New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-11-04
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

pr,fes.or y :. Shaler. Of Harvard Tnver-
stv. whose book, interpretation Of Nature
nublishcd last year. has given him 4 high rep'l-
,,,ion AZ a clear and original thinker, con
tributes To The Cgngregatonalist' sug-
gestive article on the religious influence Oh
naturo, science The assumption That natural
science has any relation whatever To religion
will startlc many people. who have been scdu-
lousy taught that science Is supremacy ihoih'I'
cnt 10 religion. it, in fact II is not actually HOS
tile to IT, But in discussing such Il SUBJECT
everything depends on the meaning attach'h 10
The words used. 1t Is hardly necessary To say
that Professor Shaler's definition 81 natural
science would not agree with that OF those ear
nest gentlemen whose chief delight seems 10 DC
10 assail religion in coarse ana vulgar terms
I'm free thought" conventions. Nor. on IN"
other hand would his definition Of religion
agree with that which would be given by Arch-
bishop Corrgan. for instance or Mr.. Moody.
Rack Of the sectaran conception Of them-for
science NAV be made scctarian rs well ~ re-
Ugion- stand the vcritcs that religion ana SCI
oncr represent: ana unless this world Is melli-
inglnss puzzle. with no law Of orderly develop
meut and correlation. there must be some reia'
tou between religion and the world Of nature
out OF which II grew.
And rs Professor Shaler shows. that relation
shin was recognized by the first students OF
Nature Their supreme aim was to ma GOD
through His works. But. beginning with Arts
totle. the purely scientific mode OF interpreted
ton came into vogue and the search Tor You
ceased Hence arose the schism in the s'uoo'
Of science which has continued 10 the present
dov. being constantly fomcnted by bitter par
tsans on both sides. one class OF Nature : III
tcrprc,crs following the lead Of their synpa-
,hics become supcrnauralists: and the o'ier
class following their understanding. b"com"
noiurallsis These two words supcrnaturanstS
and uatural>ts have themselves become dead
~ vitupcratve cpthes. that cut large inquire
In the so-callcd conflict between religion ana
science To call n man "supernatuFalst Is
thou.,ht bv many spouters NJ free thought
conventions To be the most effective possible
method Of answering his arguments. while
many good Christian preachers imagine that
by clubbing man naturalist or ration
alist'' they have proved him 10 br babhicr
and fool.
In the opinion Of Professor Shalcr. it is time
that this foolish and needless schism was
healed There WAS never any good reason for
Y
a recognition Of religion, but religion to-day.
AMI most Of all christianity to-day. embodleS
and expresses that spirit of atruism which lies
M the basis of all true scientific civilizations.
In It's essence" says Professor Shalcr. speak
ing be it remembered. scientist. Chris
"tianity j. the highest and most perfect enlb0di-
"mcnt of the altrustc SERIES that the world
has known" In other words. il gives to man
in n simple and practical form The very flower
and substance of the philosophy Of life and CON
duet that natural science has been toiling for
untold ages to establish. II Is magnificent
tribute To Christianity; hut il is amply war
rantcd by the facts. Altogether too much At
tcnton has been paid 10 the noisy campfollow-
crs Of science. who mouth and gcstculatc
against religion as Ire enemy Of scientific re-
search and scientific truth. 1t is doubtless the
fact that certain rclgionists do interpret re-
ligion in Il spirit hostile to scientific truth: but
they no moro represent religion than the brill
liant and witty gentleman who wrote THE Mis-
takes of Moses represents science.