SPIRITIST EVOLUTIONISM
For spiritists of the Kardec school, as for all others who embrace the idea, reincarnation is closely linked to a 'progressivist', or if preferred, an 'evolutionist' conception of things. Originally the word 'progress' was simply used, but today 'evolution' is preferred, for though fundamentally the same the latter has a more 'scientific' allure. One can hardly imagine the seduction that grand words offering a false semblance of intellectuality exercise on more or less uneducated or 'elementary' spiritists. This is a kind of 'verbalism' which provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking; it is also an obscurity which passes for profundity in the eyes of the common man. The pompous and empty phraseology in use among all 'neo-spiritualist' schools is certainly not one of the least elements in their success. But spiritist terminology is particularly ridiculous because it is composed in large part of neologisms coined by quasi-illiterates in defiance of all the laws of etymology. For example, if one wishes to know how the word 'perispirit' was coined by Allan Kardec, it is quite simply thus: 'As the seed of a fruit is covered by a perisperm, similarly the spirit properly so called is surrounded by an envelop which may by comparison be called perispirit. [1] Those with a penchant for linguistic research could find in this kind of thing the subject of a curious study, but we will only note it in passing. Often, too, spiritists seize on philosophical or
scientific terms which they apply as they may; naturally, the preferred words are those that have been disseminated widely in works of popularization, words imbued with the most detestable 'scientistic' spirit. As for the word 'evolution', which is among these last named, it must be acknowledged that what it designates is really in harmony with the various spiritist theories. Over the past century or so, evolution has taken many forms, but these are just so many variations of the idea of 'progress' which began to spread in the Western world in the course of the second half of the eighteenth century. It is one of the most characteristic manifestations of the specifically modern mentality-which is definitely that of the spiritists and, even more generally, of all 'neo-spiritualists'.
Allan Kardec teaches that 'spirits are neither good nor bad by nature, but it is these same spirits who improve themselves, and who in doing so pass from an inferior to a superior order; and that 'God has given to each of the spirits a mission in order to enlighten them and bring them progressively to perfection through knowledge of the truth, thereby bringing them nearer to Himself'; and further, that 'all will become perfect,' that 'the spirit may remain stationary, but will not go backward,' and that 'spirits who have followed the path of evil can reach the same degree of superiority as the others, but for them the eternities [sic] will be longer.' [2] It is by 'progressive transmigration' that this ascendant march is effected:
The life of the spirit, taken as a whole, goes through the same phases that we see in corporeal life. It passes gradually from the embryonic state to that of childhood, then by a succession of stages it reaches the adult state, which is that of perfection. But there is this difference: there is no decline or decrepitude as in corporeal life; the life which had a beginning will not have an end; and from our point of view an immense time is necessary to pass from spiritist childhood [sic] to complete development, and the spirit's progress is not accomplished in a single sphere but rather by passing through various worlds. Thus the life of the spirit is composed of a series of corporeal existences each of
which is an occasion of progress for it, just as each corporeal existence is composed of a series of days in each of which the individual acquires an increase of experience and instruction. But just as there are days in the life of a man which bear no fruit, so in the life of the spirit there are bodily existences which are without issue because the spirit has not known how to profit by them.... The spirits' course is progressive and never retrograde; they gradually rise in the hierarchy and never descend to a station which they have previously attained. In their different corporeal existences, they may descend as men (as regards social position), but not as spirits. [3]
And now a description of the effects of this progress:
In the measure that the spirit is purified, the body it wears becomes more spirit-like. The matter is less dense; it no longer creeps laboriously along the surface of the earth; physical needs are less gross; living beings no longer need be mutually destructive in order to feed themselves. The spirit is freer and has perceptions unknown to us, of things far removed. It sees with bodily eyes what we see only in thought. In the beings in which spirits are incarnated, this purification leads to moral perfection. Animal passions are weakened, and egotism yields to sentiments of fraternity. Thus in worlds superior to the earth, wars are unknown; hatreds and discords have no object because no one dreams of working ill against his neighbor. The intuition they have of their future and the security which gives them a conscience free of remorse means that death gives them no cause for apprehension; they see it approach without fear and as a simple transformation. The duration of life in the different worlds seems to be in proportion to the degree of physical and moral superiority of these worlds, and this is perfectly rational. The less material the body is, the less is it subject to the vicissitudes that disrupt it; the purer the spirit, the fewer passions it has to wear it away. This again is a benefit of Providence, which in this way intends to lessen suffering.... The determining consideration as
to the world into which the spirit will be reincarnated is the degree of its elevation.... [4] The worlds, too, are subject to the law of progress. All began in an inferior state, and the earth itself will undergo a like transformation; it will become a terrestrial paradise when men become good.... It is thus that the races which today people the earth will disappear, to be replaced by beings more and more perfect; these transformed races will succeed the present race as this has succeeded others still grosser. [5]
Let us cite further a passage concerned especially with the 'march of progress' on the earth:
Man must ceaselessly progress, and he cannot return to the state of childhood. If he progresses, it is because God so wills it; to think that he may go backward toward his primitive condition would be to deny the law of progress.
