Chapter V. The Witnesses of the Incompatibility Of Science And Faith.

The Objection.

We shall not go wrong in presuming that the reader, who has patiently

followed our deductions, has had for some time in his mind the question:

How about the representatives of scientific research themselves? Do not a

large majority of them, perhaps virtually all, stand alien and repellant

to Christian faith and its fundamental truths? We do not refer to our

modern philosophers, for of them it might be said that their researches

yield questionable speculations of individualistic stamp, rather than

exact results. But there are the representatives of the more exact

sciences, especially of the most exact of all, natural science. They may

be considered the legitimate representatives of modern science, since

their results are the most accurate, their methods the most strictly

scientific; and are they not, every one of them, opposed to Christian

faith, especially to its fundamental dogma? Is not _Haeckel_ right when he

states in the final summary of his “Welträtsel,” in which he so strongly

insists on the incompatibility of religion and natural science: “I am

supported by the accord of nearly all modern naturalists who have the

courage to express their convictions”? Is it not true that _A. von

Humboldt_ is considered the prince of German naturalists? and yet in his

voluminous “_Kosmos_” he not once mentions the name of God? Have not, with

few exceptions, German naturalists, under _Humboldt’s_ influence, turned

against Christianity? (_W. Menzel_, Die letzten hundertzwanzig Jahre der

Weltgeschichte, VI, 1860, p. 70; cfr. _Pohle_, P. Angelo Secchi, 1904, p.

6). Here indeed the antagonism between true scientific spirit and the

faith seems to take shape in tangible reality, and to invalidate every

argument to the contrary.

Thus runs the speech that is ever recurring in the literature of the day,

in newspapers and magazines no less than in books. And this speech makes

an impression on its hearers. Indeed, why should it not? After describing

how these heroes of science in recent times marched on triumphantly from

victory to victory, how they renewed the face of the earth, and became the

pioneers of human progress, how can they fail to make a deep impression if

in the same breath they state that these discoverers of truth have, almost

to a man, broken with the ancient teachings of the Christian religion?

Without doubt the suggestive effect of such speculation must be very

considerable with those who lack sufficient historical knowledge. The case

is different with those better acquainted with the history of the natural

sciences. They know that it is not true to state that the leading natural

scientists, for the most part, or even unanimously, have rejected and

denied Christian religion, that it is a _lie_ and a falsification of

history.

Let us illustrate it briefly. We do not, of course, mean to say, that _if_

it were true that all the leading naturalists were infidels, the inference

would necessarily follow that Christianity is untenable, and incompatible

with science. Not at all. First of all, natural scientists who oppose

Christianity could hardly ever come forward in the capacity of experts in

this matter. For by venturing the assertion that world-matter and

world-force are eternal and uncreated, that they develop by force of

natural causality, by unending evolution, and not by the power and

direction of an intelligent cause, they leave their own province and

trespass on the domain of philosophy. These and similar questions are not

solved by natural science research, by experiment, observation, or

calculation, but are the subjects of philosophical speculation. Atheism,

materialism, the denial of the soul’s immortality or of eternal

destination, all these are philosophical matters, and a natural science

theory of the world is a misconception about as absurd as a Swiss England

or a Bavarian Spain.

As it is impossible to review here all scientists of the past centuries,

to probe their bent of mind, we shall restrict ourselves in the following

to scientists of the first rank, for to them the assertion above mentioned

must chiefly refer. First of all, they were possessed of that spirit of

scientific research claimed to be incompatible with the faith; and they,

more than others, should have been conscious of this contradiction. It is

plain that if they did not know anything of the claimed antagonism between

the theories of evolution and of creation, between physical facts and

spirituality of soul, between natural law and miracles; if it be shown

that many of them were actually orthodox Christians, believing in the

supernatural and yet enthusiastic friends of science, fathoming the laws

of nature and yet unshaken in their faith, then the fact that inferior

minds talk of a contradiction unknown to these great ones can no longer

make much of an impression.

Therefore let us look over the long list of great scholars of the last

centuries, those great men to whom we owe knowledge and discoveries that

are our joy to this very day. Among them we shall find many who, in their

life and thought, have plainly confessed themselves faithful Christians;

we shall find that others were at least the opponents of atheism and

materialism, that they clung to the fundamental truths of the Christian

faith, and that is a matter of moment when the antagonism between natural

science and faith is under discussion.

We shall not go back to the ancient representatives of natural science,

men like _Pythagoras_, _Aristotle_, _Archimedes_, _Albert the Great_,

_Roger Bacon_, and others of past ages, partly because there is no doubt

about the religious views of those men, partly because research at their

time was imperfect. We begin at the rise of modern natural science.

The Old Masters.

At the threshold of modern natural science there stands the man who solved

the riddle that had puzzled centuries before him, the father of modern

astronomy, _Nikolaus Copernicus_. He had studied at the universities of

Cracow, Bologna, Ferrara, and Padua, and while he was one of the foremost

historians of his time, it was astronomy that had engaged his enthusiastic

devotion from his youth. He was a Catholic priest, a Canon of Frauenberg.

“If recent representatives of the Roman Church,” so writes the Protestant

theologian, _O. Zoeckler_, “praise this Frauenberg Canon as a faithful son

of their Church, this fact must be granted by Protestants, despite the

frankness with which he opposed the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories

taught by the scholastics, and despite his friendship with the Protestant

_Rheticus_” (Gottes Zeugen im Reiche der Natur, 1906, p. 82). _George

Joachim_, a native of Feldkirch, surnamed _Rheticus_, and a Protestant

professor at Wittenberg, came to _Copernicus_ at Frauenberg, and was

cordially received. His praise for “his teacher” is unreserved. He speaks

in the same admiring terms of _Tiedemann Giese_, in those days Bishop of

Kulm.

For nearly forty years _Copernicus_ sat in the modest observatory which he

had erected at Frauenberg, studying and collecting the material for his

book. Even after all this time this deliberate scholar, despite the urging

of his friends, especially Bishop _Tiedemann Giese_ and Cardinal

_Schoenberg_, Archbishop of Capua, hesitated for ten years longer before

publishing his discoveries. The work was entitled _De revolutionibus

orbium caelestium, libri VI_, and was dedicated to Pope _Paul III._ The

author himself could enjoy his achievement but very little. The first copy

sent by the printer reached _Copernicus_ on his deathbed, and a few hours

later he breathed his last, on May 24, 1543.

In the introduction to his work this devout Christian scientist wrote:

“Who would not be urged by the intimate intercourse with the work of His

hands to the contemplation of the Most High, and to the admiration for the

Omnipotent Architect of the universe, in whom is the highest happiness,

and in whom is the perfection of all that is good?”

Without _Copernicus_ there could have been no _Kepler_, without _Kepler_

no _Newton_. These three men, in the words of a recent astronomer, belong

inseparably together, they support and supplement one another. It might be

fittingly asked, after which of these three the celestial system should be

named; and were it possible to ask these three men for their opinion in

this matter, they would probably all give the answer that has been

ascribed to one or the other of them: Not my system, but God’s Order. Like

_Copernicus_, so _Kepler_ and _Newton_ were profoundly religious men.

_Johann Kepler_, born of Protestant parents in Württemberg in 1571, was

raised a Lutheran. In 1594 he was appointed professor of mathematics at a

school in Graz, and after that he dwelt for the most time in Austria,

which country became his second home. From Graz he was called to Prague to

be mathematician at the imperial court, and from there to Linz to be

professor at the college there. His last years were passed at Sagan and

Ratisbon, where he died in 1630. Even after having left Austria he

gratefully remembered the _clementia austriaca_ and the _favor

archiducalis_. _Kepler’s_ astronomical achievements are known to

everybody, especially his laws of the planets. With an untiring spirit of

research he combined beautiful traits of character, cheerfulness,

kindness, and modesty, but chiefly a profoundly religious mind. However,

he was in difficult circumstances as far as his religious life was

concerned. Quite early he came in conflict with the religious authorities

of his confession, particularly for the reason that they considered

_Kepler’s_ Copernican views as against the Bible, a fact which the learned

astronomer could not see. There were also other differences. The conflict

became more and more aggravated. It cannot be denied that the Lutheran

Church-authorities proceeded against _Kepler_ with a lack of consideration

never shown by Rome against men like _Galileo_. _Kepler_ was expelled from

the Lutheran Church, and despite his efforts to be reinstated the ban was

never lifted.

Like _Kepler_, so was his predecessor at the Catholic court of

Prague, the Danish astronomer _Tycho Brahe_ (died 1601), a devout

Protestant, but the trials of _Kepler_ were spared him. His

erroneous idea that the Copernican system conflicted with Holy

Writ kept him from subscribing to it: it led him to devise a

system midway between _Copernicus_ and _Ptolemy_. His religious

sentiment is evidenced by a passage from a letter of his, written

at his father’s death, “Although there are many consolations for

me, of a religious nature based on Holy Writ, and of a

philosophical kind drawn from the contemplation of the fate of all

men and of the inconstancy of everything under the moon, it is a

special comfort for me that my father departed so sweetly and

piously from this valley of misery to the heavenly eternal home,

where, according to _St. Paul_, we shall find a lasting abode.”

But let us return to _Kepler_. There is evidence that at various times in

his life he wavered between his Lutheran confession and the Catholic

faith, but that is as far as he went. He was of the opinion that the

fundamental truths of both were in accord, and he would not presume to

judge of the differences; he had taken a view-point of his own, from which

he could not be made to recede. On the other hand, he was shocked when his

fellow-Lutherans in Styria were on two occasions severely dealt with,

although he personally had been treated with especial consideration.

Otherwise his opinions on Catholic matters and the “wisdom” of the

Catholic Church were eminently fair; he censured his co-religionists for

their invidious attacks on Rome, and for their hesitancy in adopting the

Gregorian reform of the calendar. He had friendly relation with many a

Catholic scientist, was in correspondence with many Jesuits, was even

frequently their guest, receiving stimulus, commendation, and scientific

communications from them.

To _Kepler_ the study of astronomy became largely a prayer; the finest of

his scientific works he was wont to conclude with the doxology of the

Psalmist, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His wisdom

there is no number: praise Him ye Heavens; praise ye Him, O Sun, and Moon,

ye Stars and light, and praise Him in your language. Thou, too, praise

Him, O soul of mine, thy Lord, thy Creator, as long as it is granted to

thee” (_Harmonices Mundi_, v. 9). His name and work is commemorated in the

Keplerbund in Germany, which aims at the promotion of scientific knowledge

in the sense of _Kepler_, in opposition to the misuse of natural science

for purposes of materialism and atheism.

The work, begun so happily by _Copernicus_ and _Kepler_, was completed by

the great Englishman, _Newton_ (died 1727). It was he who in his immortal

work, _Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica_, laid bare the law of

the universe, which compels the heavenly bodies to revolve about one

another. Therewith the laws of _Kepler_, and consequently the Copernican

hypothesis, became established. When, in 1727, this scientist, at the age

of eighty-five, died, his mortal remains were entombed in Westminster

Abbey, the Pantheon of the British nation. Lofty science and the reverent

worship of his Creator were combined in the noble mind of this great

Briton. In an appendix to his master-work, referred to above, he cited his

proofs for the existence of God, and stated that “the entire order, as to

space and time of all things existing, must have necessarily proceeded

from the conception and will of an existing Being,” that “the admirable

arrangement of sun, planets, and comets could only emanate from the decree

and the design of an All-wise and Omnipotent Being,” that “we admire Him

for His perfections, we adore and worship Him as the ruler of the world,

we, the servants of the great Sovereign of the Universe.” According to

_Voltaire_, it was stated by _Newton’s_ disciple, _Clarke_, that his

master invariably pronounced the name of God with reverent attitude and

expression.

Inseparably connected with the history of the Copernican system

there is the name, which recalls harsh accusations and painful

memories, the name of _Galileo_. That he had nothing in common

with the aims of those who have broken with faith and

Christianity, nor with that hostility against his Church for which

his name is so often misused, has been made evident by what we

have said on another page (see page 189). Not only during his

early life was his religious turn of mind evidenced, but also

later on and up to the end of his life he continued to observe

faithfully the duties of his religion.

