Modern scepticism, viewed in relation to modern science;...

Preface

It is the aim of several recent publications of great notoriety to show that certain of the more momentous statements of Scripture are inconsistent with physical truth. And the writers of them arrive at this conclusion under the guidance of what they affirm to be the light of sound reason, and well-established science.

Any conclusion thus reached is assuredly entitled to acceptance ; and, by many persons, that just adverted to has been accepted ; but purely on the faith that the reasoning and the science are actually what they profess to be, and not, as they really are, spurious imitations of the genuine commodities, the worthlessness of which would be discoverable by submitting them to the test of a scrutinising examination.

Some, from sheer indifference, decline the trouble of this examination : — the controversy is a subject in which they take no interest, and in the issue of which they feel no personal concern. Others, from long-cherished convictions,— perhaps long-cherished prejudices, having inherited their religious belief as they have their surnames, contentedly carry both through life, without any inquiry as to the origin of either ; and,

PREFACE.

despite the force of reason and common sense, would as soon think of changing one as the other.

To neither of these classes of persons are the following pages addressed, for by neither would they be read. They are submitted to readers of inquiring minds — to those who would reverently follow the leadings of Truth, however humble the garb in which she presents herself, rather than obey the dictates of authority, though " arrayed in purple and fine linen " : — to those, in fact, who would not only give a reason for their faith, but also a reason for their zmfaith.

I can conscientiously say that I have written this small volume purely and exclusively in the interest of Truth. I applied myself to the publications adverted to above, solely for the purpose of instruction ; and in the expectation that much which I had previously regarded as Divine Truth would have to be considerably modified, if not wholly abandoned as untenable. The perusal has very agreeably disappointed me. I say it has agreeably disappointed me ; for however ready every honest mind must be to resign fictions for facts, it is nevertheless provoking to discover that all of past life has been spent in paying that homage to error that is due only to truth. A traveller wandering along the wrong path is, of course, grateful for being put right; yet he cannot but regret the profitless outlay of time and exertion which he has been beguiled into expending.

That the Bible contains " things hard to be under-

PREFACE.

Vll stood/' the Book itself expressly forewarns us. But whatever of these hard things may have perplexed my own mind, I can truly say that the sceptical writings examined in the following pages, have greatly contributed to dissipate obscurity, to confirm previous conviction, and to strengthen faith. For the most part, they oppose the Scriptures on what they allege to be scientific grounds; but it only requires that they be read with that scepticism with which they were written —and which in scientific discussions is a laudable scepticism— in order to discover that they ^are only « the oppositions of science, falsely so called/'

This allegation it is my purpose to establish in the present volume; and it is my sole purpose. I do not attempt to prove affirmatively, by physical science, the truth of any part of Divine Revelation; such an attempt would be as ridiculous as it would be presumptuous. I have to do solely and exclusively with the arguments advanced to prove the negative : if these arguments are tenable, the subject-matter of them is damaged: if they are untenable, it remains unaffected by them. Revelation neither invokes human science to confirm its truths, nor does it challenge human science to disturb them. It does not stoop even to notice science at all; and in thus not deigning "to regard it, silently declines its feeble support,— and as silently defies its puny opposition.

The present work is divided into five sections, the first of which is to be regarded as a general introduc-

Till

PREFACE.

tion to what follows : tlie next three sections are devoted to an examination of Bishop Colenso's book On the Pentateuch, in so far at least as the Mosaic narratives are impugned upon what the author affirms to be scientific grounds. And I think I have shown that the Bishop's science — his logic — and his general literary integrity, are upon a par, being all equally untrustworthy.

In the fifth section, I have endeavoured to convey to the general reader what I believe to be correct views of the authority of physical science, — what is its real scope, and what are its limitations. Exaggerated notions are often entertained as to the absolute finality of its decisions, even in reference to the physical causes it assigns for the phenomena with which its investigations are occupied. It is thought, by many, and they act upon the impression, that if any physical cause be propounded which men of science generally receive and adopt, such general adoption is evidence sufficient that it must of necessity exist in the natural world; and that what opposes it would oppose nature. They believe that a physical principle which has thus received the sanction of physical science, can never be wrono- ■ little suspecting that it may be fairly questioned whether any such principle is ever right.