This is only too obvious, but it is precisely this supposed law which we formally deny; however, let us continue:
Moral progress is the consequence of intellectual progress, but it does not always immediately follow. . . . Since progress is a condition of human nature, it is not within anyone's power to oppose it. It is a living force which adverse laws may retard but not stifle.... There are two kinds of progress which mutually support one another but which nevertheless do not march abreast: intellectual progress and moral progress. Among civilized peoples the first receives all desirable encouragement in this century. It has thus attained a degree unknown prior to our own times. It is necessary that the second should be brought to the same level; nevertheless, if one compares the social morés of a few centuries ago one would have to be blind to deny the progress that has been made. Why should there not be as much difference between the nineteenth and the twenty-fourth centuries as between the fourteenth and the nineteenth? To doubt the
possibility would amount to a claim that humanity is at the apogee of perfection, which would be absurd, or to claim that humanity is not morally perfectible, to which experience gives the lie. [6]
Finally, this is how spiritism would 'contribute to progress':
By destroying materialism, which has become one of the open wounds of society, we make men understand where their true interest lies. The future life no longer being veiled in doubt, man will better understand that he can assure his own future through the present. By destroying the prejudices of sects, castes, and races it teaches man the great solidarity that must unite them as brothers. [7]
It can be seen how closely related spiritist 'moralism' is to socialist and humanitarian utopias; all these people agree in situating their 'earthly paradise'-that is, the realization of their dreams of 'pacifism' and 'universal brotherhood'-in a more or less distant future. The spiritists simply add the further supposition that these things are already realized on other planets. It is hardly necessary to note how gross and naive are their conceptions of 'worlds superior to the earth'; but there is no reason for astonishment when one has seen how they represent the existence of the 'disincarnated spirit'. We will only note the obvious predominance of sentimentality in what for them constitutes this 'superiority'. They place 'moral progress' above 'intellectual progress' for the same reason. Kardec writes that a 'complete civilization is recognized by its moral development,' adding that:
Like everything else, civilization has its degrees. An incomplete civilization is a state of transition which engenders its special ills, unknown in the primitive state. But it constitutes nonetheless a natural and necessary progress carrying with it the remedy for the evil it does. In the measure that civilization is perfected, it brings an end to some of the ills it has engendered, and these
evils will disappear with moral progress. Of two peoples that have reached the summit of the social scale, only those can really be said to be the most civilized in the true sense of the word among whom there is less egotism, less greed, less pride; where habits are more intellectual and moral than material; where intelligence can be developed with greater liberty; where there is more kindness, good faith, and mutual benevolence and generosity; where the prejudices of caste and birth are less deeply rooted, for these prejudices are incompatible with true love of one's neighbor; where laws do not sanction any privilege and are the same for the last as for the first; where justice is exercised with less partiality; where the weak always find support against the powerful; where the life of man, his beliefs, and his opinions are most respected; where the unhappy are fewer; and finally where every man of good will is always assured that he will never lack what is necessary. [8]
This passage affirms once again the democratic tendencies of spiritism, which Kardec subsequently develops at length in chapters treating the 'law of equality' and the 'law of liberty'. It suffices to read these passages to be convinced that spiritism is a pure product of the modern mentality.
