ON THE SUPPOSED ANTAGONISM BETWEEN REVEALE RELIGION AND NATURAL SCIENCE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 37, 2 January 1885, Page 21

ON THE SUPPOSED ANTAGONISM BETWEEN REVEALE RELIGION AND NATURAL SCIENCE.

By R. H. BAKSmruLL, M.D., Fellow of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London, etc., etc.

(Bead before the Ohristchurch Catholic Literary Institution on Dec 8 1884.-) " ' I have been induced to bring before this Society a paper on " The Relations between Religion and Science," because I find that some good people seem still to krk on Science wilh distrust as antagonistic to revealed religion, and thus play into the hands of those who would willingly acknowledge, or, rather, who proudly boast that they are antagonistic, and who furthermore declare that as science is and always must be, supreme, wherever the teachings of science are in opposition to those of religion, religion must give" way. Now, my object in this paper is to show you as briefly and plainly as I can that science, true science, is not in any respect antagonistic to revealed religion. And by this Ido not mean to enunciate the truism that because science is simply the knowledge of (rod's works and religion is God's revelation of Himself to His creatures, there can be no antagonism between the two. To assert this would be needless. What I propose is to bring before you such evidence as, I think, will prove it. First let us define our terms. What is Revealed Religion ? In this room, and to this audience, it is hardly accessary to say that by revealed religion I mean the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as defiaed by her infallible authority. Ido not mean the opinions of individual theologians, however eminent, unless these opinions have been adopted by the Church and taught authoritatively ; still less, of course, do I mean those loose interpretations and pions opinions which no instructed Catholic would consider binding on his conscience. This definition at ouce disposes of a host of objections which Protestant* are obliged to combat respecting the account of the creation as givenin Genesis, the Deluge, the miraclesof the sunstanding still at Joshua's command, etc. As Catholics we have really no concern with these disputes. We are not tied to the text.of the Bible as Protestants are ; we have an infallible interpreter of it, and on points upon which the Church has not spoken authoritatively, we must uot atrempt to decide. .Now, the Church has not uttered any authoritative interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, which may bear various interpretations, and has received them from learned theologians. Similarly with regard to the universality of the Delude opinions are so divided that an animated discussion has been going on for months in the London Tablet on the question the Rt Rev the Bishop of Clifton maintaining for one that the Deluge was not universal. As far as this goes, even geologists are not quite agreed The tradition of a deluge in which all mankind were destroyed save a few individuals, is one of the most widely spread traditions existing amongst mankind. Geological questions are, therefore, open ques-tions-so are the interpretations to be given to the account of the deluge and of the sun standing still. We have thus a great advantage over Protestants on these points, inasmuch as the Church uot having authoritatively declared herself, we can accept and discuss any facts that may be brought forward. Next, what is Science? Well, science is a word derived with the least possible change from the Latin word scientia, which signifies knowledge-knowledge in the abstract, then skill or expertness. Cicero says, for instance, that ihe ignorance of future evils is more useful than the knowledge {scientia)ot .hem. But in the sense in which the word science "is generally employed, it means something more thau knowledge in the abstract, or tne knowledge of common things, which can be and is a , C 3? 7 every buman bein S of 80un <* mind, or even than skijl in the mechanical arts, though these may require, for properly understanding them, an acquaintance with some science :-it means knowledge which is full and accurate, systematized and arranged A science comprises all that is known about any given subject, including not merely a general acquaintance with it, but such an exact knowledge of details as may enable its possessor thoroughly to underhand its laws, and to know at least whether anything he sees or roads of is contrary to those laws, or incompatible with them, or whether it forms a new fact or phenomenon to be taken into account. For instance, the science of botany comprise* vegetable physiology or the laws of plant life and, systematic botany or the description and classification of all known plants. A man who is a fair botanist is acquainted with all the known facts of vegetable physiology, with all its settled laws; he has also a general acquaint tance with all the best known and commonest species general iamihes and natural orders of plants. He is able if a new plant is presented to him to fix at once its position ia the vegetable kinpdom within certain narrow limits ; he can generally say to what order it belongs, sometimes to what genius, and by reference to his books of what species it is. This is the kind of knowledge which is called science. Now sciences are divisible into theoretical or abstract, aud practical or concrete, and a mere enumeration of these will show without further argument that some of them can have no point of contact with the dogmas of revealed religion, and therefore no antagonism to them. First, take mathematics, the science of numbers and geometry the science of space. It is obvious that these, the foundation of all the ssiences, can have no possible antagonism to religion. They belong to different spheres of thought. The multiplication table, algebra, and Euclid's elements are of no religion and a man will admit that ten times five are fifty, or that all equilateral triangles are likewise equiangular, whether he be Pope of Home or President of the Mormon community. Physics, or natural philosophy, as it used to be called, which comprises the laws of matter, solid and fluid, including gravity, electricity, heat, galvanism, light, sound, the laws of fluids, etc., is another branch of science which deals with matters of which religion takes no cognizance. Chemistry is another science of the same kind. Biology, or the science of living beings, including both animal and vegetable physiology, psychology or the science of mind, and the new science, which may almost be said to be the creation of Herbert Spencer, sociology, or the science

