The religion of science

Front matter

(ffotttcU Mtitoersity ICibtani

Ilttjaca. Nem ^ark

THE GIFT OF

Introduction

The religious situation in America to-day seems far from being ideal. On the surface there is criticism, pessimism, belligerency, neglect, or honest bewilderment. The reasons for these conditions are not primarily moral as in the days of the Wesleys in England, but intellectual. This term, intellectual, is used in the sense of beliefs and would express the fact that men of to-day are searching for religious truth which they can believe. We believe that there is present to-day among us an active idealism, and moral qualities of inestimable value. But we feel hampered because of the absence of absorbing, captivating, soul-stirring, religious beliefs.

The sources of this situation are plainly discernible. The middle of the last century marks the beginning of present religious thinking. At that time there was a distinct uniformity in the presentation of what Christianity is and teaches. The main items were : Hell fire ; eternal damnation; the inspiration of the Bible; no salvation for the heathen; salvation by faith; the grace of God; sin; baptism; and heaven for those who believed and were faithful. Salvation was individual and not social. To doubt was one of the greatest of sins.

A spirit of unrest and of revolt began then to express itself, which, when fortified by the acquisition of new knowledge has been functioning ever since. The concrete

vii

INTKODUCTION

evidence of the working of this new spirit is the presence of the many varieties of present-day isms. There is the Mental Science movement initiated by P. Quimby now manifest in its two large branches. Christian Science and 'New Thought. There is Spiritualism, Mormonism, and all the others. But the three movements which have profoundly influenced religious thinking are: Evolution, the Higher Criticism and Socialism.

The year 1859 witnessed the rebirth of the idea evolution and the revamping of the theory into its distinctive form, organic evolution. The conquest of this idea and theory has been phenomenal, and has extended far beyond what sober scientists could have foreseen. The epochal moment in relation to religious thinking came when some men of science determined to leave their own field and venture into metaphysics, philosophy and even theology. These thinkers determined upon the establishment of science as one of the big three: theology, philosophy, science. This goal was reached but the accomplishment of the aim only seemed to whet the appetite for further conquest. As in the case of the camel and the tent, when science once found its head inside the tent of the intellectuals it decided to occupy the whole tent. Instead of being satisfied with a science-theology claim was made to the whole of theology and religion. A religion of science ensued which has now arrived at the point where it is declared to be the real Christianity.

Unlike Christian Science, this new religion decided against external forms and organization and elected to live in and control modern religious thinking. This inner life was possible because it has become the fashion to ac-

viii

INTRODUCTION

cept evolution uncritically. It is almost taking one's life in his hands to venture a critical examination of this modern fetish. Unless, however, we mistake the signs of the times, there is setting in a strong tide away from this uncritical and worshipful attitude. This tendency is more marked among philosophers and the true scientists than among the religious scholars and leaders. The times now call for a religious and moral evaluation of the principles of science and the theory of evolution upon which this religion of science is hased.

There is one note of regret which is strong through this whole work. It is that so much emphasis falls upon the negative side. This tendency toward criticism and negation, instead of toward constructive production is entirely too prevalent. We seem to-day to spend our strength throwing Hell fire and assisting grace out of the window ; throwing epithets of warm composition at the ecclesiasticism and conservatism of the day ; showing the faults and evils of every modern religious offering; driving men of modern views out of educational and other positions of influence; in short, disposing of our religious beliefs much more than trying to shape the truth of Christianity into modern life-giving form. We would wish, however, to express the intention in this work in clear form, which is a critical evaluation of this Religion of Science, and not a desire to negative. It is hoped that an effort to help meet the present hunger for a positive, rational faith may he soon undertaken.

Special acknowledgment of thanks is made to the following men whose recent books have brought much valuable help and inspiration. To Professor Conklin for his cour-

ix

I N T R O D IT T I 1^

age in following Haeckel and others out into the open and thus giving us a concrete expression of the religion of science. To Professor Cooley for his clear and masterful appraisement of the principles of science. To Professor More for his incisive treatment of the limitations of science. To Professor Hocking for his rational idealism and philosophical expression of deep religious insight. To Professor Hudson for his clear defense of the truths we live by. To many others who may recognize their own expressions occasionally.

A bibliography is appended but the pages are not loaded with references. We have the feeling that this has been often overdone. If, however, our use of material has exceeded the bounds of hospitality we are ready to make amends.

The Real Cheistianity .