One of the greatest physicists of recent times was _Christian Huygens_,

who died in 1695 at his native city, The Hague. To him we owe the

epoch-making discovery of the undulation of light, while _Newton_ had held

light to be a matter of emission. But while _Huygens_ advanced over

_Newton_ in this respect, he paid tribute to human limitation by remaining

prejudiced against _Newton’s_ theory of gravitation, which he rejected.

_Huygens_ was a believing Christian.

In his philosophic dissertation “Kosmotheoros,” a posthumous work,

he says in regard to the possibility of the celestial bodies being

inhabited: “How could the investigator look up to God, the Creator

of all these great worlds, otherwise but in the spirit of deepest

reverence? Here it will be possible for us to find manifold proofs

to demonstrate His providence and wonderful wisdom; likewise will

our contemplation contend against those who are spreading false

opinions, such as attributing the origin of the earth to the

accidental union of atoms, or of the earth being without a

beginning and without a creator.”

Religious fervour is still more pronounced in _Huygens’_ contemporary,

_Robert Boyle_ (died 1692), a son of Ireland. While he had made

considerable achievements in physics, his chief fame lies in chemistry: he

inaugurated the period in which chemistry became gradually an independent

science. Although working in a different field of research, he is similar

to _Newton_ in many respects: like _Newton_ and _Huygens_, his love of

scientific studies induced him to remain unmarried, like _Newton_ he found

his last resting place in Westminster Abbey, but chiefly he is like

_Newton_ because of his pious, religious mind. He was much occupied with

theological studies, and in them the demonstration from nature of the

existence of God, and the author’s reverence for the Scriptures are most

conspicuous: “In relation to the Bible,” he writes, “all the books of men,

even the most learned, are like the planets that receive their light and

brightness from the sun.” On his deathbed he made a foundation for

apologetic lectures: the Boyle-lectures are held to this very day.

We shall have to pass by others. We might point to the English

philosopher and statesman, _Francis Bacon_ of Verulam (died 1626),

who won his place in the history of natural science by his urging

of the empiric method; we might point to _W. Harvey_ (died 1658),

the discoverer of the blood-circulation, a man of earnest and

simple piety; we might mention the pious _Albrecht von Haller_

(died 1777), _J. Bernouilli_ (died 1728) the co-inventor of

integral calculus, the man of whom his great disciple _Euler_

relates that this _Bernouilli_, co-inventor of the most difficult

of all calculations, this great mathematician, expressed regret in

his old age that he had devoted so many years to science, and only

few hours to religion, and that on his deathbed he admonished

those around him to adhere to the Word of God because that alone

is the word of life.

We shall name but one more, a son of northern Sweden, the famous botanist,

_Karl Linné_ (died 1778). He, too, found God in the living nature which he

studied so diligently.

In commenting on his _Systema naturae_ he writes: “Man, know

thyself; in theological aspect, that thou art created with an

immortal soul, after the image of God; in moral aspect, that thou

alone art blessed with a rational soul for the praise of thy

sublime Creator. I ask, why did God put man equipped thus in sense

and spirit on this earth, where he perceives this wonderfully

ordered nature? For what, but to praise and admire the invisible

Master-builder for His magnificent work.”

These are the great masters and reformers of recent natural science, the

men who opened up the paths which natural science of the present day is

still pursuing; most of these savants were of a Christian mind, many of

them even pious. There were but few indifferent or irreligious, such as

_E. Halley_ (died 1742), who computed the cycle of the comet since named

after him, and _G. de Buffon_ (died 1788): but they are a small minority.

The period of highest achievement in modern natural science bears the

stamp of religion; indeed, to a great extent it bears the halo of devotion

and fervour. An incompatibility of research and faith, a solidarity of

science and anti-Christian tendency, was never known to the mind of these

great masters.

“Any one who has grasped even the elements of natural science, the unity

of natural forces and their rigid conformity to laws, becomes a monist if

he has the faculty for clear reasoning, and as to the others, there is no

help for them anyway” (_L. Plate_, Ultramontane Weltanschauung und moderne

Lebenskunde, 1907, 11). This sort of argument is shouted at us in manifold

variations. How does that statement look in the light of history? Men like

_Copernicus_, _Kepler_, _Newton_, _Linné_, _Boyle_, thus knew nothing of

the elements of natural science, nothing of the conformity to laws of

natural forces: because they were neither monists nor atheists, but

worshippers of the Creator of heaven and earth! A more painful contrast

cannot be imagined than to see these great masters and pioneers rated as

lesser minds, ignorant of real natural science, by those who trail far

behind them and who are seeking their footsteps. The religious conviction

of the natural scientists of a past age is sufficient proof that, not the

research in natural science, but other causes lead minds to infidelity.

Modern Times.

We turn to the nineteenth century. Does the picture perhaps change

essentially in the century that has shown its children so much progress,

that has disclosed so many secrets of nature, but has also taught

irreligion to thousands of men? Does it become true now that natural

science and Christian fundamental truths are opposed to each other in

hostile attitude? Claims to this effect are not lacking. In fact, the

number of those who refuse assent to the Christian religion is increasing.

But even at this time we do not find such to be the majority of eminent

scientists, and our inquiry is about eminent scientists, those who make

the science of a period, not those who can hardly expect to have their

names known by posterity. A considerable number, indeed the majority, of

the master minds of natural science, even in the nineteenth century,

reject materialism and atheism, and not infrequently they are pious

Christians; another proof that just upon the deeper and more serious minds

religion exercises a stronger power of attraction.

Let us commence with the astronomers.

“The sciences and their true representatives,” so states the renowned

_Mädler_ of Dorpat, “do not deserve the reproaches and imputations heaped

upon them from a certain side, that they would estrange man from God, even

turn him into an atheist ... we hope to show of astronomy especially that

just the contrary is taking place” (Reden und Abhandlungen über

Gegenstände der Himmelskunde, 1870, 326).

The greatest astronomer of the nineteenth century, and one of the greatest

discoverers of all ages, was undoubtedly _William Herschel_ (died 1822).

His son _John Herschel_ (died 1871) became his “worthy successor, almost

his peer, who won a fame nearly equal to that of the inherited name” (_R.

Wolf_, Geschichte der Astronomie, 1877, 505). While not hostile to

religion, the father had been so engrossed in his restless research, that

religion received little attention, but religious thought and sentiment

played a prominent part in the son. Time and again he opposed with zeal

the materialistic-atheistic explanation of the universe. “Nothing is more

unfounded than the objection made by some well-meaning but undiscerning

persons, that the study of natural science induces a doubt of religion and

of the immortality of the soul. Be assured that its logical effect upon

any well-ordered mind must be just the opposite” (Preliminary Discourse on

the Study of Natural Philosophy, 1830, 7).

It was _Leverrier_ (died 1877), Director of the Paris Observatory, who by

calculations ascertained the existence and exact position of the remotest

planet Neptune even before it was discovered. When eventually _Galle_ of

Berlin really found the planet in the position indicated, _Leverrier’s_

name became famous. But greater still were the achievements of this

indefatigable investigator in respect to the known planets. When he

presented to the French Academy the final part of his great work, the

calculations of Jupiter and Saturnus, he said: “During our long labours,

which it took us thirty-five years to complete, we needed the support

obtained by the contemplation of one of the grandest works of creation,

and by the thought that it strengthened in us the imperishable truths of a

spiritualistic (_i.e._, non-materialistic) philosophy.” He was an orthodox

Catholic, known as a Clerical. A newspaper complained of him that “Under

the empire he was a clerical Senator, concerned with the interests of the

altar no less than with those of the throne” (_Kneller_, Das Christenthum

und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft, 1904, 96. In the

following pages we have made frequent use of the material gathered in this

sterling work. See also _James J. Walsh_, Makers of Modern Medicine

(1907); and the same author’s Catholic Churchmen in Science, I (1909), II

(1910)).

One year after the death of _Leverrier_ another scientist of the first

rank died. It was _A. Secchi_ (died 1878). Member of nearly all the

scientific academies of the world, he was not only a faithful Christian,

but also a priest: for forty-five years, and until his death, he wore the

garb of the Society of Jesus. As an astronomer he has been named, not

without good cause, the father of astrophysics: he ascertained the

chemical composition of about 4,000 stars and classified them into what is

known as _Secchi’s_ four types of stars. As a physicist he wrote an

important work on The Unity of Natural Forces. He was also an eminent

meteorologist.

At the second International Exposition at Paris his meteorograph

was quite a feature. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ wrote, on March 2,

1878: “Visitors of the Italian Exhibition, at the second World’s

Fair in Paris, could see the marvellous instrument which does the

work of ten observers and surpasses them in accuracy. At the same

time they could obtain all needed information about details and

scope of the meteorograph from the exhibitor himself; for _Secchi_

was there daily, devoting several hours to answering questions in

any of the civilized languages of Europe. It is peculiarly

interesting to observe the silent movement of the hands working

day and night like registrars of the natural forces, and recording

for every quarter of an hour with the utmost accuracy all changes

in temperature, in humidity, every variance of the wind, any

movement of the mercury in the barometer. Even the force of the

wind and the time of rain is registered by this wonderful

instrument.” The inventor, out of 40,000 art exhibitors, was

awarded the great golden medal. He also received the insignia of

an officer of the French Legion of Honor, while the Emperor of

Brazil appointed him an officer of the “Golden Rose.”

The French scientist _Moigno_ writes of _Secchi_: “_Secchi_ was

very pious, and as a worker he knew no limits. He was ever ready

to evolve new scientific plans, to enter into new and long

campaigns of observation. The mere list of his 800 works reveals

him as one of the most intrepid workers of our century. And let

this be considered: every one of these writings, no matter how

brief, was the result of subtle and difficult researches and

observations. And after devoting the day to arduous writing, he

passed the night searching the skies” (_Pohle_, P. Angelo Secchi,

1904, 191).

In the nineteenth century, too, astronomy has not failed in its

mission of leading to God. A long list could be named of believing

astronomers of great achievements. For instance, the Roman

astronomer _Respighi_ (died 1889), a resolute Catholic. And

_Lamont_, Director of the Observatory of Munich, whose Catholic

orthodoxy was generally known. _Heis_ (died 1877) likewise was a

zealous Catholic: when he had finished his map of the sky, after

27 years of hard work, he sent one of the first copies to _Pius

IX._ The astronomers _Bessel_ and _Olbers_ speak in their letters

of God, of the hereafter and Providence, in a way that has nothing

in common with materialism.

_Secchi_ was not the only priest and monk among the astronomers of

the nineteenth century. The very first day of the century was made

notable by the astronomical achievement of a monk. _Joseph

Piazzi_, a member of the Theatine order (died 1826), discovered on

that day the first asteroid, Ceres. The great mathematician

_Gauss_ named his first born son Joseph, in _Piazzi’s_ honor.

It is, indeed, a remarkable fact, testifying strongly against the

incompatibility of natural science and faith, that just the

Catholic clergy, the prominent representatives of religion and

faith, have contributed a large contingent to the number of

natural scientists. _Poggendorf’s_ Biographical Dictionary of the

Exact Sciences contains, down to 1863, according to preface and

recapitulation, the names and biographical sketches of 8,847

natural scientists. Of these, 862 are Catholic priests, amounting

to 9.8 per cent. To appreciate these 10 per cent it must be taken

into account that most of them were not connected with natural

science by their position, but only through their personal

interest, and most of them were engaged in other duties.

