Produced by Curtis Weyant, Leonard Johnson and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by Case Western Reserve University Preservation Department
Digital Library)
RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
Uniform with this Volume.
=I. NATURE AND THE BIBLE.=
A Course of Lectures on the Morse Foundation of the Union Theological
Seminary, by J. W. DAWSON, LL.D. 12mo. $1.75.
"Professor Dawson discusses his topic from the various
standpoints of a student of nature, not from the single
standpoint which has mostly been occupied by theologians The
book is not a _partisan_ publication. It will be found by those
opposed to be perfectly candid and fair, admitting difficulties
in their full force, and not seeking to evade, misinterpret, or
exaggerate any fact or argument"--_Interior_.
=II. CHRISTIANITY AND POSITIVISM.=
A Series of Lectures to the Times on Natural Theology and Apologetics.
By JAMES MCCOSH, D.D., LL.D., President of Princeton College. 12mo.
$1.75.
"This book grapples directly with the vital questions. Every
reader must admire its fairness It is all the better adapted to
popular reading from having been written to be delivered to an
audience. Indeed, the thinking is generally so clear, and the
style so animated and luminous, that any person of average
intelligence and culture may understand and enjoy the discussion
and no such person who has begun to read the work will be likely
to rest satisfied till he has finished it. It is in some parts
eloquent and beautiful, and is throughout forcible and effective
for its end. Would that thousands of the young people of our
country, and of all classes whose faith may be in peril, might
read it with the attention it deserves" _Independent_.
=III. CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE.=
A Series of Lectures. By Rev. A. P. PEABODY, D.D., of Harvard College.
$1.75.
"One of the best books we have read in a long time,--a manly,
candid, noble, reasonable defence of the Christian faith. We do
not see how any thoughtful person can read it in vain. Dr
Peabody plants himself fairly on the very postulates of
scientific men, and proceeds to show how all that they claim for
true science is fulfilled in the religion of
Jesus"--_Illustrated Christian Weekly_.
ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS.
[Illustration: NERVE CELLS
1 MULTIPOLAR 2 BIPOLAR 3 UNIPOLAR 4 CELL WITH RAMIFICATION. NUCLEUS OR
LIFE CENTRE IS MARKED IN EACH]
[Illustration: NERVE FIBRES
1 SECTION, SHOWING NERVE SHEATH CUT AND NERVE LINE PROJECTING 2 BUNDLE
OF NERVES SPLIT UP INTO FILAMENTS 3 COMBINATION OF NERVES 4 NERVE LOOPS
5 SENSORY CORPUSCLES ON THE NERVE FIBRES]
THE RELATIONS
OF
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
The Morse Lecture, 1880,
_CONNECTED WITH THE UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, NEW YORK._
BY
HENRY CALDERWOOD, LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, AUTHOR
OF "RELATIONS OF MIND AND BRAIN," ETC.
NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
530 BROADWAY.
1881.
Copyright, 1881,
BY ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRESS OF
JOHN WILSON AND SON.
ST. JOHNLAND
STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY
SUFFOLK CO., N. Y.
_EXTRACT FROM THE DEED OF TRUST, ESTABLISHING THE MORSE LECTURESHIP._
"The general subject of the Lectures, I desire to be:
"The relation of the Bible to any of the Sciences, as Geography,
Geology, History, and Ethnology, the vindication of the inspiration and
authenticity of the Bible, against attacks made on scientific grounds,
and the relation of the facts and truths contained in the Word of God,
to the principles, methods and aims of any of the Sciences.
"Upon one or more of these topics a course of ten public Lectures shall
be given at least once in two or three years, by a Lecturer, ordinarily
to be chosen two years in advance of the time for delivering of the
Lectures.
"The appointment of the Lecturer shall be by the concurrent action of
the Founder of the Lectureship, during his life, the Board of Directors,
and the faculty of said Seminary.
"The funds shall be securely invested, and the interest of the same
shall be devoted to the payment of the Lecturer, and to the publication
of the Lectures within a year after the delivery of the same.
"The copyright of the Lectures shall be vested in the Seminary."
(_Signed_) SAMUEL F. B. MORSE.
PREFACE.
The aim of the present volume is to indicate the measure of harmony
traceable between recent advances in science, and the fundamental
characteristics of religious thought, and the extent to which harmony is
possible. This attempt has been made in the hope of contributing towards
a better understanding of the relative positions of scientists and
theologians, thereby aiding the formation of public opinion on questions
appearing to involve serious antagonism.