. 158

XI. Conclusions

. 170

CHAPTEE OlSTE

In 1873 Draper in his ^^History of the Conflict Between Eeligion and Science" gave utterance to a prophecy which has been amply fulfilled. "We live in a day/' he wrote, "when a new departure on an unknown sea has been taken/' He observed that whoever has had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the mental condition of the intelligent classes in Europe and America must have perceived that there is a great and rapidly increasing departure from the public religious faith ; and that, while among the more frank this divergence is not concealed, there is a far more extensive and far more dangerous secession private and unacknowledged. This new departure is away from the "compression arising from traditionary faith/' and though he did not use the exact words, it is towards a religion of science.

Evidences of this secession both open and private need not be enumerated. It is sufficient to recall the many and manifold criticisms that have been and still are being hurled at the church and against her leadership. Erom press and platform, from friend and foe alike, the 'Tieckling" for some time has been continuous and searching. It is a fact, however much we dislike to repeat it, that the intellectual classes — using this word intellectual in its customary sense — are not interested in the church nor in her doctrines and teachings. This does not mean that these thinkers are irreligious or non-religious. The fact is, they feel they have found a better religious faith than that presented by the ecclesiasticism of the day. Such investigations as those made by Professor Leuba are to the point in this connection.^ College teachers know the present student attitude toward traditionalism and ecclesiasticism. These students like many others see clearly the distinction between the church and religion, and while profoundly idealistic they feel the lack of that grip which they think religion, if properly presented, would have on them. It is putting it mildly to say that there is to-day a coolness toward traditionary faith.

The ecclesiastical leaders and their friends are not unaware of the present condition of things. Many reasons are being offered in explanation of these untoward facts, but among these two hold the position of prominence. The Higher Criticism and the Theory of Evolution are rated as the real causes; and this diagnosis of the case applies to many within the church as well as to certain groups on the outside. The Higher Criticism, it is claimed, by putting the Bible on a level with all other literature has taken away from the authority of scripture ; by introducing the literary and historical method of interpretation it has upset beliefs held for years by scholarly men; and through its use no belief or interpretation is left secure. Its findings not only contradict teachings held on good authority but even contradict Jesus himself- The natural result is that it reduces religious enthusiasm and tends toward skepticism. Proof of this is found in

1 Leuba, "The Belief in God and Immortality."

the frequent observation that where this modern method prevails religion is at a low ebb. There is therefore a definite issue to-day between religious truth and the so-called Higher Criticism.

There is also a definite issue between those who seek to maintain the fundamental verities of the faith and those who accept the theory of evolution. The number in this latter group is known to be very large^ and for years now, to have been decidedly on the increase. The statement of the writer in the Encyclopsedia Britannica on evolution need not be accepted at face value yet approaches the truth. "In the Twentieth Century writers on biological subjects no longer have to waste space in weighing evolution against this or that religious tradition — supporters of religious tradition have made broad their phylacteries to write on them the new words."

The case that is made out against evolution and its devotees specially within the church is a serious one. Evolution dispenses not only with faith but with the God of faith. The hypothesis "God" seems not to be needed. Revelation is denied, the authority of scripture is impugned, miracles are laughed out of court, man is deposed from the high estate given him by the Bible and rated merely as a noble animal, naturalism is the accepted philosophy, freedom is made a clever deception and immortality applies only to the stuff of the human body. Since these criticisms are accepted as facts the case made out seems to be a valid one and the issue is therefore considered to be a clear one between the conservative and , liberal leaders of the day.

But while the ecclesiastical leaders sense clearly the

THE EELIGION OF SCIEITCE

fact, that there is an issue to-day between religion and science, the whole case is not stated by naming the liberal thinkers as the central point in the issue. It is true that many have accepted the higher criticism and evolution without delving deep enough into the meaning and implications of either this modern method of biblical interpretation or of this all-embracing theory. The influence of such thinkers is often too much destructive and productive of little that is constructive. The conclusion, then, that the prevailing skepticism and defection from orthodox faith must be laid at the door of these destructive critics is a natural one. But the real issue to-day lies deeper than this judgment declares. It is discovered when we review the history of the relations between religion and science during the last few years.

The present issue is comparatively modem though the warfare between these two great factors of human life is very ancient. We need not go back farther than the time of Hume and Kant. Following the critical work of these two epochal thinkers the conclusion was reached, that neither the method of empirical science which used sen^e observation only, nor the method of exact science which made use of the concepts of mathematics could establish any secure grounds for religious faith. Eeligion with its three great verities of God, Freedom and Immortality, must be found to rest upon more adequate foundations than an idea or a definition or principles which were purely theoretical. The result was the delineation of two well-defined parties — ^the party of science and the party of religion. The separation between faith and reason created the opportunity. When it was declared that the great religious verities are absolute, lie beyond the range of reason, could not be proved but must nevertheless be believed, scientists were not slow to seize the opening and take possession of the field of reason. They were perfectly willing to leave the field of faith thus defined to the religious leaders. Thus reason or intellect was declared to belong to a different category and to stand sharply over against feeling, which was faith.

