same truth,--the complement of what has been already stated,--that is,
the _conservation of energy_. As we have seen, all that appears in
motion, is transmutation or conversion of energy; accordingly it
follows, that there is change of position, but no destruction of energy,
or absolute disappearance of it from existence. This generalization is
illustrated by a most attractive series of observations, introducing to
a fuller knowledge of the laws of heat. The natural tendency of ordinary
observation is to favor the opinion that when work has been done, energy
is spent or lost. And this popular notion, which has a kind of accuracy,
in so far as it is needful to make fresh draughts upon available
resources, is favored by reference to the economy of our bodily
existence constantly renewing its demand for fresh food supply. But this
popular tendency is easily explained by the circumstance that ordinary
observation makes much more account of the phenomena of motion, than of
the development of heat as a direct consequence. The machinist can not,
indeed, afford to make little of the consequences of friction; but the
ordinary observer makes much more of mass, and complication of
mechanical contrivance, and velocity of movement. From this he passes
easily to the fabric, or other production, sent forth; and then he may
occupy himself with calculations bearing on the expenditure for coals
and labor, along with tear and wear of machinery. But scientific
observation has concentrated much more on the evolution of heat, and out
of this has come the completed theory of the laws of energy. In this
way, it became matter of distinct calculation that friction and
percussion convert energy into heat.
Along with these observations we have to remark upon an attendant
conclusion, which has an important bearing on all speculation concerning
the destiny of the universe. I refer to the fact that transmutation of
energy involves a deterioration and dissipation of energy. As in the
history of energy, improved position adds to the advantage for the doing
of work, so transmutation tends to diminish the advantage or utility of
the energy for human purposes. Thus the energy expended in working a
machine gives return in a product of recognized value, but the energy
spent in contending with friction generates heat which is of no
practical value in respect of accomplished work. Or as the latter fact
has been stated by Professor Balfour Stewart, friction proves "itself
to be, not the destroyer of energy, but merely the converter of it into
some less apparent, and perhaps less useful form."[AI] In this
connection, scientific observation was directed upon the appearance of
heat simultaneously with the disappearance of visible energy. Gradually
the conception dawned upon scientific observers that _heat is a form of
motion_, and this has found general acceptance, although it is
impossible to give direct proof of the doctrine. The conclusion has been
supported by all the experiments of Davis, Rumford, Joule, Colding, and
Helmholtz. This conception having been launched as to the probable
explanation of heat, it immediately found, in accordance with the
analogies of scientific thought, a greatly extended circle of
application. Light and sound came to be classified with heat, as only
different forms of motion. It would involve too extended a range to
include here a detailed account of these experiments, or to consider
what is involved in dissipation of energy, as bearing upon a still wider
aspect of the order of things in the universe. I must, therefore, be
content with the reference just given to the conception of heat as a
form of molecular motion; and in doing so may revert to the
consideration already adduced, that this is another doctrine of
scientific _belief_, of which there is a constant tendency to increase
the number, as science widens the range of its inquiries and
speculations.
The outstanding general results of science as to the nature of energy
are now before us. All observations concerning motion only present to
view transmutations of energy, all of them imply that there is no such
thing as the origin of energy, and no such thing as its extinction.
There is indeed a constant tendency towards the degradation of energy,
and a constant equalizing process which may bring to an end the present
order of things in the universe. But the leading scientific conception
with which we have specially to deal is that expressed in the phrase,
"_Conservation of energy_," which must be regarded as completing our
view of inorganic existence along with the other doctrine of the
indestructibility of matter. As Professor Tait has expressed it,--"The
grand principle of conservation of energy, which asserts that no portion
of energy can be put out of existence, and no amount of energy can be
brought into existence by any process at our command, is simply a
statement of the invariability of the quantity of energy in the
universe,--a companion statement to that of the invariability of the
quantity of matter."[AJ]
The position is now reached at which it becomes possible to combine the
results of scientific research as to matter and energy into a harmonious
unity, with which to test the view of the world recognized by religious
thought. Religion as an intelligent and devotional acknowledgment of a
Supreme Being, involves a very clear and definite conception concerning
the origin of the universe and its continuance. What is thus implied
will be best indicated by negative as well as positive statements, in
some such form as the following. First, _negatively_, the world we
inhabit does not carry _within it_ any explanation of the origin of its
own existence; that is to say, neither the materials existing, nor the
forces operating, are sufficient to account for its origin; neither can
it have had existence without beginning. In _positive_ form, the
universe can be accounted for only by that which _transcends_ itself;
the supernatural is the key to the natural; Nature is a creation to be
attributed to an Intelligent First Cause.
