THE TORCH GF REASON, SILVERTON, OREGON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1S%.
a n d acceptance of f a c t s ’
is, from the nature of thing-, in
compatible with the "accepting of
revelation ami clinging to a creed.’’
There is hut one plan by which
one am, the satin* person may he
both a scientist ami a theologian,
and th at plan is to m ake a divis
iug to know w h a t m u st rem a in un- in(p ,jrv ru m o rs o f had c o n d u c t of experience.
ion of time and liecome each in
knowable, and thereby deceiving w|,ich lie had heard (Gen. xviii. 20
The c o n tra s t het ween science ami turn. A certain time generally
. w, J
n g r m
is told otì to theology, and d u r
ference between dream s and re a l
I m ing a h i e to
u
ing
it the person tries io talk, th in k ,
S c ie n c e ,
ities, of furnishing the invisible
i hey ha « I the I
and act as a theologian. I lie re
laws <»f t heir 1
m ainder of the time is devoted to
what th eo lo g ian s
like. the s«Tvice of science, and acting
of creating God after our ow n im e a rth ly king
w In n the at-
tributes of omniscience and om ni Science discovers facts, hut theol- in aee »f«lanee with the fa d s she
age.
We maV m»w contrast science potence came to he conceived; the ogy accepts revelation, ami clings has discovered. 1 he great F a ra
vit,i theology. In two respects they ¡Jea o f Inan breaking the laws of to creed.-.’’ Science, as the Bishop day himself, one «»I tin* most ♦•mi
nent scientists ol the
century,
ire sim ilar; in all others they are (locj j,ecaIne absurd. “ No man m<»st truly says, cmild not accept! lived in this twofold existence.
»pposed. Science ami theology are can elller a sir«mg m an’s bouse and “ finality in belief,’’ seeing that her During the »lay he thought and
>oth-‘theories of th in g s,’“ and are
|,js g(MI,ls unless he first bind dogmas rest ♦ nt »rely on the verifiea- acted on the strictest principi» s
>oth based upon assum ptions.
l||e sllo llg m an.’’ If two forces ! tion of experience. Theology, on the 1 o f science while in th»* evening he
The assum ption of science is nieet, the weaker cannot prevail, i other hand, dealing as she d o e s1 would talk and act as a m em ber
of the obscure theological
sect
•that eternal, invariable order To suppose so is as much a c m - with things outside the range of called Sam lem ania ns.
F a ia d a y
reigns over the whole univei.se, ij-adielioii in term s as it is to talk verificathui, can accept this final-, during the day ami Fareday in th e
were
practically
two
hat no fact, m ental or m aterial, (,f a broken law of nature in the ity; an d , feeling instinctively that evening
jxists except as a link in an end- scientific sense. If God wills that her feet rest upon the ground, not distinct persons.
But, in this, F ara d ay only repre
less chain of cause and effect, the njan s| la|j n,,t (|4, a certain act of reason, hut of im a g in a tio n , she
sents the vast m ajo rity of men.
<ame antecedents being invariable an(, |Ila|1 sayS he will do it, ami naturally * hates the idea of being i People go to church on Sunday,
’allowed by th»* same consequents.”
p follows th at m an’s will liable at anv moment to critici-m and there, with grave and solemn
Theology assum es th a t God is a jg stronger than God’s will. T his and correction. Science is content faces, “accept revelation,” assenting
>eing in n a tu re sim ilar to man; contradiction is veiled by the sup- to spend ;dl her time in laboriously , to the dogmas am i legends of an age
bat invariable order does not exist: position th at, although man can searching
............... n for facts that is, for when theology was in its prim e ami
[hat m iracles have happened, do fo ra tim e overcome God, yet til- tru th — within the horizon of the science an infant, and then for the
still happen, and
m av happen at tim ately God’s superior strength knowable. In the eyes of a th e o l- rest of the week they th in k and act
any tim e; th a t no fact exists except wiR be proved. A nother explana- ogian this is m iserable
work, without hesitation, as if they had
as a product o fth e will of the m an- tory supposition is th at G od h as W hile science is g ru b b in g (as be never heard of revelation and had
This
like God.
created in man a thing called “ free th in k s ) in the e a rth —in the nar- no faith in ancient legends.
Science regards it as the proper w ill,” which has been left uncon- row field of experience theology inconsistency, if conscious, wouhl
»bject of inquiry—to ascertain, and diiioned by any cause. Still an- . is soaring „ in the sky, in tin* bound- he productive of gieat moral d eteri
to express in correct formulas, the other mode of treating toe diffi- less universe of existence, seeing o ra tio n by lessening th»* love »»I
»rder in which facts occur. These eulty is to put it aside w ith the re- what eye has never seen, hearing tru th ; hut as it is lor the m ost p art
when found by invariable experi- m ark that the fact of m an acting what ear has never heard, ami unconscious— people generally not
‘iice to be correct, she calls ‘‘laws contrary to the will of God is a learning what it is impossihh* for reallv believing what they think
,f’ ni.ture.” A broken law of na- “deep m v stery .’ “ W hen a crime the unaided hum an mind to con- they believe— th is e v ilis much less
lure is, from a scientific point of is com m itted, if it was allowed ceivc. Here indeed in her n a tu ia l than m ight he expected. The a t
view, a contradiction in terms.