The breach or separation thus made and quietly accepted grew wider during the last century. Eeason and faith grew more independent each of the other, while science on its side increased in physical value to mankind. The conviction also gradually deepened that enlightenment belonged to the science leaders because theirs was the rational leadership. Because of this mutual independence the tworoom, mental-apartment idea came to the fore. Men believed that they could hold the conclusions and theories of science and at the same time, in the opposite apartment, maintain their religious faith without any real contradiction. This is the belief so often expressed to-day, that there is no real war between religion and science; but at that time the explanation was given as outlined above. There was no confiict, because a man could be two men and hold his views, no matter how divergent, in soundproof, separated, mental rooms.

During the 19th century, for well-defined reasons, science, philosophy and theology came into such an entanglement that the province and task of each is not clearly defined even unto this day. Science properly declared its right to think and to think through to a system ; hence it must deal with matters and problems usually declared outside its right and sphere. Philosophy, because it deals with a first-cause, naturally tended to become identified with theology. Theology, which calls itself the queen of sciences, always claims the right to deal authoritatively with both primary and secondary causes. Referring to this entanglement, Perry writes : ^ "Apparently compelled to choose between science and religion, it (philosophy) has itseK divided into two parties: those who have followed science for the sake of its theoretical motive, and those who have followed religion on account of its subject-matter." The result is the two opposing philosophies — perhaps theologies — naturalism and idealism. The most far-reaching result, however, of this entanglement is the creation of the modern science-theologian.

The popularity of this science-theology, called naturalism, increased rapidly, but not without meeting opposition. Soon the general view began to find acceptance, that this system of natural theology negated the fundamental verities of religion. As this conviction gained strength thinking men soon discovered that the separating wall between their dual mental-apartments did not separate. Then followed suspicion and hostility on both sides. From being friends religion and science abandoned the apartment for houses on opposite sides of the street. Science arrogated to herself more and more the claim to mediate all true knowledge to the world of mankind, because science and reason were practically identical. From the opposite side the defenders of the faith and even some men of science criticized searchingly this claim of their arrogant neigh-

1 "Present Philosophical Tendencies," p. 35.

bor ; but when in a more conciliatory mood asked for a return to the former status quo. This was refused.

Then occurred the new turn in the historic conflict. This change came, not all at once but grew nevertheless very rapidly. Philosophy split into various camps and the friendly struggle between naturalism and idealism, and between idealism and idealism, with excursions into pragmatism and realism ensued. The religious leaders split into conservative and liberal and then apparently decided to fight out a waiting battle. "With these antagonists thus engaged, science calmly and quietly proceeded to win the Age, with the result that this is the "Age of Science" and to a growing extent the age of the religion of science.

The story of this new turn in the conflict covers the period from the day of the appearance of Haeckel's "Riddle of the Universe" to the present. Every scientific movement, as Weber notes, gives rise to a philosophic movement ; but such movements do not always give rise to a new religious ism. There are special reasons, however, why the latter has occurred in our day.

Haeckel, despite the many criticisms hurled at his head was a seer. He was not a seer in the biblical sense of this word, but he clearly foresaw the coming of a definite religion of science. To him it was evident, as it must be to every unbiased thinker, that the principles, theories, canons, beliefs, metaphysics and dogmas of science must inevitably lead to this conclusion if thinking will but be logical. He also was conscious of the infiuences which were pushing some scientists more and more Into metaphysics and theology. The innate character of the theory of evolution, which demanded a universal system and a

THE EELIGIOI^ OF SCIENCE

system embracing the whole universe was apparent to him.

The reasoning which led up to this inevitable conclusion and which prompted this man of science to attempt to formulate a religion of science himself, seems well grounded. The conviction had seized many scientists, that the time had arrived, when they should advance from the menial position of being the hewers of wood and drawers of water for mankind, into the more exalted position of being thinkers. "To most minds it seems imperative to go on to metaphysical theory and it is better to do this frankly and deliberately than unconsciously and at random", is the plain statement of a scientific thinker.^ In another place the same author writes : "That the pernicious fallacy might be exposed that science can be pruned of its theoretical development and yet continue to bear fruit." This conviction carried with it the inevitable conclusion that the development of theory must embrace religion and morality. For he who has science and art has religion also.

