Page 6 (1/1)

WHAT LIES BEHIND THE LAW

Let us sum up e have reached so far In the case of stones and trees and things of that sort, e call the Laws of NatureWhen you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way The so-called lawsabove and beyond the actual facts that we observe But in the case of Manthat this will not do The Law of Hu above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour In this case, besides the actual facts, you have so else�Ca real lahich we did not invent and which we knoe ought to obey

I noant to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in Ever sincewhat this universe really is and how it cahly, two views have been held First, there is what is called the materialist view People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knohy; and that thein certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think By one chance in a thousand so hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the cheht temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of theseries of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us The other view is the religious view According to it, what is behind the universe iselse we know That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself�CIminds Please do not think that one of these vieas held a long tiradually taken its place Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up And note this too You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense Science works by experis behave Every scientific state run, however co like, &039;I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 am on January 15th and saw so and-so,&039; or, &039;I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a te anything against science: I a what its job is And the ree with me that this is the job of science�Cand a very useful and necessary job it is too But why anything co behind the things science observes�Cso of a different kind-this is not a scientific question If there is &039;Soether unknown to men or else make itself known in so, and the state, are neither of them statements that science can make And real scientists do not usually make them It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science froo in for the science ever beca in the whole universe Is it not plain that the questions, &039;Why is there a universe?&039; &039;Why does it go on as it does?&039; &039;Has it any ?&039; would remain just as they were?

See Note at the end of this chapter

Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn fro is Man We do not merely observe men, we are men In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a et even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey Notice the following point Anyone studying Man fro our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge froet the slightest evidence that we had this moral la could he? for his observations would only shoe did, and the ht to do In the sa above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it

The position of the question, then, is like this We want to knohether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it There is only one case in which we can knohether there is anything more, namely our own case And in that one case we find there is Or put it the other way round If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe�Cno more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a coet us to behave in a certain way And that is just e do find inside ourselves Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not Suppose so down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, &039;Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter&039; And if he then objected &039;But you&039;ve never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting,&039; I should say, &039;Of course not, and I shouldn&039;t expect to, because they&039;re not addressed tothe packets I&039;m not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open&039; It is the same about this question The only packet I am allowed to open is Man Where I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist onwants me to behave in a certain way I do not, of course think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the sa, just as I do not think all the other people in the street get the same letters as I do I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity�Cthat whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature, he compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide

Do not think I a faster than I really am I am not yet within a hundred ot to is a So the universe, and which appears inI think we have to assu else we know�Cbecause after all the only other thing we know isinstructions But, of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person In the next Chapter we shall see if we can find out anything reat deal of soft soap talked about God for the last hundred years That is not what I a You can cut all that out

NOTE - In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on the air, I ious view But to be coht to mention the In-between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Eent Evolution The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the son People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet &039;evolved&039; from the lowest for&039; or &039;purposiveness&039; of a Life-Force When people say this wewith alife into existence and leading it to perfection&039; is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious If they do not then what is the sense in saying that so without a mind &039;strives&039; or has &039;purposes&039;? This seems to me fatal to their view One reason why ives onein God and none of the less pleasant consequences When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoreatyou on its crest If, on the other hand, you want to do so only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about ere children The Life-Force is a sort of tame God You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you All the thrills of religion and none of the cost Is the Life-Force the greatest achieve the world has yet seen?