The plan followed is to bring under review the great fields of
scientific inquiry, advancing from unorganized existence to Man; to
present the most recent results of research in these separate fields,
without extending to minute details; as far as possible, to allow
scientific observers to state results in their own words; and then to
examine carefully the reasonings deduced from ascertained facts, and the
bearing of facts and inferences on religious thought.
The general result is that marked modifications of thought concerning
the structure and order of the universe have arisen on account of
scientific discoveries, to be accepted by theologians, as by all
thinkers; that the bearing of these modifications on religious
conceptions has been greatly mistaken by many scientific observers; and
that it must be held clear by scientists and theologians alike, that
while scientific methods are reliable within their own spheres, science
can bear no testimony, and can offer no criticism, as to the
supernatural, inasmuch as science is only an explanation of ascertained
facts by recognition of natural law. In accordance with this last
statement, it is maintained, that science does not reach, far less deal
with, the problem concerning the origin of Nature, the solution of which
can be found only by transcending Nature, that is, by recognizing the
supernatural.
In the course followed I believe the purpose of the eminent Physicist
who founded the lecture, has been rigidly kept in view.
I desire here to express to the President and Professors of Union
Theological Seminary, my sense of their great kindness while I delivered
the course of lectures in New York, and specially for so arranging as to
allow of including the full course within eight lectures,--a form which
has been retained in publication.
I have also to express my thanks for the kind manner in which these
lectures were received in Edinburgh, where, with the exception of the
two first, the course was, by request, redelivered.
H. C.
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH,
_January 31st, 1881_
CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
CONDITIONS OF THE INQUIRY.
Advantages resulting from recent advances in physical science
-- Advance does not unsettle the whole mass of conviction --
Religion and science agree in seeking a rational basis, and
both present a body of harmonized conceptions -- Diversity of
view is to be expected in both spheres -- Needless anxiety as
to alleged conflict between science and religion -- The first
requisite is to trace the boundaries of the two departments
of thought -- Description of religion, natural and revealed
-- Description of science, its method and sphere -- Common
starting ground for both -- Each supplies inducement for
seeking a harmony 9
LECTURE II.
EXPERIENCE GATHERED FROM PAST CONFLICTS.
Value of the lessons from past failures -- Discussions as to
"spontaneous generation" -- Range of experiments and mode of
conducting them -- Difficulties in excluding germinal forms,
and in determining the temperature at which their destruction
was ensured -- Hopefulness awakened by earlier investigations
-- Acknowledged failure as the result of more rigid tests --
Conclusions of Pasteur, Roberts, Tyndall -- Close of the
discussion as maintained by Bastian -- Dr. Draper's "History
of the Conflict between Religion and Science" -- Objections
to the plan of the book -- Misleading representations of
conflict -- Alleged scriptural view of the nature of the
world, incapable of vindication -- The Bible not a book of
science, but a revelation of the way of deliverance for
sinful man 43
LECTURE III.
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSE.
Two forms of existence to be recognized -- Matter and Energy
-- Distinction of the two -- Tait on energy -- MATTER -- Its
indestructibility and uncreatability by any process at the
command of man -- The atomic theory as related to the
divisibility and compressibility of matter -- Scientific
belief, as analogous to theologic -- ENERGY -- Perpetual
change in form and distribution of materials -- Position,
motion, and force -- Transmutation or conversion of energy --
Conservation of Energy -- Deterioration and dissipation of
energy -- Heat as a form of motion -- Results of scientific
research are such as to support religious thought concerning
the origin of the world -- The changeable can not be the
eternal -- Science here reaches its _ultimatum_ as to the
structure of the world, and gives all the support possible to
the reality of the supernatural 82
LECTURE IV.
ORGANIZED EXISTENCE. LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
The new problem -- Origin of life, relation of the organized
to the unorganized -- Origin of species -- Darwin's theory of
evolution by natural selection -- Characteristics of life --
The prominent features of Mr. Darwin's theory -- Power of
adaptability to environment inherent in organism -- History
of the steps by which the author was led to the adoption of
his theory -- Wallace's "Contributions" -- Darwin's
acknowledgment that science does not favor the belief that
living creatures are produced from inorganic matter --
Admission of creation of life -- Favorable impression made by
the theory -- Common ancestry of allied species -- Rejection
of fixedness of species -- Difficulties which beset the
theory -- All change does not indicate progress -- Difficulty
connected with the early stages of evolution -- Persistence
of species 119
LECTURE V.
RELATIONS OF LOWER AND HIGHER ORGANISMS.
Fertilization of flowering plants -- Relation of pollen to
the seed vessels -- Need for transference of pollen -- Means
to prevent self-fertilization -- Relation between animal life
and vegetable -- Search for honey by bees and other insects
-- Bearing the pollen to distant flowers -- Distribution of
work among insects and birds -- Evidence of adaptation --
Interdependence of lower and higher organisms -- ANTS --
Their exclusion from certain flowers -- Their work,
perseverance, intelligence, slave-holding, extracting honey
from other insects, constructing bridges 162
LECTURE VI.
