Part 29 (1/2)
[305] M. Voltaire; M. Cheneviere; Theol. Essays, Vol. I. p. 456.
[306] Humboldt's Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 139; Herschel's Outlines, 380; Kendall's Uranography, 205.
[307] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, 171, 337, 315; Architecture of the Heavens, 286.
[308] Genesis, chap. xv. 5.
[309] Cosmos I. 140.
[310] Ehrenberg computes that there are forty-one millions of the sh.e.l.ls of animalculae in a cubic inch of Bilier Slate.
[311] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860, p. 341.
[312] Psalm cxlvii. 4.
[313] d.i.c.k's Sidereal Heavens, 59; Herschel's Outlines.
[314] Architecture of the Heavens, 62.
[315] Architecture of the Heavens, 64. These unresolved milky streaks and patches have since been discovered to be true nebulae, or phosphoric clouds, in some way connected with their adjacent stars.
[316] Architecture of the Heavens, 144.
[317] Job, chap. x.x.xviii. 31. Psalm cxlvii. 4.
[318] Genesis, chap. xxii. 16.
[319] Galatians, chap. iii. 14, 29. Gen. xxii. 16, 17.
[320] Architecture of the Heavens, 217.
[321] Architecture of the Heavens, 77, 130.
CHAPTER XIII.
SCIENCE, OR FAITH?
”Faith is destined to be left behind in the onward march of the human intellect. It belongs to an infantile stage of intellectual development, when experience, dependent on testimony, becomes the slave of credulity.
Children and childish nations are p.r.o.ne to superst.i.tion. Religion belongs properly to such. Hence the endless controversies of religious sects. But as man advances into the knowledge of the physical sciences, and becomes familiarized with mathematical demonstration and scientific experiment, he demands substantial proofs for all kinds of knowledge, and rejects that which is merely matter of faith. The certainties of science succeed the controversies of creeds. Science thus becomes the grave of religion, as religion is vulgarly understood. But science gives a new and better religion to the world. Instead of filling men's minds with the vague terrors of an unknown futurity, it directs us to the best modes of improving this life.”--”This life being the first in certainty, give it the first place in importance; and by giving human duties in reference to men the _precedence_, secure that all interpretations of spiritual duty shall be in harmony with human progress.”--”Nature refers us to science for help, and to humanity for sympathy; love to the lovely is our only homage, study our only praise, quiet submission to the inevitable our duty; and truth is our only wors.h.i.+p.”--”Our _knowledge_ is confined to this life; and _testimony_, and _conjecture_, and _probability_, are all that can be set forth in regard to another.”--”Preach nature and science, morality and art; _nature, the only subject of knowledge_; morality, the harmony of action; art, the culture of the individual and society.”[322]
Or, if you will insist upon preaching religion, support it ”with such proofs as accompany physical science. This I have always loved; for I never find it deceives me. I rest upon it with entire conviction. There is no mistake, and can be no dispute in mathematics. And if a revelation comes from G.o.d, why have we not such evidence for it as mathematical demonstration?”
Such is the language now used by a large cla.s.s of half-educated people, who, deriving their philosophy from Comte, and their religion from the _Westminster Review_, invite us to spend our Sabbaths in the study of nature in the fields and museums, turn our churches into laboratories, exchange our Bibles for encyclopedias, give ourselves no more trouble about religion, but try hard to learn as much science, make as much money, and enjoy as much pleasure in this life as we can; because we _know_ that we live now, and can only _believe_ that we shall live hereafter. I do not propose to take any notice here of the proposal of Secularism--for that is the new name of this unG.o.dliness--to deliver men from their l.u.s.ts by scientific lectures, and keep them moral by overturning religion. That experiment has been tried already. But it is worth while to inquire, Is science really so positive, and religion so uncertain, as these persons allege? Is a knowledge of the physical sciences so all-sufficient for our present happiness, so attainable by all mankind, and so certain and infallible, that we should barter our immortality for it? And, on the other hand, are the great facts of religious experience, and the foundations of our religious faith, so dim, and vague, and utterly uncertain, that we may safely consign them to oblivion, or that we can so get rid of them if we would?
The object of this chapter is to refute both parts of the Secularist's statement; to show some of the uncertainties, errors, contradictions, and blunders of the scientific men on whose testimony they receive their science; and to exhibit a few of the facts of religious experience which give a sufficient warrant for the Christian's faith.
Scientific observations are made by fallible men exposed to every description of error, prejudice and mistake; men who can not possibly divest themselves of their preconceived opinions in observing facts, and framing theories.
Lord Bacon long ago observed that ”the eye of the human intellect is not dry, but receives a suffusion from the will and the affections, so that it may be almost said to engender any science it pleases. For what a man wishes to be true, that he prefers believing.” ”If the human intellect hath once taken a liking to any doctrine, either because received and credited, or because otherwise pleasing, it draws everything else into harmony with that doctrine, and to its support; and albeit there may be found a more powerful array of contradictory instances, these, however, it does not observe, or it contemns, or by distinction extenuates, and rejects.”[323]