I cannot but think that this popular error has been encouraged and taken advantage of by writers who, in pitting science against Revelation, wish every spectator of the conflict to come pre-possessed with the conviction that the assailant wields only the weapons of

PREFACE.

unerring truth,— think what he may of the power attacked: that anything like retaliation would he futile ; for what vulnerable spot can there possibly be in the well- compacted armour of Science?

I have considered it therefore to be a duty, in reference to these erroneous impressions, and to the main purpose of the present undertaking, to enter at some length upon this question of the absolute authority of everything that goes by the name of physical science ; and to discriminate between what in its teaching is known to be true, and what is only supposed to be true. Suppositions, whether in physical science or in anything else, may be right or wrong.

Physical theories, or hypotheses, when limited to, and suggested by, the observed phenomena they are contrived to explain, arc perfectly allowable, and indeed necessary to the progress of science ; but then well-ascertained facts must always precede what in this way is offered to account for them. Nothing can be more unscientific than to frame theories first, and then to hunt up facts to be forced into conformity with them : — these must precede, not follow the invention of hypotheses.

And it is this reversal of the procedure which genuine science always enjoins, that is the prevailing vice of much of the spurious science of the present day. Imagination supplies a theory which, if true, must inevitably unsettle convictions, and disturb beliefs, m reference to matters which real science acknowledges, to be beyond its own restricted domain. A few things

X

PREFACE.

— very few — are discovered which appear, as far as they go, to be in accordance with this theory. So far so good. But the theory itself comprehends a great deal more ; and upon the strength of one or two facts, not contradicting it, we are called upon to accept it as a whole !

The theories about the antiquity of Man, the origin of species, and the descent of the human race from apes and baboons, are all of this character. I have devoted a considerable portion of the fifth section to the task of shewing such to be the case. The theories themselves, though exciting so much attention at present, are by no means new : they arc but revivals of old fancies, entertained by a few even English writers long ago. The ape-descent doctrine was a favourite speculation of Lord Monbocldo, in the last century, and the author of the well-known Botanic Garden, — an ancestor of the present Mr, Darwin — was an advocate, equally with the latter distinguished naturalist, of the doctrine of the evolution of the highest organisms from some far inferior and far remote life-germ.

I think it may be reasonably questioned whether the supporters of these odd theories are really convinced of their truth themselves. A firm belief in them is scarcely consistent with practices which they countenance. They approve of the slaughter of Gorillas ! But, if actuated by their creed, with what profound respect ought not civilized men (more especially men of science) to regard the Gorilla ! And yet M. Du Chaillu, instead of reverentially raising his

PREFACE.

xi hat to him, when meeting with him in the neighbourhood of the Gaboon, actually shot him —and even boasts of the unnatural crime ! How is it that the fratricide's Gorilla-blood did not warm towards his respectable and unoffending kinsman ?

Theory and practice, however, are sometimes at variance in matters of equal importance ; and the advocates of the Ape-descent theory may be in earnest after all —as much so as were the early searchers after the Elixir of Life, and the Philosopher's Stone. But it may be safely predicted that all attempts to educe Man from the brute, will be about as successful as were those of the Rosicrucian Philosophers to transmute the baser metals into Gold.

J. R. Y.

Section 1. — Preliminary Observations. TA.GE

Logical inconsistencies of Modem Scepticism . . 1

Certain natural phenomena inexplicable on physical principles . o Influence of Mind upon Matter .... 7 A miracle no infringement of natural laws ... 8 Creative acts are necessarily instantaneous . . Certain supernatural operations gradual. . . .10 The natural features of the earth's surface obliterated by

man, and other features impressed . . .11

Proof that God is an immaterial and invisible Being . 15

Man's ignorance of phenomenal causes . . .16

Those which he adopts only conjectural hypotheses . 17

Section II. — On the Deluge of Noah. The Bishop of Natal and his Zulu pupil on the impossibility

of the Deluge ...... 18

Syllabus of the Mosaic narrative . . . .20

The Bishop's futile reasons for rejecting it . . . 21

His misrepresentation of the phenomena of deluges,

whether partial or universal . . . .25

Deluges in general, that of Noah more especially, occasioned

not by the waters rising, but by the earth sinking . 26 The Ark rested on the present Earth, not on the dry land

which had disappeared . . . . .27

Conclusions deduced from the Mosaic account . • 29

Dr. Colenso's difficulties, about the Ark resting on the icy

top of Ararat, shewn to be imaginary . . .32 xiv

CONTENTS.

