While in process of reading the biographies of Charles Darwin, which were superbly written by Dr. Janet Browne, I remember being quite struck by one of her quotes coming from Thomas Henry Huxley. Professor Browne was describing the relationship Darwin had with those who were his most ardent supporters, including Huxley, Joseph Hooker, and Charles Lyell. Huxley, it becomes pretty clear, although he is described in later years as being Darwin’s bulldog, was by no means a complete sycophant. He had a great mind of his own. Huxley came to his support of Darwin a bit slowly, did not at first accept the theory of natural evolution, and became a supporter of Darwin and natural evolution only after reading The Origin of the Species himself. At that point he decided that no other theory made any sense, and defended this theory when attacked by other scientists and clerics. Huxley was not a timid man, and was able to express himself eloquently. The result was a series of quarrelsome debates, mainly with clerics, appearing in lectures, dailies, journals and magazines. Darwin, himself reticent to become involved in debates and quarrels, nevertheless greatly appreciated the support he got from Huxley, and they became long standing friends. The public burden of vigorously defending the concept of natural evolution of the species, however, became the particular forte of Thomas Henry Huxley.
Huxley understood a lot of things that others in his time seemed to understand minimally. He saw clearly that there was not an intrinsic Good in the universe, and that all value judgments humans make come from them, not any other source. In other words, Protagoras was quite right, and Socrates dead wrong, as to our value systems. In a letter written to Dr Platt Ball, Huxley states, “Of moral purpose, I see not a trace in nature. That is an article of exclusively human manufacture.” Huxley also sees clearly that the religious concepts of all humans being free and equal are an egregious example of baseless wishful thinking. Although we love that phrase, and use that concept as the touchstone for our system of democracy, it is difficult to believe that this can be true in any way, when examined in cold reality. In The Natural Inequality of Man, published in 1890, Huxley states, “The doctrine that all men are, in any sense, or have been, at any time, free and equal, is an utterly baseless fiction.” This brilliant mind saw reality with a vengeance, yet it was not these germinal concepts that got my attention. It was the statement by Dr. Browne that Huxley saw the position of the human species as being one of “man against nature.” I remember vividly being quite taken by that comment, at that time, and wondering how that could be right.
Part of the problem at that time, leading me to immediately think, “How can that be right?” must have stemmed from all those burdens of religious belief which have been stuffed in our heads since childhood. We have all been told that there is a personal Great God who loves us, believes in us, is guiding our lives, can be persuaded, at times, to intercede on our behalf, and who is, at some glorious point in the future, leading us to a grand destiny. As a bonus, this Great Good God , if we believe certain things, is going to give us eternal life. It has taken a long time to shed these erroneous concepts. When we do finally shed them, we can understand why Huxley said what he said. Everything else, which describes the position of humans in the universe, comes in a rush of revelation: 1) each of us is an individual, each of us unique, and each of us more concerned about our own survival than any other life form in our universe. Each of us is, in that sense, alone. 2) None of us is able to obtain our fulfillment in life acting alone. Each of us must learn to cooperate with other humans to achieve our goals. 3) We have now become one world. We can no longer fight each other, group against group. The survival of the human species depends on all of us accepting all other humans as our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children.
In this sense, we can now understand why Huxley said what he said. If this be all there is to it, then it truly is man against nature, or humans against the rest of the universe. To leave that concept unfettered, however, is to me a grave mistake. Huxley, in my opinion, used the wrong preposition. It is not humans against the universe; it is humans with the universe. We not only have to treat all other humans with love and respect. We have to do the same for all of life, all plants and animals, because all of life is interrelated. We also have to respect, protect and preserve our resources, rather than pollute, destroy, and explore for the purpose of pillaging. We have to understand that we are a miniscule part of the universe, and that we must, both personally and collectively, learn to live in harmony with all other parts of this universe. If we don’t, the universe does not care. If we wish to commit suicide by not respecting all parts of the universe, the universe will let us do so, without a care or any remorse.