NOTES AND ABSTRACTS.
i£sthetic Evolution. — In a previous article it was shown that aesthetic evo- lution depends upon religious evolution. But religion depends upon man's conception of the fundamental facts of nature. With the formation of this conception science comes to have more and more to do. Theology also is a conception of these facts. The conception furnished by science and that furnished by theology are not infre- quently radically opposed to each other ; hence a tendency toward opposition between that phase of religion and its corresponding phase of aesthetic, dependent upon that conception of nature furnished by science and the members of the same series furnished by theology. It has generally proven true that, when thus opposed, science and its dependents have come to be generally accepted rather than theology and its depend- ents. Therefore we are to look to science for the spiritual renovation and regenera- tion so much needed today, and may confidently trust the scientific religion thus evolved to furnish to art and aesthetic the highest sources of inspiration. The modern scientific conception of the world is not less aesthetic than the false conception of the ancients. It will furnish a sufficient inspiration to the noblest altruism, to the practice of the highest virtues, to the philosophic contemplation of nature, and to the attain- ment of great moral perfection. It will teach mankind that civilization would retrograde and disappear if human betterment were not insured by science, by art, and by morals. — Edmond Galabert, " L'^volutionesth^tique," KevueinleniationaU de socio- hgie, October, 1898.
Religion and Morality. — Religion is a certain relation established between man and the eternal and infinite universe, or with its principle and first cause. It is an answer to the question, "What is the meaning of my life?" Morality is what exhibits and illuminates the activity of man, and which naturally proceeds from his relation with the universe. There are three relations in which man may stand to the universe, and correspondingly three kinds of morality ;
The first is primitive, savage, personal morality. It includes all that is based upon the welfare of the individual ; for instance, Mohammedan morality ; that taught by the Christian church, which seeks individual welfare especially in the other world ; utilitarian ethics.
The second is pagan morality, for which the end is the welfare of a group of indi- viduals ; as for instance ; the official morality of the state, that of the ancient Jews, that of the Greeks and Romans.
The third kind is Christian morality, the essence of which is that man recognizes in himself an instrument for the service of one supreme will whose plans he should realize. It is the source of the most elevated systems man knows, viz., Pylhagorean- ism. Stoicism, Buddhism, Brahmanism, Taoism, Christian morality in the true sense of the word, which demands the renunciation of all will, of all good, not only of self, but also of familv, of society, of the state, and that in the name of the accomplishment of His will who made us live, of that will of which we are conscious when it unveils itself to us. Morality cannot be independent of religion. Hideous abstraction, obscurity, unintelligibility, unthankfulness for life characterize modern pagan ethics. All rules of morality considered from the point of view of non-Christian ethics are only lies and hypocrisy. Some have sought to found Christian morality on pagan science; but no subtlety of thought, no sophism, can prevail against this simple princi- ple, viz.: The theory of evolution is founded upon the survival of the fittest ; conse- quently everyone ought, in his own interest or that of the society of which he is a member, to try to be one of the fittest in order that he or his group might not perish, but instead others less fit for the struggle. It would be desirable to have a moral system free from superstition. But since morality is a certain relation of man to the universe,
698
