What forms the staple of his book is the exposition and criticism of Naturalism. Naturalism, he tells us, exists in two forms, naive and speculative. And speculative Naturalism entrenches itself in two great contentions, the one embodied in the Darwinian doctrine of evolution, the other in the mechanical theory of life. To the exposition and criticism of these two great contentions of Naturalism Dr. Otto accordingly devotes himself. To the Darwinian theory chapters 4 to 7 (pp. 85–186) are given; to the mechanical theory of life, chapters 8 to 11 (pp. 187–359). The discussion in both cases is full, the exposition clear, the criticism telling.

In dealing with the Darwinian theory, Dr. Otto very properly distinguishes between the theory of descent in general and the specific form given this theory by Darwin’s hypothesis of the indefiniteness of variations and the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The former, he points out, has maintained its ground, or perhaps we may even say has strengthened its stakes. Dr. Otto intimates, almost as a matter of course, his own adhesion to it. The latter, on the contrary, has become in the estimate of wide circles, not merely suspect, but even disproved. Dr. Otto intimates that he himself will have none of it. But it is precisely in this peculiarly Darwinian theory of “natural selection” that the virus of Naturalism in current evolutionary speculation is prominent. The theory of descent is in no sense specifically Darwinian: it is far older than Darwin and remains the conviction of multitudes who are definitely anti-Darwinian. What is specifically Darwinian is the appeal to the factors of overproduction, indefinite variation, struggle for existence and consequent elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fittest as containing in themselves the true account of the modifications which have produced the multitudinous forms of life. Thus teleology was reduced to an illusion and suitability substituted in its place: utility became the one sufficient creator of all that is living. The widespread dissatisfaction with, and even rejection of, this account of organic development which marks the present state of discusion may be taken as at the same time, therefore, a refutation of the Naturalism which underlies it, because it is an exhibition of the inadequacy of mere utility to account for all things. As investigation has gone on it has become clearer and clearer to numerous students of the subject that variations do not occur indifferently in every direction, but turn up opportunely. As Du Bois-Reymond expressed it in his vivid way, Nature’s dice are loaded; not accidentalism but purpose rules her acts. The greater organism of the animate world grows apparently like the lesser organism of the individual being along fixed lines by definite steps to determined ends. “Natural selection” may have a part to play in the process: but it is in wider and wider circles coming to be believed that it is a very subordinate part. It can work on only what is given it; and it does not seem to have indefinite variations in every direction to work on, but, rather, very definite variations in one direction. The goal attained is, therefore, not determined by it, but by the inherent tendency of the developing organism. So, at least, an increasing number of students of nature are coming to think.

Dr. Otto’s method is marked by a very large infusion of the concessive spirit. He betrays no tendency to drive antitheses into contradictions; and he does not permit the cause of teleology in nature to be identified with the extremest anti-Darwinian opinions. On the contrary, he is quick to point out that purpose has no quarrel with means; and can live, therefore, under the strictest reign of law. It is not law which is fatal to purpose, but chance. Nay, says he, “absolute obedience to law, and the inexorableness of chains of sequence are, instead of being fatal to ‘teleology,’ indispensable to it.” “When there is a purpose in view,” he argues, “it is only where the system of means is perfect, unbroken, and absolute, that the purpose can be realised, and therefore that intention can be inferred” (p. 83). Accordingly, therefore, he considers it possible to embrace in a teleological interpretation “the whole system of causes and effects, which, according to the Darwin-Weismann doctrine, have gradually brought forth the whole diversity of the world of life, with man at its head” (p. 150). For why may not this be looked upon “as an immense system of means,” intricate no doubt, but working to its end with inevitable necessity—which may therefore be the manifestation of intention (p. 151)? At a later point, when dealing with the mechanical theory of life, he reverts to the same line of remark to show that mechanism has in it nothing inconsistent with purpose (pp. 222–223). Mechanism may be only the way in which purpose realizes itself. Of course, the danger here is that we may fall thus into a deistic conception of the method of what we theologically call “Providence.” But this does not seem necessary, even when the whole of what we call nature is conceived as “a machine.” Though the guiding hand of purpose be conceived as everywhere and at all times immediately operative, nevertheless the whole account of the several phenomena would be found in the efficient, not in the final causes. In no case are the final causes to be conceived as additional efficient causes producing with them a resultant effect. They are and remain only final causes and operate only through and by means of the efficient causes. Each phenomenon finds its whole account when severally considered, accordingly, in its efficient causes. It is therefore indifferent to purpose whether the events which occur under its government occur as products of mechanical or free causes. “Providence,” then, which is but another way of saying “purpose,” is as consistent with a mechanical theory as with any other theory of life: because “purpose” is not discerned in the separate phenomena but in their combination. Romanes was quite right, therefore, when he regretfully said of his earlier mistake in ruling purpose out of the universe: “I had forgotten to take in the whole scope of things, the marvelous harmony of the all.” Dr. Otto is anxious that his readers shall not make the analogous mistake of supposing that because a thing is “caused” it is therefore not “intended.” He does not imagine, of course, that in this vindication of teleology in relation to mechanism, he has done all that is necessary to validate the religious view of the world. He rightly supposes, however, that he has by it done something to remove some current objections to the religious view of the world; for there are still some who imagine that when they say mechanism they deny purpose. How far the alleged mechanism rules is another question.

