This latter feeling is not in touch with conscience and neither to ourselves, nor to others, does it inspire enn.o.bling sentiments. A proper name for it is ambition--a selfish quality, whose essence bears no relation to the aspiration of boy and girl, man and woman, toward what is finest and best.
This feeling of aspiration, which exists in the soul and appears to be innate in human beings everywhere, offers a clear and indisputable revelation of a purpose for man"s life, above and beyond the mere continuation of it. It is one very solid answer to the second part of the great question: What is the purpose of my life? To strive toward betterment and excellence, in accordance with your lights and conscience. Why? Because, just as a feeling within you tells you that a sunset is beautiful, so there is this other feeling within you, which tells you this is fine and right.
Those are fundamental feelings, planted in all mankind, not accidental exceptions. They are surely a part of the all-wise design, an essential part of your purpose in being here.
The finest types of men, the leading spirits of humanity, in all ages and climes, from the earliest savages to the most advanced civilization, have always had that kind of feeling and responded to it. It is a fundamental fact of the soul life, which leaves no room for doubt.
Is there any other feeling of this sort which appears to be so fundamental and world-wide that it may be regarded as an innate and essential part of human nature, independent of climate, or race, or intellectual development?
Is there not a sentiment deep down in all mothers and fathers, to want their children to be finer, better, more nearly perfect than they themselves have been? Has not this sentiment something in it which is quite apart from self-interest, or reason, or the impulses of affection?
Suppose a normal mother is on her death-bed, with but an hour to live?
As far as she is concerned, all considerations of self-interest in this world are at an end. After one hour, nothing that happens can make any difference to her, personally. Her children are in an adjoining room and her thoughts and feelings are full of them. That is only natural--almost inevitable.
What is the essence of her feelings? Love, in the first place. They are inexpressibly dear to her and she feels glad and thankful that all is well with them. What next? A prayerful hope that they will be happy and successful and live to a ripe old age. For her sake? No, for theirs.
Does she wish them to be liars and cheats and ingrates, dissipated and corrupt, if by so doing they can have most pleasure and satisfy themselves? Oh no--not that. Why not? Because there is something within her which wants them to be fine and good and worthy of their birthright.
She wants them to cling fast to the best that is in them, not the worst; to do right and be right, whether it serves their pleasure or not.
If a mother would naturally feel this way on her death-bed, so might a father, or a grandmother or a grand-father, in any country--in almost any state of civilization--irrespective of any particular creed or doctrine, to which they might subscribe.
This is not to be taken as saying that all mothers or fathers would be conscious of this feeling--or would have this feeling in them to any appreciable extent--or that all individuals may be said to have any of the fundamental soul feelings to which we have referred.
Throughout all nature, and in human life as well, there are to be found individual deficiencies and perversions. Since this is as true to-day, as it has been always, in all departments of creation, we can be content to regard it as part of the all-wise but mysterious scheme.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, in practically all communities of human beings of which there is any record, these few self-same feelings of man"s innermost nature have become plainly, unmistakably, evident. They appear to be inborn fundamentals of the human soul. As far as they go, they may be safely and confidently accepted as indications of man"s purpose here on earth: the preservation of life, the continuation of life, an aspiration in one"s own development toward what is admirable and right, and an equally great aspiration to inculcate and develop in one"s children the essence of what is best in oneself.