Mathematics, although not natural science proper, is inseparably connected

with it. For this reason we may extend our consideration to

mathematicians. We only point to the three greatest, _Euler_, _Gauss_, and

_Cauchy_, and all three were religious men. _Euler_ (died 1783 at

Petersburg) has no peer in the recent history of science in prolific

activity: ten times he was awarded the prize by the Paris Academy of

Sciences. _Cantor_ says of him: “Like most great mathematicians, _Euler_

was profoundly religious, though without bigotry. He personally conducted

every evening the private devotions at his home, and one of the few

polemical books he wrote was a defence of revelation against the

objections of free-thinkers.” Its publication at Berlin in 1747, in close

proximity of the court of _Frederick the Great_, presupposed a certain

moral courage. In this book he refers to the difficulties found in all

sciences, even in geometry, adding: “By what right then can the

free-thinkers demand of us to reject at once Holy Writ in its entirety,

because of some difficulties which frequently are not even so important as

those complained of in geometry?” _Gauss_ (died 1855) is perhaps the

greatest mathematician of all times. It sounds incredible, yet it is well

attested, that as a child of three years, when in the workshop of his

father, a plain mechanic, he was able to correct the father if he made a

mistake in figuring out the wages paid to his journeymen. His biographer,

_Waltershausen_, says of him: “The conviction of a personal existence

after death, the firm belief in an ultimate Ruler of things, in an

eternal, just, all-wise and all-powerful God, formed the foundation of his

religious life, which, with his unsurpassed scientific researches,

resolved itself into a perfect harmony.” _Cauchy_ (died 1857) was a man of

most extraordinary genius, whose creative genius knew how to discover new

paths everywhere, and almost at every weekly meeting of the Paris Academy

_Cauchy_ had something new to offer. In addition he was a dutiful

Catholic, and a member of St. Vincent’s Society. When, shortly before the

February revolution, an onslaught upon the Jesuit schools was made, he

defended them in two pamphlets.

One of them contains the following confession of faith: “I am a

Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ,

with _Tycho __ Brahe_, _Copernicus_, _Descartes_, _Newton_,

_Fermat_, _Leibnitz_, _Pascal_, _Grimaldi_, _Euler_, _Guldin_,

_Boscovich_, _Gerdil_; with all great astronomers, all great

physicists, all great mathematicians of past centuries. I am also

a Catholic, with the majority of them, and if asked for my

reasons, I would enumerate them readily. By them it would be made

clear that my conviction is not the result of inherited

prejudices, but of profound inquiry. I am a sincere Catholic, as

_Corneille_, _Racine_, _La Bruyère_, _Bossuet_, _Bourdaloue_,

_Fénelon_ were, and such as were and still are a large portion of

the most eminent men of our times, among them those who have

achieved most in the exact sciences, in philosophy and literature,

and who have most prominently adorned our Academy” (_Valson_, Vie

de Cauchy, I, 173). When near death, and told that the priest

would bring the Holy Sacrament, he ordered the finest flowers of

his garden used in the reception of the Lord.

We now come to the physicists. To begin with the most prominent

representatives of the science of optics, which was developed especially

during the first half of the century, there are to be named chiefly

_Fresnel_, _Frauenhofer_, _Fizeau_, _Foucault_. _A. Fresnel_ (died 1827),

the originator of the modern theory of light, clung to his conviction of

the spirituality and immortality of the soul. _Frauenhofer_ (died 1826)

showed himself to be a man of refinement and of kindness, which only

occasionally was disturbed by natural irritability: he was much devoted to

his religion, so that even his guests while at his house had to observe

the abstinence prescribed by the Church; this was quite significant,

considering the indifference of his times in this respect. _Fizeau_ (died

1896), too, was a staunch Catholic, who fearlessly testified to his

belief, even before the Paris Academy. Though his work was of the first

rank, France’s chief marks of honour passed him by, and little notice was

even given to his death. A significant fact. “These circumstances,” so

writes _Kneller_, “induced us to inquire for particulars; and through the

services of friends we obtained information in Paris from most reliable

source that _Fizeau_ was a faithful Christian, who fulfilled his religious

duties. For this very reason his name had been stricken, at the Centenary

of the Academy, from the list of candidates for the cross of the legion of

honor, notwithstanding the fact that, on the strength of his scientific

achievement, he should long have been Commander and even Grand Officer of

this order.” _Cornu_ was the only one to protest against this slight.

_Foucault_ (died 1868) had, in the time of his restless scientific work,

taken an unsympathetic attitude towards the Catholic religion. In his last

illness he returned, step by step, to his Creator and Redeemer, in whom he

found his comfort, and he breathed his last in peace with God and the

Church.

_Foucault’s_ great countryman, _Ampère_ (died 1836), the celebrated

investigator in the fields of electricity, was also estranged from the

Christian religion, but, after passing through torturing doubts, he

regained undisturbed possession of his Catholic faith, and was a pious

Christian at the time of his brilliant discoveries. He had frequent

intercourse with _A. F. Ozanam_, and the discussion almost without

exception turned to God. Then _Ampère_ would cover his forehead with his

hands, exclaiming: “How great God is! Ozanam! how great God is, and our

knowledge is as nothing.” “This venerable head,” _Ozanam_ relates of his

friend, “covered with honours and full of knowledge, bowed down before the

mysteries of the faith; he knelt at the same altars where before him

_Descartes_ and _Pascal_ worshipped humbly, beside the poor widow and the

small child, who perhaps were less humble than he” (_A. F. Ozanam_,

Oeuvres Complètes, X, 37, and VIII, 89). As he was dying, and _M.

Deschamps_, director of the college of Marseille, began to read aloud some

passages from the “Imitation of Christ,” the dying man remarked that he

knew the book by heart.

Another great discoverer in the domain of electricity, who had preceded

_Ampère_, was _Volta_ (died 1827). Like his great fellow countryman,

_Galvani_ (died 1798), who did not disdain to be a member of the third

order of St. Francis, _Volta_ was a staunch Catholic; every day he recited

the rosary.

At Como, his home, he was daily seen to go to holy Mass and, on holidays,

to the Sacraments. Those who passed his house on Saturdays saw a small

lamp burning before the picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary over his door.

If the servant forgot to light the lamp, _Volta_ did it himself. On Feast

days, when visiting the parish church, the great electrician could be seen

among the children, explaining the catechism to them.

A friend of _Volta_, the Canon _Giacomo Ciceri_, once was

endeavoring to convert a dying man, who, however, refused to hear

him, on the ground that whereas religion might be good for the

common people, scientists did not need it, and he reckoned himself

among them. _Ciceri_ thereupon reminded him of _Volta_. This made

an impression upon the dying man, who declared that if _Volta_ be

seriously religious, and not only as a matter of convention, he

would consent to receive the Sacraments. The Canon then requested

_Volta_ to write a few lines. _Volta_ replied as follows: “I do

not understand how anybody can doubt my sincerity and constancy in

the religion which I profess, and which is that of Catholic,

Apostolic, Roman Church, wherein I was born and raised, and which

I have professed all my life, inwardly and outwardly.... Should

any misdemeanor on my part have prompted any one to suspect me of

unbelief, then I will declare, for the purpose of making

reparation ... that I always have believed this Holy Catholic

religion to be the only true and infallible one, and that I still

think so, and I thank our dear Lord incessantly for having given

me this belief, in which to live and to die is my resolution, in

the firm hope of gaining the eternal life. It is true, I

acknowledge this belief to be a gift of God, a supernatural

belief; yet, I have not neglected human means to fortify myself in

this belief, and to drive away all doubts that may arise to tempt

me. For this reason, I have studied the faith diligently in its

foundations, by reading apologetic and controversial writings,

weighing the reasons for and against; a way, which supplies the

strongest proof, and makes it most credible for the human reason

to such a degree, that any noble mind, not perverted by sins and

passions, cannot help embracing and loving it. I wish this

profession, for which I was asked and which I willingly make,

written and signed by my own hand, to be shown at will to any one,

because I am not ashamed of the Gospel. May my writing bear good

fruit.

_Alexander Volta._

MILAN, January 6th, 1815.

(_C. Grandi_, Alessandro Volta, 1899, 575.)”

He who, for the first time, is made aware of the religious confession of

the greatest natural scientists may perhaps be astonished. Hitherto, he

had heard little of the Christian mind of these men, but a great deal

about their alleged indifference for religion, and about their materialism

and atheism. Now, suddenly, he sees a large number of them to be the

enemies of atheism, many, indeed, to be zealous Christians.

This is due to the biographers: they dwell largely on the scientific

achievement of a man, likewise on his human qualities, but his religion is

often not mentioned at all. When, in 1888, a monument was erected to

_Ampère_ in his native city, Lyons, not a word in the speeches referred to

the fact that he was a faithful Catholic. Nay, more; on one of the books

seen on his monument is chiselled in bold letters the word “Encyclopédie.”

Those unaware of the facts would infer that _Ampère_ had been one of the

Encyclopædists. His actual relation to this infamous work was that he had

read it in his youth, but abhorred it in his later age.

The English physicist, _Faraday_ (died 1867), according to _Tyndall_ and

_Du Bois-Reymond_ the greatest experimentist of all times, was, like

_Volta_ and _Ampère_, of religious mind.

In a letter to a lady he wrote: “I belong to a small and despised

Christian sect, known by the name of Sandemanians. Our hope is

based upon the belief which is in Christ.” In 1847, he concluded

his lectures at the Royal Institution with the following words:

“In teaching us those things, our science should prompt us to

think of Him whose works they are.” At a later lecture, he

declared: “I have never encountered anything to cause a

contradiction between things within the scope of man, and the

higher things, relating to his future and unconceivable to

(unaided) human mind” (_Jones_, The Life and Letters of Faraday).

Of the same bent of mind was _Faraday’s_ fellow countryman, _Maxwell_

(died 1879), known to every one who has studied the development of the

theories of electricity. This ingenious theoretician of electrics,

professor of experimental physics at Cambridge, was deeply religious.

Every evening he led in the family prayer; he regularly attended divine

service, and partook of the monthly communion of his denomination. Those

more intimately acquainted with _Maxwell_ agree, that he was one of the

worthiest men they ever met.

Nothing could better illustrate his religious sentiment than the

splendid prayer found among his posthumous papers: “Almighty God,

Thou who hast created man after Thy image and hast given him a

living soul, that he should search Thee and rule over Thy

creatures, teach us to study the works by Thy hands that we may

subject the earth for our use, and strengthen our reason for Thy

service, and let us receive Thy holy word thus, that we may

believe in Him whom Thou hast sent us to give us the knowledge of

salvation and the forgiving of our sins, all of which we pray for

in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord”

(_Campbell-Garnett_, The Life of J. C. Maxwell).

_Maxwell’s_ devout mind is especially significant here, because, like

_Ampère_ and _Volta_, he occupied himself much with philosophical and

theological questions. Every Sunday upon return from church he is said to

have buried himself in his theological books.

Many others might be mentioned of English physicists of the past century,

who combined religious belief with great knowledge. The peculiar trait of

the English character to respect and preserve with piety the inherited

institutions of the past, as against radicalism and the craze for

innovation, manifests itself also in the absence of the immature and

frivolous juggling with the great truths of the Christian past, not

infrequently met with elsewhere. Let us mention but one more of England’s

great men who have died in recent years. In December, 1907, the papers

reported the death of _William Thomson_, latterly better known as _Lord

Kelvin_. He lived to the age of 83 years, up to his death incessantly busy

with scientific work. As early as 1855, _Helmholtz_ described him as “one

of the foremost mathematical physicists of Europe.(7)” The Berlin Academy

of Science expressed high praise and admiration in its address

felicitating _Thomson_ on his Golden Jubilee. Undoubtedly, he merited this

admiration also by stoutly defending from the viewpoint of science the

necessity of a Divine Creator.

“We do not know,” he wrote, “at what moment a creation of matter

or of energy fixed a beginning beyond which no speculation based

on mechanical laws is able to lead us. In exact mechanics, if we

were ever inclined to forget this barrier, we necessarily would be

reminded of it by the consideration that reasoning, resting

exclusively upon the law of mechanics, points to a time when the

earth must have been uninhabited, and it also teaches us that our

own bodies, like those of all living plants and animals, and

fossils, are organized forms of matter for which science can give

no other explanation than the will of a Creator, a truth, in

support of which geological history offers rich evidence” (On

Mechanical Antecedent of Motion, Heat and Light, 1884). “The only

contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology consists in the

absolute negation of an automatic beginning and automatic

continuance of life” (Addresses and Speeches).

