must guide us in it; a world unsuited for living organisms is not, in the sense of this enquiry, a habitable world. The discussion, as it was carried on sixty years ago by Dr. Whewell and Sir David Brewster, was essentially a metaphysical, almost a theological one, and it was chiefly considered in its supposed relationship to certain religious conceptions. It was urged that it was derogatory to the wisdom and goodness of the Creator to suppose that He would have created so many great and glorious orbs without having a definite purpose in so doing, and that the only purpose for which a world could be made was that it might be
THE first thought that men had concerning the heavenly bodies was an obvious one: they were lights. There was a greater light to rule the day; a lesser light to rule the night; and there were the stars also. In those days there seemed an immense difference between the earth upon which men stood, and the bright objects that shone down upon it from the heavens above. The earth seemed to be vast, dark, and motionless; the celestial lights seemed to be small, and moved, and shone. The earth was then regarded as
beliefs. For example: explorers have made their way across the Antarctic continent to the South Pole but have found no inhabitant there. Has this fact any theological bearing or if, on the contrary, a race of men had been discovered there, what change would it have made in the theological position of anyone And if this be so with regard to a new continent on this earth, why should it be different with regard to the continents of another planet The problem therefore seems not to be theological or metaphysical, but purely physical. We have simply to ask with regard to each heavenly body which we pass in review: Are its physical |
No comments:
Post a Comment