The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-01
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

veloped into what is called the conflict be-
| tween religion and science, but which is in
truth no conflict, but merely the natural in
teraction Of the religious and intellectual FAC
ulties, Is one whose inception has no date in
recorded time. and Of which no traditions OF
the human race tell us the beginning The
whole sum of mans achievements is but an
example of that progress which results from
the antagonism of the moral and intellectual
powers-an illustration of O. universal law
that finds expression throughout all creation.
In man it operates through the antithesis be-
tween his religious and intellectual faculties,
I just as in physics 1t meets fulfllment in the
laws of attraction and repusion. or OF CEN
tripetal and centrifugal motion.
1t is upon this theory of interacton, IN
volvina no necessary or irreconcilable nos
tilty, that DIR. Winchell has based the
promised synthesis Of deepest scientific con-
viction and simplest religious faith, which he
offers the world in his recent work, 1.-The
Reconciliation Of Science and Religion"
Let us take short and cursory view OF the
history of modern skepticism, to which we
are indebted for all the wonderful progress OF
the last two centuries. The ordinary reader,
now In the latter half of the nineteenth CEN
fury, can hardly realize the benighted con-
dition Of the civilized world three hundred
years ago.
We cannot now at all understand how such
a state of society could have existed as was
necessary to the acceptance OF the miserable
labs,irdities that were then believed as truths,
not only by the rnlearned masses, but by the
ablest and most enlightened men of the day,
and which were regarded as important con-
tributions to the general stock of human
knowledge Yet one must be conversant with
these facts in order to thoroughly appreciate
the marvellous results of modern skepticism,
to which we owe that spirit of inquiry which
must precede all progress. At the time we
speak Of the ruling spirit Of the world was q
blind and boundless credulity. In every de-
partment of speculative and practical
knowledge, In religion, In politics and in
literature, the truth was upheld only by dog
matte assertion, and to reject these dogmas
was heresy, and heresy was the most atrocious
of crimes. 1t Is easy to understand that in
an age like this, when men were perfectly
convinced of the truth of their faiths, progress
was impossible. Now and then great man
arose who protested against the blind infatua-
| tions Of his day, but only toincur martyrdom,
or at best to meet the contempt of his fellow
men as an idle, visionary and impracticable
| theorist. In such condition Of society these
men could make no permanent impression.
But about the first of the sixteenth century,
as the natural result of the Reformation o
new spirit began to manifest itself. Men be-
gan to doubt and this naturally led them to
inquire into the foundations Of their faiths.
70 ax mn anpftIappa in b,Ip m,
judgment, and some even to assert it's au-
| thority in all matters-even those of religion.
Perhaps we can best show the inception of
| this movement in England by citing the
| illustration used by Buckle, in which he notes
the progress of this spirit as presented in the
difference between the works of the two great
theological writer's of the reign Of Elizabeth,
| Hooker and Jewell. The latter wrote his
Apology for the Church of England about the
year 1861. In it he inculcates the necessity of
faith and the duty Of obedience to and accept
ance of the teachings of the fathers and the
authority of the councils. He compiled their
opinions and teachings, and yields to them
| the utmost reverence, only venturing to ex-
plain doubtful passages in accordance with
reason. Faith was the basis of his work,
and reason but the superstructure But
with Hooker, who wrote in 1895, SO great had
been the progress that he saw that the argu-
ments Of Jewell could have no weight with
his readers. He entirely rejects. the fathers;
and insists that reason is the only authority
in religious as in temporal affairs. But he
urges that the individual opinion should
yield to conclusions established by the wis
dom of the councils, and formally enun-
ciated by the Church. I'm the next
generation the progress was still much
greater Then arose Chillingworth, who
absolutely asserted the dignity and authority
Of individual judgment. He would have 1T
trammeled by nothing and insisted that it was
the sole Judge of even revelation itself. He
denied that faith could supply the absence of
authority the favorite doctrine Of theolo-
gians
In France there was a similar movement
that kept pace with that in England. The
first evidence we find of anything like system
attic skepticism is in the writings of Montaigne,
who may be said to correspond with Jewell.
His mind was essentially sceptical, but when
he wrote doubt was feeble and timid, and he
could not release himself from the spirit Of
his day. He was followed by Charron and
| UIen tdIuC tuc SIedt GCS, Viz SuutlcSb
thinker of France, and the author of what is
known distinctively as modern philosophy.
He said there was nothing true but thought
through it alone can we prove the existence
of duty, through it alone can we reach truth,
or discriminate between right and wrong.
Faith, he says, is blind; it cannot think
i it is but part Of knowledge and therefore
inferior TO it. It is not difficult to understand
how such doctrines as these must have had a
very powerful influence in destroying the
absurd pretenses of the old theology. 1t
necessarily refuted many of it's favorite
dogmas and compelled it to abandon many
things that had been taught as essential
truths. In this connection we notice that DR..
Winchell still clings to the old superstition Of
final cause, and insists upon it with unusual
vehemence, though Descartes was forced to
abandon it, when he enunciated the authority