FACULTY PUBLICATIONS

Prof. W. M. Urban is the author of an article in the October-December number of Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale entitled, "La Critique Esthétique et al Philosophic en Amérique." This is one of a series of articles all in one number, under the heading Movement General de la Pensée Américaine.

The issue of the Harvard Theological Review for January, 1923, contains "Liberal Calvinism: The Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618" by Prof. H. D. Foster.

"An Aristocracy of Brains," the address at the opening of Dartmouth College, September 21, 1922, by Ernest Martin Hopkins, has been published in pamphlet form.

Prof. F. M. Anderson reviews volume 9 of "Histoire de France Contemporaine depuis la Revolution jusqu'a la Paix de 1919" in the American Historical Revie for January, 1923.

Macmillan Company have just published "The International Trade Balance in Theory and Practice" by Theodore H. Boggs, former professor at Dartmouth, and now professor in the Department of Economics, at the University of British Columbia.

"The Religion of Science," by William H. Wood, Ph.D., Department of Biblical Literature, Dartmouth" College: The Macmillan Company, New York.

The distressing phenomenon known as Fundamentalism, was, it must be admitted, about due. The revolt against certain supposed "teachings" of Evolution, which has taken so unreasoning a form on the lower levels of culture, had for some time been in full swing on the higher levels. One does not easily bracket Mr. Bryan with Arthur Balfour, or Mr. Stratton with Bernard Shaw, but in this matter they are brothers under their skin. In philosophy itself, the "idealistic" revolt against naturalism, in which Bergson has been so prominent a figure, has been one of the main features of the latter part of the nineteenth century. It is against this background, perhaps, that Professor Wood's new book, "The Religion of Science," is best understood. With Fundamentalism, although he does not mention the word, Professor Wood would have a certain sympathy, although he would doubtless deprecate its crudity. For "science," in the hands of what he calls the "science theologians," is much to blame for the situation. It is to point out the cause and extent of their offending that the book is primarily written.

The publishers' announcement describes the work as a distinctly new book, "the first statement in full form of the new 'ism,' well called the Religion of Science. It is also a critical examination of what truth for religion and theology may be contained in the theory and teachings of evolution." The mere statement, in complete and systematic form, of this somewhat amorphous tendency in modern thought, is in itself a task well worth doing. The form in which Professor Wood presents the content and argument of this "religion" of science has, moreover, elements of decided interest and novelty, elements which will contribute largely to the popular understanding and enjoyment of the book. Religion, it is well understood, is partly, at least, a matter of faith and practice; it has, therefore, always its canons, its scriptures, its creeds, its doctrines and teachings. All these, the so-called religion of science has. Its bible is nature, its canons are the so-called axioms of conservation of matter and energy, and mechanistic method; its creed is ultimately a naturalistic, even materialistic, evolution. In having made clear the real character of this creed, its essential structure and its logical implications, when we really think it out, Professor Wood has done valuable service.

Professor Wood's criticism of this idea of a "religion of science," as well as of the uncritical and dogmatic spirit that animates many of its upholders, is keen and incisive. One has, he holds, but to put these beliefs in the form of a religion to see that they are no longer science, but dogmas. A religion of science is a contradiction in terms. What we get is no longer science, but metaphysics and a very bad metaphysics at that. His criticism of the particular dogmas is itself, of course, not new, and much of his material, it should be said, is taken from the writings of the more thoughtful and self-critical scientists themselves. He is at times a little too much disposed, perhaps, to follow the old method of substantiating religion by picking flaws in science. It is not certain that he does not often exaggerate the dogmatic character of the concepts of matter, energy and mechanism as used even by the more dogmatic and speculative of these "science theologians." But when all is said and done, his criticism is justified. Science, as has been recently pointed out, is itself not free from a certain "obscurantism," a tendency, on the part of its popularizers at least, to ascribe to mere theories an absoluteness and finality not recognized in the higher realms of science themselves. It is well to have this pointed out. It is well also to challenge, as Professor Wood does, the idea, so prevalent, that, while science is a matter of reason, religion is a matter of emotion alone. The assumption, that reason is identical with the method of science, underlies the entire movement. In showing the falsity of this assumption, Professor Wood has again done yeoman's service.

The so-called "teachings of Evolution" constitute the crux of the problem, as they represent the rock of offense for plain man and critical philosopher alike. These teachings are supposed to be such as to require an entire reconstruction of our beliefs in God, in the nature of man and of his morality, and in immortality. On this point Professor Wood is wholly unequivocal and emphatic. There are, he holds, no substantiated teachings of evolution that are relevant to the fundamental beliefs and problems of religion.