The mistake of confounding the antediluvian with the present earth ...... 33

Ample capacity of the Ark. No predatory animals . 35

The Bishop's assumed knowledge of the Antediluvian Fauna 36 How the Zulu should have been answered . . .39

Colenso, Kalisch, and Miller respecting the hills of Auvergne 41 Xo lithological evidences of Xoah's Deluge . . .44

On the tendency to lateral motion in uprising land . . 46

Objections by Hugh Miller to the universality of the Deluge 48

On Adam naming all the Animals in one day . . 51

Section III. — Ox the Post-Diltjvtan Creations

The animal and vegetable world renewed after the Flood . 53 A change also effected in the ether permeating the atmosphere . . . i . . i . .57 Sceptical objections sufficiently answered by reasonable

explanations . . . . . .59

The explanations need not necessarily be the true explanations .... .60

Two logical principles stated which must be always respected 61

Controversial stratagems resorted to by sceptical writers . 64

On the Rivers of Eden ..... 68

Granville Pemi s criticisms on the second chapter of Genesis 69 Remarks in reference to the circumstantial details with

which the description of these rivers is given . . 72

What is to be understood by God's resting on the 7th day . 74

The Rev. Dr. Pusey's remarks on the word " Creation" . 77

Section IV. — Specevlens of Dr. Colenso's Logic. The Bishop's argument to shew that Tents could not have

been earned out of Egypt . . . .80

When the children of Israel were harnessed were they armed % 83

The Israelites on their march : their insuperable difficulties 85

The lack of sustenance in the inhospitable wilderness . 86

The Bishop's inconclusive reasoning thereon pointed out . 88

The proof of the Bishop's position impossible . . 94

Omnipotent Power eliminated from the Bishop's premisses 95

CONTENTS. XV

PAGE

The Bishop's tamperings with Scripture, and his literary

unfairness . . • • • .07

His proof that animal food was eaten by the Antediluvians 00 His proof from Geology that Thorns grew before the Fall . 100 How did Eve get Needle and Thread for her Apron ? And

how did God get the material for the Coats ? . . 101

The Bishop's absurd reasoning as to the Census . . 103

And his equally absurd application of it to the Hebrew population . . • • • .104 The Bishop's extraordinary Astronomical discoveries . 105 His adoption of the views of Agazzisin reference to different

Centres of Creation . 107 The Philosophical conclusions of Dr. Pritchard . . 100

On the supposed fabricators of flint-instruments . . 112

On the Bow of the Covenant . . . .111

The Bishop's misrepresentations of what Geology affirms . 117 Admonitory Remarks in reference to the foregoing discussion 110 Note 1, on Dr. Colenso's obligations to Thomas Paine . 120 Note 2, on the Bishop's Arithmetical absurdities as to the

extent of the Israeli tish encampment . . .121

Conclusion as to his total incompetency to deal fairly,

honestly, and logically, with the subject . . 128

Section V— On the Authoeity of Physical Science, and on some Modern Perversions of the term. Imprudence of regarding any phase of physical science as

its final state . . • • .131

The science of one age often obsolete in the next . . 132 The authority of physical science extends only to observed

phenomena 1^5

Remarks of Sir John Herschel on this subject . . 137

Distinction between laws of phenomena and physical causes 111 An unknown immaterial agency implied in every ultimate

14-1

cause . . . • ■ • • • xw Herschel on the obscurity connected with the only act of

direct causation of which we are conscious . • 145

Hypothetical causes all that science demands . . 147

XYi CONTEXTS.

