THE

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.

OCTOBER, 1862.

ART. I.-THE TENDENCY OF SCIENTIFIC MEN TO SKEPTICISM.

THE fact that there is a growing tendency among scientific men to skepticism with reference to the divine origin of the Christian religion, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and even the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, needs little proof. It is equally the lamentation of the believer and the boast of the infidel. Not that Christianity lacks among its defenders some of the proudest names on the roll of science, in each of its departments; not that the majority of scientific men have avowed themselves to be skeptics; not that the well-settled and generally-accepted conclusions of natural historians and philosophers are such as to convict the Bible of falsehood; not that the Bible has failed to derive abundant corroboration of many of its truths from the discoveries of science. We are not called upon to make any such concessions to the vaunting skeptic. But a few eminent devotees of science are avowed infidels; a multitude of youthful scholars are adopting their opinions; in learned volumes and able essays and reviews in the quarterlies, as well as in popular books, magazines, and newspapers, the idea is industriously circulated, and with a specious show of support, that science is necessarily hostile to the claims of the Bible as an inspired volume; and the doctrines of modern science show an increasing proclivity toward positions seemingly antagonistic to those of the Bible on topics FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XIV.-35

common to both.

Not a branch of science can be named which is not brought into service by modern skepticism, and by writers of marked ability. Geology is relied upon to contradict revelation as to the age of the earth and the order in which its vegetable and animal races were introduced. Astronomy is called to testify against the statements of Scripture as to the solar system and stellar universe, and to change into absurdity the relative importance ascribed in the sacred writings to this insignificant globe. Phrenology (but a pseudo-science at best) assumes to limit or deny that free-agency of man implied in the biblical doctrine of sin, probation, judgment, and retribution. Ethnology gathers its physical and linguistic evidence of such fundamental differences among the nations of the earth as will confute the frequent assertion and universal implication of the Bible as to the specific unity of the human race. Zoology labors hard in devising ingenious theories, and selecting and arranging confirmatory facts, to discard the scriptural idea of successive creations of animals, and to substitute the development of higher species out of lower by a natural law. And finally, as comprehending all, Comte produces his "Positive Philosophy," and proves, to his own satisfaction, and unfortunately to the satisfaction of a large number of cultivated minds, that the human race, like an individual, has its childhood, youth, and maturity, which, in the progress of thought and civilization, are represented by theology, metaphysics, and science, each of which sets aside its predecessor; thus superseding all spiritual religion, and all natural and revealed theology, by the positive demonstrations of physical law.

Nor must it be supposed that these attacks upon Christianity from the side of science are made in the low and ribald style of Paine, or for the obviously immoral purposes of many of the French and English deists of a former age. There is a phase of infidelity current that is apparently devout and reverent toward God, and that maintains a high standard of morality Those who read the Westminster Review, or are among men. familiar with the writings of Francis Newman and Theodore Parker, will understand our meaning, and will bear witness that there are indications in the productions of such minds of the highest ability, of extensive information, of unusual culture, of a serious purpose, and of sincere conviction. And these

traits are of all others dangerous, being powerful to influence young, inquiring, enthusiastic, and venturesome minds. These facts are worthy of careful thought, yea, of patient study. There is a double work to be done with respect to such skeptics, namely, to refute their errors and to account for them. The former belongs properly to Christian men of science, who can meet them on their own ground and vanquish them with their own weapons. The latter may be performed by any honest observer and thinker who is in a position to notice the influences which operate to produce the tendency in question. Indeed every intelligent Christian, and especially every minister of the Gospel, has the problem forced upon him for solution. Assuming the truth of Christianity and the sufficiency of the evidence in its support, the inquiry arises, How is it that scientific men of undoubted intelligence and pure life discredit its divine origin and deny the inspiration of holy writ? And, in particular, how shall we explain the evident drift of scientific theorizing toward positions antagonistic to the word of God? We will make such contribution as we can toward an answer.

In doing this we must repudiate, at the outset, two assumptions, one on each side, by which the skeptic and the believer easily and too cheaply satisfy their minds as to the all-sufficient solution.

