Conflict between Religion and Science." But the inadequacy of this definition has been generally recognised, for the conflict has chiefly lain between religious institutions and the progress of knowledge.

The struggle

Andrew Dickson White calls this "the struggle between science and dogmatic theology, . . . the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought-the theological and the scientific."

between science and dogmatic theology.

This

idea was years ago crystallized by him

in these memorable words:

"In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and to science, and invariably; and on the other hand, all untrammelled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good, both of religion and of science."

From the standpoint of history, this struggle has actually been one between organized theology and unorganized science. Preconceived notions of theological science became entangled with crude notions of all other sciences. In the experience of a single human life there is little to correct even the crudest theology. From the supposed greater importance of theology in determining the fate of the individual man, theological conceptions have dominated all others. Throughout the ages the great churches have been the stronghold of conservatism. Religious bodies have formed the great organized army against which the separated bands of science hurled themselves apparently in vain.

But as I have said before, the real essence of conservatism lies not in theology. The whole conflict is a struggle in the mind of man. It exists in human psy

The essence of conservatism.

It

chology before it is wrought out in human history. is the struggle of realities against tradition and suggestion. The progress of civilization would still have been just such a struggle had religion or theology or churches or worship never existed. But such a conception is impossible, because the need for all these is part of the actual development of man.

The effort to limit thought.

Intolerance and prejudice are, moreover, not confined to religious organizations. The same spirit that burned Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno for the heresies of science, led the atheist "liberal" mob of Paris to send to the scaffold the great chemist Lavoisier, “with the sneer that the republic has no need of savants." The same spirit that leads the orthodox Gladstone to reject natural selection because it "relieves God of the labour of creation," causes the heterodox Haeckel to condemn Weismann's theories of heredity, not because they are at variance with facts, but because such questions are settled once for all by the great philosophic dictum of monism.

There is no better antidote to bigotry than the study of the growth of knowledge. There is no chapter in man's history more encouraging than that which treats of the gradual growth of open-mindedness. The study of this history will bring religious men to avoid the mistakes of intolerance through a knowledge of the evils to which intolerance has led in the past. Scientific men will be spurred to better work by the record that through the ages objective truth has been the final test of all ideas. All men will be more sane and more effective in proportion as they realize that no good can come from "wishing to please God with a lie."

The conflict of science is usually considered as the

struggle of dogmatism to limit knowledge. But another phase of the same warfare is the desire of organized conservatism to limit action. Just as science goes over into action, so does dogmatism pass over into suppression. The struggle for democracy, the rise of the common man, is therefore part of the same great conflict for human freedom.

The effort to control action.

The desire of dogmatism to control action is in its essence the desire to save men from their own folly. The great historic churches have existed "for the benefit of the weak and the poor." By their observances they have stimulated the spirit of devotion. By their commands they have protected men from unwise action. By their condemnations they have saved men from the grasp of vice and crime.

But the control of action by an institution is irksome to the man who thinks for himself. Whoever thinks for himself must act for himself. He is no longer subject to "sealed orders," even though their origin be divine. And the command "to work out his own salvation,” in such way as he may, is fatal to his salvation through the means provided by the Church.

The passing of institutions.

As it is natural that man should create the Church out of his own need for it, so is it natural that he should rebel against its control when he shall need it no longer. Individual freedom is the goal of intellectual progress. It is "that far-off divine event toward which the whole creation moves." It is, therefore, in the highest degree natural, and to call it supernatural is to say the same thing, that man should cast off the fetters of traditional sanction as the sanction of higher wisdom arises to take its place.

INDEX.

Algebraic expression of heredity, 124. Articles of scientific faith, 346.