Nothing would be easier to critique than this foolish optimism which among our contemporaries is represented by belief in 'progress'. But we cannot expand on this beyond measure, for such a discussion would take us far from spiritism, which is only a very particular instance of the general belief. This belief has likewise taken hold throughout the most diverse circles, each of which quite naturally pictures 'progress' in conformity with its own preferences. The fundamental error, the origins of which must be attributed to Turgot and especially to Fourier, consists in speaking of 'civilization' as if it were an absolute. This is something that does not exist, for there have always been and still are 'civilizations', each of which has its own development. Moreover, among these 'civilizations' are those that have been entirely lost, of which those later civilizations
have in no way garnered the heritage. Nor can one dispute that there are periods of decadence within a civilization, or that a relative progress in a certain field may be compensated by a regression in others. Further, it would be quite difficult for the generality of men of one people and one age to apply their activity equally in the most widely differing directions. It is certainly the case that in modern Western civilization development is limited to the most restricted domain of all. It seems that it is not so very difficult to think that 'intellectual progress has attained a level unheard of until our day'; but those who think this way show that they are ignorant of all true intellectuality. To take for 'intellectual progress' what is only a purely material development limited to the field of the experimental sciences (or rather, certain of them, for there are sciences of which moderns do not even recognize the existence), and especially their industrial applications, is certainly the most ridiculous of all illusions. On the contrary, from the time of the Renaissance, in our view wrongly so called, there was a formidable intellectual regression for which no material progress can compensate. We have already spoken of this elsewhere and will not take up the matter again here. [9] As to so-called 'moral progress', this is an affair of sentiment and therefore purely and simply a matter of individual appreciation. From this perspective everyone can fashion for himself an 'ideal' according to his own tastes, and that of spiritists and other democrats does not suit everyone. But generally 'moralists' do not understand things in this way, and if they had the power they would impose their own ideas on all alike; for in practice no one is less tolerant than those who feel a need to preach tolerance and fraternity. However that may be, the 'moral perfectibility' of man, according to current concepts, would seem to be 'given the lie by experience,' rather than the other way round. Too many recent events run counter to Allan Kardec and those like him for there to be any need to emphasize this. But the dreamers are incorrigible, and every time a war breaks out there are always those who predict it will be the last. These people who invoke 'experience' at every turn seem perfectly oblivious to all the contradictions it entails. As for future
races, these can always be imagined according to one's fantasy; in this matter the spiritists at least have the prudence to refrain from the precise details that have remained the monopoly of the Theosophists, and limit themselves to vague, sentimental considerations which though fundamentally of no greater value, have at least the advantage of being less pretentious. Finally, it should be noted that the 'law of progress' is for its proponents a kind of postulate or article of faith. Kardec says that 'man must progress', and is content to add that 'if he progresses, it is God who wills it so.' If one had asked him how he knew this, he would probably have responded that 'spirits' told him. As justification this is weak, but can one believe that those who make the same assertions in the name of 'reason' have a much stronger position? There is a rationalism that is scarcely more than disguised sentimentalism; moreover, there are no absurdities which cannot commend themselves to reason. Kardec himself also proclaimed that 'the strength of spiritism lies in its philosophy, in the appeal it makes to reason and common sense. [10] Surely, 'good common sense'-so abused since Descartes, who already believed he had to fawn upon it in a thoroughly democratic manner-is quite incapable of making an informed decision between the truth or falsity of any idea whatsoever; even a more 'philosophical' rationality is hardly any better a guarantee against error. Let one laugh if one will at Kardec and his satisfaction in declaring that 'if man progresses, it is because God has willed it so,' but then what must one think of the eminent sociologist, a highly qualified representative of 'official science', who announced seriously (we ourselves heard him) that 'if humanity progresses it is because it has a tendency to progress'? The solemn nonsense of university philosophy is sometimes as grotesque as the ramblings of spiritists. But the latter, as we have said, carry special dangers deriving from their 'pseudo-religious' character, and this is why it is more urgent to denounce them and show up their stupidity.
