TEMPORALIZING THE COSMIC DESIGN
Both religious leaders and the pious scientists clearly endeavoring to find some formula which will demonstrate that science and technology are actually confirming the proof that divine providence governs the world.
But need to advance the concept not in static but in developmental terms.
So railroads, telegraph, cable can be identified with the march of Christianity.
The science which now satisfies ideally both necessities—for a static order and within it growth and change—^suddenly becomes geology*
It seen afresh as the sublime science instead of astronomy.
Appeases the scientists’ demand for inductive method, factual, non-speculative, and yet tells how God operated through time.
(Americans so sure, they were not much bothered by dispute between Wernerians and Huttonians)
Furthermore, geology proves of immense utilitarian value, though with none of utility’s dangers. Hence is really the strongest scientific ally of Christianity.
However—
as celebrants of pious geology enlarge upon the glories of their subject, they uncomfortably find themselves in increasing danger
of not actually praising God’s operations through the geological eons,
but of boasting the powers of the human mind, which, in a day of tremendous technological achievement, is now able to give laws to these remote eras.
So, out of efforts to find religious security in geology, which is the science above all others set within a framework of time, the period comes reluctantly and full of vague forebodings to the threshold of the Darwinian age, when the conflict of science with religion suddenly will become a real issue.
3’7
CHAPTER FOUR
Mind and Nature
THE HUMAN BRAIN
March of technology excites increasing admiration for man, his ability to master Nature. Developments in agriculture, geology assert ability of mind to comprehend all Nature. Chemistry asserts, gradually, that mind can achieve only fragmentary glimpses.
Thus in 19th-century intellect a crisis takes shape, for a long time unnoticed, which emerges finally as crucial question: what is relation of mind (brain) to object.
Note: story of this struggle can be told with no reference whatsoever to Emerson’s Nature or to any Transcendental wrestling with duality. Little or no influence within circles of science and orthodox theology of Kantian idealism. Through almost all these regions “Common Sense” metaphysics prevail, and epistemological “realism” is untroubled. For what, historically speaking, is the main stream of American intellectual activity the problem was not any terrible doubt of appearances—appearances were real—but of adjusting the conception of mind to a reality which was racing dizzily through a process of transformation.
THE HERITAGE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT The idolization of Linnaeus.
Hence in infant American science, reigning ideal is classification. This is supreme operation of MIND.
Newton in fact was a classifier.
Baconian method (induction) is only for documenting classes. Ruled out are hypotheses, guesses, brilliant but shallow theories. Ideal is slow, steady, patient observation—no place for genius in popular, literary sense.
Hence best suited to a democracy. Everybody can be scientist, at least in comprehension.
Reason then not a faculty—gives no laws of itself—but is arranger of facts and ideas.
Mind cannot classify all universe—in that sense is not equal to totality of things.
However, though classifying mind falls short of absolute knowledge, order and system of scientific classification gives insight into SUBLIME (refer back to I, 2—do not repeat).
Prospect of still more to learn is itself road to the SUBLIME —Rittenhouse.
Argument is that through induction (via close observation through senses) scientific classifications truly approach the SUBLIME. Claims of intuition, imagination, wild genius to beholding it are false.
Last positive stand of science as majestic taxonomy in C. W. Peale's vain effort to get state support for his failing museum in 1816.
His claims a last summation of the philosophy, although pieces of it are endlessly repeated in orations and pep talks for decades thereafter. But c. 1820 a subtle, pervasive transformation is under way in the nation's sense of or feeling for science.