HIGHER ORGANISMS; -- RESEMBLANCES AND CONTRASTS.
Sensibility and motor activity characteristic of animal life
-- Both uniformly provided for by identical arrangements of
nerve system -- Two distinct lines of nerve fibre combined in
a nerve centre -- Structure of nerve fibre -- Isolation --
Combination -- Brain structure -- White matter, and grey --
Subdivisions of the organ -- Complexity of brain structure
according to complexity of organism -- Brain in insects,
fishes, reptiles, smaller quadrupeds, larger quadrupeds,
monkeys, apes, man -- Close resemblance of the brain of the
ape to the human brain -- Researches as to brain function by
means of electric excitation of the organ -- Fritsch and
Hitzig -- Ferrier -- Identification of sensory and of motor
centres -- Silence of front and back regions -- Confirmatory
evidence from brain diseases 204
LECTURE VII.
MAN'S PLACE IN THE WORLD.
Human organism modelled on the same plan as lower organisms
-- Prevailing opinion opposes an attempt to refer all human
activity to organism -- Religious thought not directly
involved -- Science must include the study of human life --
Science by discovery of the structure and functions of the
nerve system has explained many phases of action formerly
regarded as voluntary -- The contrast remains between
muscular action and human conduct -- Acquired aptitudes --
Intellectual superiority -- Hæckel's suggestion of "mind
cells" -- Adverse evidence -- Nerve cells, varied sizes, the
largest found in the spinal canal, as well as in the brain --
Government of human conduct -- Man's application of a higher
law -- Benevolence, as an illustration -- Contrast with
struggle for existence -- Man's ideal law, constituting the
_ought_ in human conduct 239
LECTURE VIII.
DIVINE INTERPOSITION FOR MORAL GOVERNMENT.
Summary of recent scientific conclusions with which religious
thought is to be harmonized -- Religious conceptions as to
divine interposition, in their relation to fixed law --
MIRACLE -- Its place as evidence for the Messiahship of Jesus
Christ -- Credibility of miracles -- Our Saviour's miracles
-- Their benevolent purpose as bearing on their evidential
value -- How related to the laws of nature -- Incapable of
explanation by these laws -- They do not conflict with these
laws in any intelligible sense -- Meaning of the old formula,
"a violation of the laws of nature" -- Importance of the
scientific position that violation of natural law is
inconsistent with our knowledge of the government of the
world -- Method and result in miracle-working, as related to
natural law -- Explanation of the antagonism of scientific
thought to the conception of miracle -- PRAYER -- How its
answer stands related to natural law -- The cruder thoughts
concerning the province of prayer -- All law, fixed law,
whether physical, intellectual, or moral -- These laws a
harmony -- It is in recognition of this, with subordination
of physical to moral, that the spirit of prayer lives --
Fixed law is concerned with varying conditions, and with
varying results -- Interpretation of "fixed law" --
Dependence of physical results on moral action -- That there
are two spheres is no help out of difficulty -- Nothing in
scientific teaching to warrant denial of the doctrine that
God interposes for moral ends -- Warrant for prayer rests on
a divine promise, involving moral conditions -- To ask
evidence of its answer, irrespective of these conditions, is
to seek evidence in neglect of that which is essential for
the result -- The answer of prayer must be in all cases more
an evidence of divine righteousness than it is of divine
power 275
APPENDIX.
I. Relations of Science and Religion 313
II. Spontaneous Generation 313
III. Energy and Force 314
IV. All Organized Existence is Constructed on a Common Plan 314
V. Embryology 316
VI. Non-advancement of Lower Orders 319
VII. Protoplasm 319
VIII. Number of Species of Insects 320
IX. Fertilization of Flowers by Insects 320
X. Ants 320
XI. Likeness of the Ape's Brain to the Human Brain 321
XII. The Large Sized or Multipolar Cells 322
XIII. The Conception of Duty 323
RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
LECTURE I.
CONDITIONS OF THE INQUIRY.
Among the many advantages enjoyed by the present generation, one of the
most conspicuous is that arising from the large advance made in physical
science. The high value of this is apparent from whatever standpoint it
is regarded. The vastly wider range of knowledge, the increase of
appliances for inquiry, the greater facilities for work of all kinds,
the freer intercommunion of all the divisions of our race, and the
greater altitude from which the whole realm of existence can be
contemplated; all these involve an immense gain for the present century.
