; and, on such subjects, to
originate new views of his own. It fell especially within his province,
therefore, to satisfy the minds of the public who listened to him, with
regard to the conflict, if a conflict there was, or seemed to be,
between new scientific doctrines, and permanent religious verities. He
was, by his culture and his powers, peculiarly fitted, and therefore
peculiarly called, to mediate between the scientific and the religious
world of his time.
2. The scientific doctrine which he especially deals with, in the work
to which I refer, is the multiplicity of worlds;--the existence of many
seats of life, of enjoyment, of intelligence; and it may be, as he
suggests also, of moral law, of transgression, of alienation from God,
and of the need, and of the means, of reconciliation to Him; or of
obedience to Him and sympathy with Him. That if there be many worlds
resembling our world in other respects, they may resemble it in some of
these, is an obvious, and we may say, an irresistible conjecture, in any
speculative mind to which the doctrine itself has been conveyed. Nor can
it fail to be very interesting, to see how such a writer as I have
described deals with such a suggestion; how far he accepts or inclines
to accept it; and if so, what aspect such a view leads him to give to
truths, either belonging to Natural or to Revealed Theology, which,
before the introduction of such a view, were regarded as bearing only
upon the world of which man is the inhabitant.
3. The mode in which Chalmers treats this suggestion, is to regard it as
the ground of an objection to Religion, either Natural or Revealed. He
supposes an objector to take his stand upon the multiplicity of worlds,
assumed or granted as true; and to argue that, since there are so many
worlds beside this, all alike claiming the care, the government, the
goodness, the interposition, of the Creator, it is in the highest degree
extravagant and absurd, to suppose that he has done, for this world,
that which Religion, both Natural and Revealed, represents him as having
done, and as doing. When we are told that God has provided, and is
constantly providing, for the life, the welfare, the comfort of all the
living things which people this earth, we can, by an effort of thought
and reflection, bring ourselves to believe that it is so. When we are
further told that He has given a moral law to man, the intelligent
inhabitant of the earth, and governs him by a moral government, we are
able, or at least the great bulk of thoughtful men, on due consideration
of all the bearings of the case, are able, to accept the conviction,
that this also is so. When we are still farther asked to believe that
the imperfect sway of this moral law over man has required to be
remedied by a special interposition of the Governor of the world, or by
a series of special interpositions, to make the Law clear, and to
remedy the effects of man's transgression of it; this doctrine
also,--according to the old and unscientific view, which represents the
human race as, in an especial manner, the summit and crown of God's
material workmanship, the end of the rest of creation, and the selected
theatre of God's dealings with transgression and with obedience,--we can
conceive, and, as religious persons hold, we can find ample and
satisfactory evidence to believe. But if this world be merely one of
innumerable worlds, all, like it, the workmanship of God; all, the seats
of life, like it; others, like it, occupied by intelligent creatures,
capable of will, of law, of obedience, of disobedience, as man is; to
hold that this world has been the scene of God's care and kindness, and
still more, of his special interpositions, communications, and personal
dealings with its individual inhabitants, in the way which Religion
teaches, is, the objector is conceived to maintain, extravagant and
incredible. It is to select one of the millions of globes which are
scattered through the vast domain of space, and to suppose that one to
be treated in a special and exceptional manner, without any reason for
the assumption of such a peculiarity, except that this globe happens to
be the habitation of us, who make this assumption. If Religion require
us to assume, that one particular corner of the Universe has been thus
singled out, and made an exception to the general rules by which all
other parts of the Universe are governed; she makes, it may be said, a
demand upon our credulity which cannot fail to be rejected by those who
are in the habit of contemplating and admiring those general laws. Can
the Earth be thus the centre of the moral and religious universe, when
it has been shown to have no claim to be the centre of the physical
universe? Is it not as absurd to maintain this, as it would be to hold,
at the present day, the old Ptolemaic hypothesis, which places the
Earth in the centre of the heavenly motions, instead of the newer
Copernican doctrine, which teaches that the Earth revolves round the
Sun? Is not Religion disproved, by the necessity under which she lies,
of making such an assumption as this?