On May 1, 1902, the Rev. Prof. _G. Henslow_, according to the

_London Times_, spoke at University College, before a big audience

with the President of the University as chairman, on the subject

“The Rationalism of To-day, an Examination of Darwinism.” On

conclusion of the speech the venerable octogenarian, _Lord

Kelvin_, arose and proposed a resolution of thanks to the speaker.

While fully subscribing to the fundamental ideas of Prof.

_Henslow’s_ lecture, _Lord Kelvin_ said, he could not assent to

the proposition that natural science neither affirms nor denies

the origin of life by a creative force. He stated that natural

science _does_, positively, assert a creative force. Science

forces every one to recognize a miracle within himself. That we

are living, and moving, and existing, is not due to dead matter,

but to a creating and directing force, and science forces us to

accept this assumption as a tenet of faith. _Lord Kelvin_

subsequently amplified these remarks in an article that appeared

in the _Nineteenth Century_, of June, 1903. It concludes with the

admonition, not to be afraid to think independently. “If you

reason sharply, you will be forced by science to believe in God,

who is the basis of all religion. You will find science to be, not

an opponent of religion, but a support” (_Times_, May 8 and 15,

1903).

Such were the views of those to whom, in the first place, the

establishment of natural science and its progress are due. It is not

science and strong reasoning that lead away from God, but the lack of true

science. _Bacon_ said: _Leviores gustus in philosophia movere fortasse

animum ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad Deum reducere_. Another

thing must be observed. Among those earnest men, earnest in the

investigation of nature, and earnest in the consideration of questions of

a supernatural life, there are many who made the religious question the

subject of mature study, and who were well acquainted with the objections

against religion and Christianity. But they cling to their religious

persuasion only the more firmly. We may be reminded of men like _Volta_,

_Cauchy_, _Ampère_, and _Maxwell_.

To speak of authorities, what comparison is there between these great

scientists and discoverers, and those who are satisfied with the general

assurance that “any one who has grasped the elements of natural sciences

must become a monist,” and “that the supernatural exists only in the brain

of the visionary and ignorant,” that, “in the same measure in which the

victorious progress of modern knowledge of nature surpasses the scientific

achievements of former centuries, the untenableness of all mystical views

of life that tend to harness the reason in the yoke of so-called

revelation has been made clear” (_Haeckel_), and who in such assurance

find perfect intellectual gratification. They recall an incident at the

Congress of English natural scientists, held at Belfast in 1874, when

_Tyndall_ delivered from the platform a materialistic lecture, and among

the audience sat _Maxwell_, his superior in scientific research, who put

down the lecture in doggerel rhyme, in a humorous vein, of course, but not

without deserved sarcasm.

We proceed on our way, trying to make haste, and omitting many names that

might be mentioned, limiting ourselves to the most prominent ones.

Among the chemists we name _Lavoisier_. A martyr to his science, he died

under the guillotine of the Revolution in 1794; he had remained true to

his Christian faith. The Swede, _J. Berzelius_ (died 1848), openly

professed his belief in God. _Thénard_ (died 1859), the discoverer of

boron, of a blue dye named after him, and of many other chemicals, was a

staunch Catholic. The pastor of St. Sulpice could testify at his funeral

as follows: “He attended church every Sunday, eyes and heart fixed on his

prayer-book, and on solemn Feast days he received Holy Communion.... With

_Baron Thénard_ one of the greatest benefactors of my poor people is gone”

(_Kneller_).

_Dumas_ (died 1884), who is esteemed by his pupil _Pasteur_ as the peer of

_Lavoisier_, was also a practical Catholic, as was his compatriot

_Chevreul_ (died 1889). This great man had the rare good fortune to be

present at his own centenary in 1886. At this great celebration he

received an address by the Berlin Academy, stating that his name had a

prominent place on the list of the great scientists who had carried the

scientific repute of France to all quarters of the globe. When, in view of

the mundane character of the celebration, the liberal press endeavoured to

rank him among the representatives of unbelieving science, and this

question being discussed in public, _Chevreul_ felt himself constrained to

proclaim his religious persuasion openly in a letter to _Count de

Montravel_, in which he said: “I am simply a scientist, but those who know

me, know also that I was born a Catholic, that I lead a Catholic life, and

that I want to die a Catholic” (Civilta Cattolica, 1891, 292).

Two Germans may conclude the list of chemists, _Schoenbein_ (died 1868)

and _J. Liebig_ (died 1873).

In his diary, “Menschen und Dinge,” 1885 (page 29), _Schoenbein_

writes: “There are still people who fancy in their limited mind

that, the deeper the human intellect penetrates the secrets of

nature, the more extensive its knowledge, the wider its conception

of the exterior world, the more it must forget the cause of all

things. Many have gone even so far as to assert that natural

science must lead to the denial of God. This view is without all

foundation. He, who contemplates with open eyes, daily and hourly,

the doings and workings of nature, will not only believe, but will

actually perceive, and be firmly convinced, that there is not the

smallest place in space where the divine does not reveal itself in

the most magnificent and admirable way.” And in a similar strain

_Liebig_ writes: “Indeed, the greatness and infinite wisdom of the

Creator of the world can be realized only by him who endeavours to

understand His ideas as laid down in that immense book,—nature, in

comparison to which everything that men otherwise know and tell of

Him, appears like empty talk” (Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung).

Now let us turn to the geographers. We merely mention _Ritter_ (died

1859), the man who raised geography to the dignity of a science; he was a

faithful Protestant, while biassed against the Catholic Church. In spite

of this, a Catholic historian, _J. Janssen_, has sketched his life, in

which we read: “Firm in his belief in the living God, and in the Incarnate

Son of God, His Redeemer, he furnishes a clear and convincing proof that

this faith, far from being a contradiction to natural science ... alone

enables man to acquire an extensive and deep knowledge of nature.” We give

only passing notice to the founder of scientific crystallography, _R.

Hauy_ (died 1822), who was a dutiful Catholic priest. The geologists now

will get a hearing.

Among them we meet, in the first place, the noted geologist and

zoölogist, _Cuvier_ (died 1832), a faithful Protestant: also the

foremost French geologist of his time, _L. De Beaumont_ (died

1874), “a Christian in all things and a steadfast Christian ...

which he remained through his whole life;” so _Dumas_ testifies of

him in his obituary (Comptes Rendus, 1874). Then there is _J.

Barrande_, the untiring explorer of the antediluvian strata of

Bohemia. He came in 1830 to Bohemia with the banished royal

family, as _Chambord’s_ teacher, and died 1883 at Frohsdorf near

Vienna. He was a pious Catholic. The volumes of his works are

nearly all dated on Catholic feasts. The recently deceased French

geologist, _A. De Lapparent_, was a practical Catholic, and such

were the two Belgian geologists, _J. d’Omalius_ (died 1875), and

_A. Dumont_ (died 1857), to both of whom Belgium owes its

geological exploration. The English geologists, _Buckland_ (died

1856), _Hitchcock_ (died 1864), and _A. Sedgwick_ (died 1872),

were ministers of the English Church. _J. Dwight Dana_ (died

1895), the foremost geologist of North America, begins his

celebrated text-book of geology with a homage to his Creator, and

concludes it by paying tribute to Holy Writ. _W. Dawson_ (died

1899) the worthy geological explorer of his native land, Canada,

published several apologetic dissertations on the Bible and

Nature. A kindred sentiment animated the German scientists,

_Bischof_ (died 1870), _Quenstedt_ (died 1898), the geologist of

Suabia _Pfaff_ (died 1886), _Schafhæutl_ (died 1890), and the

equally pious as learned Swiss geologist _O. Heer_ (died 1883).

They all have much to say about the greatness of their Creator,

but not a word of any insolvable contradictions between the Bible

and geologic research.

As a last division of an imposing phalanx, there are now the biologists

and physiologists. Modern biology, as the science of life, has in the eyes

of many accomplished the bold deed of demonstrating the superfluity of a

soul distinct from matter. Claim is made that it has sufficiently

explained the sensitive and mental life by the sole agency of physical and

chemical forces, and thus to have removed the boundary between live and

dead matter. It is said, further, that biology in conjunction with zoölogy

and botany has furnished proof that the wonderful organic forms of life

may be explained by purely natural causes, without having to assume as an

ultimate cause the act of a higher intelligence; that a never ceasing

evolution is the sole ultimate cause,—creation is made superfluous by

evolution. Biology is thus claimed to have refuted the old dualism of soul

and matter, of world and God, and to have awarded the palm to monism.

Are the eminent representatives of this science really the materialists

and monists they would have to be, if all this were true? The foremost

physiologist of the nineteenth century was _J. Müller_ (died 1858), buried

in the Catholic cemetery at Berlin. He was a decided opponent of

materialism; he not only contended for the existence of a spiritual soul,

but also for an immaterial vital force in plants. _Th. Schwann_ (died

1882) is the founder of the cellular theory. In the year 1839 he accepted

a call to take the chair of anatomy at the Catholic University of Louvain.

One of the most prominent physiologists of the nineteenth century was _A.

Volkmann_ (died 1877). He was a stout champion of the spirituality and

immortality of the soul, of purposive cause in animated beings, and an

opponent of _Darwin’s_ theory. _G. J. Mendel_ (died 1884) became by his

work on _Experimenting with Hybrid Plants_ the pioneer of the modern

theory of hereditary transmission, adopted by modern biology; and

scientists like _H. de Vries_, _Correns_, _Tschermak_, and _Bateson_

followed his lead. “His important laws of hereditary transmission are the

best so far offered by the research in this field” (_Muckermann_,

Grundriss der Biologie). He was a Catholic priest, and the abbot of the

Augustinian Monastery at Old-Brünn. _Karl von Vierordt_ (died 1884) is

well known by his “Manual of Physiology,” still in demand as a reference

book in the libraries of universities. In 1865 he delivered a speech at

the Tübingen University on the unity of science, concluding with this

appeal to the students: “Until your religious notions become clear by a

mature insight, trust in the well-meant assurance that the belief in the

divinity of the religion of Jesus has not been put falsely into your

heart. True piety is equally remote from narrow pietism as from

freethinking indifference; it leaves to reason its full rights, but it

also assures to us the faculty to be aware, in joyful confidence in

Almighty Providence, of an immaterial and for us eternal destiny.” _Ch.

Ehrenberg_ (died 1876) is the explorer of the world of little things: of

infusoria and protozoa. He did not countenance _Haeckel’s_ materialism nor

_Darwin’s_ denial of teleology: to him they were fantastic theories and

romances. A friend of his, and of the same mind, was _K. von Martius_, who

admired God’s wisdom in the wonders of the world of vegetation. Long

before his death he ordered his burial dress to be made of white cloth

embroidered with a green cross,—“a cross because I am a Christian, and

green in honour of botany.” Another renowned name may be mentioned, that

of the Austrian anatomist _J. Hyrtl_ (died 1894).

In the years when materialism was flourishing, _Hyrtl_ was

painfully grieved to see science fall into disrepute through the

fault of individuals. He gave vent to his indignation on the

occasion of the fifth centenary of the Vienna University (1864),

when, having been elected Rector, and being considered the

greatest celebrity at that college, he delivered his inaugural

speech on the materialistic tendency of our times. Summing up he

said: “I am at a loss how to explain what scientific grounds there

are to defend and fortify a revival of the old materialistic views

of an _Epicurus_ and a _Lucretius_, and to endeavour to insure to

it a permanent rule.... Its success is due to the boldness of its

assertion and to the prevailing spirit of the time, which

popularizes teachings of this sort the more willingly, the more

danger they seem to entail for the existing order of things.” It

was the same protest made some years later by another famous

scientist against “the dangerous opinion that there were dogmas of

natural science in inimical opposition to the highest ideals of

the human mind.” He stated that “it would be a desirable reward

for the efforts of our foremost naturalists to erect with the aid

of anthropology a barrier to this error which is so demoralizing

for the people” (_J. Ranke_, Der Mensch, 1894).

_Hyrtl’s_ speech at once aroused a storm of indignation in the

liberal press of Vienna, and the great scientist, until then

honoured and extolled, became the object of denunciation and

sneer. Thus was the freedom of science understood in those

circles.

