48 Scientific method. [LECT. you come to simpler facts still; but these, as much as the first, are results of experience. And if you ask impatiently to be led to the bottom of things and to be told why these primitive experiences are just what they are and not otherwise, science tells you she can give you no further guidance, and hands you over to the metaphysicians. Take an example of scientific method. There must have been some very early student of nature, though his name has not been preserved, who observed that a stone when let go or thrown from the hand falls to the earth. His widening experience soon showed him that the same thing was true of other stones, and not of stones only; and after a great deal of comparison, men came to see that all bodies near the earth's surface have what we now call weight. A long time later Newton showed that the motion of the moon was to be explained by her weight; that she is in fact always falling towards the earth in just the same way as a stone does. An easy step further led to that magnificent generalization which we call the Law of Gravitation, in which, going by analogy quite beyond the bounds of our direct observation, we say that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a certain force. In this general result we are able to find a common explanation (in the sense I have just described) for the falling of a stone to the earth, and for the structure of the solar system. But you must notice that this law, like all natural laws, is no more than a generalization from experience; and while it explains much, itself requires an explanation. To give it one has been attempted by Lesage, and if his explanation be the right one we should be able to deduce the law of gravitation from the simplest laws to which we know the motions of all material substances conform. Beyond these laws of motion, which would seem to be the ultimate goal of all scientific "explanation," we are unable to go. II.] Elements of religion. 49 The orderly uniformities of Nature, which it is the business of science to discern, and which in our blindness we call laws, must not be supposed to carry the force of necessary truths. We have no right to assume that the generalized result of our limited experience will be found free from exception in the light of a wider knowledge. While we strive to bring apparent exceptions within the circle of scientific order, we should be abusing the authority of science if we asserted that no real exceptions could occur. Extensive as we find the reign of law to be, we cannot logically conclude that interference has not happened in the past and may not happen again in the future. Turning now to Religion, and more particularly to the Christian Religion, we find, I think, four elements which are combined under that name. These are (1) certain beliefs; (2) certain moral precepts; (3) certain rites or observances, with an organization which carries these into effect; and (4) a certain habit of mind which for want of a better name we may call devout. To convey any clear notion of this last to a person who has not felt it for himself is scarcely possible; nevertheless it is perhaps the most essential factor in the making of a Christian. It is not enough that he should believe that there is a God, who has revealed himself, and a future life; that he should act towards his neighbour as he would wish his neighbour to act towards him; that he should belong to a society whose objects are to worship the supreme Being and to carry out the law of benevolence. Belief in God as the Maker and Ruler of the universe would be little to us did we not love him as a Father, and the practice of Christian charity would be scarcely more than a haphazard kind of poorrelief, were it not based on a deep sense of the brotherhood of men. But for our present purpose we need not consider any 50 Three fundamental beliefs. [LECT. except the first of these four elements of which Christianity is built up. For it is clear that science has nothing to do, one way or other, with ethical codes or devotional sentiments or church organizations. If she has anything at all to say about religion, it must be about beliefs. What, then, are Christian beliefs? If we compare the many answers which have been given to this question at different times and by different men, we find that while they disagree widely in minor details, three grand statements stand out as the essential, because common, features of all Christian creeds. These are:-(1) the belief that there is a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe, and that its history is the continuous unfolding of his eternal purposes. (2) That he has revealed himself to us through the minds of men, and more especially in the person and life of Jesus, whose precepts and example form our noblest rule of conduct, and in whom our highest aspirations find their satisfaction and our best ideals their embodiment. (3) That the obvious incompleteness of this life will be supplemented by a life continued after the death of the body, in which our individuality will somehow be preserved;—a life to which the present is no more than a brief and scarcely intelligible preface, suggesting many problems which would be intolerably burdensome did we not look elsewhere for their solution. These three beliefs-in God, in a revelation, and in a future state-are the tripod on which our system stands, the necessary and sufficient conditions of Christian stability. Comparing now the two forms of thought, Science and Religion, you will see that they both tell us something of ourselves and of the world about us; but the things they tell are very different, though by no means antagonistic. Science shows us the order of nature, its method and history; religion shows its origin, and, to some extent, its purpose or destiny. If we ask II.] The idea to be combatted. 51 how things happen, we appeal to science; if we ask why they are so, science cannot help us, but religion is ready with at least a partial answer. You will see, too, that the growth of science need not involve the decay of religion, unless indeed we can prove on scientific principles that our fundamental beliefs are false-unless we can prove that there is no God, that a revelation is physically impossible, and the future life a dream. Nevertheless, I think I am right in assuming that there is in the minds of many now present, if not a definite belief, at least a vague idea that the relation of science to religion is esentially one of antagonism. You hear much of the 'conflict' of these two great departments of human thought, and you are perhaps led, without well knowing why, to imagine that while physical science is continually extending its dominion over the minds of men, religion is being driven from the field. You picture to yourselves religion as a moth-eaten and ragged garment, which has no doubt served its uses in the history of humanity, but is now fit for no higher office than to clothe the intellectually naked, to be cut down and adapted to the intellectually childish, or to be cast into the fire of destructive criticism. You fancy that religious faith has been abandoned by scientific thinkers, and survives only as the superstition of the uneducated. You have no doubt, and rightly, as to the vitality of science: you see its practical fruits and profit by them, while some of you have entered more or less deeply into its spirit. Religion you scarcely even care to know, and perhaps in your own minds place the faith of the West side by side with the Buddhist creed from which you have broken loose. You are ready, nay eager, to assimilate everything in Christendom except Christianity. "Sensible men do not "believe it over there," you say. "We will not fetter ourselves "with chains which they are laboriously casting off. The progress of science is every day discrediting it more and more. We "will not waste time in examining its claims." And if I were to 52 How it has arisen. [LECT. ask you what part of your scientific studies has led you to this conclusion, you would probably refer me to the theory of Evolution. This, if I am not mistaken, is the present attitude of young Japan. Forgive me if I have misstated the position; if these are not your ideas so much the better, for they are wholly false. It is not enough to call them inaccurate: I hope to show you by a dispassionate review of the subject that it is an entire misunderstanding to suppose that the science and the Christianity of the present day are anything else than friends. For in that first place, as a matter of mere statistics about which no difference of opinion is possible, we find that of those men living and recently dead who have done the most in scientific discovery, of the great leaders and exponents of physical science, a very large proportion hold or held the Christian faith. And if we turn from this statistical aspect of the question to the subject matter itself, and examine as fully as we can the results and tendencies of modern scientific thought, I venture to say that we shall find nothing to contradict or discredit, but even something to suggest a confirmation of the fundamental articles of the Christian creed. How then comes it, you will naturally ask, that the impression has arisen in the minds of many men that there is essentially war to the knife between religion and science? To answer this question, we must glance very briefly at the history of the Christian Church. During the very earliest stages of that history, in the life-time of Christ and his apostles, and for some time after, we find no materials even for conflict between students of natural phenomena and the exponents of the new faith. But the Church soon lost her primitive simplicity and in many ways wandered strangely away from the ideal of her divine Founder. She amassed enormous wealth, acquired a political |