New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-09

the face OF them are InOC0 TOO Sdss " Oc
true was that devoted 10 religion Briefly he
maintained that no religious ideas existed In
the minds OF primitive peoples that sucn IDEAS
began in belief in the return OF the spirit AFTER
death. the desire TO propitiate this double" OF
the dead person resulting in the sacrince and
the development OF the grave into an altar and
thence into a temple. the Identification OF the
dead with animals the advance 10 star worship.
u polytheism and finally to monOtheism- The
factor IN this scheme Of religious evolution most
emphasized was what has been somewhat dis
respectfully described as the ghost cult, ex-
pressed very positively In the sentence: The
rudimentary form OF all religion is the propitia-
ton Of dead ancestors.
FACTS ADVERSE TO THIS THEORY.
The main attraction OF this theory was from
the first the with which 1t could be applied.
II subjected to criticism from various points
OF view. one OF the most important counter
arguments being that Of Otto Grippe directed
against Julius Liprert who expounded Spencer's
suggestions. but equally effectuaI against Spen-
himself Grippe is free from religious pre1u-
dice, except. perhaps. general prejudice against
all religion. He pointed out that the theory was
opposed TO every line OF documentary evidence
that has been preserved to us from antique and
primitive times. For example. the earliest pOr-
lions OF the Rigveda contain not the slightest
alluson 10 the worship OF ancestors, nor any
indication that the burial of the dead was con-
sidered a religious ceremony part OF a
ligious ceremony. No funeral hymns are TO be
offered that in the oldest Indian literature the
Place of the Dead was represented as devoid OF
Joy or comfort. and that in later times when
people had evolved the idea OF q paradise in the
future world. they would necessarily exclude
the discoUraging poetry OF their predecessors,
this only emphasizes the fact that among all
the daemons named or alluded TO in the oldest
collection not single spirit in the sense appro-
pirate to Spencers system, appears. though
such ancestral ghosts or names are common
enough in the later literature On the other
hand. the last book of the second collection Of
Yedic hymns Riksamhita, includes many fu-
neral hymns. and these allude 10 the paradise
after death. Cremation had become, by the
time these hymns were composed, prevalent
custom But there is still sign that care for
the souls of the dead had become a part OF
religion. Now, IL is very singular. If II be the
universal practice OF primitive mankind TO con-
vert their ancestors into gods. that the Nedlc
Indians should have perfected an elaborate sac
and not a solitary recognizable ancestor. Yet
that is Just the testimony not only OF the later
Rixsamhita. but also Of the earlier Rigveda- This
fact is all the more surprising because at com
paratively late period the custom or making
offerings to the dead became common 1t is true
that at a very early date individual deltleS
were honored with the names Of father or
mother; but in all these cases IL is TO be OBJ
served that the conception OF the divinity was
the subject. the genealogical designation merely
predlcate-ancestors We're not eIeNdteQ 20 t5le
level OF the divine. but the gods were brought
down 10 the familiarity Of human relationship
Greek literature did not reach so Tar BACK as the
ancient Indian hymns. but II was early enough
10 be acquainted with solemn cremation, sucn as
the later poets of the Rigveda described, and 10
betray the same ignorance of religious services
in honor OF the dead. Only in later times olu
such a ritual come into fashion OOVlousLS'
then the antique sacrifices 10 the gods cannot
have been derived by process OF eNoiIei i1
from the later sacrifices TO the dead But ASIDE
from these external evidences against tne
theory, il Is shattered by It's own ContTduiCllOI
Granting that primitive man began by worship
ping his ancestors. what inner necessity OF
the human mind led the whole world as oy a
a I
continued existence of the spirit tSpenceF
"double'0 10 a belief that this spirit could taSe
up its residence in any object u choST. m
puIf between hypothetical ancestor worship anu
hypothetical fetichism has rot been orldsed py
Spencer nor by Lippert. and II cannot De oTluseu
nv ANYBODY But the breach Is even wider thaI
senarates This hypothetical fetiChism from the
historic worship Of the heavenly BODIES ne
failure is notorious for example, or every elOi !
10 derive the collective Greek religions from a
tree fetch. or the Egyptian reugloh rom ClIS
CuIt of a brute fetch Not as such were uees
yyorshipped in Greece or brutes IN Egypt Du1 as
earthly embems of phenomena IN lhe hedN
All the so-caIIed fetiches OF antiquity are de-
rived from symbols whose earlier meaning ndo
baan forgotten The process directly the
onnosj+e Of what Spencer's system required
The experience of antiquity has been illustrated
anew by Christianity. which in Abysslnla WhOHy
and in the popular superstltlons OF me - tt
nations in part has fallen TO the lever OF IeuCn-
ism The like is true of Islam and OF Buddn-
ism With these civilized religions as wen
as among many savage races 1etlchlSm II d
mark of degeneracy, not OF evolution
NATURAL. SELECTION A LIMIT
1t has been remarked that the principle Of
Natural Selection is the strongest support or the
theory Of Evolution This principle also renders
needless some of the minutiR of Spencers sys-
tenn. If it can be shown conclusively once for
all. by demonstrating the origin of species, that
man is only a link in the chain Of animated
nature it is not merely unnecessary to trace all
IL oil
to a brute parallel but the attempt may be mis-
leading However man may have originated ne
was from the first an independent entity, Win
his physical and mental potentiaHtles, Just
any other animal is, and not a machine put
together piece by piece For that reason, the
appeal in Spencer's ethical system, for example,
to the animal or subhuman ethics IS at bottom
illustrative rather than sclentnc one VINO
reads closely cannot fail TO observe that the
sociological teachings OF Spencer. IN many
phases the best part Of his system, would De
just as complete and just fOrCible II he had
left the subhUman where IL rtghtfuIy belongs
in biology and psychology. With all his desire
for the unification of knowledge, he really di-
vided rather than united his system by treating
the evolution OF men too much as il they were
mechanical cOntrivances each part OF which had
TO be accounted for separately every step OF the
way from prOtoplasm TO perfection. And so his
application OF his formula can be criticised often
encyclopaedia rather than scientific or phil
Osophical. But the formula itself in his hands,
and in the hands Of Others has been the most
efficient thought in the latter half of the nine
teenth century. Every one ought 10 have IL at
his tongues end. Here II is: Evolution Is an
indignation Of matter and concomitant dtssipa-
ton of motion during which the matter passes
from an indefinite. iucoherent hOmogeneity 10 a
definite. coherent heterogeneity, and during
which the retained motion undergOes a parallel
transformation . while Dissolution is the
absorption of motion and the concOmitant dis
integration OF matter.
POPULARITY OF THE SYNTHETIC PHIL
OSOPHY.
Few philosophers boast of SO ready &C
ceptance on the part OF the public as Spencer.