Are science and religion here in harmony in the form and measure
compatible in the circumstances? This qualified and guarded form of the
question is obviously required, for religious thought does not profess
to be scientific, or in any sense authoritative as to the phenomena of
nature, that is, as to the facts which observation alone can ascertain,
or as to the immediate causes by which these facts are to be explained.
On the other hand, science is exclusively a knowledge of nature,
consisting of methodized observations concerning distinct orders of
facts, and rational inferences founded upon these. It can not in true
sense be concerned with the supernatural, but can only present
conclusions as to the order and processes of nature, which by subsequent
and independent exercise of our intelligence may be contemplated in
their relation to the conception of the supernatural, as Intelligent
First Cause. This subsequent exercise of thought, whether critical or
constructive, is more properly the task of philosophy, in prosecution of
those reflective and speculative exercises, which, proceeding from
scientific conclusions as accepted data, consider their intellectual
value as contributing towards a theory of the universe. Scientific men
will, of course, more or less readily pass over to take some share in
such philosophic speculation; just as religious men, purely under the
impulse of religious interests, will be more or less disposed to do, in
proportion to the range of their intellectual life. What is here said is
not intended as an argument for any restriction upon such speculation on
the part either of scientific or of religious men, for such questions
are common property, and the arguments bearing upon them are to be
tested by all. But it is of some consequence, specially in the present
unsettled and sensitive state of the public mind, that it be clearly
recognized that science is not itself responsible for the thoughts of
scientific men on these questions; and that religion is not responsible
for the thoughts of religious men upon them. Science can not determine
any thing as to a philosophy of the supernatural, any more than religion
can determine any thing as to a science of nature. Whether we take the
violent and even passionate antipathy to any acknowledgment of the
supernatural which is found in the Essays of Clifford, or the profoundly
reverential acknowledgment of the Deity in the writings and life of
Faraday, science is to be credited with neither. And so in like manner,
when we have violent denunciations of science professedly in the name of
religion, or intelligent appreciation of its high value from accredited
upholders of religious truth, religion itself is to be credited with
neither the one nor the other. This is a matter which comes within the
range of ordinary intelligence. It may indeed belong to philosophy to
formulate and develop the arguments in strict harmony with the
recognized laws of mind; but it belongs equally to all men to estimate
the general sweep and range of acquired knowledge as to the structure
and order of the universe, as bearing upon the more general conceptions
to be rationally entertained regarding its government. With this branch
of the subject, ordinary thought may readily deal without entanglement
in technicalities.
There is as we have seen a _duality_ of existence in the inorganic
structure of the world, and a continual succession of changes, on
account of the interaction of these two. Different forms of matter stand
in different relations; and these relations are being constantly
interchanged by the transmutation of energy. Thus taking the world as
presented to us, it has a constitution which requires for its
explanation that we go beyond every thing to be found within itself. The
matter in the universe can not account for the energy; nor can the
energy account for the matter; and the relations between the two must
find explanation in something higher than both. What their source may
be, science is incapable of telling; it can not contribute towards
satisfying the requirements of the law of causality in view of the
mutual relations of matter and energy which it has itself revealed. But
equally by what it has revealed, and by acknowledgment of its inability
to transcend the limits of its own discoveries, does it present harmony
with religious thought in the form and measure in which it is possible
that such harmony could be manifested. Discovering the objective
existence of matter and energy, and the laws in accordance with which
the latter acts upon the former, it presents an unsolved problem
affording the most direct and positive testimony possible to science in
support of the existence of a First Cause, transcending the universe
itself. How matter and energy came into being, it can not tell; but it
most explicitly declares that by no power existing and operating within
range of observation is it possible either to add to the sum of
existence, or in the least degree to diminish it. Religious thought
could expect nothing more direct and explicit in the form of scientific
testimony as confirmation of its fundamental position. Scientific
thought while dealing with inorganic existence could not, even by a
single line of approach, be brought nearer to the actual support of
religious belief.
Here the question may be raised,--May not the world have existed from
eternity? In the answer to this question there are several
considerations requiring to be distinguished. First, science has no
testimony to offer, inasmuch as it does not get beyond the area of laws
now operating. Second, the testimony of science concerning the world as
now existing is inconsistent with the supposition of its eternal
existence. The matter which is constantly operated upon by energy
distinct from itself, does not possess the property of self-subsistence;
neither does the energy which is constantly undergoing change. Continual
transition or change from one phase of existence, or set of relations,
to another, is a mark of the not-abiding, an evidence of subjection to,
and dependence on, what is beyond and above itself. The non-enduring, or
ever-changing, is constantly pointing to the ever-enduring.
