in the past, which have been roughly and often inaccurately described as
conflicts between religion and science. These conflicts were in the
strictest sense inevitable, simply because thought and discovery have
been progressive; and it is impossible for those not personally engaged
in research to accept without reluctance new representations of familiar
facts. If men long continued unwilling to admit that the earth moves
round the sun, and that the rising and setting of the luminary are
delusions, while the succession of light and darkness is real, we can
not wonder at this slowness of assent, or charge it to the power of
religious thought. The conflict was not between religion and science,
but between popular notions and scientific observations. Often in the
earlier periods of awakened thought, following the slumber of the middle
ages, the contest accidentally wore a religious aspect, but it was so
only because the higher intelligence and the general work of instruction
belonged to the religious orders.
If, however, we give due weight to historical facts, it will appear that
the rectification of common thought as to the form of the earth, and its
place in relation to the heavenly bodies, was achieved through the
conflict of a later science with an earlier. Science has first taught
one thing, and then abandoned its old positions to teach something
different, and if religious thought was at times found in the ranks of
the antagonists of change, it was only as the popular thought was
opposed, and as all had been placed in opposition by the earlier forms
of scientific teaching. We rightly interpret the facts, only in
representing that science both makes its own difficulties and clears
them; first presents the imperfect or erroneous views which are to be
swept away, and afterwards trains men to more careful sifting of
evidence and exercise of thought, thereby clearing and widening its own
path.
Thus are we enabled to trace the boundaries of two distinct regions of
thought, closely related, yet clearly separated. Science can not do the
work of religion, nor can religion do the work of science. Each must
fulfil its own part, and abide its proper tests. Science has its own
place and its own task. Religion will simply wait upon science, leaving
it to make its own discoveries, gladly accepting each one of them as it
is established. The most reverend students of the Bible do not regard it
as a revelation presenting a key to scientific research; though they do
not hesitate to express their conviction that neither in express
statement, nor in the spirit inculcated, does it place itself in
antagonism to the search for truth, or the claims of any conclusions
which can be legitimately described as philosophical or scientific. But
its upholders press this consideration specially on scientific men, that
the Bible has this title to be regarded as a book for all nations and
for all ages, that it has proved itself intelligible to men in ages the
least enlightened, and has also maintained a commanding influence in
ages specially distinguished and favored by the advance of science and
the widening power of literature.
FOOTNOTES:
[E] Science can not reach the beginning of things.
[F] See _Disease Germs, their Nature and Origin_, by Beale. London,
Churchill; Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blaikiston.
[G] _Nature_ vol. xvi. p. 276.
[H] Examples of the bacteria magnified 1,800, 3,000, and 5,000 times are
given in Plate I. p. 16, of Beale's _Disease Germs_.
[I] For Dr. Bastian's experiments see _Times_, April 13, 1870; and
_Nature_, June and July, 1870.
[J] Contribution to Royal Society of London. _Nature_ xv. p. 302, Feb.
I, 1877.
[K] _Ib._
[L] _Nature_ vol. xv. p. 302, and Appendix II.
[M] _Nature_ vol. xvi. p. 127.
[N] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, p. 24.
[O] _Preface_ x.
[P] _Preface_ x.
[Q] _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, by J. W.
Draper, M.D., LL.D., Professor in the University of New York, 12 ed., p.
152.
[R] _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, p. 163.
[S] _Ib_. p. 165.
[T] _Ib_. p. 167.
[U] Genesis i. 2, 9.
[V] [Hebrew: rakiya], Raqia, from [Hebrew: raka], to spread out.
[W] I Samuel ii. 8.
[X] Job xi. 6.
[Y] Job xxvi. 10, 11.
[Z] _Conflict between Religion and Science_, p. 172.
[AA] James iv. 14.
LECTURE III.
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSE.
In view of the wide range of materials at command, and the limits of the
present inquiry, there is need for some definite method of selection,
which may secure a careful, though necessarily very general survey of
the whole ground. That which seems to give most promise of meeting these
requirements is the contemplation in order of the great leading
conceptions which have received prominence within recent years in
consequence of continued research under strictly scientific methods.