Professor Wood notes in the first place, that among the science theologians it is assumed that it is no longer necessary to prove the theory of evolution; the task now, is merely to draw the conclusions. And these inferences or "teachings" are held to be a sufficient basis for a "rational" religion. But what is it that is proved? Surely not the Darwinian theory or any other theory of the factors in evolution. The situation within biology itself is sufficient to refute that assumption. Surely not that it is universal in the sense that it can be shown to apply below and above the organic level. That, he holds, is at most a pious .hope or a metaphysical speculation. But, if the theory on which the teachings of evolution are based is uncertain, these supposed teachings, themselves are wholly ambiguous and arbitrary in their character.

Space will not permit me to go into the details of his development of this thesis. One point may, however, be noted. The theory of evolution breaks down completely in its application to man. In his own words, either the theory of evolution must remain where it belongs and be local, or the facts relative to human uniqueness, and spirituality must be pressed in violently. It is to overcome this dilemma that the scientist becomes metaphysician. The theory of evolution can be made universal only by endowing nature with all sorts of spiritual qualities or by reducing man to a wholly natural phenomenon. There are, to repeat, no necessary teachings of evolution ; there are merely various philosophical interpretations. One thinker emphasizes the forces of construction and co-operation in nature and identifies evolution with these. Another emphasizes contrary forces and facts and gets quite different teachings. The former view is, to be sure, superior from every point of view, but the latter is the more consistent—indeed, the only consistent view if one starts with the dogmatic premises of the eternity of matter and energy, in other words, with the canons and creed of the so-called ' religion of science." Professor Wood has done well to point out again the almost insuperable difficulties which the philosophical evolutionist must face. It is not so certain that he has sufficiently recognized the possibilities of a spiritualistic or idealistic evolutionism. In any case, one misses a clear statement of just "what truth for religion and theology may be contained in the theory and teachings of evolution."

Professor Wood's attack on those science theologians who call their own individual interpretations "science" is unsparing. With science, properly understood, he has, he insists, no quarrel. He himself accepts the "facts" of science, not only in the sphere of the physical sciences, but in the field of biblical criticism itself. Yet, it cannot be denied that the book gives the impression of a very serious quarrel. In this respect the style is not wholly happy and the careless reader might easily get the impression of a revival of the odium theologicum in a rather virulent form. A somewhat magisterial demand that science know its place and keep it, cannot fail to prejudice many into whose hands the book may fall. This impression would be as untrue as it would be unfortunate. Yet, it is at this point, I think, that the candid critic, even one in. sympathy with Professor Woods main position, must register a certain amount of dissent. For what is the exact field of science? Professor Wood nowhere gives us a quite satisfactory definition. In this he is not wholly to blame, for that is precisely what science itself has hitherto been unable to do. It is in fact a point over which scientists themselves are quarreling at the present time. If many scientists conceive their task too broadly and uncritically—and many do—Professor Wood, it seems to me, would narrow it unduly. In the long run, the best results for science, philosophy and religion come when men do not think in water-tight compartments; when, in other words, some men are brave enough not to be merely specialists, but are willing to take the risk of error involved in trying to see things as a whole.

For reasons such as these, I cannot share the great concern with which Professor Wood views the excursions of the scientists in the fields of philosophy and religion. It is true that many of ..them forget what pure science is—abandon the precise methods of science for freer speculation, often without knowing it. It is true that too many of them do not feel the. obligation to a special philosophical training which such a task imposes, and that much thinking of this type is irresponsible and not to be taken seriously. It is true again, that such irresponsible and uncritical thinking has an unfortunate effect upon the half-educated that cannot but be regrettable. Yet, with it all, these excusions are to be welcomed rather than deprecated. From the days of Sir Thomas Browne's Religio Medici, to go back no further, attempts to formulate the religion of the scientific man have been perennial. It simply shows that the human mind is incurably religious and cannot let religion alone. "Sooner or later," I agree with Professor Wood, "it must be recognized that science, neither in observation, experiment nor legitimate theory can deal with the spiritual nature of man"— that is, completely and adequately. But the only way for science to learn its limitations is to try to go beyond them. Apparently, this is the only way in which the human race learns anything in affairs of knowledge and practice alike. In any case, no merely formal or logical delimitation of the spheres of science, philosophy and religion, valuable as it is, can, or indeed should, prevent the individual scientist from trying to understand his world in the best way he can.

It is a pleasure to turn from the doubts and difficulties suggested by some of the author's negations, to certain main positions that are indisputable. Few who have thought much about religion can, I think, fail to agree with him that the so-called "religion of science" has little in it that would commend it as a substitute for the actual positive and organized religions of the civilized world. The religion of evolution could never be the "real" Christianity as its upholders sometimes claim, for "it misses the absoluteness which is the essential mark of religion." "To be a religion requires a moral valor which its own world-view cannot give." The real Christianity, as he eloquently develops it at the close of the book, consists in the affirmation of certain eternal, absolute, spiritual values that are ultimately independent of history, either natural or human. Certain minds of limited philosophical capacity may seek to make a hybrid of science and religion, but such a hybrid can scarcely fail to be a logical monstrosity, as it is certainly practically sterile.

January 17, 1923.