_Haeckel_ was much vexed by two fellow scientists, _M. von Baer_

(died 1876) and _G. J. Romanes_ (died 1894). _Baer_ was prominent

in the science of evolution. He was led to theism by his studies.

_Romanes_, a friend of _Darwin_, had been an adherent of

materialism, but through serious study he returned to the belief

in God and Christianity. His posthumous work, “Thoughts on

Religion, a scientist’s religious evolution from Atheism to

Christianity,” furnishes a brilliant voucher thereof. _Romanes’s_

conversion was a sad blow for _Haeckel_. However, he constructed

an explanation to give himself comfort. “When the news of this

conversion,” he wrote, “was first circulated by a friend of

_Romanes_, a zealous English Churchman, the assumption suggested

itself to me that it was all a mystification and invention, for it

is known that the fanatical champions of ecclesiastical

superstition have never hesitated to pervert the truth to save

their dogma. Later on, however, it was found that it was really an

instance (analogous to the case of old _Baer_) of one of those

interesting psychological metamorphoses with which I have dealt in

Chapter 6 of my book. _Romanes_ was in his last years a sick man.

It was pathological debility. The first condition, however, of an

unbiassed, pure conception of reason is the normal condition of

its organ. His phronema was not in a normal condition.” _Haeckel_

will have to rank among those whose phronema is not in a normal

condition a good many other natural scientists; indeed, most of

those of higher standing.

Every one knows the celebrated name of _Louis Pasteur_ (died 1895), the

discoverer of various bacteria, of whom _Huxley_ says that his manifold

inventions have repaid to French industry the five billion francs

indemnity which France had to pay to Germany after the war. It is equally

well known that _Pasteur_ was to his death a staunch Catholic. “As his

soul departed, he held in his hands a small cross of brass, and his last

words were the confession of faith and hope” (La Science Catholique, X,

1896, 182). The story is told that one of his pupils asked him how he

could be so religious after all his thinking and studying. _Pasteur_

replied: “Just because I have thought and studied, I remained religious

like a man of Brittany, and had I thought and studied still more, I would

be as religious as a woman of Brittany” (Revue des Questions

Scientifiques, 1896, 385).

In the year 1859 great commotion was caused in the world of

thought by the appearance of _Darwin’s_ book on the “Origin of

Species.” It stated that the various species had gradually evolved

from most simple, primordial forms, and this by natural selection;

not, therefore, in the sense that the Creator had put the laws of

evolution into nature, but that in the struggle for existence the

survival of the fittest was the result of natural selection. Soon

it was claimed that man, too, in his rational life, was the result

of an evolution from animal stages; indeed, the whole universe had

arisen by the survival of the accidentally fittest. Evolution was

to be substituted for creation. In Germany, _E. Haeckel_ was the

man who considered it the task of his life to spread those ideas

as the established result of science. In our own time a belated

high tide is sweeping over the intellectual lowlands.

_Darwin_ himself was an agnostic; to begin with, he lacked all

religious training; his mother had died early, his father was a

free-thinker, and his education at school was rationalistic. The

doubt of all higher truths, and finally, according to his own

confession, the doubt respecting the power of reason, were his

companions through life. Yet he confesses: “... I never was an

atheist in the sense that I would deny the existence of God. I

think, in general (and more so the older I grow), but not at all

times, agnostic would be a more accurate description of my state

of mind” (_F. Darwin_, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, I,

304). Remarkable, however, is the following passage at the end of

_Darwin’s_ chief work: “It is a great belief, indeed, of the

Creator having breathed the embryo of all life surrounding us into

a few forms, or in but one single form, and an endless row of most

beautiful, most wonderful forms having evolved and are still

evolving from such a simple beginning, while our planet, following

the laws of gravitation, has steadily revolved in its circle.”

What _Darwin_ was lacking in a high degree was a philosophical

training of the mind.

In itself the _theory of evolution_, which asserts the variability

of species of animals and plants, is by no means opposed to

religious truths. It neither includes a necessity of assuming the

origin of the human soul from the essentially lower animal soul,

nor is it an atheistic theory. On the contrary, such an evolution

would most clearly certify to God’s wisdom in laying such a

wonderful basis for the progress of nature, provided this theory

could be proved by scientific facts; indeed, for an evolution

within narrow limits, circumstantial evidence is not lacking. That

there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the

fundamental tenets of Christian Creed is sufficiently shown by the

representatives of the theory. _Lamarck_ (died 1829) and

_Saint-Hilaire_ (died 1844), both of them representatives of the

theory of evolution long before _Darwin_, believed in God. There

were, prior to _Darwin_, two celebrated Catholic scientists, to

wit, _Ampère_ and _d’Omalius_, who had decidedly taken the part of

_Saint-Hilaire_ in his controversy with _Cuvier_. And also after

_Darwin_, a number of Christian and Catholic scientists have

contended for the idea of evolution, as, for instance, the pious

Swiss geologist, _Heer_; also _Quenstedt_, _Volkmann_, and the

American geologist, _Ch. Lyell_. More recently Catholic scientists

have expressed themselves in favour of the theory of evolution;

for instance, the noted zoölogist, _E. Wasmann_, and the

geologists _Lossen_ and _W. Waagen_, both of whom had to bring

bitter sacrifices in their career on account of their Catholic

faith.

Mature Science Respects Faith.

There have now passed in review the great natural scientists of the past,

those living at the present time we shall leave to the judgment of the

future. Is it true, then, that the foremost representatives of natural

science had the conviction that science and faith are incompatible? No! On

the contrary, most of them, and the greatest of them, have professed the

fundamental truths of religion, or have even been devout Christians

themselves.

“Theism in natural science, or, if you prefer, in natural

philosophy,” so says a modern scientist, “rests upon the basis of

a fundamental view which an old formula has clothed in words as

simple as they are sublime: ‘I believe in God, the Almighty

Creator of Heaven and of Earth.’ This confession does not cling to

theistic scientists like an egg-shell from the time of

unsophisticated childhood faith; it is the result of their entire

scientific thought and judgment. This conviction has been

professed by the most discerning natural scientists of all ages”

(_J. Reinke_, Naturwissenschaft und Religion).

Still it cannot be denied that some of the great scientists were of

different mind, men like _R. von Virchow_, _Tyndall_, _A. von Humboldt_,

_Du Bois-Reymond_. Nor shall it be disputed that, at the present time, a

large number of men of average learning are on the side of unbelief.

However, it must not be forgotten that unbelief is more frequently

pretended to the outside world for appearance’s sake than it really dwells

in the heart. This is, to a great extent, due to human respect, to public

opinion, and the prevailing tendency of science. Then again, it must be

remembered, that religiously minded scientists are often crowded out from

the schools of science, with the natural result that the others

predominate. Another point to be borne in mind is that the atheistic

representatives of science are doing more to get themselves talked about;

they are seeking more diligently the attention of public opinion. Men like

_Tyndall_, _Vogt_, _Moleschott_, _Haeckel_, are known in larger circles

than men like _Faraday_, _Maxwell_, _Ampère_, _Volta_, _Pasteur_, who,

engaged in serious work, gave no time to making propaganda, as the others

did by lecturing and popular writing for materialistic and monistic views

in the name of science; they had no desire for the limelight of attention,

and for posing as personified science.

All this does not change the fact that a very large number, indeed the

largest number, of natural scientists of first rank were believers in God,

or of pious, Christian mind. And that is of the greater importance. To do

pioneer work in the field of science, to give impetus, to make progress,

requires a penetrating and, at the same time, an independent mind, one

that can rise above conventional commonplace. The fact that such men have

largely been very religious, that they never belittled religion, weighs

much more in the balance than the disparagement of inferior minds.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

These, then, are the often-cited witnesses for the incompatibility of

science and faith. While only taken from the province of natural science,

they may in our case be deemed representative of science in general. For

natural science is generally regarded the most exact of all, and as the

one which, more than any other, has the scientific spirit said to be

incompatible with faith, and which, by many, is believed to have brought

about in the modern world of thought the irreconcilable conflict between

faith and science. This is not so! Such antagonism does _not_ exist. It

cannot exist, because it is certain from the outset that both faith and

science unfold the truth. Truth, however, can never be in conflict with

truth. Nor has that antagonism ever existed historically in any of the

great representatives of science. This antagonism is fictitious, it is

false in its very essence. It is fabricated, either by distorting faith

into a blind belief of absurd things, or else by distorting the human

faculty of conception into infallible omniscience, or, the other extreme,

by denying its faculty for a higher perception.

Faith has nothing to fear from a mature science that has arrived at the

conviction of its cognitions, nor has it anything to fear from the great

intellects who reason profoundly and seriously. But it has to fear

mock-science and ignorance, and those small and superficial minds that aim

at stretching their pseudo-knowledge to a gigantic infallibility.

THIRD SECTION. THE LIBERAL FREEDOM OF RESEARCH.

The Yoke of the Sun.

The gifted Danish writer and convert, _J. Jörgensen_, tells a parable

which is pregnant with thought. “In the midst of a large rye-field,” he

relates, “there stood a tall poplar, with other trees standing nearby. One

day the poplar turned to the other trees and plants, and thus began to

speak: ‘Sisters and brothers! To us, the glorious tribe of plants, belongs

the earth, and everything upon it is dependent on us. We fertilize and

feed ourselves, while beasts and men are fed and clothed by us. Indeed,

the earth itself feeds upon our decaying leaves, upon our boughs and

branches. There is only one power in the world our existence and growth is

said to depend on; I refer to the Sun. I purposely used the words, “is

said,” because I am sure that we do not depend on the Sun. This doctrine

of sunlight being a necessity and a benefit to our plant life is nothing

but a superstition, which at last ought to give way to enlightenment.’

Here the poplar paused. From some old oaks and elms in the neighbouring

grove there came signs of disapproval, but the inconstant rye-field

muttered assent. Thus encouraged and raising its voice the poplar

continued: ‘I know well that there is a musty faction amongst us which

clings obstinately to obsolete views. However, I have confidence in the

independence of the younger generation of plants. They will realize the

baseness of continuing to do homage to an absurd superstition. Our

freeborn heads shall never bow to a yoke, not even to the yoke of the Sun.

Down, therefore, with that yoke! And free from restraint there will arise

a free and beautiful generation that will astonish the world.’ The poplar

paused for the second time, and now the applause was long and loud, the

fields cheered and the groves gave boisterous applause, so that the

disapproval of a few old trees could not be heard. The following days

looked upon an odd spectacle. At daybreak, when the Sun ascended and cast

its first rays over the landscape, the flowers closed their cups and

denied admission, as if asleep; the leaves no longer turned toward the

Sun. But when the dispenser of warmth and light had gone down behind the

hills, the gayly coloured flowers opened in the dim starlight, as if now

the time had come for them to grow and blossom.

“Alas, how sad was the fate of these poor rebels! The rye soon began to

languish till it lay prone on the ground; green leaves turned yellow, the

flowers drooped, faded and withered. Then the plants began to grumble at

the poplar. There it stood, its leaves a seared yellow. ‘What simpletons

you are, brothers and sisters!’ it said. ‘Can’t you see that now you are

much more like yourselves than under the rule of the Sun? Now you are

refined, independent beings, well rid of the sluggish health of yore.’

There were some who still believed what the poplar said. ‘We are

independent, we are unfettered,’ they clamoured, till the last spark of

life was gone. Not long after the poplar, too, stood there with its

branches bared,—it had died. The farmers, however, complained about the

failing of the crop, and consoled themselves by hoping for better success

the next year.”

A parable of deep meaning! It may serve as an illustration for the facts

stated, and for those yet to be dealt with.

According to the Christian view, man is dependent on his Creator, from

whom he receives life and light, and, in the same way, his mind depends on

truth, by which it lives as the plants live, by the light and the warmth

of the sun. To many generations this was self-evident, and withal they

felt themselves free, because they looked for the freedom only of the

dependent creature. And, keeping within these bounds, they had a cheerful

existence in the happy possession of their faith, contented and serene in

the possession of truth; their higher spiritual life throve and

flourished, promoted by the Eternal Giver of light and warmth, who held

out to them the prospect of completing their mental life in the

contemplation of His eternal truth.