These may be said to constitute the scientific revolution of the
nineteenth century, giving occasion for reconstructing the popular
conceptions of the universe. They claim to mark the truly scientific
period, inaugurated by command of instruments never before within reach,
allowing an immense advance in the modes of research, and placing the
secrets of nature within compass of human observation as they had never
been before. The intellectual conditions for observation and inference
no doubt remain simply what they have been; the laws of intelligent
inquiry are the same, determining sufficiency of evidence, and
trustworthiness in reasoning; but the range of observation has been
indefinitely multiplied, and things transcending previous conjecture
have become matters of certain observation. The telescope and the
microscope provided for this revolution. They brought the universe
within range as it had never previously been, and thus making an
enormous addition to the sum of human knowledge, suggested new modes of
contemplating and explaining the facts which had been familiar through
all the ages. There can be no reversal of all this--no return on the old
methods. Nor can there be reversal in the sense of overturning presently
recognized conclusions. There are indeed hosts of theories of which it
may be safely predicted that they will be overturned and forgotten; but
a veritable knowledge has been acquired, which will certainly be
preserved among the treasures of the race. We now know the constituent
elements of many forms of existence, and the laws which determine change
and continuance, as these were never previously known; and thus there
has been vastly extended for us the range of recognized facts.
To this advance, the whole human race has to adapt itself. It is not
merely one class of men, but all; not merely one department of thought,
but all departments which must adjust themselves to this new order of
things. Religious thought is not thrown into any singular position; it
merely shares in the common experience, that is, the common advantage.
And we may say religious thought is most prepared for the mighty
revolution. This startling success in unlocking the mysteries of nature;
this sudden accession to the wealth of our ideas, apt to have an
intoxicating effect upon those who value science and nothing higher,
awakens reverence and gratitude in the religious thinker. The greater
the application of human intelligence to the study of nature, and the
greater the discoveries which reward such labor, so much greater becomes
the demand upon intelligence in accounting for the origin and
continuance of the universe, involving innumerable phases of activity
never to be witnessed by ordinary observers who are absorbed in their
daily avocations. The supernatural is not more remote from us by such
discoveries as science can boast, but is in reality brought nearer. The
fancy that enlarged knowledge of the natural, is steadily driving before
it all recognition of the supernatural, is one of which thinking men
will by and by be ashamed. That men should consider the discovery of the
component parts of certain forms of existence, or of the laws of well
known movements, as a _final_ disposal of the demands of intelligence,
only shows how little the intellect of inquirers has been prepared for
appreciation of the full demands of reason. In this connection, it
should be remembered that the most profoundly scientific, have been the
most cautious, least inclined to boast of discovery, or to anticipate
the overthrow of the deeper convictions of the moral and spiritual life,
which, as the necessaries of life in all ages, are least liable to be
touched by any thing belonging to the region of science. Even after
every allowance has been made for sanguine and passionate temperament,
and for reaction against untenable forms of religious belief among
opponents of religion,[AB] the award can not be otherwise than
suggested. The facts are already on record bearing on the most testing
period,--the transition from an old and restricted knowledge, to a new
and greatly enlarged knowledge of the universe,--and the roll of names
standing high in the annals of science, while devoted to religious faith
and practice, may be accepted as a reasonable forecast of coming
results.[AC]
That greater knowledge of nature by discovery of the natural causes in
operation, intensifies the rational demand for recognition of
Supernatural Intelligence, is the position to be maintained throughout
this argument. The most rigid test of this position is to be found in
the outstanding scientific conceptions concerning inorganic and organic
nature, and the contrasts recognized between lower and higher organisms.
The order most suitable for application of this test is progress upwards
from the most subordinate forms of existence to the most complex
organism. A beginning will, therefore, be male with the inorganic world,
after which lower organisms may be considered, after that the relative
place of higher organisms, and finally the whole class of questions
concerning the powers and requirements of mind. In each of these
relations, I desire to inquire into the reasonableness of our
acknowledgment of the supernatural.
As the world presents a vast range of inorganic existence, we have to
consider the most prominent scientific conceptions concerning inorganic
elements, as these afford a general view of the material structure of
the earth.
Concentrating on this region of observation, and taking no account,
meanwhile, of the manifold phases of life, there are two forms of
existence to be recognized, Matter and Energy. Matter is solid, visible,
tangible; Energy is invisible and intangible, but measurable by the work
it is capable of doing. The one may be represented as the solid inert
mass, the other as the moving power whose action is the source of
continual change. This duality we must regard as essential to the
structure of the universe, for it is impossible to identify the two, so
as to regard the world as merely a mass of matter. This duality is now
commonly admitted as the result of recent scientific investigations. To
quote the words of Professor Tait,--"It is only within comparatively
recent years that it has been generally recognized that there is
something else in the physical universe which possesses to the full as
high a claim to objective reality as matter possesses, though it is by
no means so tangible, and therefore the conception of it was much longer
in forcing itself upon the human mind."[AD] This is Energy. "Just as
gold, lead, oxygen, etc., are different kinds of matter, so sound,
light, heat, etc., are now ranked as different forms of energy."[AE]
Here, then, is one of the conspicuous results of recent scientific
research to which all our thoughts and theories need to adapt
themselves. And it must be obvious without argumentation, that
theological thought will not experience any serious shock, or even
jolt, in passing over to this new line of rails prepared for it.
