New-York tribune., 1900-11-20
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.


The long standing controversy between relig-
lon and science shows no signs or coming 10
any assured conclusion, in spite of the fact thar
both religion and science are constantly putting
forth solutions that they declare to be nnai
The truth Is that every such solution contains
within itself some defect of statement or lnph-
cation that inevitably discredits II, because
those who offer it, however honest they may De
and however desirous of reaching the truth. are
holding a brief for certain views or assumptions
which they think must be maintained at all
hazards. And, besides that, the ground of con-
troversy is constantly shifting, with the result
that old issues are dropped and fresh ones come
to the front, around which the battle RACES anew.
Even the most conservative champions of re-
ligion are obliged to recognize the futillty of
longer defending the form Of certain doctrines
that they once believed to be vital to Christian
ity while still maintaining their substantial
truth And, on the other hand, the most radical
exponents of science are forced to admit that
the contemptuous condemnation of all religion
as a baseless superstition is not merely unjust
to religion but denial of the very principles of
science.
Truth to say, the noisy battle between the
little champions of religion and those of science
serves only to confuse the issues and it Is a
waste of time to follow its convolutons. But
it will be both interesting and helpful to recall
what that great master of scientific thought
Herbert Spencer, has to say on the subject
Though he speaks for science and by its author
ity, ne holds no brief for any speculation or
theory of science not even his own, but seeks
simply TO see the facts they are. The point
Of view Of such man may be mistaken, but it
cannot be ignored by any one who honestly
desires to understand the question at issue
Briefly, 1t may be said that Mr.. Spencer accuses
religion of being irrelgiOus and science of be-
ing unscientifc, or. to put it another way, he
distinguishes the verities of religion and Of
science from the assumptions and differences
that have come to be identified with them.
From the beginning, he says religion has recog-
nized an ultimate verify a something not our
selves which makes for righteousness, as Mat
thew Arnold puts it. But it has become ire
ngious by processing to have a knowledge of
matters that transcend knowledge. While 1t
declares that God, the First Cause is unknow-
able, it Immediately proceeds to declare that
He possesses certain attributes and imposes its
bare assumption on the conscience Of mankind.
Then around that unprovable assumption it has
built wall of dogmas equally unprovable, and,
having done so, declares that the fate of relig-
ion depends on the maintenance of these as
sumptions. The truly religious element Of re-
Igion," Mr.. Spencer adds. "has always been
good; that which has proved untenable in doc
''trne and vicious in practice has been its ire
''ligious element, and from this it has been ever
undergoing purifcation."
But science as we'll as religion has very I'M
perfectly fulfilled its office. Though it started
out with the truth that the relations Of phe-
nomena are constant. and thus discredited the
belief in separate personalities, yet 1t soon fell
into the very error 1t antagonized, as when it ex
planned the qualities of gold by assuming an
entity called "aureity" or attributed the phe-
nomena of life to an assumed vital principle"
Thus. while combating the assumptions of re
ligion it made assumptions Of its own equally
baseless, and so became unscientiic In each
phase of its progress, therefore. science has
stopped short with superficial solutions, has
"unscientifcally neglected to ask what was the
nature of the agents it so familiarly invoked.
-. And this, which has all along been the
"unscientifc characteristic of science, has all
"alOng been a part cause of its conflict with
religion"
Mr.. Spencer lays it down as an axiom that
the First Cause If there be one is both infinite
and absolute, and that the power which the
universe manfests to is utterly inscrutable.
The three explanations of the universe, as self
existent, self-created or created by an external
agency, are equally inconceivable Man cannot
conceive of time and space either as entities or
as nonentities. He knows and can know nothing
about the reality of things. He is only able
dimly to apprehend few phenomena. Yet each
mans vision of the truth as he sees il, how
ever imperfect it may be. is a waymark of
progress, and therefore should be given TO the
world Not as adventitious. therefore, will
the wise man regard the faith which IS in him.
The highest truth he sees he will fearlessly
utter, knowing that, let what may come of it,
"he is thus playing his right part in the world
knowing that If he can effect the change he
'aims at-well if not, we'll also though not so
well"