4. Such is, in a general way, the objection to Religion with which
Chalmers deals; and, as I have said, his mode of treating it is highly
interesting and instructive. Perhaps, however, we shall make our
reasonings and speculations apply to a wider class of readers, if we
consider the view now spoken of, not as an objection, urged by an
opponent of religion, but rather as a difficulty, felt by a friend of
religion. It is, I conceive, certain that many of those who are not at
all disposed to argue against religion, but who, on the contrary, feel
that their whole internal comfort and repose are bound up indissolubly
with their religious convictions, are still troubled and dismayed at the
doctrines of the vastness of the universe, and the multitude of worlds,
which they suppose to be taught and proved by astronomy. They have a
profound reverence for the Idea of God; they are glad to acknowledge
their constant and universal dependence upon His preserving power and
goodness; they are ready and desirous to recognize the working of His
providence; they receive the moral law, as His law, with reverence and
submission; they regard their transgressions of this law as sins against
Him; and are eager to find the mode of reconciliation to Him, when thus
estranged from him; they willingly think of God, as near to them. But
while they listen to the evidence which science, as we have said, sets
before them, of the long array of groups, and hosts, and myriads, of
worlds, which are brought to our knowledge, they find themselves
perturbed and distressed. They would willingly think of God as near to
them; but during the progress of this enumeration, He appears, at every
step, to be removed further and further from them. To discover that the
Earth is so large, the number of its inhabitants so great, its form so
different from what man at first imagines it, may perhaps have startled
them; but in this view, there is nothing which a pious mind does not
easily surmount. But if Venus and Mars also have their inhabitants; if
Saturn and Jupiter, globes so much larger than the earth, have a
proportional amount of population; may not man be neglected or
overlooked? Is he worthy to be regarded by the Creator of all? May not,
must not, the most pious mind recur to the exclamation of the Psalmist:
"Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him?" And must not this
exclamation, under the new aspect of things, be accompanied by an
enfeebled and less confident belief that God _is_ mindful of him? And
then, this array of planets, which derive their light from the Sun,
extends much further than even the astronomer at first suspected. The
orbit of Saturn is ten times as wide as the orbit of the earth; but
beyond Saturn, and almost twice as far from the sun, Herschel discovers
Uranus, another great planet; and again, beyond Uranus, and again at
nearly twice _his_ distance, the subtle sagacity of the astronomers of
our day, surmises, and then detects, another great planet. In such a
system as this, the earth shrinks into insignificance. Can its concerns
engage the attention of him who made the whole? But again, this whole
Solar System itself, with all its orbits and planets, shrinks into a
mere point, when compared with the nearest fixed star. And again, the
distance which lies between us and such stars, shrinks into incalculable
smallness, when we journey in thought to other fixed stars. And again,
and again, the field of our previous contemplation suffers an
immeasurable contraction, as we pass on to other points of view.
5. And in all these successive moves, we are still within the dominions
of the same Creator and Governor; and at every move, we are brought, we
may suppose, to new bodies of his subjects, bearing, in the expansion of
their number, some proportion to the expanse of space which they occupy.
And if this be so, how shall the earth, and men, its inhabitants, thus
repeatedly annihilated, as it were, by the growing magnitude of the
known Universe, continue to be anything in the regard of Him who
embraces all? Least of all, how shall men continue to receive that
special, persevering, providential, judicial, personal care, which
religion implies; and without the belief of which, any man who has
religious thoughts, must be disturbed and unhappy, desolate and
forsaken?
6. Such are, I conceive, the thoughts of many persons, under the
influence of the astronomical views which Chalmers refers to as being
sometimes employed against religious belief. Of course, it is natural
that the views which are used by unbelievers as arguments against
religious belief, should create difficulties and troubles in the minds
of believers; at least, till the argument is rebutted. And of course
also, the answers to the arguments, considered as infidel arguments,
would operate to remove the difficulties which believers entertain on
such grounds. Chalmers' reasonings against such arguments, therefore,
will, so for as they are valid, avail to relieve the mental trouble of
believers, who are perplexed and oppressed by the astronomical views of
which I have spoken; as well as to confute and convince those who reject
religion, on such astronomical grounds. It may, however, as I have said,
be of use to deal with these difficulties rather as difficulties of
religious men, than as objections of irreligious men; to examine rather
how we can quiet the troubled and perplexed believer, than how we can
triumph over the dogmatic and self-satisfied infidel. I, at least,
should wish to have the former, rather than the latter of these tasks,
regarded as that which I propose to myself.
I shall hereafter attempt to explain more fully the difficulties which
the doctrine of the Plurality of Worlds appears to some persons to throw
in the way of Revealed Religion; but before I do so, there is one part
of Chalmers' answer, bearing especially upon Natural Religion, which it
may be proper to attend to.