Taking these two, Matter and Energy, as distinct, let us concentrate for
a little upon each of them separately. Let us first turn attention upon
MATTER. This form of existence is most easily contemplated, as most
directly presenting itself to observation. A piece of metal may best
serve for illustration, such as the _iron_ out of which we form so many
of our industrial implements. This metal may be mingled through earth or
rock; it may be held in solution in water, or made to flow out in liquid
form from the furnace; it may be hardened either in the more brittle
form of cast iron, or in the more rigid form known as malleable; but
through all these changes the material is the same. Further, suppose we
were to receive a quantity of ore, and for the sake of experiment were
to have part presented in each one of these forms, the quantity would
continue exactly the same as was originally received. To quote again
from the same author:--"The grand test of the reality of what we call
Matter, the proof that it has an objective existence, is its
indestructibility and uncreatability--if the term may be used--by any
process at the command of man. The value of this test to modern
chemistry can scarcely be estimated. In fact we can barely believe that
there could have existed an exact science of chemistry had it not been
for the early recognition of this property of matter; nor in fact would
there be the possibility of a chemical analysis, supposing that we had
not the assurance by enormously extended series of previous experiments,
that no portion of matter, however small, goes out of existence, or
comes into existence in any operation whatever. If the chemist were not
certain that at the end of his operations, provided he has taken care to
admit nothing and to let nothing escape, the contents of his vessels
must be precisely the same in quantity as at the beginning of the
experiment, there could be no such thing as chemical analysis."[AF]
If now we press our inquiry further, seeking some explanation of the
ultimate nature or structure of matter, that is, the common physical
characteristics of matter in all its forms, whether air, water, or solid
mass, science has no certain answer to give. There is no theory of the
ultimate structure of matter which has secured general acceptance. On
the contrary, there is the acknowledgment that the complexity of the
problem is so great as completely to baffle the present resources of
science. There have been discussions, and careful investigations as to
the _divisibility of matter_, and it has been generally admitted on
rational grounds, that there must be in all matter particles or atoms so
minute as to be quite beyond the range of the microscope. This has led
to the acceptance of an _atomic theory_ as in one form or another
applicable to the structure of matter, _belief_ in such particles or
molecules being a natural result of scientific procedure. I say
_belief_, for the existence of such ultimate atoms is not established on
experimental evidence, and yet is generally acknowledged; for it is
clearly enough recognized that there is a region of faith for science,
as for theology, just as there must be for all ordinary exercise of
human intelligence. Besides the actual divisibility of matter, we have
in the same connection to consider its _compressibility_, for the
recognized facts as to compression of iron, for example, or of any
metal, seem to imply that there are certain particles related to each
other, which can be pressed in upon each other, or brought into nearer
proximity. There is, however, a clear limit to compressibility, as there
is to divisibility of matter. Even if this be granted, however, we are
still without a scientific account of the ultimate structure of matter.
This is still a perplexity to be handed on to future workers. There may,
indeed, seem to be promise of aid in the analysis of different forms of
matter, as in the reduction of water to its constituent gases by the
action of a galvanic battery; but such processes, however rich in
suggestiveness, are insufficient to advance the main inquiry. It is
oftentimes in this very class of experiments, that science at once
manifests its power, and discovers the limits which encircle and
restrain its efforts. It can decompose, what it can not recompose, thus
leaving difficulties as perplexing as before. And besides, even when by
analysis the ultimate parts or chemical constituents, of compound
substances have been discovered, science is unable to demonstrate that
the constituent elements are ultimately composed of distinct atoms, as
for example that oxygen and hydrogen are so constituted. We are thus
without a science of the ultimate nature of matter. There is, indeed,
the suggestion of Sir William Thomson that matter of all kinds may be
regarded as of a common nature, only variously compounded, filling space
in a fluid state, and that its compressibility can be accounted for on
the supposition that its ultimate forms are vortex rings capable of
compression and expansion like an india-rubber ball; but this can not be
regarded otherwise than as a bold conjecture, beset with a host of
difficulties both physical and mathematical which neither Thomson nor
any of his fellow-workers in physical science, professes to have yet
grappled with.
There are thus before us the chief results of physical science, as to
the nature of MATTER, when we specify that it is indestructible, that it
consists of ultimate molecules or atoms, and that its compressibility is
to be explained by pressure upon such atoms, or cohesion, or comparative
closeness of relation between them, this being greater in solids, less
in liquids, and least in gases.