In the face of any such conclusion, a question naturally arises, which a cynical and selfish mind is not slow to make the most of. "If this is the palpable intention and design of an all-wise Creator, how does it happen that so many human beings fail to carry out the purpose? How does it happen that so many are relatively deficient, or totally unconscious of the feelings themselves? If the general aim and aspiration is toward constant betterment and an ideal of perfection, why, after all these centuries of endeavor, haven"t we arrived somewhere near the goal? Why do we find among the individuals of to-day in our country less aspirations toward what is fine and right and honorable than were felt a hundred years ago? Why, when these feelings reached so high a standard in the cla.s.sic days of Greece, did they decline and shrivel and give way to barbarism? Why did the same thing happen in Rome? If the divine intention is toward progress and betterment and an ideal of right, why has the intention failed so miserably and repeatedly to be carried out? Why haven"t I just as much reason to a.s.sume that the divine intention, if there be any, is the gradual corruption, decay and disintegration of the human being? Were the motives and behavior of the average man ever more corrupt, immoral and baser than they are to-day--all over the world? If we consider the results, where is the evidence of a constant betterment in man"s spiritual nature? My observations and judgment tell me there are no grounds for any such a.s.sumption and there probably never was any such divine intention."
The answer to such objections is fairly simple:
"You are attempting to pa.s.s judgment, by means of the reasoning processes of the intellect, on questions which man"s intellect is incapable of understanding. As we found to be the case when considering the affections, the result of such an endeavor is a misconception and distortion.
"Although you are well aware that neither reason nor science can offer the faintest glimmer of an explanation as to how, or why, the first essence of life came into existence, or the first elemental matter, or as to what is the ultimate intention or end of a single thing in this world, or any other, yet you have the presumption to criticize the means and methods being employed for the attainment of those ends by an all-wise Creator, who presumably did know, and does know, what they are.
"Underlying your questions and comments is a complete misunderstanding.
In considering man"s purpose in life, I had no thought of determining G.o.d"s purpose in creating man, or in creating life, or in creating the world in which the life of man is to be found. That surpa.s.ses my understanding. That there is an all-wise design and purpose of some sort, behind and above it all, I have no doubt. This conviction comes princ.i.p.ally from a feeling of my innermost nature, which has been found among mankind, in all ages--faith. It is confirmed and strengthened by the evidence of my perceptions and intellect--the beauty and wonder and fitness in all the processes of creation.
"But even in the simplest facts of nature all about us, there are countless principles at work whose intention cannot be penetrated by human reason. Why were wolves permitted and urged by their instincts to devour innocent lambs? Why were the germs of disease and corruption created with the same bewildering perfection of design and the same mysterious, vital force as the good and beautiful creatures which they infest? Why were exquisite flowers and fruit-bearing trees allowed to be overcome by foul fungus and poisonous weeds?
"If our reason is unable to discern the underlying intention in such simple, every-day occurrences as these, by what right does it pretend to pa.s.s judgment on the great complexities and developments of human civilization?"
What good is accomplished by the rise and fall of an empire? Or by the rise and fall of a human individual? What all-wise intention is fulfilled in the deterioration and decay of any thing which has once seemed admirable and worthy? The human intellect cannot tell.
As long as the intellect cannot grasp the beginning of creation, or the end, the original cause of man"s existence, or the final result--how can it presume to criticize and doubt, without getting out of its element and beyond its depth?
G.o.d"s purpose for man, from the point-of-view of G.o.d, is an entirely different thing from an individual"s purpose in life, from man"s point-of-view. As this difference is something which appears to give rise to a certain amount of confusion in some people"s minds, it is worth clearing up by a simple ill.u.s.tration.
Suppose a commanding general, in the midst of a campaign, gives orders for a brigade to occupy a certain ridge and defend it at all costs?
Suppose these orders are carried out and, after a heroic defence lasting several days, the entire brigade is wiped out by the enemy?
In such a case, when an order comes, what is, and ought to be, the purpose of each individual soldier composing the brigade? To obey orders, do his duty as well and bravely as he can, and hope for the best--which may be victory, glory and promotion.
What, now, was the purpose of the general, in issuing the orders? Was it to enable those individual soldiers to win victory and gain promotion?
Quite the contrary. His purpose was to delay the enemy advance at that point for forty-eight hours, for reasons of high strategy.
What was the purpose of G.o.d in designing mankind in such a way that millions of fine individuals should go forth to maim and exterminate each other, to the accompaniment of untold suffering and misery?
