Philosophy. DOES SCIENCE INDUCE SCEPTICISM? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. I AM sure that every reader of the British Controversialist will regret that the able pen of "Capillorum Sector" is, by pressure of care and business, restrained from advocating the cause, entrusted in his default, to me, as his henchman. I would I could wield the weapons of my master-they are sharp, trenchant, and sterling. The logical calmness and severity of reasoning the opening paper displayed was only equalled by the pellucid clearness of its style and the choiceness of its phraseology. I fear that in my hands the championing of the affirmative may be less effective than I could wish-than he would have made it. Editorial requisition alone would have brought me to the front on this occasion. I can but do my best, and bring the debate to an issue. I do not think the warfare between science and theology just. I object to unscientific theologians as well as to unbelieving scientific men. I believe truth to be faultless and flawless, but to be besides often bewilderingly many-sided. The special facet we see is not all the frontage truth presents. We can only see that which is turned to our earthly eyes, though we are permitted to catch by reflection a glimpse of its more heavenly aspects, and we have been told on divine authority-as I believe, that truth is heavenly not less than earthly. Now theology treats of the heavenly aspects of truth, while science, glorious as she is, is earthly in her origin and in her circumscription. Science and theology are neither contraries nor contradictions, and there is neither a necessary nor a probable exclusion of the one by the other; both can be worthy of belief-I would even say both are able to be known. It is possible, however, to turn one's eyes away from the brightest light, though the shutting of our eyes does not extinguish the sun. I do not, however, think that "pedantic science alone is antagonistic to Christianity" (p. 26). The chosen land of science, France, is not only unpedantic in its science but inveterate in its scepticism, and many of the most renowned cultivators of science among ourselves—Tyndall, Huxley, Darwin, &c.— are almost universally regarded as sceptics. The fallacy of undervaluing is a very trite one, and we cannot subscribe to W.'s confident averment that, "hostile sceptical science will be found narrow and pedantic" (p. 34). "Honour to whom honour is due' is a Christian precept which we neglect when we make such rude attacks on the fair and fairly gained fame of the most eminent scientific men of our day. I call attention again to the fact that a round-robin was put in circulation in favour of Christianity, which was to be signed by scientific men; but Sir John Herschel, Professor De Morgan, &c., objected to adhibit their signatures to any such document, because it gave an appearance of truth to the commonly received opinion that "science does induce scepticism." This opinion I believe is well founded, and I proceed to give reasons for it. Science inclines men to look only at law at work in the universe; it demands that no recognition of will shall be made, as effective in or over phenomena. Its very nearest approach to the acknowledgment of personality is that of speaking about the laws of nature as the expression of the divine will. But even this, modern science rejects, and it calls “the relations of co-existence and succession usually named laws by the name of methods," and interprets the process by which they are called forth the way of nature-the path "forces take to their particular results.' This tendency of science is a sceptical one. It eliminates from the universe of fact a personal God, and then affirms that science affords no evidence of His being. It is very clear that the reason on account of which scientific men are anxious to dismiss law from their minds is, that they may reduce the entities of science as much as possible. Still, though science proceeds upon abstraction, it does not follow-very far from it—that what we lay aside in abstraction does not exist. The habit, however, of treating it as if it did not exist inclines men to a forgetfulness of it, and therefore induces scepticism of it. A hero who, like Nelson, never saw danger, is not likely to believe in it. A scientific man, who only looks for facts, will not long believe in a God who surpasses all facts. 66 Jerningham's" able paragraph on the language of scientific men (p. 189) corroborates this view. While it entirely sets aside the argument of R. S. that Paley and Butler have shown it to be impossible to avoid the holding of a "belief in nature's God," the fact is otherwise; scientific men there are who do not believe in a God, who "Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, 66 The paper which R. S. has composed misses the question most completely. He, laboriously, sets himself to prove that " some scientific men are not sceptics," as if we required to affirm that all scientific men are sceptics." The question is of things not men"Does science induce scepticism P" If R. S. or any of our readers is acquainted with the line of inclination shown in by far the greater proportion of the scientific works of the day, he cannot fail to have seen that their tendency is sceptical. In fact, the whole of modern apologetics goes upon the ground that science is the opponent of theological beliefs, and the Bridgewater Treatises are a stupendous proof that science does induce scepticism; for had it not been so they would never have been written. Christian evidences no less than scientific tractates confirm our opinions and fight on our side. 66 Science," says "J. C. M. Derry," "is incompatible with probabilities." Surely this is a gross mistake. I understand that there is an express science of probabilities. Celebrated names are among those who have treated of probabilities scientifically; Pascal, Huygens, the Bernoullis, De Moivre, Euler, Halley, Condorcet, Laplace, Lubbock, De Morgan, Boole, &c., are no small names among mathematicians, and they have all shown that science is compatible with probabilities: even while I write I notice in the announcement of new books "The Logic of Chance," by the Rev. J. Venn. If Mr. Derry's premiss is incorrect we need scarcely test his conclusion, for either it must be erroneous or irrelevant. Science finds a certainty even in probabilities, as was most forcibly pointed out in H. T. Buckle's book on "Civilization;" and J. S. Mill has laid down express rules regarding the amount of probability it requires to form the basis of a scientific truth. Equally unfairly brought forward is Mr. Derry's implied conclusion-all sceptics are sinners, as the converse, which it by no means is, of all sinners are sceptics. But he refutes himself immediately by a list of scientific men who believe, but whom he does not except from the wide class of sinners. This makes confusion worse confounded, and hence we are compelled to lay aside the arguments of "J. C. M. Derry" as not to the point in proving a negative. I am sorry that P. H. should be judged to be deserving of so severe a castigation as J. O. intended to