We must now speak of what Kardec calls the 'progress of the mind', and to begin we will show how he abuses analogy in the comparison he tries to establish with corporeal life; for if, according to
Kardec himself, this comparison is inapplicable as regards the phase of decline and decrepitude, why should it be any more valid for the phase of development? Likewise, if what he calls 'perfection', the aim that all spirits must sooner or later attain, is something comparable to the 'adult state', this perfection is quite relative. In fact, it must be quite relative if it is to be reached 'gradually', even if 'an immense time' is required; but we will shortly return to this point. Finally, logically and especially metaphysically, what has no end cannot have a beginning either; in other words, whatever is truly immortal (and not only in the relative sense of the word) is by the same reckoning eternal. It is true that Kardec, who speaks of the 'length of the eternities' (in the plural), is obviously imagining nothing but a simple temporal perpetuity; and, because he does not see the end, he supposes that there is no end. But the indefinite is still finite, and all duration is finite by its very nature. And there is another equivocation to dispel: what is called 'spirit' and is presumed to constitute the true and total being, is finally only the human individuality. Even if repeated in multiples by reincarnation, it is no less limited for that. In a sense, spiritists even limit the individuality overmuch, for they know only a slight part of its real possibilities, and reincarnation is not required for the individuality to be susceptible of indefinite prolongations. But in another sense they give an excessive importance to the individuality in taking it for the [entire] being of which it is-with all its possible prolongations-only an infinitesimal component. This double error, moreover, does not rest uniquely with spiritists, but is shared by almost all the Western world. The human individual is both much more and much less than is commonly believed; and if this individual, or rather a restricted portion of this individual, had not wrongly been taken as the complete being, the idea would never have arisen that it was something that 'evolves'. The individual can be said to 'evolve' if it is understood thereby that it accomplishes a certain cyclic development; but in our day, whoever says 'evolution' means to say 'progressive' development, and this is contestable, if not for certain portions of the cycle at least for its totality. Even in a relative field such as this the idea of progress is applicable only within very narrow limits. Furthermore, it has meaning only if precise details are
given as to the relationship within which it applies, this being true for individuals as well as for collectivities. For the rest, whoever says progress inevitably says succession; the word no longer has any meaning for anything that cannot be envisaged in successive mode. If man attributes it a meaning, it is because as an individual being he is subject to time, and if he extends this meaning in the most abusive manner, it is because he does not conceive of what is outside time. For all states of being not conditioned by time or by any other mode of duration, there can be no question of anything of this kind, even in the case of some relativity or other contingency, however insignificant, for this is not a possibility of these states. If it is a question of the truly complete being, totalizing in itself the indefinite multiplicity of all its states, it is absurd to speak, not only of progress or evolution, but of any development whatsoever. Eternity, which excludes all succession and all change (or rather, which has no relationship with them), necessarily implies absolute immutability.
Before ending this discussion, we should cite several more passages from writers who enjoy uncontested authority in spiritist circles. First, Léon Denis, who speaks in almost the same vein as Kardec:
The question is one of working arduously at our own advancement. The supreme goal is perfection. The road leading to it is progress. The way is long and is traversed step by step. The distant aim seems to recede as one advances, but at each step the being gathers the fruit of its labor; it enriches its experience and develops its faculties.... Between souls, there are only differences of degree, differences which they are free to make up in the future. [11]
Up to this point there is nothing new; but, writing on what he calls 'evolution of the perispirit', the same author brings in details visibly inspired by certain scientific or pseudo-scientific theories, the success of which is one of the most undeniable signs of the intellectual weakness of our contemporaries.
The time-honored relationships between men and spirits, [12] confirmed and explained by the recent experience of spiritism, demonstrate the survival of the being in a more perfect fluidic form. This indestructible form, companion and servant of the soul, witness of its struggles and sufferings, participates in the soul's peregrinations and is raised up and purified together with the soul. Formed in the inferior regions, the perispirital being slowly climbs the scale of existences. At first it is only a rudimentary being, a rough sketch. Having reached humanity, it begins to reflect more elevated sentiments. The spirit radiates with greater power and the perispirit is enlightened with new gleams.
