Part 1 (1/2)
Religion and Science.
by John Charlton Hardwick.
PREFACE
The chapters which follow are not intended as even a slight sketch of the history of Thought since the Renaissance. Their object is more modest, i.e. to ill.u.s.trate the thesis that mankind, being ”incurably religious,” insists (however hopeless the enterprise may sometimes seem) upon interpreting the universe spiritually.
Thus it is quite natural that only a few typical names should find their places here: and often no sufficient reason may appear for one being included rather than another. For instance, in the tenth chapter, T. H.
Green, F. H. Bradley, and A. J. Balfour are mentioned, while Martineau and the Cairds are pa.s.sed over. Needless to say, there was no doctrinal prejudice here. Again, in the fourth chapter, Pascal is dealt with at some length, but Boehme, an equally important thinker, is ignored. And so on.
I should like to acknowledge here my obligation to Dr. Mercer, Canon of Chester, for his advice upon books, especially with regard to material for the final chapters. Also to the Rev. H. D. A. Major, Princ.i.p.al of Ripon Hall, for suggestions about the general plan of the book; and to the Rev. E. Harvey (a mathematical graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, at present studying medicine) for valuable information about the present position of psychic research.
J. C. H.
ALTRINGHAM, _March 23rd, 1920_.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY. RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Numerous attempts to define religion have made it evident that religion is indefinable. We may, however, say this much about it, that religion is _an att.i.tude towards life_: a way of looking at existence. It is true that this definition is too wide, and includes things which are not religion--there are certain att.i.tudes to life which are definitely anti-religious--that of the materialist, for instance. However, it will serve a purpose, and we can improve upon it as we proceed. It is a mistake to put too much faith in definitions: at any rate it is better to have our definitions (if have them we must) too wide than too narrow.
Science is, fortunately, much easier to define. _Accurate and systematic knowledge_ is what we mean by science--knowledge about anything, provided that the facts are (so far as possible) accurately described and systematically cla.s.sified. Professor Karl Pearson, the highest authority on the principles of scientific method and theory, writes:
”The man who cla.s.sifies facts of any kind whatever, who sees their mutual relation and describes their sequences, is applying the scientific method and is a man of science. The facts may belong to the past history of mankind, to the social statistics of our great cities, to the atmosphere of the most distant stars, to the digestive organs of a worm, or to the life of a scarcely visible bacillus. It is not facts themselves which make science, but the method by which they are dealt with. The material of science is co-extensive with the whole physical universe, not only that universe as it now exists, but with its past history and the past history of all life therein. When every fact, every present or past phenomenon of that universe, every phase of present or past life therein, has been cla.s.sified, and co-ordinated with the rest, then the mission of science will be completed.”[1]
Science, then, is systematic and accurate knowledge; and when we have systematic and accurate knowledge about everything there is to be known, the programme of science will be complete. This is only to say that the task it has set itself is one that will never end.
So much, then, for our definitions. Religion is ”an att.i.tude to life”: science is ”systematic and accurate knowledge.” How does the one affect the other? What are the relations between the two? That is the topic which will occupy our attention during the chapters that follow. To answer the question properly will involve a certain amount of acquaintance with the history of ideas. We must first put the preliminary question: How, as a matter of fact, have men's scientific ideas affected their religious ideas (or _vice versa_) in times past?
Having tried to answer this question, we shall be in a better position to approach the religious problem as it presents itself to-day.
Meanwhile a few remarks of a general character will not be out of place.
It is evident that ”science” can hardly fail to affect ”religion.”
Systematised knowledge necessarily affects an individual's (or a society's) att.i.tude to life--either by broadening and elevating that att.i.tude, or by debasing it. Our knowledge, or what we believe to be such, tends to create certain preconceptions which make our minds hostile to certain beliefs or ideas. A man reared from his cradle on mechanical science will tend to regard miracles with suspicion; if he be logical (as he generally is not) freedom of the will, even in the most limited sense, will appear chimerical. Nor will his general att.i.tude to life remain unaffected by his views on these points.
Systematised knowledge may thus conceivably come into conflict with the presuppositions or the ideals of some particular religion. It is then that a ”religious problem” arises. A religion indissolubly a.s.sociated with a geocentric conception of the universe would tend to become discredited as soon as that conception had been disposed of by ”systematic knowledge.” Science may even tend to produce an att.i.tude to life hostile not only to a particular religion but to _all_ religion. If materialism should ultimately be found to be consistent with systematic and accurate knowledge, it is difficult to see how any att.i.tude to life which could be appropriately described as ”religion” could survive. The religious problem would then, at any rate, cease to trouble us. The religious apologists would be free to turn their attention to matters of more moment. But it is not only with the cessation of religion that the religious problem slumbers. There are certain happy periods when religion flourishes undisturbed by obstinate questionings. These cla.s.sical ages of religion exist when systematised knowledge seems to support the contemporary religious outlook--when science and religion speak with one voice. Such unanimity seems to us to-day too good to be possible, but that is only because our own age is exceptional--not because those happier ages were exceptional; they, in fact--if we trace history backwards--would seem rather to have been the rule.
Primitive man, it would seem, was troubled by no discords of the kind which disturb our peace. His systematic knowledge--such as it was--was entirely in accord with his religion, the two were, in fact, in his case practically one. His science _was_ his religion. It may not have been very sound science, nor very elevated religion, but it served his purpose admirably. He was too busy with the struggle for survival to indulge in speculation. His religion was severely practical, and he was faithful to it because experience seemed to indicate that it paid.
But the Stone Age hardly deserves (in spite of its freedom from religious difficulties) to be described as one of the cla.s.sical ages of religion; absence of struggle does not necessarily mean richness of life. There are ages which better deserve that appellation. There are times when all existing culture--even of a high level--is closely a.s.sociated with the current religion, endorses its ideals, sanctions its hopes, puts the stamp of finality upon its faith. Such an age cannot perhaps hope to be permanent; for life means movement, and movement upsets equilibrium, and human knowledge tends to increase faster than the human mind can adapt itself to it or digest it. But such ages are looked back upon with regret when they are past, they shed a golden radiance over history, their tradition lingers, they even leave behind them monuments of art and literature which are the wonder, and the inimitable models, of succeeding generations.
Such an epoch was that which left to us our Gothic cathedrals. These are the creation of one of those cla.s.sic ages ”when all existing culture is cast or bent in obedience to the religious idea.” When scientist, scholar and ecclesiastic spoke with one voice and listened to one message; when prince and peasant wors.h.i.+pped together the same divinities; when to be outside the religious community was to be cut off from the brotherhood of mankind. ”The Church” was then co-extensive with civilisation: those without the fold were barbarians, hardly worthy of the name of man.
That time of splendid harmony, however, is now past; no lamentations will restore it. We have reached another world.