inflict. He says that "the clear answer to this question, Does science induce scepticism ? "would be neither Yes nor No! but, Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not." Is it so ? The question is not one of ultimate result, remember, but of immediate tendency. To use the language of the positive school of philosophy-to a wrong section of which J. O. appears to belong, "the paths which forces take may be intersected by the paths of other forces." These intersections condition the ultimate result, though the method of causation affirms that in its origin each given force has its own given effect to produce. Science may be intersected by faith, by a religious education, or by a prior reasonable study of revealed truth. In these cases its original force is neutralized. Gunpowder is ignitable by fire, but if it be exposed to moisture its ignitability will be lessened, and perhaps completely destroyed. Shall we say, then, that gunpowder is sometimes ignitable by fire and sometimes not? No; we admit the exceptional circumstance, but express the law in all its fulness, "Gunpowder is ignitable by fire.' Similarly we affirm, Science 66 induces scepticism," though in a thoroughly trained mind this tendency will be lessened by many circumstances. Would J. O. affirm that "Jesus died for all men" meant sometimes our Lord's propitiatory death is efficacious and sometimes not? If not, he will see at once that the ultimate result is quite a different matter from the primary aim, that logically the "first intention" and the "second intention" may be quite different. He seems, indeed, to have juggled with his mind somehow or other till the terms" induce scepticism" came to signify " produce scepticism." He has transferred the propter hoc to the post hoc, and has therefore reasoned as if to the assertion, The drinking of gin, brandy, rum, wine, &c., induces intoxication, he were to reply, A has partaken of gin, B of brandy, C of rum, and D of wine, &c., yet in neither of these cases did the liquor tasted produce drunkenness. Syllogistically thus Ill-ventilation induces typhus fever; A, B, C, D, &c., live in ill-ventilated houses; Ergo ill-ventilation does not produce typhus fever::-an evident non sequitur, though I will not call it a "suicidal fallacy." By "natural science" we presume J. O. means the science of nature; now if such science leads to belief in God and Christianity, why did God unnecessarily-the profanity implied is J. O.'s, not P. H.'s-reveal Himself and Christ? Was it not because "the carnal heart is enmity against God" in such matters, that He revealed true religion" to man? 66 By" religious scepticism" I suppose that J. O. means scepticism of religion. Religion is revealed. Why was it revealed? Surely it was because science had no tendency to make it known! Human knowledge "puffeth up"-tends to cause a forgetfulness of God. To make men "wise unto salvation," God made known His gracious will towards man. But he does nothing unnecessarily; hence He must have revealed His religion to mankind because human science was impotent to discover it, and induce men to obey it. Science could not see God in the universe, and therefore God made Himself known unto the inhabitants of it. The very existence of religion, therefore, is a proof that science induces scepticism. W. and J. O. both argue that all science which does not quadrate with the creeds and confessions of the present day is "science falsely so called." This is very charitable ! Will they provide us with a criterion of true science? Bacon and Mill and Whately and Sir John Herschel have each failed to do it, but W. and J. O. may be able! If not, how are we to argue but with the word science in its common-though according to them, unveritable-meaning? It is evident that they wish to bind science over to keep the peace with regard to theology, on pain of being treated as a rogue, a vagabond, an impostor, wearing the alias of a noble name. P. H. has no such horrible intentions as J. O. fears. He neither wishes to "depreciate science nor scientific men," nor "to expose the citadel of religious truth to needless attack." He wishes science and religion to hold on their respective courses in alliance as investigators of truth; all truth is in his opinion divine, but he does not think that "scientific truth, rightly apprehended, is religious truth." In opposition to J. O. he affirms that "science is truth seen from the earth, and that religion is truth seen from heaven, and shadowed, reflected, or revealed thence to earth for the express purpose of preventing men from resting in science with its terrestrial incompleteness and human imperfection, and so doubting that there was aught beyond the earth, and that which it makes known. Religion is another sphere of truth enveloping science, not contradicting it, nor being able to be contradicted by it, but capable of being disbelieved in by those who limit their faith to their eyesight. The tendency of science is so to limit the mind to this one completed, or supposed to be nearly completed, sphere, and thus to hinder man from looking beyond science to the outer sphere of celestial truth within which man as truly dwells as in that of science. There is no fomenting of slight quarrels in this kind of thinking. As "G. M. Sutherland" affirms that "science can exist without religion," he admits all that we contend for. If religion can be elided from science, it need not be believed in. Such a state of things involves the whole affirmative, Science does induce scepticism. We have argued now against the chief objections brought forward against our thesis. We think the case has been, on the whole, candidly debated in a series of singularly interesting papers, and with a fulness such as the importance of the subject demanded. We rejoice at the "unity of spirit" which pervades all the papers -an appreciation of science, and a recognition of religion as a want of the soul. Here there is a substantial harmony, and our difference is merely minor. Happy is he in whom science does not induce scepticism; happy is he, also, whom science, notwithstanding its doubt-inducing tendency, has been ineffective to cause to waver in the faith. The hope of the world lies in this true spirit of open-mindedness. As British Controversialists let us cultivate the brotherly love of religion as well as the keen, inquiring, intellectual vision of science; and though as yet we only see darkly as through a glass, let us so labour as to be worthy of the applauding smile of Heaven when we shall see face to face. P. H. NEGATIVE REPLY. NOTWITHSTANDING all that has been written to the contrary, the view of this question taken in my opening article is still held to be correct. That essay proceeded upon the supposition that the respective claims of science and of revelation were to be seriously examined and adjusted, and an answer obtained to the momentous inquiry whether the one really contradicts the teachings of the other. To lower the question into one of mere word-play seems to be a failure in earnest moral purpose, the indolent putting away of an opportunity for adding to the settled principles of our lives. |
