108 Discrepancies arise from 1 [INTER through the intelligence with which we are endowed, of the established order of the universe. This disclosure it is the duty of every one to verify as far as in him lies; and, having verified, to receive with humility." I am afraid if a Christian were to use the language of these extracts, exchanging the places of Science and Religion, he would be charged with having a "bias."" Again on page 100 he tells us: "Though from age to age, science has continually defeated it wherever they have come into collision, and has obliged it (religion) to relinquish one or more of its positions, it has still held the remaining ones with undiminished tenacity." It would be just as true and as honest for a Christian to say that Religion has from age to age defeated Science wherever they came in collision. But neither would be a correct statement of the fact. Error in the garb of science has been rebuked and defeated by Religion, while error in the garb of Religion has been exposed and dissipated by the help of true science. In either case both true science and true religion have no conflict with each other, but rejoice together in advancing Truth. That there should be apparent discrepancies between science and men's interpretations of the Bible, is not to be wondered at when we remember that neither science nor exegesis is perfect. But there are no greater discrepancies between the Bible and advanced science to-day, than there are between the results of the studies of scientists in different fields of research. The revolution of one of the satellites of Mars about that planet in less than one-third of the time required for the planet's axial rotation, together with other astronomical observations, seems entirely irreconcilable with the nebular hypothesis so generally accepted. Dr. Andrew Clarke thus writes, corroborating the position of many another scientist :-"It is growing more 1" First Principles," p. 20. 2 See Stallo's Modern Physics, 1882, p. 284 and all through the volume. LUDE.] Imperfection of Science and Exegesis. 109 evident (1) that the progress of chemistry is becoming more and more irreconcilable with the theory of the atomic constitution of matter. (2) That there is no law of physics, not even the law of gravitation, without great and growing exceptions; and no theory of physical phenomena, not even the undulatory theory of light, which is not becoming more and more inadequate to explain the facts discovered within its area of comprehension. (3) And that therefore the boasted accuracy and permanency of so-called physical laws and theories is unfounded; that very probably the greater part of the so-called axioms of modern physics will be swept away as untenable; that the theories of natural phenomena apparently the most comprehensive and conclusive are merely provisional; that at present finality in this region is neither visibly attainable nor clearly conceivable." At the same time the facts of science which seem to be most permanently established are found to be increasingly in accord with the Bible. What there is of science in the Bible could not of course have come at the time of writing it, from scientific investigation, for science as such was not; yet "although no other Book has been assailed so ably, so critically, maliciously, constantly as this, it survives, not because of protection, but because its opponents have been beaten along the whole line of argument. The Book did verily arise amongst men alike unfamiliar with the conceptions of physical causation and uniformity of law, and ignorant of the requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis' (Fiske), but that is a part of the marvel; and though, as Sir Thos. Brown saith-Time sadly overcometh all things,' this book has conquered time; and in proof of utter folly in those who revile it as containing 'the superlative nonsense, known as the doctrine of special creation,' is received as the Book of God by all nations eminent in arts, in wealth, civilization, refinement." 1 1 Reynolds, The Supernatural in Nature, p. 49 110 A cadaverous reconciliation. [INTER But we must hasten on to Mr. Spencer's theory of reconciliation. Religion he allows to contain a likelihood of a verity— to be the possible "adumbration of a Truth," while Science was assumed to be true as sunlight. And now there must be a place where the two can be shown to be in harmony. "Religion has, from the first, struggled to unite more or less science with its nescience; Science has from the first kept hold of more or less nescience as though it were a part of Science." But a slow differentiation is going on, all of nescience (ignorance) is going over to Religion as her portion, and all of Science (knowledge) is going over to Science as hers. "And a permanent peace will be reached when Science becomes fully convinced that its explanations are proximate and relative, while Religion becomes fully convinced that the mystery it contemplates is ultimate