With these advantages, however, there comes the difficulty of using them
aright, a difficulty which we may expect to be greater when we are
dealing with wider and more general aspects of existence, than when we
are concerned with more restricted ranges of knowledge. It may be a much
easier thing to state precisely how recent advances have affected a
particular branch of science, such as astronomy or geology, than to say
how they bear upon the general conception of the universe. Yet, while
the latter is the more difficult question, it is that with which men
generally must be more concerned. Only a very limited number of men can
belong to the ranks of specialists devoted to a single branch of
science. All men, specialists as well as others, are concerned with the
wider question as to the true conception of the universe, and the
bearing it has on human life and destiny. It is impossible to imagine
that marked advance can be made in any of the sciences, without its
having some bearing on the more general problem in which all men are
practically interested. Each specialist perceives this more or less
clearly as he is working out the result of complicated observations or
calculations. The public mind may be said rather to _feel_ that some
modification of common belief is taking place, while there is great
uncertainty as to the actual change. What gives a sense of security to
the general conviction of educated men is that all increase of
knowledge is clear gain, and that all advance is secured on familiar and
well-tried lines. Progress is transition, and in a sense unsettling; but
it is also accumulation, and thus in a more enduring sense,
consolidating. Fresh observation in some one department of research does
not overthrow all that was credited previously. It extends the area of
knowledge, or carries us into a more minute acquaintance with
particulars, and only in a restricted way modifies accepted positions,
by introducing relations formerly unrecognized. Thus, progress in a
particular science does not unsettle scientific belief.
In a manner exactly analogous, because resting on the same intellectual
conditions, the combined advance of the whole order of sciences does not
unsettle the mass of conviction belonging to instructed and ordinarily
reflective men. It must, indeed, modify the form of general conviction,
as it quickens intellectual interest, for the public mind receives, not
reluctantly but gladly, additional results gathered under carefully
tested scientific methods. This is nothing more than saying, that love
of truth, and submission to the laws of evidence, are characteristic of
all disciplined intelligence. Scientific inquirers are the trained
instructors of the race, and others receive what they communicate, with
true sense of its abiding worth. At the same time, such inquirers work
from an intellectual basis which is common to all, finding application
in all fields of activity. Upon that basis all men lean as they shape
and regulate their life, finding themselves involved in disaster, or
confirmed in a wise course, according as they are partial or thorough in
their adherence to the conditions of rational life. As the mass of human
interests can not be isolated from the results discovered in the path of
advancing science; so neither can any form of inquiry be separated from
the conditions which are common to all intellectual life, including even
the least cultivated. So it happens that the race as a whole has a clear
share in all the products of science, such as it has not in the products
of industry. Rational conditions provide for a community of interest in
intellectual work and results, greater than can be approached by all the
value of material production.
These few general and very obvious considerations bring us into direct
line with the relations of religion and science. Religion has a rational
basis, as the condition of its practical worth. It takes its start from
that common intellectual basis, which affords to science its essential
conditions. Religion and science are exactly alike in these respects,
that both present a body of harmonized conceptions, a clearly defined
circle of intelligible statements, and both have a definite bearing on
human action. Their practical value depends upon conformity with the
common requirements of intelligence, and harmony with recognized fact. I
place this declaration in the foreground of the present discussion, not
only as a clear avowal of the footing on which religion presents its
claims to acceptance, but more especially as a distinct and broad
acknowledgment that the whole range of tests afforded by the entire
circle of the sciences is legitimately applied to religion, and is to be
deliberately met.
The object of the present course of lectures is to consider the
relations of science to the Christian religion, as authoritatively
revealed in the Bible, and as understood and accepted by those who
profess themselves Christians, in grateful acknowledgment of what the
Scriptures declare. The relations now to be dealt with are those
subsisting between religion as presented in the Bible, (which is in the
hands of all, to be examined and dealt with by scientific inquirers),
and science as presented to us in the present day, for the acceptance of
all. The claim to universal acceptance found here on both sides, is that
which gives special interest and true logical importance to the problem.
Christianity professes to discover a religion to be accepted of all men,
and a practice to be observed by all: science professes to give an
account of the state of things around us in the world, to be accepted by
all, and acknowledged in practice if men would adapt themselves to the
natural conditions of their life. This claim to universal acceptance is
not affected on either side by the fact that diversities of
interpretation and application emerge among the upholders of
Christianity, and the expounders of science. Such diversities are well
known to exist in both spheres of thought. It needs to be recognized at
all times, and prominently stated in such a discussion as the present,
that under the conditions determining the attainment of knowledge,
there must be diversity of opinion. Indeed, the wider the area of
acquired truth, the more extensive becomes the field of possible
differences, both in respect of what is involved under conclusions
already reached, and of what may transcend the boundaries of present
knowledge. It is, therefore, no marvel that there is large diversity of
opinion among scientific men, on many problems arising out of
universally accepted positions. It is only by the same necessity that
there is diversity of opinion on matters of religion. The materials of
study are set before us in the mass, and our knowledge is to be obtained
by the slow processes of intellectual procedure, in accordance with
which some things become clear, while many more remain obscure. Whether
we are dealing with book knowledge, or with knowledge obtained by direct
observation of existing things, does not affect this matter. The
intellectual conditions are the same in both cases, and it is from
exactly the same intellectual source that inevitable conflict of opinion
arises.