Full understanding of the situation of things as discovered by science
will produce a much deeper impression on the public mind than has yet
been effected. The reasonableness of this expectation will readily
appear, if only some few of the positions be placed conspicuously in
view.
It is of special consequence to note that science has in this direction
_finished its work_, and reached its _ultimatum_, in demonstrating the
physical impossibility of either increasing or diminishing the existing
sum total of matter, or of energy. The conclusions are not such as can
be regarded as provisional, liable to be overreached, modified, or
enlarged, by what may afterwards be discovered. We are so much
influenced at present,--and scientific men share in the experience, as
well as others,--by the general and well-grounded expectation of the
unceasing advance of science, that it is peculiarly easy in sight of a
great general problem such as the origin and government of the world, to
overlook the significance of ultimate conclusions in given directions.
In this way, we too readily fall into the delusive tendency of regarding
accredited conclusions as still hanging in a measure of uncertainty, or
at least as having a dubious future before them, because they border
upon the region of the unknown so far as science is concerned, or upon a
realm of mystery, which science regards either with aversion, or with
cherished determination of attack. In the present singularly favorable
position of science, it is impossible for the public mind to escape this
tendency; but it becomes only the more imperative to distinguish as
occasion offers, those conclusions which are to be taken as final. This
is of immense consequence as bearing upon general conceptions concerning
the universe.
That matter can not be originated, and can not by even a single atom be
destroyed, is one of those ultimate statements, upon which physical
science itself relies as on a foundation. This is a universally
accredited truth, that "no portion of matter, however small, goes out of
existence or comes into existence in any operation whatever."[AK] The
wonderful chemical laboratory of living organism may change many forms
of matter into living tissue, but all returns again to its place in the
inorganic mass. Material may pass from one phase into another, but there
is nothing more than change. The sum total of material existence is
unaltered. To suggest the contrary,--and specially to do so in the name
of science,--were to bring science face to face with the conceptions
rejected as alien to its very nature; for to say that matter may be
originated, is to affirm _creation_; to say that it may be destroyed, is
to affirm the possibility of _annihilation_; and these two are beyond
the range of science, and if once admitted within its boundaries, they
would destroy science itself.
So it is when we pass over to the doctrine of energy. The same clear and
ultimate conclusion is proclaimed. The doctrine of the conservation of
energy is the _ultimatum_ on which physical science finds sure and firm
foothold. In those two ultimate positions of scientific research
concerning inorganic existence, religion finds support, and that of a
kind so powerful, that science itself depends upon its immovability.
There is, however, a further point connected with the doctrine of
energy, which deserves consideration as bearing on the tendency to
anticipate an indefinite line of progression in the history of this
world, that is, deterioration or degradation in the form of energy,
while it continues of equal amount. The efficient value of energy is
according to the possibilities of transformation or transmutation. But
its use implies limitation of the available forms, or steady
deterioration of value. "Thus the energy of the universe is, on the
whole, constantly passing from higher to lower forms, and therefore the
possibility of transformation is becoming smaller and smaller, so that
after the lapse of sufficient time all higher forms of energy must have
passed from the physical universe, and we can imagine nothing as
remaining, except those lower forms which are incapable, so far as we
yet know, of any further transformation."[AL] Such a statement of the
position, though it can not be regarded as an ultimate one in scientific
research, is so obviously a deduction from present knowledge that it
must to some extent modify prevailing conceptions. It may, indeed be
suggested that some catastrophe may terminate the present order of
things, and that some action of the law of gravitation may combine the
fragments of worlds, and give a fresh start with new combinations of
energy; but the bare suggestion of this implies a much wider range for
scientific research than any thing yet known to us, and at the same time
a larger demand upon intelligence in the control and regulation of what
must nevertheless seem to us violent catastrophes. Such speculation, if
it may warrantably find encouragement under purely scientific
conditions, religious thought will neither gainsay nor resist; but will
find itself in no perplexity to accept.