"Whether rightly or not Haeckel felt that there was a distinct call to the scientist to supply a present religious aching void so manifest among thinking men. Reason, as he thought has banished mysticism and loosened the hold of alleged revelation upon thinking men, while rational illumination now holds the place the discredited, dominant doctrines of Christianity formerly held. This is one of Ms usual overstatements. Professor Hudson states what he felt more truly : "There have been ages of moral conflict, and there have been ages of moral skepticism. This age

1 Thompson, "Introduction to Science/' p. 165.

is both. Practically men are resolutely fighting for a multitude of ideals, so there is moral conflict ; theoretically, they are in great doubt, and there is moral skepticism." ^ Moral confidence may have waned ; moral faith may have turned to doubt; but there is one faith v^e have not lost amid the wreck of things, — our faith in modern science. The dominant docti-ines of Christianity are by no means discredited ; yet there is at present a manifest looking toward science for the way out of moral conflict and skepticism. How could science refuse to pay heed to this call ?

Our present faith in science is built upon tangible facts. Empedocles in an hour of inspiration wrote: "And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are the defense against ills and old age, since for thee alone shall I accomplish all this. Thou shalt arrest the violence of the weariless winds that arise and sweep the earth laying waste the cornfields with their breath; and again when thou so desirest thou shalt cause for men a seasonable drought after the dark rains ; and again after the summer drought thou shalt produce the rains that feed the trees as they pour down from the sky. Thou shalt bring back from Hades the life of a dead man." If mankind has not literally accomplished all these things, we have for a certainty developed the spirit which makes the impossible the unthinkable.

Science has given our age power through knowledge so that nature has lost its terrors. There has ensued a new sense of proprietorship in the world. We are more highly civilized because of our increased mastery of the physical world. We are fired with the spirit of conquest, which is

1 Hudson, "The Truths We Live By," p. 3.

giving us an exalted place among the nations of the world — conquest of the secrets of nature and the potentialities of the human soul. Science has given us a great galaxy of brilliant thinkers and writers. Art^ literature, education and even religion in large part have adopted the scientific method and spirit. When therefore science speaks on matters religious and moral why should men not listen ? Why, too, should not science speak out ?

But is science equipped to take upon itself this task of moral and religious guidance ? The affirmative answer was inevitable. The scientific method alone can attain unto truth, hence those trained in the spirit and technique of this method could best discover and reveal religious and moral truth. Theology was dealing very inadequately with the world of nature, the primal source of truth. "Unless man conceives the truth concerning the material facts of the universe and its laws he cannot formulate a correct theology." Science is practically identical with reason and religious faith ought to be rational. Science is general, universal, unbiased, rational, while theology is local, limited, narrow and practical. Orthodox theologians too frequently display an inability to distinguish between the forms of religion and religion itself. They fail to classify the different manifestations of religious belief and life, and different religious communities, in accordance with the stage of direction of their development. The certainty of the deliverances of science is always imposed by an irresistible evidence, hence this note should be heard when religion is the subject-matter. The theory of evolution must logically embrace religion and morality within its universal system and it has a persuasive winsomeness.

The deeper, experimental knowledge of the laws of man's individuality, his social nature, his relations and his environment should yield the secret desired to elevate mankind and mark progress. Science being exact thinking always induces belief in the finality of the conclusion, hence the scientist feels he is better equipped to mediate religious truth than the philosopher or theologian with their traditional mysteriousness. Science begins with origins hence no further knowledge is accessible. Many of the teachings of religion are manifestly erroneous, such as the doctrine of creation. By making authoritative the story of the Elood dogmatic, ecclesiastical authority has held back the study of fossils. In like manner truth is being hindered in other ways. Science has in the past revised many theological teachings. The vocabulary of science, particularly the symbol of organism made the journey into the field of religion easy.

To these reasons was added the one carrying the most weight. Tyndal had early recognized that^ if the universality of law be strictly maintained miracles and prayer are impossible. So in like manner others foresaw that if the inherent implications and applications of the laws, principles and teachings of science be brought out into the open a science-theology must ensue. Herein, therefore, is the equipment and the vindication of the right of science "to extend her investigations over everything human and therefore, over so important and mighty a manifestation of man's inmost nature as religion."

It might be urged at this point that a valid distinction is being overlooked, the science of religion versus a religion of science. There is a real distinction here. The science of religion means the critical, careful, unbiased study of the facts about religion, its expressions in life and history and the phenomenon religion itself. But this is merely a bias toward a certain method of investigation, held to be the best, and should be the method followed by every investigator, scientist or theologian. In this manner the facts concerning religion may be assembled and systematic thinking undertaken. The religion of science on the other hand concerns itself with the metaphysics, the beliefs, the laws, the principles and teachings of science and the science-theologian. Moving from these bases the man of science formulates his religious beliefs and his moral code. It is worthy of note that when a science of religion is undertaken the line of procedure is not the scientific one but the dogmatic. The concept of development and a certain definition of religion form the starting point whence a religion of science is deduced.

