New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-08-07
SELECTIONS FROM THE MAIL
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

NO REAL ANTAGONIST BETWEEN THE TWELVE
PLEA OF MINISTER.
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: In his zeal for the scientific conscience "
Professor Huxley my friend. DR.. Russell OF fous"
keepsie has. | fear. assailed the integrity OF oo"
science OF many whom | know him to respect.
most thoroughly. Dr. Russell says: Have we nv
last heard enough OF the alleged dangerous "
nuence OF the worlds great scientific men 40
suredly. There is no intellectual leader OF any
religious body to-day who in the least degree feats
the cold white light OF truth. Only let IT be TRUTH
not dogma. For there are scientific dogmatlsts aS
we'll theological dogmatists. Mr.. Herbert ope"
Ger well says that such have done more TO hihner
science and religion than any other class OF men,
For facts. I. for have the most profound rev
erence. 1t is the office OF science TO ascertain
facts It is the part OF philosophy to correlate
facts. In so far az Mr.. Huxley or any other man
is a scientist. with scientific conscience ne u
worthy OF admiration not only but OF following
as we'll When the scientist enters the theological
or philosophical he should lose large part
II not all OF the prestige which his scientihc ei'-
inence has given him.
Permit me to object to the assertion. disguised
as a hypothesis that "Christianity is general
principle tof unselshness alruism) as old as 'he
universe itself" Such a definition OF Christianity
is utterly inadequate This is not the place IN
which 10 upon controversy about true
definition. do think controversy In any place
would do any good: but ! respectfully request Ut
Russell and all who think he does to ponder
well what Christ said to Nicodemus when ne came
10 him by night.
But Mr. Editor. in the interest OF science. NOT
OF religion let protest against another as
sertion which is typical OF the OF thing when
is frequently said by scientists They tscient.sts'
have more conscience in matters OF belief than the
great religious teachers. who believe what they
are told" Is this honest? Is this fair? Is this
true? 1t is not honest. for IT assumes the right
to Judge the motives OF others II is not fair be-
cause ii begs the question and implies that
scientists the only honest men In the world;
II is true. Jesus Himself Is the refutation OF
this assertion. for He more than any man VINO
ever lived sought for truth. lived for truth died
for truth. And He has had many thousands ninn OF
men who would not for their lives make single
assertion OF whose truth they are not absolutely
have welcomed the golden day which science mas
brought In. They rejoice in such mighty ally.
that His enemies will assuredly be scattered, be,
charla tanism has given way TO science and
fetchism pure religion They do not acknowl-
edge for a second that there can possibly be any
real antagonism between a true science and true
theology. But supposng there could be. venture
the statement that every one OF them would choose
science. But there Is science of things spiritual.
OF which Huxley and many others were and are
profoundly ignorant.
should learn 10 respect character? Is II not time
to stop vfyng real religious leading because
there are charlatans in the pulpit? We do not
plead for the integrity OF the official conscience.
Doubtless there frauds in the ministry: AS
everywhere But believe that the majority OF my
honest but they truth-seekers well. eagerly
welcoming every ray Of Light Witch Is not wili-o'-
the-wisp. GEORGE. CLARKE CON.
Slide Slide Mountain y Y, Aug I, 1886 |''''' ~ -