of mankind as social beings — all touch on points ia which religion Js interested. There is also a science which I have not fonnd men* tioned in any list I have read, the science of theology, the science which treats of the Being and attributes of God, and of His relation to His creatures. This is a science which has occupied the most brilliant and powerful intellects the world has ever seen. It has, like every other science, its technical term* ; it requirjs year? of patient study to master it, and yet we find men who do not even know its technicalities, boldly, and with all the calmness of entire ignorance, discussing and deciding upon the most complicated and difficult questions in it. This phenomenon, peculiar to the present age, is worthy of note. The concrete or applied sciences are very numerous. Those which, in the popular eitimice, give the character of a .scientist to the student of them, ai\s gioiogf, mclv lia* miaanlo^y, palaeontology, etc., meteorology, astronomy, the higher departments of medicine, ethnology, etc. Now, when we maintain that none of the ascertained facts or phenomena known to scienc3 are opposed to Divine revelation as taught by the Catholic Church, and that node of the laws of nature which are known to be true with chat certitu le with which, for example, we know thit au 1 expnd* when heated, or that water expands on becoming ice, are contrary to Divi is revelation, we shall probably be met by the objection that every miracle recorded in Holy Scripture is a plain proof to the coatrary. Not so ; the Church in teaching us to bs.ieve in miracles, in no way disputes the existence of natural law, no way asserts that the law which the miracle violates is a fallacy of the scientist. On the contrary, could some extraordinary phenomenon be explained by the operation of natural causes, it would cease to be considered a miracle. When cures supposed to be miraculous are effected, say by the relics of a saint, the ecclesiastical auttorities first ascertain the exact truth as to the facts ; then they ask learned physicians whether the cures could have taken place by the operation of natural laws. If they reply in the affirmative, oadit quaestio, the cure is no miracle. Miracle, then, recognises law — miracle is the suspension of natural law. The ordinary and regular sequence of phenomena, we call the laws of nature. Religion recognises those laws, and considers miracle as a supernatural action of the Almighty Creator of the Universe in suspending for a time and for a purpose, the action of those laws. Our Lord's first miracle, the conversion of the water into wine, is absolutely inexplicable on any natural grounds. There are elements in wine which do not exist in water ; the chemical element carbon, which is largely contained in wine, is not present in water. Therefore, to make wine directly out of water involved a creative act. It would be absurd to suppose that because the chemist can prove that elements exist in wine that do not exist in water, therefore chemistry and religion are antagonistic. Religion admits the fact, and glories in it as a miracle. Or take the doctrine of the Resurrection. Every Christian believes in the resurrection of the dead. Science teaches us that every dead body becomes iv time decomposed into new compounds, or becomes converted into vegetable or animal life, and perhap* thence passes in the shape of food into the bodies of other human beings, of whose bodies the atoms that were part of their predecessors form essential parts. Perhaps there is not a human being living in any civilised community in whose body there are not atoms of carbon, or phosphorous, or lime, which have been previously constituents of the bodily frame of other human beings. But how doe- this conflict with the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead 1 In no way. St. Paul explains to us what ia the nature of this resurrection when he says, " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption ; it shall rise in incorruption. . . . It is sown a natural body ; it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." And again, " Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the Kingdom of God . . . for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Evidently the spiritual body of which St. Paul writes is totally different in its qualities from the body which we can weigh and measure, analyse and dissect ; the biologist has nothing to do with it. Now, so fast is the field of human knowledge that no man, whatever his mental powers may be, is capable of mastering more than a very small portion of it. For remember what Sir Isaac Newton said towards the close of bis life, " I feel like a child walking by the sea of kn jwIddge, and now and then picking up a pebble on its shore." Although it is the educational fashion of the present day to teach children and youths of both sexes little scraps of all sorts of science, you must not think that these little scraps, even if acquired perfectly from little manuals, entitle the student of them to consider himself as the master , of t.he science. It is only when the student has become a man that he becomes capable of knowing what he has to learn, and of learning it. And when he has selected the branch to which he" has resolved to. apply himself, he requires, in many cases, years of arduons study before he can master what other meu have done and published. He may then, if he has other qualifications to which we need not here allude, be qualified to teach the science either by word of mouth, or by publishing works iv which is epitomized, collected, or systematized, the results of other men's labours. There are men who have devoted their lives to science who never got beyond this stage. They are men of science, of ten very useful men — plodding, practical, industrious ; but not being endowed with much originality of thought, or being destitute of imagination, which is absolutely necessary for aa investigator who seeks rerum oognoscere causas, or being quiet and unambitious by temperament, they are content merely to acquire and add to their knowledge of other men's work. Next in rank above these are the workers in various branches of natural science, such as mineralogy, botany, zoology, palaeontology, chemistry, etc., who^take up some particular branch, and devote themselves to adding "new facts to their science, without troubling themselves with endeavouring to discover new laws. These are the men who describe new or hitherto undescribed forms of animal or vegetable life. One will take up some branch of botany — ferns, perhaps, or mosees, or seaweeds, and work at it for years. Wherever he goes such a man is happy. He is on the hunt for some rare specimen or some new species. So minute is the subdivision of the sciences) and so difficult

