Books: History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science
J >>
John William Draper >> History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 | 26
One of the most striking and vet contradictory features of the
Dogmatic Constitution is, the reluctant homage it pays to the
intelligence of man. It presents a definition of the
philosophical basis of Catholicism, but it veils from view the
repulsive features of the vulgar faith. It sets forth the
attributes of God, the Creator of all things, in words fitly
designating its sublime conception, but it abstains from
affirming that this most awful and eternal Being was born of an
earthly mother, the wife of a Jewish carpenter, who has since
become the queen of heaven. The God it depicts is not the God of
the middle ages, seated on his golden throne, surrounded by
choirs of angels, but the God of Philosophy. The Constitution has
nothing to say about the Trinity, nothing of the worship due to
the Virgin--on the contrary, that is by implication sternly
condemned; nothing about transubstantiation, or the making of the
flesh and blood of God by the priest; nothing of the invocation
of the saints. It bears on its face subordination to the thought
of the age, the impress of the intellectual progress of man.
THE PASSAGE OF EUROPE TO LLAMAISM. Such being the exposition
rendered to us respecting the attributes of God, it next
instructs us as to his mode of government of the world. The
Church asserts that she possesses a supernatural control over all
material and moral events. The priesthood, in its various grades,
can determine issues of the future, either by the exercise of its
inherent attributes, or by its influential invocation of the
celestial powers. To the sovereign pontiff it has been given to
bind or loose at his pleasure. It is unlawful to appeal from his
judgments to an Oecumenical Council, as if to an earthly arbiter
superior to him. Powers such as these are consistent with
arbitrary rule, but they are inconsistent with the government of
the world by immutable law. Hence the Dogmatic Constitution
plants itself firmly in behalf of incessant providential
interventions; it will not for a moment admit that in natural
things there is an irresistible sequence of events, or in the
affairs of men an unavoidable course of acts.
But has not the order of civilization in all parts of the world
been the same? Does not the growth of society resemble individual
growth? Do not both exhibit to us phases of youth, of maturity,
of decrepitude? To a person who has carefully considered the
progressive civilization of groups of men in regions of the earth
far apart, who has observed the identical forms under which that
advancing civilization has manifested itself, is it not clear
that the procedure is determined by law? The religious ideas of
the Incas of Peru and the emperors of Mexico, and the ceremonials
of their court-life, were the same as those in Europe--the same
as those in Asia. The current of thought had been the same. A
swarm of bees carried to some distant land will build its combs
and regulate its social institutions as other unknown swarms
would do, and so with separated and disconnected swarms of men.
So invariable is this sequence of thought and act, that there are
philosophers who, transferring the past example offered by
Asiatic history to the case of Europe, would not hesitate to
sustain the proposition--given a bishop of Rome and some
centuries, and you will have an infallible pope: given an
infallible pope and a little more time, and you will have
Llamaism--Llamaism to which Asia has long, ago attained.
As to the origin of corporeal and spiritual things, the Dogmatic
Constitution adds a solemn emphasis to its declarations, by
anathematizing all those who bold the doctrine of emanation, or
who believe that visible Nature is only a manifestation of the
Divine Essence. In this its authors had a task of no ordinary
difficulty before them. They must encounter those formidable
ideas, whether old or new, which in our times are so strongly
forcing themselves on thoughtful men. The doctrine of the
conservation and correlation of Force yields as its logical issue
the time-worn Oriental emanation theory; the doctrines of
Evolution and Development strike at that of successive creative
acts. The former rests on the fundamental principle that the
quantity of force in the universe is invariable. Though that
quantity can neither be increased nor diminished, the forms under
which Force expresses itself may be transmuted into each other.
As yet this doctrine has not received complete scientific
demonstration, but so numerous and so cogent are the arguments
adduced in its behalf, that it stands in an imposing, almost in
an authoritative attitude. Now, the Asiatic theory of emanation
and absorption is seen to be in harmony with this grand idea. It
does not hold that, at the conception of a human being, a soul is
created by God out of nothing and given to it, but that a portion
of the already existing, the divine, the universal intelligence,
is imparted, and, when life is over, this returns to and is
absorbed in the general source from which it originally came. The
authors of the Constitution forbid these ideas to be held, under
pain of eternal punishment.