The most striking feature of Dr. Otto’s method is, however, his employment of exposition as argument. His book thus becomes a mirror of current thought on the subjects with which he is dealing. The inherent weakness of the Darwinian construction of the factors of evolution, for example, he exhibits less by direct argument of his own against it than by a running exposition of the course of evolutionary thought in latter-day Germany. The first impression the reader gets from this survey is of the uncertainty of the conclusions which are from time to time announced. He soon perceives, however, that amid the apparent confusion there is a gradual and steady driftage in one direction, and that that direction is away from Darwin’s conceptions. Whatever in the end he may come to think of Darwin’s theory in its application to nature, he receives a strong impression that it is fairly illustrated in this section of human research and thought. Here is certainly exhibited indefinite variation in all directions, struggle for existence, and—let us hope—the survival of the fittest. It may become us to bear in mind, to be sure, that the survival of the fittest is not quite the same as the survival of the true. It may be only the survival of the theory that fits in best with the presuppositions and prejudices of the times. Nevertheless truth is strong; and we can scarcely doubt it will (finally) prevail. And one gets the impression that, in this case, what seems likely to prevail in the meantime is the truth, and that this truth is hostile to the anti-teleological schematization of Darwin; and, indeed, to his whole construction of the main factors of evolution. Indeed, it seems at times as if the new investigators were inclined to react from “natural selection” a shade too violently, and not content with assigning Darwinismus to the Sterbebett were determined to deny to “natural selection” not only any real effectiveness or capacity for species-forming, but even reality itself. Dr. Otto avoids this extreme. He not only recognizes its operation in nature as a vera causa but points out that its obvious reality and actual working is the main cause of the attractiveness of the theory which found in it the one great agency in species-forming (pp. 156–157). Nevertheless, he holds firmly with the more recent thought, which discovers for it only a very subordinate rôle to play in nature; and he points out with great clearness that its dethronement and the substitution for it of theories of evolution dominated by the recognition of inherent tendencies in the organism and progression along right lines, is the definite relegation of Naturalism too to the Sterbelager, so far as it had entrenched itself in the doctrine of evolution.

In dealing with the mechanical theory of life, Dr. Otto employs much the same method which he uses in dealing with the doctrine of evolution. Here, too, he avoids dogmatism and relies largely on the effect a mere tracing of the history of research is fitted to produce. For the progress of investigation has been away from the mechanical view of life. We have lived to see the dawn of a new age of “vitalism”; and even where the name is scouted and the thing deprecated, the edges of the old mechanical theory have become very frayed. On the basis of present-day thought, Dr. Otto is justified in emphasizing the mystery of life and in pointing decisively to the supremeness of mind, so making way for the religious view of the world from this point of sight also.

Enough has doubtless been said to manifest the high value we place on Dr. Otto’s discussion. It would be difficult to find elsewhere in such brief compass so full and lucid a survey of the recent German literature on evolution and the nature of life. And it would be, we are persuaded, impossible to find another work of such compressed form in which the failure of Naturalism as a theory of the world is more tellingly argued.

Footnotes

1. The Princeton Theological Review, vii. 1909, pp. 106–112. ↩