This objection is answered, however, not by argument only but by definite fact. Professor Conklin ^ makes it very clear that the religion of science is a present concrete fact. He brings the argument of this work to a close with these words: "Can this religion of science and evolution be incorporated in ihe organized religions of the civilized world ?" This religion of science — and evolution — he has definitely outlined. It now exists. What is to be done about it?

Thus the vision of Haeckel has become a concrete reality. When he made the venture at definition of this new religion as Truth, Beauty, Goodness, he declared that all men of

1 "The Direction of Human Evolution," Conklin, p. 242.

science down in their hearts believed as he didj and if they hut had the courage they would follow him into the open. Eor good reasons the majority of scientists refused to take this course. Professors Crampton and Conklin have found the courage.

The issue then to-day between religion and science is this concrete religion of science. The fact, however, of the appearance of a new ism does not necessarily constitute an issue. We live in a real democracy and every man may think and worship "under his own vine and fig tree." The issue appears in the relations established or claimed. The adherents of this new religion make rather extravagant claims for it, which not only invite but demand consideration.

These claims are that this religion is rational whereas orthu doxy is based on emotion. Intellectuality is not wholly denied to traditional religion because emotions and desires have an intellectual component, but this intellectuality is not reason. The latter is of a higher order and falls wholly within the domain of science. This science-religion also gives a rational solution of the problem of evil. It gives a more qualitative attitude of mind toward "the fundamental problems of existence, such as the origin and government of the universe, the constitution and order of nature, the origin and character of man and of society, and especially the mysteries of human life and death, of good and evil, of instincts, emotions, intelligence and consciousness, as well as the aspirations and ideals of individuals and of society."

It is further claimed that supernaturalism is shovtm to be due to a misunderstanding. The old universe of chance

THE KELIGIOW OF SCIENCE

and caprice has given way to one orderly^ stable and settled. The errant belief in miracles and in the completeness and inerrancy of the scriptures is corrected. Dependence upon tradition gives way to rational knowledge. The anthropomorphism of the Bible is labeled and properly shelved alongside such like "ridiculous" ideas. A more rational and sublimer belief in God and creation takes the place of the orthodox ones. The doctrine of divine immanence supplants the ancient transcendentalism. A grander view of man may now prevail. A more sane and modified view of teleology is now to hand. In short the religion of evolution (science) is a religion of progress through struggle and effort. It is a religion of service and sacrifice for the good of others, the real, true christian-

Such claims as these immediately issue a challenge and constitute an issue. But what precisely is this issue? There are various definitions now being offered. One makes it an issue between naturalism and supernaturalism, but this seems too narrow a statement since there is much more at stake than our attitude toward the physical earth or nature.^ Another ^ names the idol of the scientific method, but the proponents of the new religion leave this method behind and adopt the rationalistic. Another sees the issue as one between science-philosophy and a truer philosophy with special reference to the concept freedom.^ The question as to whether the extreme confidence men have in science to-day is justified is still another view.*

1 Conklin.

2 Hoernl^, "Studies in Contemporary Metaphysics."

3 Boutroiix.

4 Merz, "Religion and Science.''

Much the same view is held by Hudson ^ when he declares that it must be shown to our generation that science cannot deal at all with morality and religion. The scientific doctrine of naturalism is the storm center according to Balfour and Ward. The necessity of showing that science and religion are not enemies but collaborators is the view of my colleague Professor Patten,

Two quite general views seem to be widely held. The first is that it is necessary to show that science is fallible and productive of un-moralized power and therefore not qualified to take the position of leadership ; the second is that the whole system that bears the name of science must be rejected in one lump. The latter is the familiar view, that both science and religion have the right to treat the universe as a whole but the fashion of the treatment in itself decides the issue. The former gets nowhere because the scientist will admit even more shortcomings than his opponents may pile up against him.

There may not be a better way of defining this issue than these distinguished thinkers have given, but it may perhaps be stated in a somewhat different fashion. The issue is the modern religion of science. The concrete fact faces us that there is at present a definite, clearly outlined and rounded-out religion of science. This new ism lays claim to being superior to all other isms of the day and by its most ardent adherents to be the real Christianity. It is offered to us for our acceptance and edification. The demand of the hour is the necessity of a critical examination and evaluation of the new ism.