Current Literature [pp. 483-485]

CURRENT LITER TURE.
here as original in social life as those new in
Nature; and interpreters will only fail us for
want of encouragement. If we bring our
scientific scholars from abroad, with their
gathered experience and wisdom of the past,
let us be mindful to secure for ourselves also
the ripening thought of the present.
We have, connected with the drama in
San Francisco, a gentleman whose scientific
acquirements should give him a more conspicuous estimation in the minds of the com.
munity than even his accomplishments as an
actor. Professor Agassiz, his warm personal
friend, was somewhat surprised that he was
not filling the chair of a professor, so highly
does he estimate his knowledge. We have
a physician in Oakland, laboriously fulfilling
the duties of his practice, so familiar with
botanical science, that students, and even
teachers, apply to him, as undoubted authority in this particular department. We have
art students all over the State, who are revealing the secrets of Nature, and, in color
and atmosphere, reproducing her likeness
with wonderful fidelity. We have a Joaquin
Miller, a Charles Warren Stoddard, an Ina
D. Coolbrith, and many prose-writers of excellent promise. The lecture -field, with
which we started and will close this Etc., is
open to honorable competition.
CURRENT LITERATURE.
MIAN IN THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
By Dr. L. Buchner.
The author of this remarkable work, as is
well known, occupies the front rank among
the popular scientific writers of Germany.
He is the representative of the extreme materialistic school, and may justly dispute claims
with Figuier, of the French school of infidelity; inasmuch as it must be a mooted question as to which of these noted savants deserves most credit for exhibiting the practical
workings of their peculiar theories, and showing to what results the principles maintained
by the school of thinkers to which they are
allied inevitably lead. In his preface the
author expresses great distaste and disinclination for futile polemics; and proposes, once
for all, to brilliantly and resolutely defend
his position against all assailants by hurling
at them in advance projectiles like the following:
"There is nothing more frequent than denunciations from the pulpit and platform against the tendencies of modern science, by men who are not only ignorant of the rudiments of science, but who have
bound themselves by creeds and formulas before their
minds were matured enough, or their knowledge sufficient, to discriminate between the essentials and
non-essentials of these restrictions. And here it may
be remarked, once for all, that no man who has subscribed to creeds and formulas, whether in theology
or philosophy, can be an unbiased investigator of the
truth, or an unprejudiced judge of the opinions of
others. His sworn preconceptions warp his discernment; adherence to his sect or party engenders intolerance to the honest convictions of other inquirers.
Beliefs we may and must have, but a belief to be
changed with new and advancing knowledge impedes no progress, while a creed subscribed to as ultimate truth and sworn to be defended, not only puts
a bar to further research, but as a consequence throws
the odium of distrust on all that may seem to oppose
it. Even when such odium can not deter, it annoys
and irritates; hence the frequent unwillingness of
men of science to come prominently forward with the
avowal of their beliefs. It is time this delicacy were
thrown aside, and such theologians plainly told that
the skepticism and infidelity -if skepticism and infidelity there be-lies all on their own side. There is
no skepticism so offensive as that which doubts the
facts of honest and careful observation; no infidelity
so gross as that which disbelieves the deductions of
competent and unbiased judgments."
Having thus dexterously thrown up an
abattis of branches clipped from Page's controversial tree, to obstruct, if possible, the
approach of all assailants, he deploys his
scientific troops into a compact body along
an extended front, and maneuvres them with
creditable skill and adroit stratagem. For
the more convenient handling of the material,
he divides his subject into three battalions of
argument- namely, "Our origin," "What
are we?" "Where are we going?" Upon
1872.]
483