Part 8 (2/2)
”GENEVA, 30th October, 1863.
”SIR,
”I have the intention of commencing shortly, at Geneva, and for an auditory of men, a course of lectures designed to combat the manifestations of contemporary atheism. To this deplorable error I desire to oppose faith in G.o.d, as it has been given to the world by the Gospel, faith in the Heavenly Father.
”One of my lectures will be specially devoted to the removal of prejudices against religion which have their origin in natural science. It is said very often, and very boldly, that modern physics and modern chemistry demonstrate the unfounded character of religious beliefs. These theses are maintained at Geneva as elsewhere. I should wish to reply that natural science does not of itself turn men from G.o.d, and that without being able to give faith, it confirms the faith of those who believe: this I should wish to establish by citing names invested, in science, with an incontestable and solid renown. Will you, Sir, authorize me to make use of your name?”
Mr. Faraday, in reply, sent me the following letter, dated 6th Nov.
1863.
”SIR,
....”You have a full right to make use of my name: for although I generally avoid mixing up things sacred and things profane, I have, on one occasion, written and published a pa.s.sage which accords to you this right, and which I maintain. I send you a copy of it. I hope you will find nothing in any other part of my researches, to contradict or weaken in any way whatever the sense of this pa.s.sage.
”I beg you to transmit my best remembrances to my friend M. de la Rive....”
The pa.s.sage thus indicated establishes a line of demarcation, very strongly (perhaps too strongly) drawn between researches of the reason and the domain of religious truth, and contains a profession of positive faith in Revelation. The author affirms that he has never recognized any incompatibility between science and faith, and makes the following declaration: ”Even in earthly matters I reckon that 'the invisible things of G.o.d from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and G.o.dhead.'”
A literary man of Paris declares to us that natural science leads away from G.o.d: one of the first savants of our time informs us that the scientific contemplation of nature renders the wisdom of G.o.d manifest.
The question is one of fact. To whom shall we give our confidence? For my part, since it is natural philosophy which is in question, I rank myself on the side of the Natural Philosopher.
We will here terminate this review. It is time, however, which fails us, not subject-matter, for continuing it. You may have noticed that the name of no one of the savants of Switzerland figures in this inquiry.
Nevertheless our country would have furnished a rich mine for my purpose. It contains (and it is one of its best privileges) a goodly number of savants, whom the observation of the facts of matter have not caused to forget the claims of mind, and who know how to raise their souls to the Author of the marvels which they study. You will understand therefore that it has not been from anxiety for my cause, but from a motive of discretion, that I have forborne to bring into this discussion the names of men in whom we have a near interest, and many of whom perhaps are present in this a.s.sembly. I will take advantage of Mr.
Faraday's letter to make a single exception, by naming M. de la Rive.
More than once, and in public, we have heard him distinctly point out the place occupied by the sciences of mind in relation to the natural sciences, and render glory to the Creator. And I do not think that any one, in Switzerland or elsewhere, can claim to speak with disdain, in the name of the physical sciences, of the religious convictions boldly professed by our learned fellow-countryman.[113]
Recollect, Gentlemen, that I have not undertaken to prove the existence of G.o.d, by making appeal to the authority of men of science. All I have sought to do has been to destroy a prejudice. They tell us, and scream it at us, that the best naturalists become atheists. This is not true, as I think I have shown. There do exist atheists who cultivate the natural sciences,--no doubt of the fact. But even though half the whole number of naturalists were atheists, inasmuch as other naturalists, and those some of the greatest, find in their studies new motives to adoration, we are forced to the conclusion, that the true cause why these savants repudiate religion has nothing to do with their science.
We shall come to be more strongly confirmed in this opinion, if we pa.s.s now from the question of fact to considerations of sound reason.
The weakness of the human mind leads it to forget the facts with which it is not occupied. All special culture of the intellect risks consequently the paralyzing a part of our faculties. Hegel, lost in abstractions, persuades himself that he will be able to construct by pure reasoning the history of nature and that of the human race. A geometrician, who no longer saw in the world anything but theorems and demonstrations, asked, after the representation of a dramatic masterpiece, ”And what does that prove?” A physiologist absorbed in the study of sensible phenomena says: ”Where is that soul they talk of? I have never seen it.” These are phenomena of the same order. This infirmity of the mind, which leads certain savants to think that the ordinary subject of their studies is everything, must not be imputed to science. A man accustomed to the exclusive observation of material phenomena, may become a materialist by the effect of his mental habits, and this really happens, in fact, in too many instances; but the study in itself is not responsible for this result. Let us endeavor to prove this, by clearly defining the object of the natural sciences.
When the matter of a phenomenon is given to us, the understanding proposes to itself three questions:
1. How does the fact manifest itself? what is the mode of its existence?
The answer gives us the law of the phenomenon. Bodies fall to the ground at a determined rate of speed: the determination of this rate is the law of their fall.
2. What is the real effective power which produces the phenomenon? This is the inquiry after the cause.
3. What is the intention which presided at the production of the phenomenon? This is the search after the object, which philosophers call the final cause.
What we call understanding or explaining a fact, is answering these three questions; it is finding the law, the cause, the end. This a.n.a.lysis was made by Aristotle, and seems to have been well made. The science of nature, as it is conceived by the moderns, does not undertake to satisfy entirely the desires of the human mind. It confines itself to the first question; it cla.s.ses phenomena; it then seeks their law; arrived at this, it stops. The cause and design of things remain out of the sphere of its investigations; the question of G.o.d therefore continues foreign to it.
A story is told that when Buonaparte expressed his astonishment that the Marquis de la Place could have written a large book on the system of the universe, without making any mention of the Creator, the learned astronomer replied to his sovereign: ”Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.” The answer is admissible if we regard only the science of nature. An astronomer has no need of G.o.d in order to follow out the series of his calculations, and compare their results with the course of the stars; a chemist has no need of G.o.d in order to ascertain the simple elements combined in composite bodies; a natural philosopher has no need of G.o.d in order to determine the laws of waves of sound or of electric currents. The science of nature does not demonstrate the existence of G.o.d; still less can it deny His existence. To deny G.o.d, it would be necessary for science to demonstrate that there is no order, and consequently no cause of the order to discover; for when we point out the harmony of the universe, we manifestly prepare a basis for the argument which, from the intelligence recognized in the phenomena, will infer the intelligence of the Power which governs them. To prove that there is no order would be to prove that there is no science. For any one who well understands the value of terms, the words _atheistical science_ contain a contradiction; they signify science which proves that there is no science.
Such, Gentlemen, is the real state of the question. Our savants, when they remain faithful to their method, seek to determine the laws of phenomena, and do not occupy themselves either with the First Cause of nature, or with its general object; they leave the question of G.o.d on one side. Whence come then the negations of naturalists? They arise in this way: those savants who succeed in strictly confining themselves within the limits of their science are rare exceptions. Almost always the _man_ introduces his thoughts into the work of the savant, and the results of his study appear to him religious or irreligious, according to his views of religion. Newton ends his book with a hymn to the Creator; but it is not the _mathematical principles_ of nature which have revealed to him the Sovereign G.o.d. He perceives the rays of His glory because he believes in Him. In the same way, the atheist thinks that his researches disprove the existence of G.o.d, because G.o.d is veiled from his soul. In both cases it is a doctrine foreign to pure natural science which gives a color to its results. Self-deception is very common in this matter, and in both directions. The religious mind does not understand how it is possible to contemplate the universe, and not see inscribed upon it distinctly the name of its Author; and the intrusion of atheism into the sciences of observation is veiled beneath confusions of ideas which it is of importance for us to dissipate.
<script>