From life to life, in the measure that aspirations are extended, faculties are purified, and the field of knowledge is enlarged, it is enriched with new senses. Each time an incarnation is achieved, the spiritual body, like a butterfly breaking out of its chrysalis, disengages itself from its ragged clothing of flesh. The soul finds itself whole and free and, considering this fluidic cloak which covers it in its splendid or miserable aspect, it observes its own advancement. [13]
This is what one might call 'psychic transformism'; and to it some if not all spiritists add belief in transformism understood in its most ordinary sense, even though this theory is hardly reconcilable with the theory taught by Kardec, according to whom 'the seeds of all living beings contained in the earth remain there latent and inert until the propitious moment for the birth of each species. [14] However that may be, Gabiel Delanne, who aims at being the most 'scientific' of the spiritists of the Kardec school, accepts the transformists' theories entirely; but he intends to complete 'corporeal evolution' with 'animic evolution':
The same immortal principle animates all living creatures, manifesting itself at first only under elementary modes in the last stages of life; little by little it perfects itself as it rises up the scale of beings. In its long evolution it develops the faculties which were enclosed within it in a seed state and manifests them in a manner more or less analogous to our own in the measure that it approaches humanity. . . We cannot conceive why God would create beings subject to suffering without at the same time according them the faculty of benefiting from the efforts they make at self-improvement. If the intelligent principle which animates them were eternally condemned to occupy this inferior position, God would not be just in favoring man at the expense of other creatures. But reason tells us that it cannot be so and observation shows us that there is substantial identity between the souls of beasts and our own, that all is linked and tied together in the Universe, from the least atom to the colossal sun lost in the night of space, from the simplest protozoan to the superior spirit soaring freely in serene celestial regions. [15]
The appeal to divine justice was inevitable here. We said above that it would be absurd to ask why such-and-such an animal species is not the equal of some other; but one must understand that this inequality nevertheless offends spiritist sentimentality almost as much as do social conditions among humans. Moralism is truly something admirable! What is also quite curious is the section that follows, which we reproduce in its entirety in order to show how far the 'scicntistic' mind can go among spiritists, with its customary accompaniment of ferocious hatred for everything that has a religious or traditional character:
How is this genesis of the soul accomplished, through what metamorphoses has the intelligent principle passed before arriving at humanity? This is what transformism teaches us with luminous clarity. Thanks to the genius of Lamarck, Darwin, Wallace, Haeckel, and an army of natural scientists, our past has been exhumed from earth's depths; its archives have preserved
the bones of vanished races and science has reconstructed our ascending line, from the present day through thousands of centuries all the way back to the time when life first appeared on our globe. Liberated from the bonds of an ignorant religion, the human mind has taken free flight; delivered from the superstitious fears that hampered the researches of our fathers, it has dared approach the problem of our origins and has found the solution. This is a primary fact of which the moral and philosophical consequences are incalculable. The earth is no longer a mysterious world that appeared one day at the wave of an enchanter's wand, populated with animals and plants and ready to receive man as its king. Today enlightened reason makes us understand how these fables bear witness to ignorance and pride! Man is not a fallen angel, weeping for an imaginary lost Paradise; he must not bow down obsequiously before the rod of the representative of a prejudiced, capricious, and vindictive God; he has no original sin staining him from birth, and his fate depends on no one but himself. The day of his intellectual deliverance has come; the hour of renewal has sounded for all beings who still bow under their yoke of despotism, fear, and dogma. Spiritism has shed the light of its torch upon our future, unfolding in the infinite heavens. We feel throbbing the soul of our sisters, and the other celestial humanities. We rise up in the thick darkness of the past in order to study our spiritual youth, and nowhere do we find that fantastic and terrible tyrant the Bible so frightfully describes. In all creation there is nothing arbitrary or illogical to destroy the grand harmony of the eternal laws. [16]
These declamations, so similar to those of Camille Flammarion, are of interest chiefly because they illustrate spiritism's affinities for all that is most detestable in modern thought. No doubt the spiritists, fearing that they may not appear sufficiently enlightened, outbid the exaggerations of the savants, or so-called savants, whose favors they cultivate; and they bear witness to an unlimited confidence in the most hazardous hypotheses:
If the evolutionist doctrine has encountered so many adversaries, it is because religious prejudice has left profound traces in minds which, moreover, naturally rebel against all novelty.... The transformist theory has made us understand that contemporary animals are only the latest products of a long elaboration of transitory forms which have disappeared over the course of the ages to leave only those which presently exist. Every day, paleontology discovers the bones of prehistoric animals which form links in an endless chain, the origin of which lies in the origins of life itself. And as it does not suffice to show this filiation by fossils, nature provides us a striking example at the birth of every creature. Every animal that comes into the world reproduces all the anterior types through which the race has passed prior to arriving at itself. It is a summary, an epitome, of the evolution of its ancestors; it establishes irrevocably the kinship between animal and man, notwithstanding all more or less self-interested protestations. . . . The animal descent of man is imposed with luminous evidence on every unprejudiced thinker. [17]
And naturally there follows this other hypothesis, which compares primitive man to contemporary savages:
The human soul cannot be an exception to this general and absolute law [of evolution]. We are bound to state that on this earth it passes through phases embracing the most diverse manifestations, from the humble and paltry conceptions of the savage condition up to the magnificent flowerings of the genius of civilized nations. [18]
So there you have it! But enough specimens of this 'elementary' mentality. What we especially wish to bear in mind is the affirmation of the close solidarity that exists willy-nilly between all forms of evolutionism.
