Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Scientific Societies aim at. As this Society will deal with General Philosophy and Science, and watch their bearing upon Religion, its objects have a general interest that societies for the study of specific branches of science cannot possibly have. Hence it is anticipated that it will become a large society, with Members and Associates all over the kingdom; and it was, therefore, deemed advisable that its head-quarters in the metropolis ought to offer the advantages slightly indicated under Object 7. To realize fully, however, what is therein alluded to, depends upon circumstances. It could only be hoped for after many years, unless more speedily accomplished by individual munificence and liberality.

In the mean time, the Society has work to do which it will have to set about at once. After what I have said on p. 9 (note), on pp. 10 and 26, and in the Postscript to this edition, I trust I need add no more, in order to let it be clearly understood that the Victoria Institute is not intended to discuss purely religious subjects. It is founded in the interest of religion, as against atheism and infidelity, but solely for the discussion of science and philosophy upon inductive and philosophical principles. What the Book of Nature teaches, as written in the visible heavens above, the earth beneath, and in the history and heart of man,-such will form our proper subjects of inquiry. Believing also that there is another Book, in which things are revealed which human philosophy alone could never have discovered, but which throw light upon what else were only dark to us (as to the ancient heathen sages) and inexplicable, we do not think it rational to forget such revelation; and we consider we shall not be found less scientific, because we believe what our reason approves, what throws light upon the mystery of our life, and gives us hope and consolation in death.

February 19th, 1866.

SCIENTIA SCIENTIARUM.

THE proposal to form a new Scientific Society in London, where so many already exist, may naturally be regarded as calling for some explanation. Such a proposal would seem to imply, either that the existing societies are defective in their aims, or that they fail to carry out their objects satisfactorily; or else, at the least, that the new Society has some other and further end in view than is contemplated by those previously established. Now, it may frankly be admitted that there is some degree of truth in each of these alternative propositions; and they might all be fairly urged as affording grounds for the establishment of the Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society of Great Britain. The great object of the Victoria Institute, as originally propounded in the Circular of 24th May, 1865,* and as set forth in Circular No. 4 of July, as the primary Object of the Society, is to defend the revealed truth of Holy Scripture against oppositions arising, not from real science, but from pseudoscience; and this is an object which no previously existing scientific society has made its aim. But then, it must be observed, that if existing scientific societies had duly fulfilled their aims, and guarded scientific truth, pseudo-science would never have been allowed to pass current as truth opposed to the Scriptures, and there would then have been no place for a new scientific society to expose the fallacies of mere quasi science. But this leads us further to consider whether this state of things may not be primarily due to some defect in the aims of the old societies, to which this inroad of pseudoscience is fairly attributable, rather than to the failure on the part of modern scientific men to do justice to the objects of their investigations. I venture to think that this is the true explanation of the facts of the case, as I shall now endeavour to prove. But first let us look at the facts

themselves.

* See p. 30.

It may be regarded as simply notorious, that Science, so called (whether truly or not), is considered by many persons to be at issue with what had previously been regarded (whether truly or not) as truths revealed in Holy Scripture. This supposed contradiction between science and the Scriptures was most boldly put forward in the "Essays and Reviews," as a ground for rejecting the theory that the Scriptures are wholly inspired; and Dr. Colenso and others have followed in the same path, publicly alleging the existence of such contradictions, and, so far with a bold consistency, setting aside the Scriptures, in consequence, as false. And if "science" really means, as it ought, a true knowledge of nature; and if such science really contradicts the Scriptures, then it certainly follows that the Scriptures must be in error or misunderstood. As no rational being who thinks can believe in contradictions, there can be no doubt whatever, that when the Scriptures and science are at issue, one of them must be at fault; and, in that case, it must be of the greatest consequence to mankind at large, to be able to discover which. The issue involved, indeed, is nothing less than the truth or falsehood of Revealed Religion-the maintenance or abandonment of Christianity.