In like manner they dispose of the doctrines of Evolution and
Development, bluntly insisting that the Church believes in
distinct creative acts. The doctrine that every living form is
derived from some preceding form is scientifically in a much more
advanced position than that concerning Force, and probably may he
considered as established, whatever may become of the additions
with which it has recently been overlaid.
In her condemnation of the Reformation, the Church carries into
effect her ideas of the subordination of reason to faith. In her
eyes the Reformation is an impious heresy, leading to the abyss
of pantheism, materialism, and atheism, and tending to overthrow
the very foundations of human society. She therefore would
restrain those "restless spirits" who, following Luther, have
upheld the "right of every man to interpret the Scriptures for
himself." She asserts that it is a wicked error to admit
Protestants to equal political privileges with Catholics, and
that to coerce them and suppress them is a sacred duty; that it
is abominable to permit them to establish educational
institutions. Gregory XVI. denounced freedom of conscience as an
insane folly, and the freedom of the press a pestilent error,
which cannot be sufficiently detested.
But how is it possible to recognize an inspired and infallible
oracle on the Tiber, when it is remembered that again and again
successive popes have contradicted each other; that popes have
denounced councils, and councils have denounced popes; that the
Bible of Sixtus V. had so many admitted errors--nearly two
thousand--that its own authors had to recall it? How is it
possible for the children of the Church to regard as "delusive
errors" the globular form of the earth, her position as a planet
in the solar system, her rotation on her axis, her movement round
the sun? How can they deny that there are antipodes, and other
worlds than ours? How can they believe that the world was made
out of nothing, completed in a week, finished just as we see it
now; that it has undergone no change, but that its parts have
worked so indifferently as to require incessant interventions?
THE ERRORS OF ECCLESIASTICISM. When Science is thus commanded to
surrender her intellectual convictions, may she not ask the
ecclesiastic to remember the past? The contest respecting the
figure of the earth, and the location of heaven and hell, ended
adversely to him. He affirmed that the earth is an extended
plane, and that the sky is a firmament, the floor of heaven,
through which again and again persons have been seen to ascend.
The globular form demonstrated beyond any possibility of
contradiction by astronomical facts, and by the voyage of
Magellan's ship, he then maintained that it is the central body
of the universe, all others being in subordination to it, and it
the grand object of God's regard. Forced from this position, he
next affirmed that it is motionless, the sun and the stars
actually revolving, as they apparently do, around it. The
invention of the telescope proved that here again he was in
error. Then he maintained that all the motions of the solar
system are regulated by providential intervention; the
"Principia" of Newton demonstrated that they are due to
irresistible law. He then affirmed that the earth and all the
celestial bodies were created about six thousand years ago, and
that in six days the order of Nature was settled, and plants and
animals in their various tribes introduced. Constrained by the
accumulating mass of adverse evidence, he enlarged his days into
periods of indefinite length--only, however, to find that even
this device was inadequate. The six ages, with their six special
creations, could no longer be maintained, when it was discovered
that species, slowly emerged in one age, reached a culmination in
a second, and gradually died out in a third: this overlapping
from age to age would not only have demanded creations, but
re-creations also. He affirmed that there had been a deluge,
which covered the whole earth above the tops of the highest
mountains, and that the waters of this flood were removed by a
wind. Correct ideas respecting the dimensions of the atmosphere,
and of the sea, and of the operation of evaporation, proved how
untenable these statements are. Of the progenitors of the human
race, he declared that they had come from their Maker's hand
perfect, both in body and mind, and had subsequently experienced
a fall. He is now considering how best to dispose of the evidence
continually accumulating respecting the savage condition of
prehistoric man.
Is it at all surprising that the number of those who hold the
opinions of the Church in light esteem should so rapidly
increase? How can that be received as a trustworthy guide in the
invisible, which falls into so many errors in the visible? How
can that give confidence in the moral, the spiritual, which has
so signally failed in the physical? It is not possible to dispose
of these conflicting facts as "empty shadows," "vain devices,"
"fictions coming from knowledge falsely so called," "errors
wearing the deceitful appearance of truth," as the Church
stigmatizes them. On the contrary, they are stern witnesses,
bearing emphatic and unimpeachable testimony against the
ecclesiastical claim to infallibility, and fastening a conviction
of ignorance and blindness upon her.
Convicted of so many errors, the papacy makes no attempt at
explanation. It ignores the whole matter Nay, more, relying on
the efficacy of audacity, though confronted by these facts, it
lays claim to infallibility.