Of course we cannot here offer a detailed critique of transformism because this would lead us too far away from the question of
spiritism, but we will at least recall what we said above, namely that the consideration of embryological development proves absolutely nothing. Those who solemnly proclaim that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' doubtless do not suspect that what they take for a law is only the enunciation of an hypothesis. [19] It is pure question-begging, for it must first be proven that there is a 'phylogeny', and it is certain that observation has never revealed one species changing into another. Only the development of the individual can be established directly, and from our point of view the various forms traversed have no other raison d'être than that the individual must realize, according to modalities appropriate to its own nature, the different possibilities of the state to which it pertains. To accomplish this, a single existence suffices; indeed, this must be so, for it cannot pass twice through the same state. Besides, from the metaphysical point of view to which we always return, it is simultaneity that is important and not succession, which latter represents only an eminently relative aspect of things. Whoever understands the true nature of a species will thus have no interest in the question of transformism, for not only is it an impossibility, it is merely pointless. Whatever the case, the only interest in all this is the truth. Those who speak of 'self-interested protestations' probably project onto their adversaries their own preoccupations, which are largely sentimental in nature though wearing a mask of rationalism, as we have mentioned. And these things are not free even of certain political machinations of the lowest kind, to which many of these people may quite unconsciously lend themselves. Today, transformism seems to have run its course, having already lost much ground, at least in more serious scientific circles; but the notion may continue to contaminate the mind of the masses, at least so long as there is no other engine of war capable of replacing it. Indeed, we do not believe that theories of this kind are spread spontaneously, nor that those who undertake to propagate them are prompted by purely intellectual preoccupations, for they bring to their task too much passion and animosity.
But let us leave aside these stories of 'descent', which have acquired such importance only because they vividly strike the imagination of the common man, and return to the alleged evolution of a particular being, for this raises questions that are fundamentally more serious. We will recall what we said previously concerning the hypothesis that the being must pass successively through all forms of life; this hypothesis, which is in sum nothing other than the 'animic evolution' of Delanne, is, as we have shown, first of all an impossibility, and then, doubly useless. It is useless in the first place because the being may simultaneously bear within itself the equivalent of all these forms of life, and here it is a question only of the individual being because all these forms pertain to the same state of existence, which is that of the human individuality. They are thus possibilities comprised in the domain of the human individual considered in its integrality. As we have already noted, it is only for the individuality restricted to the corporeal modality that simultaneity is replaced by succession in its embryonic development; but this concerns only a small part of the possibilities in question. Already for the integral individuality, the point of view of succession disappears; nevertheless, this is only a single state of the being, one among an indefinite multiplicity of other states. If one wishes at any cost to speak of evolution, one can see thereby how narrow are the limits within which this idea will apply. In second place, the hypothesis in question is useless as regards the final end which the being must attain, however this is conceived. And we think it necessary to explain ourselves here as regards the word 'perfection', which is so misused by the spiritists. Obviously, for them it cannot be a question of metaphysical Perfection, which alone merits the name, and which is identical with the Infinite, that is to say with universal Possibility in its total plenitude. This is vastly beyond them and they have no notion of it. But let us admit that in a relative sense one can speak analogically of perfection for any being whatever. For such a being this relative perfection will be the full realization of all its possibilities. Now it suffices that these possibilities be indefinite, in whatever degree, for perfection not to be attainable 'gradually' and 'progressively', to use Kardec's expression. The being which would have passed one by one through particular possibilities in
succession, whatever their number, would not have advanced for all that. A mathematical comparison [20] can aid in understanding what we wish to convey: if an indefinite number of elements were to be added together, the final sum would never be attained by adding these elements one by one. It can be obtained only by a unique operation, that is to say an integration; and thus it is necessary that all these elements be taken simultaneously. This is the refutation of that false conception, so widespread in the West, according to which one can arrive at a synthesis only by analysis; on the contrary, if a true synthesis is in question, it is impossible that it be reached in this manner. These things can be further presented in this way: if there is an indefinite series of elements, the final term, or the totalization of the series, is not any one of these elements and cannot be found in the series, so that one could never reach it by passing through the series analytically. On the contrary, the end can be attained in a single operation by integration, but in that case, whether one has gone through the series up to this or that one of its elements is of no importance; there is no common measure between any partial result and the total result. This reasoning is applicable even for the individual being, because this being comprises possibilities susceptible of indefinite development. It serves no purpose to interpose 'an immense time', for even if conceived successively, this development will never be fully accomplished. But once simultaneity is admitted, there is no longer any difficulty-except that this means the negation of evolutionism. Now, if it is a question of the total being and not just the individual, the matter is still more obvious. First, because there can no longer be any question of time or of any other analogous condition, for the total being and the unconditioned state are identical. Then, there are other things that must by all means be considered beyond the simple indefinity of individual possibilities, these latter even in their entirety being only an infinitesimal element in the indefinite series of states of the being. Having reached this point (but of course this is no longer addressed to the spiritists, who are quite incapable of