that
man
couhl
not
break clem ent, beyond the realm s of ex- tem pt a t reconciliation by tw isting
T heologv a sse rts th a t th e p ro p e r a law o f God, nor act c o n tra ry to peri cnee, theology docs enjoy the and stretching revealed doctrines to
aim ami object of all inquiry is to his will, God would he m ade a di- freedom she desires: she is be- m ake them lit perforce with the tacts
know what is the will of the m an- reet p articip ato r in the crim e— a yoml the reach of criticism , and ex- discovered by s»*ienee is much more
like (Jod; th a t this knowledge is to supposition th a t would he Id a - empt from all necessity to change, deteriorating m orally th an uncon
he found in hooks called collectively phemy. Yet, on the other hand
Seeing, then, that science and scious inconsistency. It is really
“ Divine R evelation,” w ritten by it is a contradiction in term s to say theology are the very opposites of m elando Jv to se * a tt *m pt - mad»* to
men of old time, who were inspired that a creature could overcome each other, it must be a fu tile task stretch tw enty-four hours into m ill
in a m iraculous m anner, or in the Ids A lm ighty C reator. This is a to reconcile them : The one is the ions of years; to transm ute the le
w onl-of-mout h utterances of men great m ysb^ y, and as such it must product ol reason and expet i»*m*e, | gends of Noah and Jonah into h is
of a certain class set ap a rt to com- he left.’’
the other of im agination and feel- tory; and to try to force the word
m unicate it, ami th a t all other
In theology this resource for get- ing. Yet repeated failure does not ‘‘creation’’ to mean itsopposite“ evo
knowledge is at best com paratively ting rid of a difficulty by labelling seem to discourage the attem pt, lu tio n .’ These and such-like en-
useless and, if opposed to this, det- it a “ m ystery,” and so putting it The explanation of this is simple. deavors to reconcile modeln science
rim ental. T he breaking of G od’s on one side, is a very necessary A person horn, reared, and schooled with ancient theology are worse than
laws by m an is not only possible,1 one. In science, when facts and under the influence of theology futile: they have a distinct tendency
but constant; and a large proper- theory do not agree, the theory is n a tu ra lly clings to the creed of his to destroy the greatest of all vir
tion of theological forms and cere- at once and w ithout hesitation re- m other. To pull up what has its tues truthfulness.—.John Wilson.
monies consist hut of devices to pro- jected. In theology this is iinpos- roots deep in the feeling necessarily
A B E N E D IC T IO N
pitiate God, with a view to escape sihle. The fundam ental theory, causes great pain. On the other
Now, as we are about to resume
the punishm ent which his anger th a t God is m an-like, is contained hand, it is impossible to deny the
thus caused would certainly bring, in a m iraculous revelation. Touch trium ps of science. The evidence again our daily vocations of life, let
These forms and modes of propitia- th a t with the hand of criticism , for her tru th s is overw helming, us each take with us th ein sp iratio n
tion, identical in principle with the and theology eeases to
exist. W hat, then, is this ageof transition, of love, friendship and charity.
means adopted by peoples to propi- Hence the origin o fth e theological more natural than the wish to ae- Let us think freely am i w ithout pre
judice, expressing our convictions
tiate ea rth ly rulers, include saeri- dogma, th at of all virtues faith is cept the teachings of science
flee, prayer.* flattery, self-abasem ent the greatest, and th a t of all sins w ithout giving up the dogma of with th a t courage which fear- no
evil.
and self-inflicted pain, such as fast- doubt is the most fatal. “ He th a t theology? They both profess to he
Let us seek liberty, subdue p as
ing, injury to the body, wearing of helieveth and is baptised shall he true, and tru th is single; there must
filthv clothing, living aw ay from saved; and he that helieveth not therefore, he only a seeming eon sion, he wise and bless h u m an ity
frie,uls__in fact, a ll forms of misery shall he dam ned.” Science says: tradiction. Let us find out the way with all our m inds am i hearts: be
—all of them self-inflicted in this All I assume is that facts exist, of reconciliation. The task, like faithful in all things, rise above de
world to gain the favor of (iod in and will continue to exist, ih an in- the discovery of perpetual motion, ceit, lead lives of p u rity ami
the next. And g ra n tin g th a t the variable order. My dogmas are to be is a fascinating one; hut it is equally ] tru th ; and the fruit- of our rig h
n atu re of God is m anlike, these accepted not absolutely, but alw ays hopeless.
Science and theology teousness snail abide forever. D.
theological custom - are rational. subject to verification by experience; are m utually opposed: the “ dis- G. Crow.
In the theologies of people in
the same -tage of intellectual and
Theologv is a “ theory <»f thing.«?' moral developm ent as the Hebrew
based, as we have seen, upon an e r A braham , whose God was -upp»»<e<l
ror n atu ral and inevitable Io tin to he com pelled to co llie down fro m
____ J nt ___
infanev
man the error of try „ heaven to investigate by personal
S C IE N C E VS- T H E O L O G Y
an 1, if any of them do not stand
that test, they aie a* oi>< e to ,»♦
the
on
discarded.’
lb e o lo g y ,
o th e r h a n d , deals w ith a .-abject in
w hich verification is im po ssib le, th e
nature of God not being a subject
e o v e ry