Though in the tone which many of the scientific adopt towards them, the defendersof Religion may find some excuse for this alienation, yet the excuse is aninsufficient one. On the side of Science, as on their own side, they mustadmit that short-comings in the advocates do not tell essentially againstthat which is advocated. Science must be judged by itself; and so judged,only the most perverted intellect can fail to see that it is worthy of allreverence. Be there or be there not any other revelation, we have a veritablerevelation in Science -- a continuous disclosure of the established orderof the Universe. This disclosure it is the duty of every one to verify asfar as in him lies; and having verified, to receive with all humility. §6. Thus there must be right on both sides of this great controversy.
Religion, everywhere present as a warp running through the weft of humanhistory, expresses some eternal fact; while Science is an organized bodyof truths, ever growing, and ever being purified from errors. And if bothhave bases in the reality of things, then between them there must be a fundamentalharmony. It is impossible that there should be two orders of truth in absoluteand everlasting opposition. Only in pursuance of some Manichean hypothesis,which among ourselves no one dares openly avow, is such a supposition evenconceivable. That Religion is divine and Science diabolical, is a propositionwhich, though implied in many a clerical declamation, not the most vehementfanatic can bring himself distinctly to assert. And whoever does not assertthis, must admit that under their seeming antagonism lies hidden an entireagreement.
Each side, therefore, has to recognize the claims of the other as representingtruths which are not to be ignored. It behoves each to strive to understandthe other, with the conviction that the other has something worthy to beunderstood; and with the conviction that when mutually recognized this somethingwill be the basis of a reconciliation.
How to find this something thus becomes the problem we should perseveringlytry to solve. Not to reconcile them in any makeshift way, but to establisha real and permanent peace. The thing we have to seek out is that ultimatetruth which both will avow with absolute sincerity -- with not the remotestmental reservation. There shall be no concession -- no yielding on eitherside of something that will by-and-by be reasserted; but the common groundon which they meet shall be one which each will maintain for itself. We haveto discover some fundamental verity which Religion will assert, with allpossible emphasis, in the absence of Science; and which Science, with allpossible emphasis, will assert in the absence of Religion. We must look fora conception which combines the conclusions of both -- must see how Scienceand Religion express opposite sides of the same fact: the one its near orvisible side, and the other its remote or invisible side.
Already in the foregoing pages the method of seeking such a reconciliationhas been vaguely shadowed forth. Before proceeding, however, it will be wellto treat the question of method more definitely. To find that truth in whichReligion and Science coalesce, we must know in what direction to look forit, and what kind of truth it is likely to be. §7. Only in some highly abstract proposition can Religion and Sciencefind a common ground. Neither such dogmas as those of the trinitarian andunitarian, nor any such idea as that of propitiation, common though it maybe to all religions, can serve as the desired basis of agreement; for Sciencecannot recognize beliefs like these: they lie beyond its sphere. Not only,as we have inferred, is the essential truth contained in Religion that mostabstract element pervading all its forms, but, as we here see, this mostabstract element is the only one in which Religion is likely to agree withScience.
Similarly if we begin at the other end, and inquire what scientific truthcan unite Science with Religion. Religion can take no cognizance of specialscientific doctrines; any more than Science can take cognizance of specialreligious doctrines. The truth which Science asserts and Religion indorsescannot be one furnished by mathematics; nor can it be a physical truth; norcan it be a truth in chemistry. No generalization of the phenomena of space,of time, of matter, or of force, can become a Religious conception. Sucha conception, if it anywhere exists in Science, must be more general thanany of these -- must be one underlying all of them.
Assuming, then, that since these two great realities are constituentsof the same mind, and respond to different aspects of the same Universe,there must be a fundamental harmony between them, we see good reason to concludethat the most abstract truth contained in Religion and the most abstracttruth contained in Science must be the one in which the two coalesce. Thelargest fact to be found within our mental range must be the one of whichwe are in search. Uniting these positive and negative poles of human thought,it must be the ultimate fact in our intelligence. §8. Before proceeding let me bespeak a little patience. The nextthree chapters, setting out from different points and converging to the sameconclusion, will be unattractive. Students of philosophy will find in themmuch that is familiar and to most of those who are unacquainted with modernmetaphysics, their reasonings may prove difficult to follow.
Our argument, however, cannot dispense with these chapters, and the greatnessof the question at issue justifies even a heavier tax on the reader's attention.
Though it affects us little in a direct way, the view we arrive at must indirectlyaffect us all in our relations -- must determine Our conceptions of the Universe,of Life, of Human Nature -- must influence our ideas of right and wrong,and therefore modify our conduct. To reach that point of view from whichthe seeming discordance of Religion and Science disappears, and the two mergeinto one, must surely be worth an effort.
Here ending preliminaries let us now address ourselves to this all-importantinquiry.