conceiving it), we can reintroduce the idea of metaphysical Perfection, and say this: even supposing that a being may have traversed distinctly or analytically an indefinity of possibilities, this whole evolution (if one wishes to use this label) can never be other than rigorously equivalent to zero in relation to Perfection. The indefinite, proceeding from the finite and produced by it (as is clearly shown by the generation of numbers), is potentially contained in the finite and is only the development of the potentialities of the finite; consequently it can have no relation with the Infinite. In other words, considered from the perspective of the Infinite, or of Perfection, which is identical to it, the indefinite can be only zero. Envisaged from a universal perspective, the analytical concept of evolution amounts to no more than adding infinitesimal quantities one by one. It is rigorously equivalent to the indefinite addition of zero to itself in an indefinite number of successive and distinct additions, the final result of which will always be zero. One can escape this sterile sequence of analytical operations only by an integration (in this context involving multiple and even indefinitely multiple elements), which-and we insist on this-is effected in a single stroke by an immediate and transcendent synthesis that, logically, is not preceded by any analysis whatsoever.
The evolutionists, who have no idea of eternity or of anything in the metaphysical order, readily use the word eternity to signify an indefinite duration, that is to say perpetuity; but eternity is essentially 'non-duration'. This error is of the same kind as that of believing space to be infinite-indeed, the one error is almost never found without the other, the cause of both being always a confusion between the conceivable and the imaginable. In reality space is indefinite, but like every other particular possibility it is rigorously null in relation to the Infinite. Similarly duration, even if perpetual, is nothing in relation to eternity. But the most singular thing is that in placing all reality in becoming (so-called temporal eternity, composed of successive and therefore divisible durations), evolutionists of whatever ilk seem to divide themselves into two halves, one past and the other future. As an example (and many others could be provided), here is a curious passage from a work by Flammarion on astronomy:
If the worlds died forever, if the suns once extinguished were never again relit, it is probable that there would no longer be any stars in the heavens. Why? Because creation is so old that we can consider it as eternal in the past. From the time of their formation, the innumerable suns in space have had ample time to be extinguished. Relative to the past eternity [sic], it is only the new suns that shine. The first are extinct. The idea of succession imposes itself upon our mind. Whatever the private belief each of us may have acquired as to the nature of the Universe, it is impossible to admit the ancient theory of a creation finished once and for all. Is not the idea of God itself synonymous with the idea of a Creator? As soon as God exists, he creates; if he had created only once, there would be no more suns in the immensity of space nor planets drawing from them light, warmth, electricity, and life. It is necessary that creation be perpetual. And if God did not exist, the ancientness, the eternity of the Universe would impose itself with still more force. [21]
It is almost superfluous to call attention to the many gratuitous hypotheses brought together in these few lines, hypotheses that are not even very coherent. For example, there must be new suns because the first have been extinguished, but the new ones are only the old ones relit; one must believe that possibilities are quickly exhausted; and what can one say of that 'ancientness' which is the approximate equivalent of eternity? It would be quite as logical to reason in this way: if men once dead did not reincarnate, it is probable there would no longer be men on earth, but since there are men on earth, there has been 'ample time' for all to die. This is an argument we readily offer to reincarnationists, although it will hardly bolster their thesis. The word 'evolution' does not occur in the passage cited, but it is obviously this conception, based exclusively on the 'idea of succession', which must replace the 'old theory of a creation finished once and for all,' a theory declared impossible in virtue of a simple 'belief' (the word is there). Moreover, God himself is subject to time; creation is a temporal act: 'as soon as God exists, he
creates.' God, therefore, has a beginning and probably he too must be situated in space, which, it is claimed, is infinite. To say that the 'idea of God is synonymous with the idea of Creator' is more than contestable. Dare one maintain that all peoples that have not had the idea of creation, in brief all those whose beliefs do not have a Judaic source, thereby have no idea corresponding to that of the Divinity? This is manifestly absurd; and note that when it is a question of creation, that which is so designated is always the corporeal world only, the content of space which the astronomer can see with his telescope. Truly, the Universe is very small for those who place the infinite and the eternal everywhere, but where there can be no question of their presence! If all 'past eternity' was necessary to produce the corporeal world as we see it today, with beings such as human individuals representing the highest expression of 'universal and eternal life', it must be agreed that this is a pitiful result. [22] And assuredly, all 'future eternity' will not be too long to reach the nevertheless so relative 'perfection' of which the evolutionists dream. This brings to mind the bizarre theory of some contemporary philosopher (it may have been Guyau, if memory serves) who pictured to himself the second 'half of eternity' as having to be spent in reparation for the errors accumulated in the first half! These are the 'thinkers' who believe themselves 'enlightened', and who hold in derision religious conceptions!
