Has the Universe an Intelligent Back-Ground and Purpose?

James H. Hyslop
1904 International Journal of Ethics  
Has the Universe an Intelligent Purpose? 419 HAS THE UNIVERSE AN INTELLIGENT BACK-GROUND AND PURPOSE? The struggle of modern philosophy to make its peace with both orthodoxy and scepticism is one of the most amusing and at the same time one of the most irritating and exasperating incidents in the history of thought. Just when the issue between the mechanical and the spiritual theory of things becomes clearly defined in its evidential character, the philosopher becomes frightened at the
more » ... ces of his own scepticism and goes off to dally with the spiritual view which he had learned to question. There is no objection to one's changing his convictions and returning to the older point of view, but it is not easy for one to retain a positive belief in a process of intellectual jugglery between two antithetic views. Philosophy has no excuse for its existence but for its willingness and ability to present a clear and defensible message in reference to the meaning of human life and conduct. That is perhaps recognized by all parties, but none of them outside the orthodox camp has any intelligible system to defend. The orthodox type is clear and intelligible, whether it is true or not. It may not be right and it may not be supported by adequate evidence, but it is intelligible. But the agnostic who is trying to appropriate the language of the orthodox and at the same time to repudiate his ideas is simply invoking the accusation either of insincerity or of ignorance of his problem. This is a hard saying, of course, but in the present confused condition of philosophic thought none other is appropriate. It has been the function of philosophy previous to Kant to defend some positive, and usually a Christian view of the cosmos. But since Kant it has had no character but scepticism, while it has been unwilling to admit that it was missionless for the world. The "problem of teleology" is nothing more or less than the question whether the course of the world is "rational" and intelligent, or perhaps better, whether it is moving toward a result which is desirable for the highest ideals of man. It implies an intelligent background, and hence no man can This content downloaded from 131.172.036.029 on October 12, 2016 08:33:50 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and 420 International Journal of Ethics. discuss "teleology," in any accepted sense of that term beyond the Greek idea, without approaching the question of the existence of "God." If there is any "teleology" at all of the intelligible kind, it involves the assumption or assertion of the "Divine Existence," as a precondition of the purpose which "teleology" supposes and which is supposed to be in some way indicated as a fact. Of course it may be best not to use that precondition, but to show the actual existence of the purpose in the cosmic order, and so not to urge the case by a revival of worn-out controversies. But a matter of policy in conducting the discussion does not affect the actual implications which have to be recognized. Hence there is no escape from the admission that an assumed "teleology" in the cosmos means an intelligent process, unless "teleology" is taken to mean nothing more than a tendency toward a particular result either without any purpose or without the evidence of it. Such a "teleology" as this last, however, is only an appropriation of theistic language without the theism. It only deceives the theist and confuses the scientist. One of the first things, it seems to me, for the student of this problem to learn is the radical difference between Greek and Christian "teleology." Greek "teleology" was nothing more than the tendency of a process toward a certain result, and this result might or might not be intended. Outside a few thinkers like Socrates and Anaxagoras, the philosophers avoided views that would imply anything more than an unconscious tendency toward a result rather than an end. The reaction against the earlier anthropomorphic conception of things and the discarding of deus ex nachina views of the world left the Greek mind holding to a tendency in things minus ordinary intelligent purpose, and this tendency did not go beyond the present cosmic order. But Christianity came along with the view of an independent divine existence creating and governing the cosmos and assuring the immortality of human personality or consciousness, and making either the "glory" of God or the happiness of man, or both, the ultimate object of all things. The material universe in This content downloaded from 131.172.036.
doi:10.1086/intejethi.14.4.2376253 fatcat:sxa3s4iapnfq7phhyuwhzpmc4a