Yiews of Newton and Laplace as to the inexplicable nature

of attraction, or gravitation . . * 149

General principles inferred from the foregoing truths . 155 The prevailing modern tendency to theorise in the absence

•On Mr. Darwin's theory respecting the origin of species . 158

Tlis notions of the formation of the eye by development . 159

Natural selection implies an unintelligible process . . 163

Professor Huxley's assignment of Man's place in Nature . 164 His derivation of Man from the Ape . . .166

Development impossible except there be continuity . 167

No evidence of any intermediate races . . . 168 The fair conclusion from the facts adduced is that the

development of Man from the Ape is impossible . 169 -On Man's capacity and tendency to degenerate . . 170 On the physical effects of change of habitat . .173 The inadmissible assumptions in Sir C. LyelTs inquiries respecting the Antiquity of Man . . . .175 Inconclusive reasoning as to the Delta of the Mississippi . 177 „ „ Falls of Niagara . . 179 H Deposits of the Nile . 181 On the tlint-implements of Abbeville . . . 183 Nothing to prove they were worked by men . . 185 Man must have been created in his normal condition . 189 How is it that the Andaman has done so little and the European so much? . . . . . 190 Max Midler on diversity of language . . . 196 "The origin of language contemporaneous with that of man 197 Fossil bones, however like the human, can never prove that

there was no subsequent creation of superior beings . 198 Instances in which statements of the Bible have anticipated

physical discoveries ..... 201 Conjectures as to the real origin and intention of the ancient

flint-implements . . . . .207

Dr. Falconer on the reputed fossil man of Abbeville . 216 Note in reference to recent speculations on the different

races of men . . . . . • 219

Supplementaiy Note on the miracle of J oshua . . 223

MODEKN SCEPTICISM

IX RELATION TO

MODEKN" SCIENCE.

Section I. Pre Liminary Observations

Ax unprejudiced reader of the sceptical productions of tlie present day cannot but be surprised at the infirmity of reasoning' which pervades them.

One is continually bewildered with logical puzzles and paradoxical assertions ; and with contradictory doctrines and assumptions, not merely inconsistent with scientific truth, but repugnant to common sense.

The writers of these works recognize the existence of a Supreme Being — the Creator of heaven and earth ; and, as such, they profess to believe that the worlds they contemplate were brought into existence out of

MODERN SCEPTICISM.

nothing, and by the mere flat of His Will* : tliat He communicated to them their initial movements, and impressed the physical laws in obedience to which those movements are continued, and the stability of the planetary system maintained. How any man can give unhesitating assent to the truth of these astounding positions : — that the worlds around him were produced without any physical material, that they were put in motion without any physical impulse, that they were endued once for all with an all-pervading principle, in virtue of which they present a vast self-governing machine, every part of which so moves that, in the absence of external interference, any permanent derangement of the system is demonstrably impossible : — we say, how any man can accept these truths, and yet,, at the same time, declare his belief that the Being whose will alone accomplished all this has not poiver to do as he pleases with what he has thus created ; — how he can openly avow both these as articles of histheological or philosophical creed, is a psychical phenomenon hard to account for on any other hypothesis than that of mental obscuration.

He who maintains that matter never had a Creator, that Nature and its laws never had a beginning, is

* Although we here adopt the xxsual phraseology, " created out of nothing," the language is objectionable, as it seems to imply the preexistence of that out of which, as out of a real material, something was formed. This was noticed long ago by Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Demonstration of the Being of God. He observes that " the true notion of creation is not a forming something out of nothing, as out of a material cause, but only a bringing something into being, that before had no being at all.'

INCONSISTENCIES OF MODERN SCEPTICISM.

logically justified in rejecting " the hypothesis of a God." But it is certainly a very paradoxical feature in the books alluded to, that the writers of them unhesitatingly receive this hypothesis — that they have faith sufficient to admit as true the most mysterious and inconceivable proposition that was ever propounded, and yet are so incredulous as to reject as false another proposition, immeasurably less mysterious and inconceivable, and which, in fact, is nothing but a corollary fairly deducible from the former.