Because the private does not know the purpose of the general; and because neither the private, nor the general, knows the purpose of G.o.d, is that a reason to conclude, or imagine, that there is no purpose?
Is that a reason to conclude, or imagine, that the private cannot have and know a purpose of his own--a fine and worthy purpose of which his conscience approves? Does not that same observation apply to the general and to all other individuals, high or low?
Because certain individuals are born blind or deaf, does that imply that mankind was not designed to see or hear? Because certain individuals, through the effects of disease or abuse, lose their sight, does that disprove a purpose for the eye? Because certain communities, or certain civilizations, decline and decay, through corruption, does that prove anything with regard to the intention and design of the Creator--except that such happenings are apparently a part of the mysterious plan?
It may be that in that plan the soul life of a single individual has more lasting significance than the rise and fall of an empire. Such a conception is apt to strike a matter-of-fact intellect as the height of absurdity. But even in the material world, when it was first suggested that the earth was round, that conception also struck the matter-of-fact intellect as the height of absurdity. So did the idea of Columbus--that he might set sail from Spain, going West, and arrive back at Spain, coming from the East. Nearly all the great discoveries and conceptions of genius have struck the matter-of-fact intellect as the height of absurdity. They dealt with an unknown principle which was different from accepted notions.
But the meaning of a human soul in the eternal plan, or of a certain phase of civilization in the unknown plan, are also unknown principles and the opinions of the intellect concerning them are purely guess-work.
If, however, we feel inclined to use our imaginations, there is a line of thought which might seem to have a remote bearing on this part of the puzzle.
In the material world, and the intellectual world, and the esthetic world of art and beauty, we may form a matter-of-fact opinion concerning things of which we do know something. We can see the effects of certain occurrences and judge of their relative importance, from man"s point-of-view.
Which was more significant and important for the good of civilization--that countless millions of men and women, for countless generations, in Mexico and in Persia, talked and thought and exchanged ideas--or that one single individual, named William Shakespeare, had some ideas which it occurred to him to put on paper?
The brain effort of a single individual more significant for future humanity than the rise and fall of an empire! That kind of conception--dealing with something we know about--does not strike the matter-of-fact intellect as the height of absurdity.
Was a single painting, the Mona Lisa, of a single individual, Leonardo da Vinci, less important than the millions of paintings made during countless generations throughout the entire empire of China?
Do we measure the achievements of a Napoleon, an Alexander, a Washington, by the manner of their decline and death?
It seems simple enough to us that one short life may have more meaning for the rest of humanity in this world, than millions of other lives. We can see and understand and measure the effects of such occurrences as these, with the intellect.
But in regard to man"s inner feelings, the soul life, because the achievement may not be visible--because its record is not written on paper--because its true significance is entirely shrouded in the mysterious intention of creation, how can the intellect know that the conscientious effort of one short life on earth, however humble, may not have a bigger meaning and a more lasting value in the divine scheme than the accomplishments--material, intellectual, artistic--of millions?
The spiritual side appears undoubtedly to be the highest and finest part of man"s nature--why then is it not possible that the spiritual struggle of each and every single soul, however inconspicuous in a worldly way, may be the thing that counts most in the everlasting scheme?
This is a question, we repeat, which all the science of all the wise men of all the generations is completely incapable of deciding. No amount of reasoning can disprove it, any more than it can prove it. That is the special point I have been trying to make clear. Because the cold processes of the intellect are inclined to dismiss as absurd all kinds of beliefs and conceptions which they cannot verify, they need not be abandoned on that account.
VI
SCIENCE AND THE INTELLECT
No amount of reasoning can alter the fact that certain spontaneous and fundamental feelings of man"s inner nature inspire him to conscientious effort and, as they presumably owe their origin to an all-wise Creator, they may be safely relied on to indicate his part and responsibility in the mysterious scheme.