A DEFENSE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 781 



sire to rest in an order of conceptions not liable to disturbance. The 

 great Faraday, who had not brought himself to this point, used to say 

 that when he had to deal with questions of faith he left all scientific 

 and other human reasonings at the door, and that when he had to deal 

 with questions of science he discarded in like manner all theological 

 modes of thought. The region of science was one region, that of 

 faith was another ; and between these he placed a wall so high that 

 once on either side he could see nothing that lay on the other. He 

 did not attempt to reconcile faith with science, as some do ; he sepa- 

 rated them utterly, feeling them apparently to be irreconcilable. 

 Thus he virtually lived in two worlds one in which no miracles took 

 place, but in which everything flowed in an orderly manner from rec- 

 ognized antecedents, and another in which the chain of causation 

 might be broken at any moment by supernatural power. Since Fara- 

 day's time, however, men of science have grown bolder. They have 

 renounced the attempt to live a divided life. They do not believe in 

 insuperable barriers between one field of thought and another. They 

 believe in the unity of the human mind and in the unity of truth. 

 They have made their choice those of them at least whom the Bishop 

 of Ontario designates as agnostics in favor of a world in which cause 

 and effect maintain constant relations. In doing so they do not act 

 willfully, but simply yield to the irresistible weight of evidence. Miracle 

 is a matter of more or less uncertain testimonv, while the unchangeable- 

 ness of natural law is a matter of daily observation. Miracles never 

 happen in the laboratory. Supernatural apparitions do not haunt the 

 museum. Distant ages and countries or lonely road-sides reap all the 

 glory of these manifestations. What wonder, then, that the man of 

 science prefers to trust in what his eyes daily see and his hands handle, 

 rather than in narratives of perfervid devotees, or in traditions handed 

 down from centuries whose leading characteristic was an omnivorous 

 credulity ? There is nothing negative in this attitude of mind. On 

 the contrary, it is positive in the highest degree. The true man of 

 science wants to know and believe as much as possible. He desires 

 to know what is and to adapt his thoughts to that ; and the universe 

 is to him simply an inexhaustible treasure-house of truths, all of more 

 or less practical import. 



It is right, however, before proceeding further, to examine this 

 word "agnosticism" a little, to see whether it is one that is really ser- 

 viceable in the present controversy. That some have been willing to 

 apply the term to themselves and to regard it as rather ben trovato, I 

 am quite aware ; but I think there are good reasons why serious 

 thinkers should decline to call themselves by such a name, and should 

 object to its application to them by others. 



A question proposed for discussion either can or can not be settled ; 

 it either lies within or beyond the region in which verification is pos- 

 sible. If it lies within that region, no man should call himself an 