What the fathers deemed self-evident has now become a problem to their

sons. What to their fathers was lofty and revered, the things to which

they ascribed their ennoblement, have become to the sons an obstacle to

free development. They have forgotten what they are. They demand

independence and freest realization of their own individuality, in which

they see the sole source of greatness and progress. In every dependence

they perceive a hampering of their natural development.

We have in previous chapters become acquainted with this _liberal

freedom_, particularly in reasoning and in scientific research, the child

of the philosophy of humanitarianism and subjectivism, the philosophy that

emancipates man from God’s rule, from the immutable religious truths, and

which sees in this emancipation perfect freedom. We have listened to the

arguments in behalf of this position, especially arguments against the

duty to believe. All that we have set forth hitherto was to prove that

such a freedom is not required. In the faithful adherence to God’s

revelation and to His Church there is no degradation of reason, an

exaltation rather; because to join in the eternal reason of its Creator is

not bondage but a privilege.

We proceed. We shall demonstrate that this freedom is not only not

required, but that it is entirely untenable and ruinous; that it is

especially so because it is urged and demanded in the name of truth and

proper order, in the name of uplift of human intellectual life, and of

progress towards real enlightenment. We shall see that this freedom is not

a liberation from mean fetters, but simply a revolt against the natural

order, an apostasy from God and the supernatural which one shuns. Hence,

not the natural and orderly development of the human individual, but a

principle of negation under the garb of freedom, the severance of man from

the sources of his greatness and strength, the perversion of true science;

not the only admissible scientific method, but an altogether unscientific

method. We shall show that it becomes thereby the principle of mental

pauperization and decay, a principle of mental decadence, which in the

sphere of idealism will reduce mankind to beggary. Thereby public

testimony is given that in the midst of mankind there is needed an

intelligent force that preserves, with conscientious earnestness and

unyielding firmness, the intellectual inheritance of mankind, the ideal

treasures of truth and of morality.

Chapter I. Free From The Yoke Of The Supernatural.

Ignoramus, We Ignore.

The liberal principle of research rests on the basis of the humanitarian

view of the world, which makes man autonomous, and causes him to turn his

eyes from above and downward, and to fix them upon his earthly existence.

To remain true to its own idea, this liberal science will feel the

necessity to sever itself gradually from the restraining powers of the

world beyond, and to shun the thought of God and of His divine influence

and supremacy over the world and human life. It must resent such truths as

a burdensome yoke that oppresses human freedom.

And to this thought it remains faithful, if not in all its

representatives, then at any rate in a good many of them. With unremitting

persistency it enforces in all its domains the demand: _Science must not

reckon with supernatural factors_. Ignoramus is its watchword, “we do not

know it” in the sense of its usual agnosticism, but “we ignore it” in the

spirit of the impulse which dreads the loss of its freedom through higher

powers. Creation and miracles, divine revelation and the God-imposed duty

of belief, it does not know. A moral law, as given by God, does not exist

for this science. It wants nothing to do with a religion that worships a

personal God, much less with a supernatural religion, with mysteries,

miracles, and grace. It praises all the higher that modern religion of

sentiment, without dogmas and religious duties, which sovereign man

creates for himself, a poetical adornment of his individuality, a religion

he need not ask what he owes it, but rather what it offers him. All

connection with the world beyond is cut off. Man is now free in his own

house. We shall show this in detail, by the testimony chiefly of men

generally accepted as foremost representatives of modern science. We do

not assert, however, that all representatives of modern science belong

here. Far be it from us to sit in judgment as to the good intentions of

the champions of liberal science. We know very well that an education

indifferent to religion, early habitual association with the ideas of a

sceptical, naturalistic philosophy, the acquisition of prejudices and

unsolved difficulties, a continuous stay in an intellectual atmosphere

foreign and inimical to religious belief—all this, we well understand,

will gradually rob the mind of all inclination and unbiassed judgment for

religious truth, and thus make for apostasy from religion. Nor do we

assert that the idea of God and Christianity are extinct in the hearts of

the representatives of liberal science, but we do assert that their

_science_ no longer wants to know God and His true religion, that only too

often it is in the grip of a Theophobia, which slinks past God and His

works, with its eyes designedly averted.

At the same time the _unprepossession of this science_ will be made clear.

“A feeling of degradation pervades the German university circles,” so the

learned _Mommsen_ expressed himself some years ago when Strassburg was to

get a Catholic chair of history; therefore a Catholic who takes his

Catholic view of the world as his guide cannot be unprepossessed, hence

cannot be a true scientist. We have become used to this reproach;

nevertheless it is very painful to a Catholic, especially when he devotes

his life to scientific work. The other side claims very emphatically to

have a monopoly on unprepossession and truthfulness; it gives most solemn

assurances of not desiring anything but the truth, of serving the truth

alone, with persevering unselfishness, unaffected by disposition and party

interest, and that it has its unbiassed spiritual eye turned only to the

chaste sunlight of truth. Hence, we may be permitted to inquire whether

these assurances square with the facts. As they demand belief, we may also

demand proofs; and if those assurances are accompanied by sharp

accusations, the accused will have even a greater right to examine the

deeds and records of this assertive science.

What about the unprepossession of liberal science, especially in the

province of philosophy and religion? It cannot be our intention to explore

the whole territory in every direction. We shall keep to the central and

main road, the road to which chiefly lead all other roads of life, we mean

the attitude of this school of research towards the world beyond. We find

this attitude to be one of persistent ignoring! Science cannot acknowledge

the supernatural; this presumption, unproved and impossible of proof, it

never loses sight of, it is even made a scientific principle, which is

called:

The Principle of Exclusive Natural Causation.

This principle demands that everything belonging to nature in its widest

sense, consequently all objects and events of irrational nature and of

human life, must be explained by natural causes only; supernatural factors

must not be brought in. To assume an interposition by God, in the form of

creation, miracle, or revelation, is unscientific; he who does so is not a

true scientist. A presumption, a mandate of truly stupendous enormity! How

can it be proved that there is no God, that creation, miracles, the

supernatural origin of religion, are impossible things? And if they are

possible, why should it be forbidden to make use of them in explaining

facts which cannot otherwise be explained?

However, it is readily admitted that the principle is merely a postulate,

an _unproved_ presumption.

“The postulate of exclusive natural causation tells us that

natural events can have their causes only in other natural events,

and not in conditions lying outside of the continuity of natural

causality”; so _W. Wundt_. This is a “postulate, accepted by

modern natural science partly tacitly, partly by open profession.”

“Even where an exact deduction is not possible, natural science

nevertheless acts under this supposition. It never will consider a

natural event to be causally explained, if it is attempted to

derive that event from other conditions than preceding natural

events.”

Professor _Jodl_ protests against alliance with the Catholic

Church, for the reason that the latter does not acknowledge the

fundamental presumption of all scientific research, namely, the

uninterrupted natural causation, and because the Church is

essentially founded on supernatural presumptions. Prof. _A.

Messer_ thinks he has proved sufficiently the untenableness of the

Catholic faith by the simple appeal to this presumption: “Natural

sciences rest upon the presumption that everything is causally

determined. This means, that the same causes must be followed by

the same effects, and all natural events take their course

according to invariable laws. It is against this presumption that

the Church exacts a belief in miracles, in immediate divine

manifestations, not explainable by natural causes. _God_ is not a

causal factor in the eyes of natural science, because everything,

and for that very reason, nothing, could be explained through

Him.” We see that the principle is expressly admitted to be a mere

presumption. “I concede readily,” says _Paulsen_, “that the law of

natural causation is not a proven fact, but a demand or

presumption with which reason approaches the task of explaining

natural phenomena. But this postulate ... is the hard-fought

victory of long scientific effort.... Gradually there were

eliminated from the course of nature demoniacal influence and the

miraculous intervention of God, and in their stead the idea of

natural causation was installed.”

It is merely another expression for the same thing if one calls, with

_Paulsen_, the unbroken causal connection “the fundamental presumption of

all our natural research”; or concludes, with _A. Drews_, that the

assumption of a transcendental God, beyond the visible, and in causal

relation to the world, destroys the universal conformity to laws in the

world, the self-evident presumption of all scientific knowledge; or one

may say, with _F. Steudel_, “The theory of unbroken causal connection has

become the fundamental presupposition of all philosophical explanation of

world happenings. This finally disposes of a transcendental God, together

with his empiric correlative, the miracle, as a philosophical explanation

of the world.” The same result is achieved by declaring evolution from

natural factors as the universal world-law.

“_I Know not God the Father, Almighty Creator of Heaven and of Earth_”

With inexorable persistency this principle is now applied wherever science

meets with God and the world beyond. Hence, let us proceed on our way and

halt at some points to watch this science at work.

The unbiassed reasoning of the mind shows that this world, limited and

finite, in all its phenomena accidental and perishable, cannot have in

itself the cause of its existence, hence, that it demands a supernatural

creative cause. This solution of the question is by no means demonstrated

by liberal science as untenable, it is simply declined.

“Natural science, once for all, has not the least occasion to

assume a supernatural act of creation”; this we are told by the

famous historian of materialism, _F. A. Lange_. “To fall back upon

explanations of this sort amounts always to straying from

scientific grounds, which not only is not permissible in a

scientific investigation, but should never enter into

consideration.” And _L. Plate_ states: “A creation of matter we

cannot assume, nor would such an assumption be any explanation at

all; at most, it would be tantamount to exchanging one question

mark for another. We natural scientists are modest enough, as

matters now stand, to forego a further solution of the question.”

They will subscribe to _Du Bois-Reymond’s_ “ignoramus” rather than

assume the only solution of the question, an act of creation. This

scientist, asking himself the question, from where the

world-matter received its first impulse, argues: “Let us try to

imagine a primordial condition, where matter had not yet been

influenced by any cause, and we arrive at the conclusion that

matter an infinite time ago was inactive, and equally distributed

in infinite space. Since a supernatural impulse does not fit into

our theory of the universe, an adequate cause for the first action

is lacking.”

Thus they frankly violate the scientific method that demands acceptance of

the explanation demonstrated as necessary, and violate it only for the

reason to dodge the acknowledgment of a Creator. This is not science, but

politics.

But let us ask, Why should it be against science to reckon with

supernatural factors? Is it because we cannot disclose with certainty the

other world? Are they not aware that such a principle is opposed by the

conviction of all mankind, that always held these conceptions to be the

highest, and therefore not to be considered illusions? Do they not see,

moreover, how they involve themselves in flagrant contradictions? Does not

science by means of its laws of reasoning, especially on the principle of

causality, constantly infer invisible causes from visible facts? From

physical-chemical facts ether and physical atoms, which no man has ever

seen, are deduced: from falling stones and the movement of astral bodies

is inferred a universal gravitation, undemonstrable by experience; from an

anonymous letter is deduced an author. The astronomer deduces from certain

facts that fixed stars must have dark companions, visible to no one; from

disturbances in the movements of Uranus _Leverrier_ found by calculation

the existence and location of Neptune, then not as yet discovered. Hence,

what does it mean: “to fall back upon explanations of this sort always

amounts to straying away from scientific ground”? Let us imagine a noble

vessel on the high seas to have become the victim of a catastrophe. It

lies now at the bottom of the sea. Fishes come from all sides and stop

musingly before the strange visitor. Whence did this come? Was it made out

of water? Impossible! Did it creep up from the bottom of the sea? No! At

last a fish reasons: “What we see here has undoubtedly come down to us

from a higher world, far above us, and invisible to us.” The speech meets

with approval. But another fish objects: “Nonsense! To fall back upon

explanations of this sort always amounts to straying away from the

scientific grounds on which we fish must stand. We cannot assume such a

world to exist, because this would offend against the first principle of

our science, the principle of the exclusive natural causation of sea and

water.” With these words the speaker departs, wagging his tail, his speech

having been received with stupefaction rather than with understanding.