SEPARATION OF CATHOLICISM AND CIVILIZATION. But, to the pontiff,
no other rights can be conceded than those he can establish at
the bar of Reason. He cannot claim infallibility in religious
affairs, and decline it in scientific. Infallibility embraces all
things. It implies omniscience. If it holds good for theology, it
necessarily holds good for science. How is it possible to
coordinate the infallibility of the papacy with the well-known
errors into which it has fallen?
Does it not, then, become needful to reject the claim of the
papacy to the employment of coercion in the maintenance of its
opinions; to repudiate utterly the declaration that "the
Inquisition is an urgent necessity in view of the unbelief of the
present age," and in the name of human nature to protest loudly
against the ferocity and terrorism of that institution? Has not
conscience inalienable rights?
An impassable and hourly-widening gulf intervenes between
Catholicism and the spirit of the age. Catholicism insists that
blind faith is superior to reason; that mysteries are of more
importance than facts. She claims to be the sole interpreter of
Nature and revelation, the supreme arbiter of knowledge; she
summarily rejects all modern criticism of the Scriptures, and
orders the Bible to be accepted in accordance with the views of
the theologians of Trent; she openly avows her hatred of free
institutions and constitutional systems, and declares that those
are in damnable error who regard the reconciliation of the pope
with modern civilization as either possible or desirable.
SCIENCE AND PROTESTANTISM. But the spirit of the age demands--is
the human intellect to be subordinated to the Tridentine Fathers,
or to the fancy of illiterate and uncritical persons who wrote in
the earlier ages of the Church? It sees no merit in blind faith,
but rather distrusts it. It looks forward to an improvement in
the popular canon of credibility for a decision between fact and
fiction. It does not consider itself bound to believe fables and
falsehoods that have been invented for ecclesiastical ends. It
finds no argument in behalf of their truth, that traditions and
legends have been long-lived; in this respect, those of the
Church are greatly inferior to the fables of paganism. The
longevity of the Church itself is not due to divine protection or
intervention, but to the skill with which it has adapted its
policy to existing circumstances. If antiquity be the criterion
of authenticity, the claims of Buddhism must be respected; it has
the superior warrant of many centuries. There can be no defense
of those deliberate falsifications of history, that concealment
of historical facts, of which the Church has so often taken
advantage. In these things the end does not justify the means.
Then has it in truth come to this, that Roman Christianity and
Science are recognized by their respective adherents as being
absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together; one must
yield to the other; mankind must make its choice--it cannot have
both.
SCIENCE AND FAITH. While such is, perhaps, the issue as regards
Catholicism, a reconciliation of the Reformation with Science is
not only possible, but would easily take place, if the Protestant
Churches would only live up to the maxim taught by Luther, and
established by so many years of war. That maxim is, the right of
private interpretation of the Scriptures. It was the foundation
of intellectual liberty. But, if a personal interpretation of the
book of Revelation is permissible, how can it be denied in the
case of the book of Nature? In the misunderstandings that have
taken place, we must ever bear in mind the infirmities of men.
The generations that immediately followed the Reformation may
perhaps be excused for not comprehending the full significance of
their cardinal principle, and for not on all occasions carrying
it into effect. When Calvin caused Servetus, to be burnt, he was
animated, not by the principles of the Reformation, but by those
of Catholicism, from which he had not been able to emancipate
himself completely. And when the clergy of influential Protestant
confessions have stigmatized the investigators of Nature as
infidels and atheists, the same may be said. For Catholicism to
reconcile itself to Science, there are formidable, perhaps
insuperable obstacles in the way. For Protestantism to achieve
that great result there are not. In the one case there is a
bitter, a mortal animosity to be overcome; in the other, a
friendship, that misunderstandings have alienated, to be
restored.