is it for a man to master more than one subdivision, that those who attempt to work except within very narrow limits, are looked upon by other scientists with distrust. Cinque in. Sna arte credendutn est is the motto of scientific working men— everyone is to be believed in his own art— but be must not expect to be an authority in any other. Thus to go to my own profession for a very striking example. There is a member of it — Dr. Spencer Cobbold, wno has devoted himself exclusively to the subject of parasite worms— the worms which infest man and the mammalia generally. In this branch of medicine he is supreme ; his authority is beyond question ; his decision is law. But if he were to attempt to write on the fevers, or on consumption or heart disease, or even on indigestion, unless it were the indigestion caused by worms in the stomach, he would hardly be listened to by the profession, and he would certainly damage his reputation about parasitic animals. When, therefore, you find men, like some in this Colony, declaiming ex catJiedra, as it were, on all sort 3of scientific questions, and pronouncing their opinions decisively on very different subjects, you may safely treat their decisions and opinions on every subject as valueless. Of course, here and there in the world's history you may find a man of gigantic intellect like Newton or Brougham, who can master many subjects, and do original work in them all. But such men only appear oace or twice in a century, and are not likely to bury themselves in New Zealand. Last of all, but highest of all among men of science, are those who have not only the power of acquiring a knowledge of what other men have done, and who add to science by their own investigations and discoveries, but who have systematized or classified branches of science which were in need of such work, as are all the sciences, except the mathematical ones, in these progressive days, or who have themselves discovered new laws of matter. Such men as Sir Isaac Newton, Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, Linnaeus, the great botanist, Cuvier, Laplace, Arago, Virchow, Faraday, Darwin Tyndall, Pasteur, Koch, Father Sechi, St. George Mivart, and many, others whose names are in everyone's mouth, belong to this highest class. Although few in number, they occupy a great space in conteraperaneous literature. For though it sometimes happens* that an obscure worker in science discovers a new lav/, yet in these days, when such costly apparatus is required in every branch of science,fora man to find out anything really new of importance almost pre-supposes that he is connected with some school of science, or some university. Few scientific men are wealthy enough to provide their own apparatus, and live on their own means ; for it is needless to state that pure science must be pursued entirely for its own sake. It never brings any pecuniary profits. To recapitulale.we have three grades of scientific men.— lst. Those who simply acquire, assimilate, and perhaps impart, what others have discovered. 2. M^n who add new facts to science but neither originate nor organize. 3. Men of original minds, who discover new facts, arrange and co-ordinate them with other tacts anil deduce fiom known facts new laws. In this paper I have purposely limited myself to the supposed antagonism between religion and physical science, as it is commonly called, that is the science which deals with material substances. For of psychology, or mental science, and metaphysics, or moral philosophy, the sciences which deal wiih our meutal states, our thoughts, desires, emotions etc. I know fo little that I could not venture to say how far the accepted laws, if there are any accepted laws, of the most advanced professors of these sciences agree with or differ from the truths of revelation as taught by the Catholic Church. Of course , lam well-aware that mohtof the hest-known and popular writers on these subjects at the preent day are themselves in direct antagonism to the Church. But whether this is owing to something wrong in their premises oi to fallacies in their method of reasoning, lam quite unable to say. I satiated myself with Scotch metaphysics before I was sixteen, and have never read through a book on the subject since— either for or against the teachings of the Church. As regards these subjects, I feel very much as Ido about astionomy ; I know nothing about it, but I accept with the sweetest humility anything and everything that astronomers tell me about the stars and solar system. I have no doubt that the earth goes round the sun, because I have been taupht so from my earlkst childhood, aud I never heard any rational being affiiru the contrary. But if the Astronomer- Royal was to tell me that it had been recently discovered that the sun goes round the eaith, the discovery would neither excite my interest nor disturb my equanimity for an hour. They tell me that the fixed stars are so many millions of miles from the carth — that it is easier to express their distance in the time it takes for their light to reach ns than in the numoer of miles. I accept it as an ultimate fact which is of no sort of importance to me. The truth is that you cannot have an absorbing interest in one branch of science and at the same time take much interest in others that do not bear on it. With regard to the objections raised to the professors of the mental sciences against Christianity, I have nothing to say, except that all the objections now made are of old date ; there is nothing mid nowadays which has not been quite as well said a hundred years ago or more and answered at the time. But as regards physical science, it is different ; so vast have been the discoveries of late years, that when it is asserted that these new discoveries have completely destroyed the basis of the Christian faith, and have made of revealed religion a mere collection of fables only fitted for prievts, women, and children, in which no educated and reasonable man can believe, it is difficult for sincere Christians, who have no acquaintance with the physical sciences, to know whether these assertions are true or false ; whether such sciences ought to be regarded with shuddering repugnance as the black arts of the sorcerer or the magic' an, or whether it may be that wicked men are perverting what is harmless or even laudable, to evil uses. I think I shall be able to show that the latter is the true view of the question. For let us take an example of the mode of investigation pursued by a naturalist when examining and describing a pebble picked up on the roid. He first examines it as to its outward appearance — its roughLess or smoothness, whether it is homogeneous or not ; its colour and lexture; whether it is crystaline or amorphous; if crystaline, to to what system i*s crystals belong : its specific gravity in relation to