The simple and obvious truth is that there can be no field of human
inquiry in which diversity of opinion can be avoided, for two reasons,
that all knowledge possessed by us is incomplete, and active
intelligence can not rest in the incomplete. Neither science nor
theology can afford to dispense with hypothesis, that is conjecture, and
where conjecture is, there is a wide region for devious wandering.
Conjecture means inquiry into the unknown, and this is essential to
intellectual life, equally necessary for science and religion, and
accordingly diversity of opinion is inevitable in the history of both,
as in the history of all forms of human activity. In every region of
human knowledge there is a realm of the certain, and another of the
uncertain, and accordingly there is diversity of opinion and conviction.
Occasionally, in controversial writing, it is suggested that there is
greater diversity of view in matters religious, than in matters
scientific; and it is implied that such diversity is a reasonable ground
of reproach. Both allegations are at fault, and the error arises from
want of observation, involving imperfect acquaintance with the facts.
Religion as it is concerned with the life of man himself, and is the
subject of interest to all, has not only its common positions generally
recognized, but also many of its phases of conflicting thought.
Science, as it is beyond the range of the great majority as a subject of
personal research, and within reach of only a limited number as a
subject even of book knowledge, has its questions of conflict concealed
to some extent from the public view. But, even moderate acquaintance
with science makes us aware of the fact that there is conflict of
opinion in every region of inquiry. Indeed it should be alien to the
reflective observer, to marvel at the discovery of diversity of thought
in any region, or to make its existence a ground for adverse criticism.
Commonly accepted conclusions must afford the basis for competent
criticism, whatever be the field of inquiry brought under review;
diversity of opinion beyond and around these, must be accepted as the
uniform attendant of human knowledge, indicating at once the provision
for intellectual progress and the inducement to it. Thus, on grounds
indisputable from a scientific basis, we escape the need for vindicating
religion from the charge of having its claims to rational homage
weakened, by the diversity of opinion found within the boundaries of
religious thought. Such diversity is in strict accordance with familiar
facts connected with every branch of science. Whatever may be said of
the strong and paradoxical, because one-sided, utterance of Lessing,[A]
it must be manifest that in all directions we are of necessity searchers
after truth, and it is in such circumstances an intellectual weakness to
object to the reliability of generally accepted conclusions, because
they become starting-points for many lines of conflicting speculation.
In religious thought, as in scientific, there are on all hands the marks
of the unfinished; and the varieties of opinion associated with
generally accepted conviction only afford needful evidence of healthy
intellectual activity.
As we daily hear much of the conflict between science and religion, and
as it is one part of the purpose of the present course to deal with what
is loudly proclaimed to be a serious feature in modern thought, it
becomes needful to clear the ground considerably, with the view of
discovering where the alleged conflict is, and what form it assumes. In
this, as in many conflicts, there is much more din and tumult, than
damage. We shall by and by hear much less of _conflict_ than we are
hearing at present. Meanwhile, however, the work is considerable which
needs to be done in clearing the field, tracing boundaries, and
disclosing the exact position of parties. In the ruder warfare of
nations, this clearing work is undertaken by the combatants themselves,
and if not accomplished by preliminary measures, it is at length
achieved by the actual events of the struggle. But in this case, it may
be done quietly enough by non-combatants, while it may contribute
largely to the restricting of the conflict, and the establishment of
peace. This I desire to attempt, in the hope that some service may be
rendered both to the scientific, and non-scientific, by contributing
towards a general understanding of the actual position of affairs. A
quiet survey of events occurring during the last twenty-five years or
so, which have influenced the relations of science and religion, may
suffice to convince us that there has been on both sides needless
planting of batteries, and pouring forth of shot. In many cases, the
shot has only sunk into sand banks with no other result than heavy
expenditure; in other cases, it has only shattered timber defences which
were going at any rate, and soon to be abandoned. The worst result has
been that the whole district around has been thrown into trouble under
fear of disastrous results. This description must be held to apply to
outbreaks of theological fury, as well as of scientific. I apprehend
that there are few friends of religion conversant with the higher phases
of intellectual life during the period to which reference is here made,
who will not grant that scientific theories have been assailed with
undue severity, and quite needless apprehension, under the influence of
religious zeal. On the other hand, it is equally beyond dispute that
there has been in some scientific quarters an eagerness to interpret
scientific theories in a manner adverse to theological belief, and often
with undisguised pleasure in the task, as if some real gain to thought
and practical interests were to be secured by injury to religion. The
best work on both sides has been done quite apart from these outbreaks
of antagonism. But it would be unwise to omit reference to them here,
or to overlook the lesson they convey, all the more that both sides
admit reasonable ground for regret. There has been, on the one hand, too
great readiness in charging an atheistic conclusion as the logical
result of scientific theory; and, on the other, too hasty an assumption
that newly recognized facts must prove damaging to Christian faith.