CIVILIZATION AND RELIGION. But, whatever may be the preparatory
incidents of that great impending intellectual crisis which
Christendom must soon inevitably witness, of this we may rest
assured, that the silent secession from the public faith, which
in so ominous a manner characterizes the present generation, will
find at length political expression. It is not without
significance that France reenforces the ultramontane tendencies
of her lower population, by the promotion of pilgrimages, the
perpetration of miracles, the exhibition of celestial
apparitions. Constrained to do this by her destiny, she does it
with a blush. It is not without significance that Germany
resolves to rid herself of the incubus of a dual government, by
the exclusion of the Italian element, and to carry to its
completion that Reformation which three centuries ago she left
unfinished. The time approaches when men must take their choice
between quiescent, immobile faith and ever-advancing
Science--faith, with its mediaeval consolations, Science, which
is incessantly scattering its material blessings in the pathway
of life, elevating the lot of man in this world, and unifying the
human race. Its triumphs are solid and enduring. But the glory
which Catholicism might gain from a conflict with material ideas
is at the best only like that of other celestial meteors when
they touch the atmosphere of the earth--transitory and useless.
Though Guizot's affirmation that the Church has always sided with
despotism is only too true, it must be remembered that in the
policy she follows there is much of political necessity. She is
urged on by the pressure of nineteen centuries. But, if the
irresistible indicates itself in her action, the inevitable
manifests itself in her life. For it is with the papacy as with a
man. It has passed through the struggles of infancy, it has
displayed the energies of maturity, and, its work completed, it
must sink into the feebleness and querulousness of old age. Its
youth can never be renewed. The influence of its souvenirs alone
will remain. As pagan Rome threw her departing shadow over the
empire and tinctured all its thoughts, so Christian Rome casts
her parting shadow over Europe.
INADMISSIBLE CLAIMS OF CATHOLICISM. Will modern civilization
consent to abandon the career of advancement which has given it
so much power and happiness? Will it consent to retrace its steps
to the semi-barbarian ignorance and superstition of the middle
ages? Will it submit to the dictation of a power, which, claiming
divine authority, can present no adequate credentials of its
office; a power which kept Europe in a stagnant condition for
many centuries, ferociously suppressing by the stake and the
sword every attempt at progress; a power that is founded in a
cloud of mysteries; that sets itself above reason and
common-sense; that loudly proclaims the hatred it entertains
against liberty of thought and freedom in civil institutions;
that professes its intention of repressing the one and destroying
the other whenever it can find the opportunity; that denounces as
most pernicious and insane the opinion that liberty of conscience
and of worship is the right of every man; that protests against
that right being proclaimed and asserted by law in every
well-governed state; that contemptuously repudiates the principle
that the will of the people, manifested by public opinion (as it
is called) or by other means, shall constitute law; that refuses
to every man any title to opinion in matters of religion, but
holds that it is simply his duty to believe what he is told by
the Church, and to obey her commands; that will not permit any
temporal government to define the rights and prescribe limits to
the authority of the Church; that declares it not only may but
will resort to force to discipline disobedient individuals; that
invades the sanctify of private life, by making, at the
confessional, the wife and daughters and servants of one
suspected, spies and informers against him; that tries him
without an accuser, and by torture makes him bear witness against
himself; that denies the right of parents to educate their
children outside of its own Church, and insists that to it alone
belongs the supervision of domestic life and the control of
marriages and divorces; that denounces "the impudence" of those
who presume to subordinate the authority of the Church to the
civil authority, or who advocate the separation of the Church
from the state; that absolutely repudiates all toleration, and
affirms that the Catholic religion is entitled to be held as the
only religion in every country, to the exclusion of all other
modes of worship; that requires all laws standing in the way of
its interests to be repealed, and, if that be refused, orders all
its followers to disobey them?
ISSUE OF THE CONFLICT. This power, conscious that it can work no
miracle to serve itself, does not hesitate to disturb society by
its intrigues against governments, and seeks to accomplish its
ends by alliances with despotism.
Claims such as these mean a revolt against modern civilization,
an intention of destroying it, no matter at what social cost. To
submit to them without resistance, men must be slaves indeed!
As to the issue of the coming conflict, can any one doubt?
Whatever is resting on fiction and fraud will be overthrown.
Institutions that organize impostures and spread delusions must
show what right they have to exist. Faith must render an account
of herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts.
Religion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering
position which she has so long maintained against Science. There
must be absolute freedom for thought. The ecclesiastic must learn
to keep himself within the domain he has chosen, and cease to
tyrannize over the philosopher, who, conscious of his own
strength and the purity of his motives, will bear such
interference no longer. What was written by Esdras near the
willow-fringed rivers of Babylon, more than twenty-three
centuries ago, still holds good: "As for Truth it endureth and is
always strong; it liveth and conquereth for evermore."
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 | 26