It was the existence of this state of things that gave rise to the famous "Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences," which was signed by upwards of 700 gentlemen (the greater number being members of the learned professions and fellows of scientific societies), who expressed themselves as follows:

"We, the undersigned Students of the Natural Sciences, desire to express

our sincere regret, that researches into scientific truth are

perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt upon the Truth and Authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God's Word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ. We are not forgetful that Physical Science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly; and we conficlently believe that time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that Natural Science should be looked upon with

suspicion by many who do not make a study of it, merely

a

on account of the

unadvised manner in which some are placing it in opposition to Holy Writ nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that We believe that it is the duty of every Scientific Student to investigate some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the Written Word, or Irather to his own interpretations of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptuously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the

7

statements of Scripture wrong; rather, leave the two side by side till it shall please God to allow us to see the manner in which they may be reconciled ;' and, instead of insisting upon the seeming differences between Science and the Scriptures, it would be as well to rest in faith upon the points in which they agree."

In this Declaration we have the "facts" sufficiently acknowledged, although the manner in which they are stated may be regarded as open to criticism. The language is somewhat indefinite, and therefore not likely quite to satisfy those who have definite scientific notions, any more than those who distrust science, and have no doubt as to their theological traditions. But to say that scientific truth is perverted by some, in order to cast doubt upon scriptural truth, if that is what is meant by the words that "researches into scientific truth" are so perverted, is a declaration that scarcely modifies censure by its periphrasis. I do not believe the students who signed this Declaration meant really to imply that researches into science have been purposely perverted, so as to be made antagonistic to religion, as it were, intentionally. Giving due credit to men of science for having simply pursued their studies with the view to discover truth, it is surely a simpler account of the present state of things to say, that men of science, pursuing their researches in this impartial spirit, have arrived at certain cosmological and geological deductions, which they believe to be scientifically true, which are unfortunately at issue with what the Holy Scriptures have hitherto been supposed to reveal as to the Creation and the Deluge.

"We

But it is perfectly clear and this is acknowledged quite plainly in the Declaration-that there cannot really be a contradiction between true science and true revelation. conceive" (the Declaration says) "that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God's Word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ." And on that point, of course, there can be no difference of opinion; nor is there any such difference. If science and Scripture are at issue, plainly one of them is wrong-untrue. There can be no other issue. If the so-called "science" is really science, though contrary to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures must be in error or misunderstood. Or, if we maintain the integrity of the Scriptures as truly God's revealed word, then what appears to be science must be merely pseudo-science, that is, a false interpretation of nature.

I repeat there cannot be a doubt as to this issue and its

B

inevitable result. It is accepted, or rather it is advanced, in the plainest manner in the "Essays and Reviews,"-most especially in Mr. C. W. Goodwin's essay on the Mosaic Cosmogony; and it is the very ground upon which the Bishop of Natal left his diocese and came to England, to write his books against the Pentateuch. In one of the latest of his public enunciations, before returning to South Africa, he advanced distinctly the same proposition. I allude to a paper he read before the Anthropological Society of London, on May 16th, 1865. In it he says, "The elementary truths of geological science flatly contradict the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge;" and he adds, "At all events, I have done my best to secure that the simple facts revealed by modern science-some of which, as Dr. Temple has justly said on a recent occasion, are utterly irreconcilable with Scripture statements, if these are taken as announcing literal historical truth,-shall not be kept back from the heathen with whom my own lot has been cast in the district of Natal." Here Dr. Colenso is simply declaring, that he holds it to be impossible that the truths of nature can be contrary to the truths of revelation; and he quite consistently rejects the scriptural statements which are at variance with what he regards as truths of science.

The difference between him and the students who signed the Declaration referred to, is this:-He distrusts the Scriptures, and considers his science unquestionable; they rather question science, and are not prepared to give up the Holy Scriptures. They say, "We are not unmindful that Physical Science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly;" and they afterwards declare, that they "confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular."

Now, in this state of things it is perfectly clear that men must naturally range themselves either upon the side of Scripture or of science. If, like Dr. Colenso, Dr. Temple and Mr. Goodwin, they have implicit faith in what they consider to be scientific truth, then they must distrust the Scriptures; whereas, on the other hand, if they have faith in the word of God as revealed in Scripture, they must distrust that "science" so called, which contradicts it. They cannot believe equally in both. They must hold to the one or to the other. Even those who are puzzled, and scarcely able to realize so definite a course, must feel that it is most unsatisfactory to have science and revelation thus at issue; and they must naturally be anxious that something should be done to get rid of such contradictions.

Now this is precisely the end which is proposed

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »