A POSITIVIST ON RECENT CONTROVERSIES. To the Editor of the Herald.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4482, 25 March 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

A POSITIVIST ON RECENT CONTROVERSIES. To the Editor of the Herald.

3 ' Sir, —Withm the past few months, there j- has appeared in this portion of the colony, jvarious indications of a change in the cur--4 rent-of thought in -regard to the great question of -Science versus Religion.; The indi-, ~ cations have become manifest, partly through j 'correspondence columns, public lectures, and p pulpit the legitimate mediums of j.'*' publicity. In addition, • and of far greater 5 importance than these, however, is a quiet 3 " under-current : setting Steadily in J one direcu tion, destined inevitably to undermine the existing religious fabric of doctrines and re- • lations of religious feeling to society. A j Btrong feeling is gradually though surely gaining ground in. the minds:of/ many men, not irreligiously disposed, as to the untena- \ ble position'which is occupied by those who r take their stand on the doctrines drawn \ from the ordinary and usually accepted interpretation of the Scriptures. The first! efforts made in this direction, in our times, which have proved so disastrous to this poßi- , tion, were those commenced by the German critics, afterwards t by the authors of. the t Essays an<£ Reviews, and'most notably by i Bishop Golenso. The last-mentioned, a man • of much learning, .and well versed in the • scientific method of, inyestigatwn, arrived at results which hie confessed, shocked, himself, and certainly "did°inuch* outrage to the convictions of, large.numbers of people,who had . previously never doubted. His conclusions, discrediting /the , historical, evidence , of the Old, Testament, are substantially unassailable.' There is-one important, conclusion to be drawn from all that has been said in regard to-.this .question—that the facts as recorded in the. Scriptures, whether.they relate to 'historical events or "physicaloccurrences, =do not admit of . investigation; by the scientific,or.objective method. By.the objective method is meant, thai: knowledge should be acquired.. byfollowing, the order of tilings/ or phenomena, and not the.order of ideas. All metaphysical specuulations, of which .in. the ordinary philosophical classification 6f departments of thought religion forms a section, .are-foUowed in accordance with the latter principle, which; in contradistinction to the other method, is called .the subjective, jit is this radical difference in inethod which appears to' form an insurmountable' difficulty in* harmonising this conflict into a concourse. Aveiygood illustration of this difference of method in investigation may-be given by referring to a sermon published lately . in the columns of your contemporary on "The Future of New Zealand." • ' • The (preacher commenced by stating the following proposition, " the true material :and moral prosperity 'of a country rested upon religion." Now the objectionißt would reply ; : demonstrate * this .proposition by reference to known facts, and however, . willing we may be to believe the statement, it is very evident that until -it is proved, 'no • further progress can be made in the matter. In other words, it is purely a subjective statement, only an idea, and in no -wise based upon the observance of the order of phenomena. .There is something in the ' idea -of religion, however, too.-important'. :to be ignored by the boldest thinkers of the scientific school, and-it was partly through thus ignoring this idea that the philosophers of the 17th century of the French school utterly failed. But it must be remembered that this school chiefly failed because its disciples'followed a purely subjective method of investigation. Rousseau's doctrine of a state of nature was purely ideal, andihis | system of morals, arts, .and education.based ! upon it, was utterly opposed to historical deI velopment. It may be said of modern scientists, that while they do.not'ignore tKe ' importance of the religious side of human • : affairs, they are compelled, by the rigour; ; of their method, to abstain from interfering • J in questions arising' from the doctrines of 1 .theology. The 'true office of theology j .is to systematize the religious conceptions of . our nature, whilst that 1 of science; r is to systematise our' know- 5 ledge of phenomena considered as pheno- ! mena, and pursuing the objective method to j class particular facts under general eoncep- ] tions. This'is the inevitable 1 result of the J continued exercise of reason, . against the j full and unrestrained; .exercise of whicii," theologians of all ages' have vehemently \ inveighed.- Theology, in the early stages of the development of the human mind, is J absolute and autocratic,' not only' furnishing . religious doctrine, but dictating j to philosophy, giving explanations of all but the commonest phenomena to science.. Now * all the facts within human ken are assumed * to be reducible to order on the scientific j method—theological explanations of the 1 world have been quietly set aside as myths ; i they have been excluded from biology, and c even social phenomena, with all their com- c plexities, are considered amenable to scien- 1 tific method, because they , are seen to be J under the dominion of. law. The annals of ! theology, although red .with the flames of j persecution'and stained with blood, are the \ records of a series of disastrous failures; in- J curred in endeavouring to subordinate every attempt at independence of human thought * from its dicta and its dogmas. The problem fi now is, is it possible to harmonise the re- 1 ligious conceptions of our nature r with the c conceptions of things demonstrated by * science, and in view of the system of doc- c trines based upon the interpretation of 1 Scriptures, and insisted upon, as necessary a truths by theologians, who will venture to predict this possibility ? There has been an attempt .made to harmonise religion in its most general conception with science—certainly one of the greatest efforts ever made by the human- mind, and which forms what is known as the Positive Philosophy. I have t listened to several consecutive sermons— i not advertised—preached by a minister 1 of much greater mental abilities than t the gentleman previously 'alluded to, in 1 this community, in which the object r evidently aimed at was the reconciliation 1 of religion and science. The .preacher, per- i haps unconsciously, \ strange to say pursued j almost the ' same line of argument that the t illustrious author of the Positive Philosophy a adopts in his argument on religion, and its j place in human affairs. His objections to ] Pantheism, Materialism, and : Atheism; were i founded on the same considerations as those which are to be found in the Positive < Philosophy. The central point of Cointe's 1 conception of religion, both on the intel- < lectual and moral side, is that the harmony t of moral life within. us, and the association i of men in communion, depend upon the ever- s present sense of a Superior Power controlling. > our lives, itself endowed with sympathies i kindred to our own. But while so far the J reverend gentleman followed what was uu- 1 doiibtediy an objective method, it was J noticable how gradually the subjective was i substituted, and conclusions altogether dis- s tinct from the premises arrived iat. He was ] endeavouring to reconcile the irreconcileable, y and, as might.have been predicted, - the at- ] tempt was a failure, leaving an unsatisfac- ] tory impression on the mind of the listeners. 1 I cite this'instance as evidehcingan acknow- 1 ledgment l of the necessity, and the diffi- < culty of attempting, the solution of this c great problem. Now that science has en- i cr oached so far upon tEellomain of theology, \ insisting in dealing/both". with the social and t moral world, theology must either abandon. < much of its old position, or combat to the-' j

; death-^with-^these-claims.— 'The-aqthorg^iof jthe Syllabus' have --assumed the latter attitude and boldly : that the statemenfcrof science~are~ wickedr' This"position Is perfectly consistent,^arid, although_ the may be. ;a~-lengthened one, it is .evident, judging from the past, ..what will be its termination. One is jother is progressive, andgradually absorbing in its rank's the highest order of intellects. looking' then at the progress of science on one side, and its cordial adherence !for the most part to the 1 Positivist 1 Philbso< which claims to systematise the conceptions furnished by. science and theology, whatr is the conclusion inevitably forced upon our minds ? the abandonment*' or abolition of accepted dogmas, and the f establish;, system even more religioiisl [ It is* possible that: this view of the-march.of i modern thought will give a clearer arid more comprehensive idea of what is called " Vaticanism. "~I am, &c., ! Consensus