Waiving, however, all speculation as to the possible future of the
physical universe, we here concentrate attention on the past; we take
the most recent scientific testimony as to the structure of the physical
universe, as it bears on the problem concerning the origin of our
world. Here the testimony of science is clearly and unmistakably in
favor of the creation or absolute origin of matter and energy, in the
only form in which science can bear any testimony on the subject. It is,
of course, impossible that science should present direct testimony to
the fact of creation, as it is impossible that history should; for such
a fact as creation must be entirely beyond the range of science. But in
testifying to the indestructibility and uncreatability of matter under
the conditions capable of being investigated by observational science;
and in bearing the same testimony as to the energy in the world, it
offers all the support it is capable of offering to the reality of the
supernatural,--testifying to the dependence of nature on some power
altogether transcending itself. But here I prefer rather to use the
words of a purely scientific observer. When dealing with the doctrine of
energy, and specially with the consequences of dissipation of energy,
Professor Tait uses these words,--"As it alone is able to lead us, by
sure steps of deductive reasoning, to the necessary future of the
universe--necessary, that is, if physical laws remain forever
unchanged--so it enables us distinctly to say that the present order of
things has _not_ been evolved through infinite past time by the agency
of laws now at work; but must have had a distinctive beginning, a state
beyond which we are totally unable to penetrate; a state, in fact, which
must have been produced by other than the now visibly acting
causes."[AM] This is the utmost that science can say, bearing on the
great problem of the origin of the universe; and nothing more powerful
could be said in direct testimony to the reality of the supernatural,
and the reasonableness of Christian faith, thus shown to be in complete
harmony with science.
It is not here suggested that all scientific men would employ such
language as that now quoted, or even readily acquiesce in its use. I
have been careful to indicate, that a passionately excited antagonism to
any recognition of the supernatural is avowed by some scientific men.
Accordingly, it must be granted that the conclusion here stated is not
so manifest a deduction as to preclude denial. The testimony of the
senses commonly terminates dispute, but such testimony is not available
as to the reality of the supernatural. The only testimony that can be
given here must be of a different kind; and if there be some who refuse
to credit anything save what comes within range of the senses, or is
deducible directly and simply from what the senses make known, there is
no help for them. Neither science, nor philosophy, nor religion can
deliver them from the narrow round of materialism. But neither science,
nor philosophy, nor religion, can restrict itself to the testimony of
the senses. A deeper, and wider range of inquiry is demanded of the man
who would walk at large in the vast field spread out in nature. All
human life is subjected to the test of accepting evidence other than
that the senses supply. If some refuse to submit to this deeper and
wider test, narrowing their convictions accordingly, others are not to
be restricted in this way, nor are they to be influenced by such
determination even on the part of highly distinguished scientific men.
For, it can not be overlooked that this is not a question of science,
nor does it imply any thing but an ordinary exercise of intelligence.
The one test for the public mind is this,--Is it or is it not true that
not an atom of matter can be originated or destroyed? Is the doctrine
of the conservation of energy to be taken as scientifically
demonstrated? These things science must decide, and beyond these, all is
clear for ordinary intelligence. Of the testimony of science on these
two questions there is no doubt whatever. Religion, therefore, has no
conflict with science here; it simply accepts the teaching of science,
finding in it ample support for its fundamental position. What creation
really means, or how we can fittingly represent it to our minds, does
not in the least affect the question here under discussion, for these
are not points on which science can offer any testimony. Nor have the
defenders of religion any complaint to urge against the claims which
science makes to explain all that belongs to nature. But when those who
make the largest claims for science, acknowledge that science is baffled
here, their testimony gains in value by reason of the strength of their
antipathy to the acknowledgment of the miraculous. When from an
accredited scientific witness we have these words:--"The investigation
of nature does not shrink from enrolling life and the processes of life
in the world of the comprehensible," followed up by this explicit
statement, "We are foiled only at the conception of matter and
force";[AN] the claims of science are raised to the highest pitch; and
yet its insuperable limits are clearly defined. The defender of the
harmony of scientific with religious thought has nothing more to desire.
The very place where science comes to a halt, acknowledging that its
utmost boundary has been reached, is the place where it is demonstrated
that scientific thought and religious are not involved in real conflict.
FOOTNOTES:
[AB] These allowances may well be made for Professor Clifford, one of
the most extravagant assailants of religious faith.
[AC] Professor Tait in answer to Mr. Froude has advanced the evidence.
_International Review_, Nov. 1878, vol. v. No. 6. The collected papers
have been republished, _Atlas Series_, No. 11.
[AD] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, by P. G. Tait, Professor of
Natural Philosophy, University of Edinburgh, p. 17.
[AE] _Ib_. p. 2.
[AF] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, p. 14.
[AG] See Appendix III.
[AH] _The Conservation of Energy_, by Balfour Stewart, p. 26.
[AI] _The Conservation of Energy_, p. 36.
[AJ] _Recent Advances of Physical Science_, p. 17.
[AK] Tait's _Recent Advances_, p. 15.
[AL] _Recent Advances_, p. 20.
[AM] _Recent Advances_, p. 22.
[AN] _The Doctrine of Descent_, by Oscar Schmidt, p. 20.
LECTURE IV.
ORGANIZED EXISTENCE: LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.--(DARWIN'S "THEORY OF
EVOLUTION.")