The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1911-02-18
SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Why Deny Fa cts o +
Religion?
Rev. C. r. cremin of ST. Paul Seminary
Takes Issue With Scientist
Shows That He Is Unscientific
in Denying Religious
Facts.

At the recent Scientific Congress in
Minneapolis Prof Ames of the Uni
versity of Chicago delivered an ad-
dress on 'The Social Standpoint in the
Study of Religion Among other
things he is reported to have said:
Religion cannot live in thoroughly
scientific atmosphere if identified with
such phenomena as miracles or the
authority of custom
This statement only goes to show
how thoroughly unscientific scientist
can become when he addresses himself
to question that conflicts with his
! own preconceptions and prejudices. If
science glories in one thing beyond
all others it is in its reverential regard
for ascertained facts and phenomena.
Science to deserve the name must be-
gin it's Investigations with facts. On
facts when collected, analyzed and
compared, it builds it's theories, and
formulates it's laws. Science cannot
pick and choose arbitrarily the data
which serve as the basis Of it's conclu-
sions. No, it must consider and reck-
on with every fact or phenomenon
which comes within the domain of its
activity. Should any branch of science
discover, on further examination, that
some facts refuse to fall into line
with, or to be governed by, previously
accepted law or theory, it's plain duty
is to abandon that theory as false, and
RI Cnolz pou nr 1ouy ruhioh
will explain all the facts. If this be the
method of science-and who can deny
lit?-on what scientific justification
does Professor Ames (who is but the
spokesman of large class Of scien-
tists) reject as untenable religion
which establishes its claim to the re-
Icognition and allegiance of mankind
on miraculous facts-the God-given
signs of Divine approval? Evidently
he takes for granted that no miracles
i have occurred, or that miracles are
impossible, and on this assumption
i (unwarranted and unscientific, since
science claims to prove all things) he
rejects, off-hand, any religion which in
vokes miraculous events as criterion
of it's truth. 1t i'll behooves scien-
tist to take for granted a matter of
such moment, and by one wild state
ment to cut away the groundwork from
Christianity. For the Christian reli-
gion is, and has ever claimed to be, a
Divine Revelation to the truth of which
: the Almighty has borne testimony by
the performance of many stupendous,
well-attested miracles. The professor
assumes that miracles have not hap
pened, whereas the Christian believer
is convinced of the occurrence of
miracles. What is more, the believer
is more scientific than the scientist,
because while the latter rejects on a
ena which do not coincide with the
theory he has, on incomplete data,
adopted, the former takes into ac-
count in forming his beliefs all the
facts and all the phenomena to which
authentic history bears witness. For
the Christian contends, and he is pre-
pared to substantiate by the strongest
: historical evidence the validity of his
contention, that the Person of Christ,
and the Gospel which He preached,
and the Church which He founded,
and the miracles which He wrought in
confirmation of His Divine authority,
and of the Heavenly source of His doc
trine, are facts and phenomena, ais in
: disputably true and as undeniably cor.
: rect as have ever been accepted on the
authority of authentic history.
Since Christianity, then, is Revela.
ton stamped with the Divine seal OF
miracles, how can social scientists
such as Professor Ames, ignore the mar
vellous facts of the Christian Origins
while proposing and PROCESSING to con.
struct his sociological laws on the phe.
nomena of the religious life of human
ity? This is not science, nor is it even
s sound common sense. For what should
J be thought of the Judge. or juryman
Z who, in coming to verdict, considers
t only a portion of the evidence that
3 pertains to the charge, and who, hav
: ing made up his mind on this partial
evidence, rejects the remainder as in
0 compatible with the verdict! Further
/ what must be thought of the social
science which, while taking into con
sideration as of the greatest impor
4 tance and most enlightening, the re
n ligious condition of prehistoric mar
= and of the un1ettered and little knowT
g savage tribes of to-day, rules out O
: court the great historic facts-clear al
d the noon-day sun-of Christ! Thai
l. some remote savage was fetish-wor
8 shipper throws a food of light on thu
r social science of religion, but tha
g Christ rose from the dead as He hat
n foretold is matter of small import
n nnu IL 10 o fact To h<, cot ria nfi aa.