Every man of unclouded intellect must regard as truisms the positions that the Being who has willed the creation of matter out of nothing can will its annihilation ; and that He who has given it motion can also give it rest ; for the exercise of power or will in the one case, is but the exercise of the same power or will in the other, in the opposite direction.

Those who admit the truth of certain miraculous events recorded in Scripture, and at the same time deny the truth of other like events, as clearly and as emphatically declared in the same Record to be historical facts, and to have been due to the very same agency, argue upon a most capricious and illogical principle. From a group of recorded occurrences, all equally declared to have been supernatural, they make an arbitrary selection ; and, in direct contradiction to the Record, treat these as if they were affirmed to be, not supernatural, but natural occurrences ; and labour to show that physical science is inadequate to account for them. And, in thus concluding, they affect not to see — and

MODERN SCEPTICISM.

expect other people also to be blind to the fact — that they are actually verifying instead of falsifying the declaration of the Record; inasmuch as they shew that nature alone could not possibly have done what is expressly declared to have been supernatural.

The line of argument they adopt is this : — A certain work is said to have been performed : there are but two agents, A and B, vastly differing in power, to one or other of which, independently, or to both, conjointly, the performance must necessarily be attributed. It is proved that the inferior of these agents, B, is, alone, incompetent to the task : not a word is said about the superior agent, A : — he is silently ignored ; and the conclusion is, that the work in question is of impossible performance ; whereas everybody of undistorted intellect must see that the logical conclusion is, that the work, if performed at all, must have been performed either by A alone, or by A and B together.

A specimen of this kind of reasoning we have already given at page ix. of the Preface to a former volume.""** It is recorded in the Bible that the vast hosts of the children of Israel, young and old, were suddenly summoned to flee out of Egypt under circumstances of appalling danger and difficulty : the physical powers of the people, and the physical obstacles to be surmounted, were such as to render such a flight, without external aid, impracticable. But the story relates that they were conducted by Jehovah. Bishop Colenso tries the experiment on a small scale with forty people, led by

* Science Elucidative of Scripture.

CERTAIN PHENOMENA PHYSICALLY INEXPLICABLE.

himself, and lie fails ; and thence concludes that the scriptural statement is "utterly incredible and impossible."* If a writer feel himself justified in denying the possibility of a revealed fact — whether it be the Exodus of the Israelites, the Deluge, or the miracle recorded in the Book of Joshua, on the ground that it is contrary to Nature, or to the principles of physical science ; why in common fairness and consistency, does he not, on the same ground, reject similarly mysterious unrevealed facts, equally contrary to Nature and to physical science ? If it be contrary to physical principles that a moving world should ever have been stopped in its orbit, it is equally contrary to those principles that it should ever have moved in an orbit. If it be contrary to physical principles that it should ever be destroyed, it is equally contrary to them that it should ever have been created. Can the motions of the earth be accounted for on physical principles alone ? To what physical principle is its diurnal rotation referable ? Whence came the initial projective impulse, without which its orbital course round the sun would have been physically impossible ? To these questions science can give no answer • as every tyro in science well knows.

* The following is the Bishop's experimental proof of this impossibility (Part I., p. Gl): — "Remembering, as I do, the confusion in my own small household of thirty or forty persons, when once we were obliged to fly at dead of night, having been roused from our beds with a false alarm that an invading Zulu force had entered the colony, had evaded the English troops sent to meet them, and was making its way direct for our Station, killing right and left as it came along, I do not hesitate to declare this statement (Exod. xii., 37, 38) to be utterly incredible and impossible " !

MODERN SCEPTICISM.

But writers who thus talk about supernatural events being contrary to physical principles, use " words without knowledge." It is not because a subject is apart from, and above the reach of physical science, that it is, therefore, adverse to it. Be the subject what it may, it is unquestionably entitled to our acceptance only in so far as it is true. And if it be not a department of physical investigation, its truth or falsity can never be tested by an appeal to physical laws. If, however, claiming an exemption from the operation of these laws, or only a partial exemption, it nevertheless embraces among its declared facts dogmas or principles which are in direct opposition to clearly ascertained scientific truth, the so-called " facts " must unquestionably be rejected as so many fables or myths; because it is impossible that any one truth can ever contradict any other truth, how diverse soever the sources whence the two are derived.