The skeptic, with a self-satisfied air, insists that the necessary tendency of science is to religious skepticism. Comte's "Positive Philosophy" reaffirms this in every sentence. Science is a matter of certainty, of demonstration; religion is either the product of mere superstition, as in the early ages, and among nations yet in an infantile condition, or of unreliable metaphysical speculation, as in modern theology. It must therefore be, that, as the world advances in knowledge and experience, science will supersede religion, and the great facts and laws of the physical universe, which alone admit of demonstration, will constitute the creed of the intelligent. And others, who never heard of Comte, seeing that with the advance of science comes, at each step, an assault of infidelity upon the Bible, conclude that there is a mysterious something in science which breeds unbelief, and that a thorough natural philosopher must needs be an open or secret skeptic. It is for the advantage of skepticism to spread this idea as widely as possible.

But we cannot, and we need not make such a concession.

We may as well surrender the whole controversy. It cannot be denied that nature is before a written revelation, in order of time and in extent of contact with the human mind. The vast majority of the human race are shut up to its teachings in correlation with the inward voice of conscience and the remnants of early tradition. The Bible itself appeals to nature as an instructive religious teacher, and Paul does not hesitate to base human responsibility in the heathen world upon the sufficiency of its doctrine concerning the being and attributes of God. (Romans i, 18-32.) The rudiments of science, therefore, as to observation and induction, precede a written revelation. Holding this, and claiming that the author of the volume of nature is also the inspiring author of the volume of sacred Scripture, we cannot consistently admit that the study of the one necessarily conflicts with the study of the other; that reverence for the former involves disrespect for the latter; or that faith in scientific truth creates doubt in revealed truth. We claim that the two are in necessary harmony, as coming from the same Infinite Mind; and that the study of either should prepare us the better to appreciate the other. Christians should not betray sensitiveness on this point, (by which is meant that they should not feel any,) as though they feared the result of purely scientific investigation pushed to its utmost limit by an independent use of its legitimate processes.

Nor do we see the slightest evidence that such inquiries necessitate skepticism in well-balanced and intelligent students. Certainly we can claim, alike in the present and the past, names second to none in scientific rank; men who, understanding the appropriate and distinct evidence upon which science and religion rest, have embraced both with equal reverence and faith; men who were not to be deceived by bold assertion as to the "demonstrations of science," as compared with the "uncertainties" of theology, but knew that outside of pure mathematics (which cannot well be pressed into skeptical service) science has as yet been able to boast of few things more worthy of the name of "demonstration" than Christianity can produce by her processes of history and miracle, of heart-experiment and genuine mental and moral philosophy.*

* Sir William Hamilton, in his thirty-second lecture on Logic, concluding his remarks on Induction, says: "Almost all induction is, however, necessarily imper

Nor has Comte, in his elaborate argument, proved any necessary incompatibility of science and theology, but only that, as a matter of fact, in the childhood of the race, men uninstructed in science attributed the production of the phenomena of nature directly to the action of some deity, and reasoned therefrom as to the favor or wrath of the god. But if this was poor science, it was equally poor theology; and why might not an improved theology be found perfectly harmonious with true science? Yet, in the lecture introductory to his course, Comte remarks: "The present intellectual anarchy depends, at bottom, on the simultaneous employment of three philosophies radically incompatible: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive." And the difficulty he declares to lie in the fact, that theology seeks for causes and metaphysics for entities, or substances with necessary qualities; while positivism scientifically contents itself with observing and classifying phenomena, and setting forth their successions and laws. But even accepting the statement as to the object of the three, where is the "radical incompatibility?" After studying phenomena in their successions and laws, what necessarily prevents a wise man from inquiring, first, Whether these phenomena stand connected with material and spiritual essences? and secondly, Whether they are not all finally referable to God as the great first cause? If we examine a building, is it unreasonable, after we have considered the materials and the tools used in its construction, to inquire further into the methods of the builder and the designs of the architect?

The second assumption to be repudiated is sometimes made on the side of faith, namely, that scientific skepticism is the simple product of human depravity; that to account for it we need only remember that the natural heart is so averse to holiness, and therefore to the holy doctrines and pure precepts of the Bible, that it is ever seeking occasion to renounce its authority, and consequently presses science into ignoble and

fect, and Logic can inculcate nothing more important on the investigators of nature, than that sobriety of mind which regards all its past observations only as hypothetically true, only as relatively complete, and which consequently holds the mind open to every new observation which may correct and limit its former judgments. Let the reader also consult, for an instructive statement bearing on the same point, Mansel's "Prolegomena Logica," Appendix A.