and absolute." "Religion and Science are therefore correlatives. As already hinted, they stand respectively for those two antithetical modes of consciousness which cannot exist asunder. A known cannot be thought apart from an unknown, nor can an unknown be thought apart from a known. And by consequence neither can become more distinct without giving greater distinctness to the other. They are the positive and negative poles of thought; of which neither can gain in intensity without increasing the intensity of the other."2 That is, Science is knowledge; Religion is nescience, the absence of knowledge. Science is light, Religion is darkness. As the light of Science increases, the darkness of ignorance of Religion increases. Her sublime aim, according to Mr. Spencer, is to stand beside an abyss in which lie buried forever all her thoughts of God and Immortality, the tomb of the soul with its hopes and fears, and to proclaim to Science the momentous fact that she does not know everything! Truly sublime are the hopes of man, and awe LUDE.] But Divine Light shines on. 111 inspiring the inheritance of "verity" graciously granted to Religion!! "The dumb wonder of ignorance or the grovelling awe of the supernatural, as it is exhibited in the fetish-worshipper, is the nearest approximation to the religion of the Unknowable."1 Strange to say, however, the conception of the Inscrutable One was as clear and strong in the hoariest antiquity as it is to-day or ever can be. But the fact that to the new-born babe a parent's powers are inscrutable does not prevent a communication to the babe of the knowledge of a parent's existence and sympathy and help and love, which becomes increasingly clear as the months pass on; so the fact that the Infinite All-father is inscrutable to infantile man, does not prevent His revealing to man his love, his will. Before Him bowing we can render homage to a Being "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," all the inexhaustable wealth of that boundless realm of truth in which thought finds ever-increasing stimulus to aspiration, ever-growing food for wonder and delight. Not an inane grovelling before an agnostic bottomless cavern, but intelligent reverence. Instead of ignorant wonder we have intelligent admiration; instead of blind submission to necessity and fate, we have trust and sympathy and love; instead of paralysis of thought before a portentous, an insoluble enigma, the ennobling and ever-renewed impulse to thought which arises from the assurance that the illimitable realm of truth is open to us, that "God is light and in him is no darkness at all," and that for the human spirit it will be life eternal to know God.2 He who is susceptible of that wisdom catches the spirit of His word in the Bible, finds lessons for childhood, strength for manhood, and the capabilities of heroes and prophets. Thousands know by actual experience that the Book grows with their growth; and, as knowledge of it increases, deeper depths of wisdom are 1 Caird. Introd. to Phil. of Religion, p. 30. 2 do. p. 32. 112 Fallacy in assumed basis. [INTER revealed. Paul utters their experience,-" O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God"! At present, none but religious men accept, as a fact, the continued revelatory character of the Book to their souls; but every candid inquirer will ultimately acknowledge it, as the word of God to a world to which, if left to its own wisdom, He must ever have been the Unknown and Unknowable.1 2. The next point is the fallacy contained in the premises which Mr. Spencer assumes as the basis of his philosophy. At the base of all true reasoning there must be axiomatic truths which lie beyond the region of doubt; without these we would find ourselves building on the sand. There can be no mathematics without first truths which are above all demonstration, no geometry without axioms and postulates accepted by all. Any philosophy which lays claim to be scientific must begin in the same way. Its first principles should be axiomatic, beyond reach of cavil. We have seen that Mr. Spencer's position with regard to the Unknowable is not accepted as a necessary truth. And in the region of the knowable we find, instead of necessary truths, or well-proved facts, the assumption of the absolute truth of an unproved theory run to a most unwarrantable extreme,-the Evolution Theory; or if his aim is to prove the philosophical truth of Evolution, he perpetrates an equally unworthy fallacy by perpetually "begging the question," and so the theory is made to help out the argument, while the argument supports the theory. My charge of fallacy here is not against the Evolution Theory, but against the use to which Mr. Spencer puts a mere hypothesis. The Evolution theory may be true, but the fact that it also may not be true, or may not be true in the sense in which Mr. Spencer holds it, is sufficient to condemn it as a basis upon which to build 1 See Supernatural in Nature, pp. 48, 49. |