Detailed illustration would be in every sense undesirable here, but
outstanding examples will readily occur. Take the theory of the
Development of Species by Natural Selection, to which detailed reference
will be made hereafter, which has a great multitude of facts to favor
it, and at the same time a mass of facts presenting most serious logical
difficulties; it is obvious that even if this theory were accepted in
the form in which it is at present propounded, not only would the
rational basis for belief in the Divine existence and government not be
affected by it, but the demand on a Sovereign Intelligence would be
intensified. The contrast in the form of the general question may be
represented thus: in the one case, to account for the origin of varied
forms of life entirely distinct and independent; in the other, to
account for an origin in the simplest germinal form, or in a few
primordial forms, which shall nevertheless provide for the appearance of
all the varieties of species of animal life now known to us. In
presenting the latter hypothesis, science presses into notice a much
greater perplexity affecting the origin of the universe, originating a
difficulty towards the solution of which it is altogether unable to
offer the slightest contribution. In this single illustration, there is
much to convince theologians and scientific men that each division of
thinkers will best fulfil its own part, and most honor religion and
science, by working unreservedly on data within its own reach, without
apprehension as to ultimate conflict.
From the other side, it is not difficult to find evidence that continued
inquiry and reflection have led to the abatement, if not the actual
withdrawal, of scientific hypotheses which seemed at variance with
common belief, and which might be taken as adverse to religious thought.
For example, as a branch of the inquiry connected with the theory of
development of species, and coming directly upon the position of man in
the scale of being, we had for a time a wonderful amount of
observation, description, and discussion concerning monkeys and apes.
Laborious inquiries became provocative of grotesque fancy. In the train
of science came the workers who minister to the popular imagination, and
there appeared a whole series of comic pictures, amusing narratives, and
even musical compositions, representing monkeys and apes as taking part
in human occupations. These have left their testimony to the power of
scientific hypothesis in determining the thought and interest of the
time during which they find favor. It was demonstrated incontestably
that the anatomical structure of the ape was much more like to that of
man than the structure of the dog, or the horse; and that the brain of
the ape was so like in form and arrangement to the human brain, that it
might be represented as a smaller and undeveloped example of the human
brain. But when the work of observation and description had been well
nigh completed; when the work of deliberate thinking was commenced with
the assurance that the facts were pretty fully and fairly before us,
there came a considerable abatement for the enthusiasm of scientific
speculation in the new line of discovery. Next came the acknowledgment
that even with all the analogies and homologies of structure, seen and
unseen, there was a vast chasm between the ape and man. Forthwith, the
stimulus to comic talent began to die away; and it must be confessed
that the department of anthropology has not been greatly advanced from
this new region of observation.
These examples may suffice to impress at once upon theologians and
scientists,--and upon the public mind also,--the obvious, but easily
forgotten lesson, that there is need for deliberation before we can
clearly decide the exact significance of new scientific discoveries.
Neither the spirit of religion, nor the scientific spirit, disposes
inquirers to make haste. There is a basis of certainty, sufficiently
broad and deep to deliver the mind from concern lest intellectual
confusion should arise from continued observation and thought.
Enthusiasm, acuteness, patience, and also boldness of speculation, are
needed in order to widen the range of our knowledge of the mysteries of
existence; but caution is as certainly a necessary feature in the
gathering of appliances which must lie at the command of theologians
and also of scientific observers. In fact, there is at every fresh
advance in science, much _thinking_ to be done, after observation and
exposition have accomplished their part, and this thinking can not be
quickly done.
Towards a clear marking out of the boundaries of science and religion,
it is needful that some definition or description of both be attempted.