From the structure of matter, we are led by science to the consideration
of ENERGY, as distinct from matter. These two stand in some respect in
contrast with each other. In taking a survey of the physical aspects of
the world, we can not limit attention to the mere mass, or to questions
bearing on its structure. Observation must now be turned on the
perpetual change going on in form, arrangement, and distribution of
materials. There is need for a science of all this, in accordance with
which the perpetual round of change may be reduced to order by reference
to causality and the laws of its operation. Thus we are introduced to
our ordinary conceptions concerning _position_, that is, the situation
or place of objects, or of masses of material, or even of worlds, to
each other; _motion_, or change of position, modifying or altering the
relations of objects; and _force_, that is the relative amount or
proportion of energy at work for the accomplishment of such changes as
those already mentioned. In these connections we are introduced to
recently formulated doctrines of _energy_, reached in searching for "the
cause which alters or tends to alter a body's natural state of rest," as
this problem was indicated in Newton's first law of motion. In the
earlier stages of inquiry, attention was directed mainly on the active
forces of nature, as these are recognized in operation, admitting of
calculation as to rate of movement on the one hand, and relative amount
of force on the other. Computations of this kind were necessarily
involved in research connected with the movements of the heavenly
bodies. When astronomical theory had been matured and a truly scientific
understanding of the solar system had been reached, physical science had
next to deal with the more general problem raised by the contemplated
forces of nature, having a reference at once wider and more minute. It
is not possible here to do more than give a very summary view of the
doctrine of energy, its mutations, dissipation, and conservation, as
developed through study of the laws of gravitation, electricity, light,
heat, etc., and now generally accepted. An outline will, however,
suffice for an understanding of the general conclusions.
Energy is the term now employed to designate every form of power
belonging to the physical world capable of doing work, and of being
estimated according to the comparative amount of work it can perform.
The whole phenomena of motion thus belong to this department of inquiry.
The first distinction here has been described as the difference between
_energy of position_ and _energy of motion_.[AG] Both of these must be
taken into account in order to have a full view of the facts. ENERGY OF
POSITION, is illustrated by a water-head, or reservoir, where an
accumulation of water is laid up in store, ready to be drawn upon for
motive power when machinery set up in a position somewhat lower is to be
brought into action and made to do the work for which it has been
constructed. ENERGY OF MOTION is seen when the storehouse of water is
opened and the rush of the current sweeps along the prepared channel
descending upon the great wheel, which sets in motion the whole
machinery. In such a case as this, the amount of work done by the
revolutions of the great wheel is an exact measure of the amount of
water which has passed to a lower level. Or let us suppose there is only
a limited supply in the water-head, and that there are no feeders, but
that the streamlets and springs from which it is supplied, have ceased
to flow, and let us suppose that the mill comes to a stand because of
failure of motive power, the amount of work done up to that moment is
the measure of the energy stored in the water-head before the sluice
was opened. This illustration indicates the mode of calculation to be
applied to energy in all its forms, including the great forces of
nature, before which human power is as nothing. Taking thus the
correlatives position and motion, we may regard the former as
preparation for the latter, for, as Professor Balfour Stewart has said,
"It is the fate of all kinds of energy of position to be ultimately
converted into energy of motion."[AH] On this account, energy of motion
most naturally exemplifies what we understand by energy; but on the
other hand what has been called the energy of position must be regarded
as a power distinctly calculable. If a stone be thrown into the air, the
energy expended in propelling it to a certain height, is the exact
measure of the energy expended in its descent. There is no need for
entering here upon the calculations of the relation between energy and
velocity, showing the exact proportion of the one to the other, or the
ratio of increase according to velocity, which is expressed in the
formula "that the energy varies as the square of the velocity," giving
us an exact measure of force.
Aided by the conceptions of position and motion, we take the next step
when we advance to _transmutation or conversion of energy_. What is made
visible to us by motion is the transference of energy from one object or
portion of matter to another. And this is the sole explanation of what
occurs. There is no such thing known to physical science as the origin
or creation of energy; all that is recognized is the disappearance of
energy from one position and its appearance in another. If work has been
done, energy was somewhere stored capable of doing it; a transmutation
has taken place; and the work accomplished is the record of the process.
In recognition of this, every machine is merely a more or less skilful
contrivance for transmuting energy into a form more convenient or
suitable for human purposes. The intelligence of man simply recognizes
the law of transmutation, and deals with the problems which arise
connected with the mechanical arrangements facilitating the process.