To this philosophy may be applied the word of the Apostle: “Beware lest

any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. ii. 8). No, it is

not the spirit of true science that opposes the belief in supernatural

factors, but it is the desertion of the traditions and the spirit of a

better science. To the representatives of paganism, to _Plato_ and others,

the highest goal of human quest of truth was to find God and to worship

Him. For the great leaders in recent natural science, _Copernicus_,

_Kepler_, _Newton_, _Linné_, _Boyle_,_ Volta_, _Faraday_, and _Maxwell_,

the highest achievement was to point to God’s wisdom in the wonderful

works of nature; their science ended in prayer. A principle of unbroken

natural causation, as a boycott of the Deity, was to them not a postulate

of science but an abomination. They were carried by a conviction expressed

by a later scientist, _W. Thomson_, in the following words: “Fear not to

be independent thinkers! If you think vigorously enough, you will be

forced by science to believe in a God, Who is the basis of all religion”;

and expressed by _R. Mayer_ in the following words: “True philosophy must

not and cannot be anything else but the propædeutics of the Christian

religion.”

But let us proceed. We have before us an astonishing _order_, we behold

uncounted wonders of well-designed purpose in the world. The question

suggests itself: Whence this Order? The watch originates from the

intelligence of a maker, an accident could not have produced it; hence

also the great world-machine must have had an intelligent maker. This is

the logic of unbiassed reason. But the principles of liberal research

object to the acceptance of this explanation. What is theirs?

There have been some scientists endeavouring to discover the

purposeless in nature, and they have gleaned various things.

_Haeckel_ invented for them the name Dysteleologists; and this is

now the name they go by. Why the destruction of so many living

embryos? What is the purpose of pain, of the vermiform appendix?

“To what purpose is the immense belt of desert extending through

both large continents of the Old World? Could the Sahara not have

been avoided?... Indeed, numerous forms of life we cannot look at

but with repugnance and horror; for instance, the parasitical

beings.” ... (_F. Paulsen_). Hence the order claimed for the world

does not exist, on the contrary, “it is beyond doubt that the most

essential means of nature is of a kind which can only be put on a

level with the blindest accident” (_F. A. Lange_). But they do not

feel satisfied with this. They feel that even if all these things

were actually purposeless, they would amount only to a few drops

in the immense ocean of order which still has to be explained. At

most, they would form but a few typographical errors in an

otherwise ingenious book,—errors that evidently are no proof that

the whole book is a mass of nonsense and not dictated by reason.

There appears to them, like a rescuing plank in a shipwreck, _Darwin’s_

Natural Selection. The artistic forms in the kingdom of plants and animals

arose, says _Darwin_, by the fact that, among numerous seemingly tentative

formations, there were some useful organs or their rudiments which

survived in the struggle for existence and became hereditary in the

offspring, while others disappeared. It was seen very soon, and it is even

better understood to-day, that this enormous feat of “natural selection”

is contrary to the facts, and would be, above all, an incredible accident.

Nevertheless _Darwin_ has become the rescuing knight for many who became

alarmed about the threatening Supernaturalism.

_Du Bois-Reymond_ speaks very frankly: “Albeit, in holding to this

theory we may feel like a man kept from drowning only by holding

firmly to a plank just strong enough to keep him afloat. But when

we have to choose between a plank and death, the preference will

decidedly be with the plank.” The same idea is expressed somewhat

more gracefully by _W. Ostwald_: “That the quite complicated

problem concerning the purposiveness of organism loses its

character of a riddle, at least in principle, and assumes the

aspect of a scientific task, all by virtue of this simple thought

... is a gain that cannot be sufficiently appreciated.” With

vehement plainness _H. Spitzer_ maintains: “Purposiveness in

nature, which was feared by positive research like a ghost,

because it really seemed only to be due to the intervention of

ghosts in the course of the world, has now been traced by _Darwin_

to its origin from natural causes, and he thereby made it a fit

object for the science that is at home only in the sphere of

natural causes.” “To the height of this point of view,” _D. F.

Strauss_ boasts, “we have been led by modern natural research in

_Darwin_.”(8)

At any rate one thing is settled: “The theological explanation

must be rejected,” as _Plate_ puts it. “It sees in adaptation the

proof for the love and kindness of a Creator, who has ordered all

organisms most conformable to their purpose. Natural Science

cannot accept such an explanation.”

Is this the boasted spirit of truthfulness, which desires only the

truth,—but is evading it persistently? Is this that unbiassed eye that

seeks only the truth? Truly, it seems to be unsound, since it cannot bear

the rays of truth. Let us go to another workshop of liberal science. It is

known now that our earth has once been a ball of glowing fluid, with a

temperature in which no living being could exist. Consequently the latter

must have appeared at a later stage of evolution. As a fact, palæontology

does not show any remnants of organisms in the lower strata of the earth.

Now again a question suggests itself to the scientist, _Whence did the

first life come from?_ We have the choice of only two explanations: either

it has risen by itself, out of unorganic, dead matter, or it was produced

by the hand of a Creator: either by _generatio aequivoca_ or the act of

creation. Now there has never been observed a _generatio aequivoca_, as is

testified to by natural science itself, and never has it been accomplished

in the laboratory. Therefore, inasmuch as the natural laws of olden times

cannot have been any different from those of the present, there has never

been a primordial genesis. Do they perhaps give the Creator his due here,

where the case is so obvious? Let us see.

The noted zoölogist, _R. Hertwig_, writes: “Inasmuch as there has

doubtless been a time when the prevailing temperature of our globe

made any life impossible, there must have been a time when life on

it arose either by an act of creation or by primordial genesis.

If, conformable to the spirit of natural sciences, we are relying

only on natural forces for an explanation of natural phenomena,

then we are necessarily led to the hypothesis of primordial

genesis,” although it contradicts all experience. But the

deduction is only brought forth as a “logical postulate”: there

“must” be such genesis after creation is eliminated. “We natural

scientists say,” states _Plate_, “that all living beings must have

originated some time in former geological periods ... from dead,

unorganic matter; to assume a creation would be no explanation at

all, exactly as it would be no explanation to assume the creation

of matter.” Which philosophy teaches that it is not an explanation

of a fact to assume for it the only reasonable cause? But just

this cause they do not want. _Virchow_ says in this respect: “If I

do not wish to assume a creative act, if I desire to explain the

matter in my way, then it is clear that I must resort to

_generatio aequivoca_. _Tertium non datur._ There is nothing else

left, if one once has said: ‘I do not accept creation, but I want

an explanation of it.’ If this is the first thesis, the second

thesis is, ergo, I accept the _generatio aequivoca_. _But we have

no actual proof of it._” Hence _Haeckel_ only follows the lead of

others when he writes: “We admit that this process (_primordial

genesis_) must remain a pure hypothesis, as long as it is not

directly observed or duplicated by experiment. But I repeat that

this hypothesis is indispensable for the entire coherence of the

history of natural creation. Unless you accept the hypothesis of

primordial genesis at this one point in the theory of evolution,

you must take refuge in the miracle of a supernatural creation.”

Is this science, or is it not rather Theophobia? Does the freedom of

science consist, first of all, in the privilege of emancipating one’s self

from truth, whenever truth is not to one’s taste? True, liberal science

will then be free from distasteful truths, but all the more shackled by

its irreligious prejudices.

In modern times, the _theory of evolution_ is in high favour. On earth we

do not only see life, but life in a great variety of forms, from plant to

man. The question, whence this variety, admits in its turn only of the

alternative: either it was immediately created by God’s hand, or it is the

result of a slow evolution from common original forms. Whether there has

been an evolution within the vegetable and animal kingdom is a problem for

natural science. But it is a philosophical question, whether the

essentially superior human soul, endowed with spirituality and reason,

could have evolved from the inferior animal soul. Philosophy must answer:

No, just as impossible as to evolve ten from two, or a whole book from a

single proofsheet. Faith says the human soul is created by God. We do not

intend to discuss the problem here any further, but shall only point out

how science here, too, expressly or tacitly, is determined very

energetically by the presumption of the exclusive natural causation; this

is applied to the entire theory of evolution, but especially in regard to

man.

“The notion of the evolution of the living world on earth,” thus

states _Weismann_ quite significantly, “extends far beyond the

provinces of individual sciences, and it influences our entire

range of thoughts. This notion means nothing less than the

elimination of miracle from our knowledge of nature, and the

classification of the phenomena of life on an equal footing with

the rest of natural events.” The guiding motive is plainly in

evidence.

The aim to eliminate the “miracle of creation” is manifested even more

conspicuously in the question about the origin of man: man with his entire

equipment, intellectual as well as cultural, must have evolved upward from

the most imperfect rudiments; this is regarded as a self-evident

proposition.

_M. Hoernes_, for instance, writes: “The Cosmogonies, _i.e._, the

theories of creation, of all nations ascribe the origin of man to

a supernatural act of creation, whereby the Creator is imagined as

a human being, because at the intellectual stage corresponding to

these notions something created could only be conceived as

something formed, something constructed.” Thus the theory of

creation, and the Christian doctrine of the genesis of man, is

disposed of as a notion of the lower intellect. “On the contrary,

we are taught by science to look upon the highest mammals as our

nearest blood-relatives.” This “we are taught by science,”

although it is confessed: “We know the fact of the existence of

the man of the fourth, or glacial, period, but we have not a

solitary fact that would throw light upon his origin and his

previous existence.”

“The theory of miracles can be given up only when we shall cease

to contemplate man as a creature apart from the rest of creation,

and look upon him as a being developed within creation to what he

is now. Then, however, reason and language, as well as man

himself, are the products of a continuous evolution,” says _Wundt_

in his “Psychology of Nations.” _Fr. Müller_, in a text-book on

the science of language, argues: “According to _Darwin_ and to

modern natural science, man was not created but has evolved from a

lower organism during a process of thousands and thousands of

years.... For this reason, we must (?) assume that the first

language of primitive man could not have ranked above the speech

by which animals living in families communicate with each other.”

On the basis of this truly dogmatical presumption, that the

“miracle theory” of creation must not be accepted, they proceed

then to construe one hypothesis upon another, of the origin of

language, of thought, of conscience, of religion, according to the

method of _Darwin_ and _Spencer_, hypotheses of utmost

arbitrariness, and frequently most fantastic. “Ethnographical

researches,” so we are told by _E. Lehmann_, “made by travellers,

representatives of science and of practical life, in all parts of

the globe, ... are starting to-day, almost without exception, from

the tacit presumption that the civilization of peoples living in

the primitive state represent an early and low stage in a

historical chain of evolution.”

All these are suitable commentaries upon the trite proposition that

natural science, or more generally science, is incompatible with religious

belief. Of course research, like that described above, does not agree with

Faith. But the fault lies in its unscientific method, rather than in its

scientific character, in its latent atheistic presumption which prevents

an unbiassed conception of truth.

In February, 1907, the well-known biologist and priest of the

Jesuit order, _E. Wasmann_, gave three lectures in Berlin on the

theory of evolution, before a large audience; they were followed

on the fourth evening by a discussion, in the course of which

eleven opponents voiced for nearly three hours their objections

and attacks, to which _Wasmann_ replied briefly at midnight, but

little time having been allotted to him for this purpose.

_Wasmann_, as well as his chief opponent, Prof. _Plate_ of Berlin,

have published the arguments on both sides with notes, comments,

and supplements. The report of Prof. _Plate_ lays stress upon the

assertion, which had also formed the refrain of all opposing

speeches, viz., “the discussion has shown, in the first place,

that true research in natural science is impossible for those

taking the position of the Roman Catholic Church; secondly, the

glaring and irreconcilable opposition of the scientific theory of

the world to the Orthodox-Christian view was sharply manifested.”

In examining how this was demonstrated by this particular natural

science, one meets with a painful surprise.