water ; the way in which it breaks whether with a smooth, rough, or vitreous fracture; whether it is porous or not; the amount of water it contains if porous as ascertained by weighing it before and after drying by heat, After these and many' other points have been minutely noted, the mineralogist is perhaps able to determine from them alone to what description of rock, and to what geological stratum the stone belongs. If it is tonsiliferous, he can generally determine this with certainty, but if it should contain any fossils unknown to him or undescribed ia books, he examines them caref ull> and reads their appearance and nature. He would then proceed to an analysis of the stone. This watild first be done roughly by means of the blowpipe ; he would ascertain whether it was fusible or not, combustible or not, and whether it imparted any colour to the blowpipe flame which might serve to indicate the nature of the metals it contained. He might also subject it to spectroscopic analysis. After this be would subject it to a complete analysis by means of chemical reagents, etc., which would enable him to deteimine the various elements and compounds it contained and the exactquantity of each. This iscalled the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Hs would also in many cases procure a thin filing of the stone by grinding down a fragment of it, and having suitably mounted it, examine it under the microscope. All this labour the scientific mineralogist would bestow on a stone which the ordinary observer would consider only as so much road metal. But from these observations the mineralogist would draw valuable deductions as to the geological formations of the locality, and might even arrive at conclusions that would largely influence the social and political future of a colony. Now, let ns take a worker in another branch of natural science— Botany, liet us suppose that he undertakes the thorough investigation of a plant known to all of us and so common as to be considered little better than a weed, though only those who have lived for long years in the tropics, where it will not grow, can really appreciate its golden beauty. — I mean the common gorse or furze. We may commence with the seeds, because the seed is the most important part of every plant, and determines its position in the vegetable kingdom ; we may describe its physical qualities, its colour, size, shape, smoothness, relative hardness, weight and specific gravity : we may cut it up and divide the difference between its internal and external texture, and appearance. In so doing we shall soon find that after its outer coat has been removed, it splits readily into two equal parts, each of which, however, is connected with the s.mall body called the ovum, which we should subsequently find by experiment to be the germ of the future plant, as a single seed would, be too small for a chemical analysis, we collect a number and carefully weigh them; we then dry them by means known to chemists, and estimate the amount ot water they contain by the loss of weight iv drying ; we may then burn them to ashes with a proper apparatus, and collecting the gases given off during their combustion and the ashes which remain, we can ascertain, by suitable tests, the chemical elements of which they are composed. Of these the chief are oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, eulphur, phosphorus, lime, potash, soda, and minute quantities of a few others ; this is what is called the ultimate analysis. But these elements are combined in the seed into various compounds, such as starch, vegetable albumen, gum, tannin, oils and fats, and many others, which may be isolated and their amount determined. To save repetition I may state that this process of analysis may be adopted with every part of the plant having distinctive characters, as the leaves, flowers, stem and roots, each of which will contain compounds peculiar to itself.

(Concluded in our next.')