It is easy to be religious without sharply marking off for one's self
the exact boundaries of religion; and equally easy to be scientific,
without exactly laying down the limits of science. But any intelligent
view of the relations of the two is not to be had without carefully
marking off the territory which they respectively occupy. Science at
least should seek for itself "a scientific boundary," and though this is
not always easily found, it is essential for keeping up friendly
relations with neighboring states. In view, therefore, of the
requirements of the present subject, something must here be done in the
way of definition, or at least, description, delicate and difficult as
is the task.
The object of these lectures is, to vindicate the place of the Christian
religion within the region of human intelligence, to show its rational
harmony with science, and to promote active co-operation between the
two. And this is to be done for the Christian religion in view of all
the advantages, and of all the alleged disadvantages too, of what has
been reproachfully named "a book religion," which assuredly it is, just
as all science must become "book science," if it is to become a living
and abiding intellectual power among men. For all reliable knowledge
must be formulated, must take a definite orderly shape, if it is to find
a place and dominion. In the history of intelligent being in this world,
religion first of all met this requirement, and subjected itself to this
test, adapting itself also to successive ages, and submitting itself to
their criticism. Science owns a like intellectual necessity, and has had
to write and rewrite, to correct and expand, in order that the
book-science might be the true science of the day. Whatever be the
nature of the truth received by man, its statement is greatly enhanced
in value when it has been reduced to written form, suitable not only for
being passed from hand to hand, but for being pondered with all
deliberation.
While, however, it is a great advantage to Christianity that it can be
described as the religion of the Bible,--and it is to Christianity that
reference is directly made here when religion is named,--there is in
religion as in science that which comes before the written form.
Observation and reflection are natural avenues to religion, as well as
to science. The Bible appeals to the intelligence of man for its
acceptance, subjecting to rational test not only its evidence but also
its teaching. Its uniform demand is that men put its teaching to proof.
It thus presupposes a natural religion as the prerequisite for special
revelation of the supernatural. The full breadth of the argument in
exposition and defence of Christianity is seen only by starting from
this position, that all religion, whatever its form, rests on a rational
basis. And its correlative is this, irreligion is the irrational. The
vindication of the Christian religion thus implies at its basis the
defence of religious thought and feeling in whatever associations they
may be found. For though it is true that the Christian religion may be
said to war against all religions besides, seeking to supplant them, in
order to become the universal religion, it does so only on the footing
that religious thought and feeling wherever found have a genuine
intellectual value, which must work towards deliverance from what is
immoral and what is inconsistent in tradition. If it be here remarked
that science also tends to the destruction of the traditional beliefs
belonging to many of the religions of the world, it may thereby appear
that science becomes a fellow-worker with Christianity in a process of
demolition required in the interests equally of intelligence, morality,
and religion. But whatever may be said of this destructive process as
one in which Christianity performs a conspicuous part, the religion of
Jesus recognizes a voice in the works of creation speaking to the hearts
of men, in all lands, insomuch that "there is no speech nor language
where their voice is not heard." Religious belief is thus recognized as
a natural possession, and reverence for the Most High as following by
rational sequence.
When therefore we offer a defence of the Christian faith and practice,
we necessarily undertake some defence of the varied manifestations of
natural religion presenting themselves in the world's history. We are
not precluded from assigning value to the loftier and purer thought of
ancient civilization testifying against "the gods many and lords many"
of the popular religion; nor do we refuse to make acknowledgment of
those ruder and baser examples of religious observance appearing among
tribes of uncivilized men in modern times. In defending religion, we are
upholding the lofty conceptions of the Greek philosopher, who said that
"God is not the author of evil, but of good only;" who declared that God
"is one and the same, immutably fixed in his own proper nature," and
that "God and his attributes are absolutely perfect."[B] On the other
hand, we can not escape the serious entanglement found among heathen
idolatries, for even while such idolatries are utterly condemned, we are
ready to maintain that the most irrational idolatries have more of
reason in them than the life which has been emptied of religious faith
and exercise.
In view of the wide range of natural religion, and the defence of it
here implied, we may define religion, as the recognition of a Sovereign
Intelligence originating and governing all dependent being, with the
homage due from intelligent beings to the Sovereign Intelligence. This
is the definition which will include all natural religion, and present
the ground of its defence in view of scientific suggestions and
perplexities.
But taking the Christian religion as the crown and centre of religious
life in the world, we have a more full and commanding testimony as to
the glory of the divine nature, and the genuine exercises of a religious
life. He is God creating and sustaining all, ruling in righteousness,
revealing himself in Jesus Christ, whose glory is "the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." He is a God
seeking the reconciliation of the guilty with himself. He is a God of
mercy, calling all intelligent creatures to fellowship with him, and
requiring them all to be "holy even as he is holy." Such is a summary of
the teaching of Scripture as to the Divine Being, and our relation to
him. Thus are we guided in our utterance before him, "O Lord of hosts,
God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God,
even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven
and earth" (Isa. xxxvii. 16).