The movements of every machine of human contrivance are all in obedience to physical laws. The constructor plainly foresees that such must be the case ; and he so disposes the several parts of it that, in obeying these laws, the machine may, at the same time, carry out his own intentions and purposes : these were settled and determined before the machine was, as it were, delivered over to the more complete authority of physical laws. These could not have formed the wheels, cut the teeth, or adjusted the levers. Every machine embodies in itself the evidence of two totally distinct agencies ; agencies which, though thus

DIVINE POWER ACTING WITH PHYSICAL LAWS.

distinct, have nevertheless operated throughout the construction in complete concert, and (so to speak), with entire singleness of view to the object to be accomplished. The intellect and will have shaped and arranged physical nature's raw materials; and, thus modified by mind, the matter is then returned to nature, whose forces are ready to give motion and activity to what, without her immaterial coadjutor in the work, would have ever remained at rest.

No machinist ever does knowingly anything himself that material nature alone can do for him : he sometimes does so unwittingly, from ignorance of the extent of her powers, but not otherwise. Thus, in the earlier contrivances for the Electric Telegraph, the conducting wire was made to complete a circuit, and to return to the battery; but it was afterwards discovered that the returning portion of the wire might be dispensed with, that nature alone could do half the business, and that for this half artificial aid was therefore superfluous : , such aid was in consequence at once withdrawn.

We may reasonably presume that the Almighty architect proceeds in a way analogous to that of his feeble image. The Divine Mind supplements the laws he has impressed upon matter— not by enlarging those laws, but by adding to their operations his own direct acts. But he thus interposes only when the laws of nature, left to themselves, are inadequate to accomplish his purposes: they cannot create matter, nor even control its impressed movements beyond the limits of their prescribed jurisdiction— they are not

MODERN SCEPTICISM.

almighty. He who is Almighty — the Supreme Mind, cannot be in subjection to material laws, or hindered, by their imperative and coercive demands, from doing whatever he wills to do with what he has created ; although, in so far as we know, he never has ' willed the abrogation — or as the phrase goes — " the violation/" of any natural law whatever. In the special manifestations of His power, in the regions of Nature, he has never done more, that we know of, than what, on a scale proportionate to the vastly inferior power he possesses, man himself does with the material things around him. The human hand, in obedience to the human will, takes of these things, and produces with them combinations and arrangements which the laws of material nature alone could never have produced ; and yet without the slightest infraction of any of those laws. Man lias never infringed physical law, solely because he has not the power. God, in so far as we know, has never infringed it, solely because He has not willed to do so. A miracle is no such infringement : it is something either wholly apart from nature, a thing that nature has neither power to perform nor power to oppose ; or else it is something brought about by the exercise of supernatural power, in the use of natural agencies, as instruments, or means, to the pre-determined end.

Whatever the Deity wills to take place does take place ; and, if he so please, instantaneously. Neither nature itself, nor man's operations upon it, can produce instantaneous effects. Natural and artificial

CREATIVE ACTS OF GOD ALWAYS INSTANTANEOUS. 9

operations all require for their performance time, the element with which God's acts alone can dispense. If light is to be produced by his direct fiat, it is produced at once, in whatever part of the universe its presence is commanded : if its production is to be the delegated office of a physical agent (the sun), that agent requires eight minutes to illumine the earth. « He created light and the sun ''—light first, and the sun afterwards.*

But although the creative acts of Deity are always instantaneous, and although time is never an indispensable requisite with Him, yet He is not precluded from the use of time. We say that the creative acts of Deity must always be instantaneous, because in the passage from nothing to something the idea of progress— of the successive steps of a process, is necessarily excluded. There cannot be development or growth from an absolute nonentity, but only from some pre-existing germ, or material principle. The bringing into being that which before (no matter how short a time before) had no being at all, must necessarily be an instantaneous act : there is no room for the interposition of time. But certain supernatural opera-