HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 386, 4 August 1876, Page 3

HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

John William Draper, M.D., LL.D.

Mr. Editor,— _ Stk, —The enclosed manuscript of a review of Dr. Draper's "Conflict between Religion and Science " was sent to the Committee of the 'IN ew Zealand Magazine,' and has been returned, as unsuitable for its pagesi As it bears, in some measure upon the question of science, now so fiercely agitated, and as it cost considerable labor in its preparation, I should like to see it published. Would you bo kind enough to give it a place in your pages ? Should anyone complain of its one-sided-ness let it be borne in mind that this is intentional, and is made necessary by the strong bias of the book. My main objectthroughout is to show the other side, and that the history of Religion and Science is much more complicated than Dr. Drape^ 1 seems to have any conception of, and that it has yet to be written.—Yours, &c, M. S.

Men of science should be allowed con' siderable latitude. It is not easy to discover the secrets of nature. The facts arc so many, the field so wide, and the observations made arc often so faulty. Again and again the truth escapes, and the work has to be begun anew. One hypothesis lias to give place to another as the facts observed increase in number, and as the test of experiment is applied. It is often through a long series of efforts that truth is at last reached, and formulated for all coming generation'. Hence care should be taken not to place any obstacle in the way of those truth-seekers, the results of whose labors have been so beneficial. It is, indeed, exceedingly unfair to raise the cry of heterodoxy, on il\c merest suspicion, or on the ground of an hypothesis, wliioh may soon have to give place to another and another. The march of discovery has been flow enough—too slow—and men should thiuk twice before they put a.'fy obstacle in its way. •But'though a great amount of latitude may bo claimed on behalf of the scientific explorer, the same indulgence cannot be allowed to the scientific historian. He has a definite task before him, and he lias himself to blame if he wield not an impartial pen. The conception of his subject, and the execution of his work, should —more especially when he claims to be a scientific, as opposed to'an artistic, historian—be accurate and impartial; onesidedncss, bringing into prominence the bad and concealing the good, misrepresentation and partiality, are out of the question altogether. We are sorry to find that Dr. Draper escapes none of these. Wo would have liked to have seen the book accurately and impartially written; and, if it had'been so, it would have been of immense service both to science and to religion. Some small allowance might be made to the author, seeing he asserts that " no one has hitherto treated the subject from this point of view," and that, to the righteous treatment of the conflict, "a knowledge of science, of history, theology, and politics is jequred. 33ut, we ask, why did he write at all, unless he were thoroughly and critically conversant with all these departments of knowledge? How could he do other than complicate the question, and retard the advance of science, by provoking controversy? If he was determined to write this history he should have waited a year or two, read more tho roughly, and deliberated with more precision. He might then have been able to give to tho world the fruit of patient industry and the judgment of years. As it is, the book is full of rash and unhistorical statements, and the main subject is left very much untouched. Dr. Draper's book consists of twelve chapters. Ho opens with the " origin of science," in the establishment of tho Alexandrian Museum during the age of the Ptolemies, and carries you down through the centuries, and leaves you ,; in the present condition of tho controversy, and its.future prospects." The words are numerous, the How easy, the style popular, and the sense often exceedingly bitter and unscientific. Some readers are likely to be fascinated, for there is a dash about the statements, and an imperious authority when dealing with tho adversary, which cannot fail to arrest the utteutiou of those klio require

others to think for them. The book should bo read in the light of the preface, which is an epitome of the work, and a very useful one, as without it you cannot very well understand the argument; There the author informs the render that lie was encouraged to undertake the task of writing the history of the conflict between religion and science by the favor with, which his other works had been received in America and in Europe. We have no doubt but that experience is of service in the writing of books, as in everything else, and we also consider the argument quite sound, that the man who has written well once is likely to write well again. But we take exception to the sweeping statement that his book entitled " History of the intellectual development of Europe" " is everywhere received with favor." After this eulogy upon his own work, can the author complain of our quoting a brief criticism which this book receives in the '■ .Edinburgh Review' of January, 1875 ? It occurs in a criticism of Profes sor Tyndall's famous address before the British Association of the preceding year. Professor Tyndall assures the reading public that his address was written in the course of a ramble among the Swiss mountains, and with little other assistance than Dr. .Draper's " History ot the intellectual development of Europe." In consequence of this statement the critic enquired after and examined the book, with the following result: —"A more flimsy and superficial attempt to trace the history of philosophy we have never met with. Br. Draper's account of the philosophical opinions and writings of Cicero is in the highest degree inaccurate. But, enough : we have done wit!: him, and we advise Professor Tyndall to seek a better guide." We trust Dr. Draper's other friends will consider well before they place themselves under his guidance. Yvehave said the book could not havebeen understood without the preface. The title is misleading; the preface is not. We read a great part of the book before we turned to the preface, and were always at a loss to see the drift-of the work. We find that the book is not upon the subject which it professes to. be. We have not a treatment of the conflict between religion and science —we have at best only a treatment between Eomish Christianity and science. We cannot understand how the subject has been so limited, and the title so large. Why did Dr. Draper not entitle his book "The conflict between Romish Christianity and Science," what it professes really to be ? We are assured by himself, over and over again, of his love of impartiality, and of his ability to enter into the thoughts and motives of both As we understand it, the first conception of the book is as partial as anything could be. To limit the field, as he has done, and then to consider himself at liberty to roam 'at random, and discharge his arrows ail round, you would have thought this would have satisfied the wildest bigot. But, false as the conception of the subject is, the treatment- is worse. Throughout the comparison is made, not merely between Romish Christianity and religion, but between the whole of science and only a part of Eomish Christianity. The treatment is even more partial than this. Everywhere we find the author comparing the best of science and the worst in Romish Christianity. Even in this we have not reached the climax of absurdity. The comparison, so that it might equitably and justly be made, should have been made of these co-exist-ing. But Dr. Draper does not always do this. We find him comparing the science of one age and the Christianity of another. We could not have imagined anything more partial, and we are surprised to read of the author's "determination " to write in " an impartial spirit." These, we are aware, are grave and serious charges, and ought not to be mnde without proof. We recognise this principle at once, and now proceed to produce evidence in support thereof. . (To be continued.)