I content myself with a mere summary; for a full knowledge we must take
the Bible itself, knowledge of which must be presumed as the condition
of criticism, though criticism has been abundant which has borne witness
to ignorance of the revelation criticised,--ignorance so marked that had
it applied to science it would have been held a proof of incompetence
for criticism. We are now to take the Bible representation of God, and
of his relation to us; and on the other hand of man's faith in him, and
spiritual devotion and service. These are the materials to be harmonized
with the teachings of science, by demonstrating that the testimony of
science points to a government of the universe harmonizing with the
testimony of Scripture. And here it is needful that there be
explicitness, that our thesis may be placed beyond doubt. The purpose is
not merely to show that science lays no foundation for denial of a
Supreme Intelligence, or for an atheistic conception of the universe;
nor merely that it affords no place for belief in Deity without
knowledge of his nature, for utterance of an empty name, without
intelligible content, or an agnosticism, which affects to celebrate the
praises of Ignorance, in homage to the name of science; nor merely an
immanent or indwelling Deity, who is in all things, and all things in
him, so that he is the unifying power, the soul and life of all that is,
including those strange contrasts which we call good and evil; but
passing all these representations as strange and alien to the Bible, to
show that religion and science find their harmony in recognition of a
Transcendent Deity, a personal Deity, distinct from the universe,--a
personality ruling in righteousness, and delighting to meet the desires
of intelligent beings longing after the perfection of holiness.
I can imagine that some devoted students of science are prepared to
object to having any share in a discussion which is to include as one of
its terms such a purely spiritual conception as this, involving a
spiritual relation,--and having as its practical expression a spiritual
life.
Not a few scientific men may be prepared to say that all this is quite
remote from the region with which they are familiar,--that science can
hardly be said to come into contact with such a spiritual region of
inquiry. And I grant that there is reason for urging such a
consideration. Science can not occupy the place of religion, any more
than religion can occupy the place of science. But if there be any on
that account feeling themselves precluded from entering on the
discussion, they do thereby proclaim themselves disqualified for making
any affirmation as to conflict between the two courses of thought and
interest. The logical fairness of this argument admits of no challenge.
Either scientists must refrain from assertions of conflict,--or they
must take the declarations of the Bible, and prove their antagonism to
the teachings of science, recognized as belonging to a different sphere
of inquiry. As well propose to criticise the conclusions of astronomy in
disregard of spectrum analysis, as propose to criticise the intellectual
worth of religion in neglect of its spiritual significance.
I next pass over to inquire what Science is, taking its own testimony
concerning its province and purpose, as I have taken the testimony of
religion. Science has for its sphere or province the whole field of
outward observation; and has for its purpose the explanation of facts
within this field, either by means of direct observations as to the
relations of things, or by logical inference from such observations.
This field of study is full of interest, and practically inexhaustible.
The trustworthiness of the method admits of no doubt, whether we
consider direct observation, or guarded and careful inference from
things observed. To trust our powers of observation, and to rely on our
reasoning faculty, are the fundamental conditions of all knowledge.
Through these avenues religious knowledge must come, as well as
scientific. The risk of conflict is thus excluded here. Nor will any one
dispute the inherent value of scientific knowledge.[C] Least of all
could such a challenge come from a religious basis, for the book of
nature is to the religious mind the revelation of God in its own place
and form, just as the Bible is in a different and higher form. The
reverence belonging to religion will not derogate from the dignity of
science. The natural and genuine tendency of religious thought must be
to exalt science, in its proper sense, as a verified explanation of the
facts of existence. A contrary tendency can arise only in one of two
ways, either when religion is driven back on the defensive on account of
scientific theory assuming an attitude of antagonism; or when religious
thought has been contracted into narrow and hardened form, such as to
encourage isolation from regions of investigation personally disliked.
In the one case, dishonor is reflected on scientific thinking, in the
other, dishonor is cast on religious thought.
These considerations will indicate the true intellectual spirit in which
we should face the question concerning the relations of religion and
science. To our rational nature, every thing which is entitled to rank
as genuine knowledge must be matter of interest; and reliance on common
means of acquiring knowledge, must involve confidence in the unity of
all truth, and the possibility of demonstrating such unity, if only it
be possible for us to penetrate deep enough, and extend our researches
wide enough,--a confidence which will not be sacrificed even when the
actual unity waits discovery. As each one of the planets diffuses its
own share of light, and all combine to constitute the solar system, so
each science must be a centre of knowledge, and all combined must
constitute a system of truth.