Even the facts concerning the arrangements for the discussion make

an unpleasant impression. It is true, _Plate_ accused _Wasmann_ of

calumny on account of the latter’s complaint. However, upon

comparing closely the statements of both, the following facts

remain undisputed. _Wasmann_ notified _Plate_ that he desired to

speak twice during the discussion, and that the entire discussion

should not last much over two hours. _Plate_ promised to arrange

matters accordingly. But on the forenoon of February 18th, the

opponents held a meeting, _Plate_ presiding, and they resolved,

without the least notification to _Wasmann_, that there should be

eleven speakers against _Wasmann_, and that the latter should

reply but once, at the end. Only just before the beginning of the

discussion, the same evening, _Plate_ informed _Wasmann_ of the

arrangement, making it practically impossible for the latter to

change the situation. Furthermore, upon _Plate’s_ proposal, an

intermission of five minutes before the appearance of the tenth

speaker was decided upon, “in order to give those in the audience,

who might find the session too exhausting, a chance to leave.”

Thus the audience was to be subjected for three long hours to the

influence of heated attacks on Theism, Christianity, and the

Church, and without hearing the reply unless they held out from

half-past eight in the evening to half-past twelve in the morning.

_Plate’s_ Monism rejects principally everything metaphysical:

“Monism is the short term for the natural science view of the

world, that rejects all preternatural and supernatural ideas.”

Solutions, not given by the natural sciences, simply do not exist

for him; for him the sun sets on the horizon of his natural

science. “Natural laws comprise all that we are able to fathom:

what is behind them, or what is living in them and operates in

them, is the ultimate question for philosophy, and there one

thinks this way, another that way” (_Plate_). Nevertheless, he

knows that “Out of nothing can come nothing: hence matter is

eternal,” and he is certain that there is no personal God, no

angel nor devil, no beyond nor immortality. Whoever fails to think

the same way is no scientist, he is not even a man of sound

reason: because “he who has grasped even the elements of natural

science, the unity and strict conformity to law of the natural

forces, and has a head for sound reasoning, will become a monist

all by himself, while the rest are past help, anyhow.”

“The Polytheism of the orthodox Church,” he says further,

referring to the mystery of the Trinity, “is irrational”; for

“Common Sense says that 3 is not equal to 1, nor 1 to 3,” and this

is sufficient for _Plate_. “Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of

God, Christ’s Ascension and His descent into hell, Original Sin,

Redemption from sin by Christ’s sacrifice, Angels and Devils, the

Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope, all these

and many other doctrines of the orthodox Church are thrown to the

winds by anybody convinced of the permanence and imperviousness of

the natural laws.” This again is sufficient for him. “The question

whether God is personal or impersonal,” says he, in another place,

“should never be raised: it is just as preposterous as the

question whether God has eyes or not.” Another of his arguments

reads: “If the body after death can become dust by natural means,

then there must have been conditions under which the dust became

by natural means a body.” An analogous argument would be: “If a

book can of itself finally wear away into withered and loosened

leaves, then there must be conditions under which the perfect book

could originate all by itself, and without Prof. _Plate_, out of

withered, loose leaves.”

_Plate_ assures us: “I do not know anything about metaphysics.” We

do not want to dispute that. It is regrettable that so many

scientists of our times are betraying a pitiable lack of

philosophical training, a lack which becomes a social danger if

they, nevertheless, yield to the temptation to invade the domain

of Philosophy. Even the Protestant scientist _G. Wobbermin_ in

referring to the above-mentioned discussion remarked: “_Wasmann’s_

opponents on that evening have betrayed without exception a really

amazing lack of philosophical training.” In glaring contrast with

this ignorance stands their intolerance for any different theory

of the world. Because he thinks as a Christian, _Wasmann_ is

peremptorily expelled from the ranks of natural scientists.

“_Father Wasmann_ is not a true natural scientist, he is not a

true scholar.” With this crushing verdict Prof. _Plate_ concluded

his speech. He repeats this finding on the last page of his book

in conspicuous type: “_Father Wasmann_, S. J., no true natural

scientist, no true scholar.” That his opponent, in answer to

questions that go beyond mere natural science, is giving

philosophical replies, in accord with the doctrine of

Christianity, is explained by “his voluntary or involuntary

submission to the Church,” “natural science bows to Theology.” He

therefore lacks “the freedom of thought and of deduction.”

Sophistical stunts in the service of intolerance! But let us

proceed on our way.

The compulsory dogma of the inadmissibility of a supernatural order of the

world, and of its operation in the visible world, becomes most manifest

when liberal science comes in contact with the miracle. Forsooth, it

shirks this contact. But time and again, now and in the past, it is

confronted by clearly attested facts and it cannot avoid noticing them.

However, it is determined from the outset that miracles are impossible. Of

course, this cannot be proved except by the presumption that there is no

supermundane God. Even the agnostic _Stuart Mill_ admits that if the

existence of God is conceded, an effect produced by His will, which in

every instance owes its origin to its creator, appears no longer as a

purely arbitrary hypothesis, but must be considered a serious possibility

(Essays, 1874). Generally, however, liberal science does not try hard to

demonstrate in a scientific way the impossibility.

“It is my unyielding conviction,” so speaks _A. Harnack_, and his

is perhaps the most telling expression of this dogmatic mood,

“that anything that happens within time and space is subject to

the laws of motion. Hence, that in this sense, _i.e._, of

interrupting the natural connection, there cannot be any

miracles.” One simply does not believe such things. “That a

tempest at sea,” thus _Harnack_ again, “could have been stilled by

a word we do not believe, nor shall we ever again believe it.”

Similarly reads _Baumgarten’s_ declaration regarding the

resurrection of Christ: “Even if all the reports had been written

on the third day, and had been transmitted to us as a certainty

... nevertheless modern consciousness could not accept the story.”

And _W. Foerster_ writes: “The supposition that such interferences

do not occur, and that everything in the world is advancing

steadily and in accordance with fixed laws, forms the

indispensable presumption of scientific research.” And _H. von

Sybel_ holds “An absolute concord with the laws of evolution, a

common level in the existence of things terrestrial, forms the

presumption of all knowledge: it stands and falls with it.”

This is the presumption, from which is drawn the most extravagant

conclusion, which, though so manifestly improper, is made the basis for

rejecting the entire supernatural religion of Christianity. Because God’s

Incarnate Son, in a small town of Palestine, once turned water into wine,

will the Christian housewife lose her confidence in the stability of

water? When it was suddenly discovered that the orbit of the planet Uranus

was not a perfect ellipsis, as required by the law of _Kepler_, was it

thought that these deviations are impossible because there must not be any

exception to the law of perfect elliptical movements? Happily, this law

continued to be accepted without deeming an irregularity impossible, and

shortly afterwards Neptune was discovered and found to be the cause of the

disturbance. But anything miraculous, no matter how well proven, must be

considered unacceptable by reason of such unsound presumption.

Philosophical a-priorism is superior to facts.

Thus _St. Augustine_ tells in his work “De civitate Dei” (1. xxii.

c. 8) of a number of miracles happening in his time, of which he

had knowledge either as eye-witness or by authentical reports from

eye-witnesses. _E. Zeller_ renders judgment on the historical

value of the statement as follows: “The narrator is a

contemporary, and partly even an eye-witness, of the events

reported: by virtue of his episcopal office he is particularly

commissioned to closely investigate them; we know him as a man

overtowering his contemporaries in intellect and knowledge, second

to none in religious zeal, strong faith, and moral earnestness.

The wonderful events happened to well-known persons, sometimes in

the presence of big crowds of people; they were attested and

recorded by official order.” Hence the statement must be accepted

without objection. But must it not also be believed? is the query

of an unbiassed listener. Not in the judgment of one who is in the

tyrannical yoke of his presumptions. “What are we to say about

it?” continues _Zeller_, and finds that “in this unparalleled

aggregation of miracles we can after all see nothing else but a

proof of the credulity of that age.” The report is incontestable,

but it must not be believed!

In our times _Lourdes_ has become the scene of events which are

founded on facts, and the miraculous character has been proven at

least of some of them. _Bertrin_, in his “Histoire critique des

evénéments de Lourdes,” deals with the attitude of the physicians

toward the miracles. The believing physician can enter upon his

investigation without prejudice: not so the unbelieving physician

and scientist, who is shackled by his prejudice against the

possibility of miracles. Of this a few examples:

“How did you get cured?” was the question put by a physician to a

young woman who, after having suffered for four years from a

suppurating inflammation of the hip joints, complicated by caries,

had a few days previously suddenly regained her full health. Pains

and sores had disappeared. “By whom was I cured? By the Blessed

Virgin!” “Never mind the Blessed Virgin,” replied the physician.

“Young woman, why don’t you admit that you had been assured in

advance that you would get well. You were told that, once in

Lourdes, you would suddenly rise from the box wherein you were

lying. That sort of thing happens—we call it suggestion.” The girl

replied, unhesitatingly, that it did not happen this way at all.

Finally the physician offered her money if she would admit having

really been cured by suggestion. The girl declined the

offer.—Another girl arrived in Lourdes, with a physician’s

attestation that she was a consumptive. She is cured after the

first bath. At the bureau of verification her lungs were found to

be no longer diseased. Her physician’s statement having been very

brief, a telegram was sent to him as a matter of precaution,

asking him for another statement without, however, informing him

of the cure. The physician immediately wired back: “She is a

consumptive.” This was also the opinion of other physicians who

had treated the girl. The girl joyfully returns home, and hurries

to her physician, requesting him to certify to her cure. He does

so quite reluctantly. Upon reading his certificate, she discovers

that it said she had been cured, but only of a _cough_. The case

of consumption of his original testimonial had changed into a

cough. His dread of a miracle had induced this physician to commit

a falsehood.

_A. Rambacher_, as he relates in a pamphlet, sent the scientific

treatise on Lourdes by Dr. _Boissarie_ to Prof. _Haeckel_, with

the request to read it, in order to gain a better notion of the

existence of a supernatural world. After some urging he finally

received the following reply, which speaks volumes for the

attitude of the natural scientist towards facts: “With many thanks

I hereby return the book by Dr. _Boissarie_ on the Great Cures of

Lourdes which you sent me. The perusal of the same has convinced

me anew of the tremendous power of superstition (glorified as

‘pious belief’) of naïve credulity (without critical examination),

and of contagious collective suggestion, as well as of the cunning

of the clergy, exploiting them for their gain.... The physicians,

said to testify in behalf of the ‘miracles’ and the supernatural

phenomena, are either ignorant and undiscerning quacks, or

positive frauds in collusion with the priests. The most accurate

description of the gigantic swindle of Lourdes I know of, is that

of _Zola_ in his well-known novel.... With repeated thanks for

your kindness ... _Ernst Haeckel_.” Against all the facts in

evidence this dogmatic scientist was safely intrenched behind the

stone wall of his presumptions. He knew in advance that everything

was superstition or the fraud of cunning priests, that all

physicians who certified to cures were quacks and cheats. _Zola’s_

tendentious romance considered the best historical source! Mention

should be made here how this celebrated novelist dealt with facts

at Lourdes. In the year 1892, the time of the great pilgrimage,

_Zola_ went to Lourdes. He wanted to observe and then tell what he

had seen. An historical novel it was to be; time and again he had

proclaimed in the newspapers that he would tell the whole truth.

At Lourdes all doors were opened to him; he had admittance

anywhere; he could interview and obtain explanations at will. How

he kept his promise to report the truth may be shown by a single

instance: _Marie Lebranchu_ came to Lourdes on August 20, 1892,

suffering from incurable consumption. She was suddenly cured, and

never had a relapse. One year after her cure she returned to the

miraculous Grotto. The excellent condition of her lungs was again

verified. Now, what does _Zola_ make of this event? In his novel

the cured girl suffers a terrible relapse upon her first return

home, “a brutal return of the disease which remained victorious,”

we read in _Zola’s_ book. One day, the president of the Lourdes

Bureau of Investigation introduced himself to _Zola_ in Paris, and

asked him “How dare you let _Marie Lebranchu_ die in your novel;

you know very well that she is alive and just as well as you and

I.” “What do I care,” was _Zola’s_ reply, “I think I have the

right to do as I please with the characters I create.” If a

romancer desires to avail himself of this privilege he certainly

has not the right to proclaim his novels as truthful historical

writings, much less may others see in such a novel the “most

accurate description of the events at Lourdes.”