As we said just now, the evolutionists place all reality within becoming; this is why their understanding is the complete negation of metaphysics, which essentially has as its sphere whatever is permanent and immutable, that is to say that of which the affirmation is incompatible with evolutionism. In these conditions, the very idea of God must be subject to becoming, as is all else; and this is the more or less avowed position of all evolutionists, or at least of those who wish to be consistent with themselves. This idea of a God who evolves (and who, having begun in the world, or at least with
the world, cannot be the world's principle and thus represents a perfectly useless hypothesis) is not exceptional in our time. One encounters it not only with philosophers such as Renan, but also in some strange sects whose beginnings, naturally, do not go further back than the nineteenth century. Here, for example, is what the Mormons [23] teach regarding their God:
His origin was the fusion of two particles of elementary matter, and by a progressive development he attained human form.... God, it goes without saying [sic], began as a man, and by continual progression has become what he is; and he can continue to progress eternally and indefinitely in the same manner. Likewise, man can grow in knowledge and power as long as he wishes. If man, therefore, is endowed with an eternal progression, a time will come when he will know as much as God now knows. [24]
And further:
The weakest child of God that now exists on earth will in his time possess greater dominion, more subjects, more power and glory than Jesus Christ or his Father possess today, while the power and elevation of the latter will accrue in the same proportion. [25]
These absurdities are no greater than those found in spiritism, from which we have wandered only apparently and because it is good to point out certain parallels: the 'eternal progression' of man, just now mentioned, is perfectly identical to the spiritists' idea on the same subject; and as to the evolution of the Divinity, if they have not reached that point yet it is nevertheless a logical development of their theories, and there are in fact some spiritists who do not recoil before such consequences, which they even proclaim in a manner as explicit as it is extravagant. Thus Jean Béziat, head of the 'Fraternist' sect, wrote an article several years ago intended to demonstrate that 'God is in perpetual evolution', to which he gave the title, 'God Is Not Immutable; Satan is the God of Yesterday'. One will get a
sufficient idea from this extract:
It does not seem to us that God is all-powerful in the moment under consideration, since there is the struggle between evil and good, and not absolute good.... Just as cold is only a lesser degree of heat, so evil is only a lesser degree of good; and the devil, or evil, only a lesser degree of God. It is impossible to respond to this argument. There are quite simply only caloric vibrations, only more or less active beneficent or divine vibrations. God is the evolutive Intention in incessant ascent. Does it not follow that God-Yesterday was less advanced than God-Today, and God-Today less advanced than God-Tomorrow? Those who came out of the divine bosom yesterday are therefore less divine than those who have come out at the present time, and so on. Those sprung from God-Yesterday are naturally less good than those emanating from God-of-the-Moment; and it is quite simply by illusion that one calls Satan that which is not yet God, but only God-Past and not God-of-the Moment. [26]
Certainly, such lucubrations are of insufficient interest to be refuted in detail. But wee should underline their specifically moralist point of departure, since it is only a question of good and evil that is found therein. Let us also note that Béziat argues against a conception of Satan as literally opposed to God, a conception that is only the dualism ordinarily and perhaps wrongly attributed to the Manicheans. In any case, he quite gratuitously imputes his conception to others, to whom it is totally foreign. This leads us directly to the question of Satanism, a question as delicate as it is complex, and another of those which we do not claim to treat exhaustively here, but of which nevertheless we cannot but indicate certain aspects, even though it is for us a quite disagreeable task.