4 i 4 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Hence also the opinion that there is a profound separation between the 

 principles applicable in the physical sciences and the principles appli- 

 cable in the moral sciences. What has been the consequence ? It has 

 been that the method which is no longer regarded as a rational pro- 

 cedure in dealing with the phenomena of Nature is followed without 

 misgiving in dealing with the phenomena of human nature ; and the 

 supernaturalism long banished from physical theories is still invoked in 

 psychological and social theories. 



Of late years this has ceased to be the universal error, though it 

 still remains a wide-spread error. We are slowly beginning to recog- 

 nize that there may be a science of History, a science of Language, a 

 science of Religion, and, in fact, that all knowledge may be systema- 

 tized on a common method. The facts of the External Order, which 

 yield a cosmology, are supplemented by the facts of the Internal Order, 

 which yield a psychology, and the facts of the Social Order, which yield 

 a sociology. These are all comprised in science. However imperfect 

 the second and third may be, in comparison with the first, the greater 

 complication of the phenomena does not warrant the introduction of 

 another Logic of Search. The principles which have guided us success- 

 fully in the first are to be followed in the others. The three classes of 

 facts are all facts of experience, so far as they are known, and must all 

 be tested, classified, and systematized, by the same rules. 



This being so, we can separate the rational from the irrational an- 

 tagonism against science. It is rational when protesting against the 

 misplaced application of the results reached in one department to 

 problems belonging to a different department for this is an offense 

 against scientific method. It is irrational when protesting against the 

 rigorous application of one logic to all inquiries. Those, therefore* 

 who sneer at science, and would obstruct its diffusion, are sneering 

 against the effort to make all knowledge systematic, and are obstruct- 

 ing the advance of civilization. 



The notion, implied or expressed, of two Logics, two Methods of 

 Search, two systems of explaining phenomena, the natural and the 

 supernatural, is the foundation of the great conflict between Science 

 and Theology. And since, in the majority of minds, theology is iden- 

 tified with religion, and religion is of supreme importance to man, it is 

 natural that science should be regarded with dread and dislike. Before 

 proceeding to dissipate the confusions on this subject, it will be need- 

 ful to glance at the attitude of sincere theologians in our day, and at 

 the reasons which justify to their minds the acceptance of scientific 

 doctrines side by side with the acceptance of theological doctrines. It 

 would be equally ungenerous and short-sighted to suggest that a mind 

 which is deeply impressed with the truth of certain theological opin- 

 ions may not be also deeply impressed with the beneficence of science 

 in general, and the truth of scientific doctrines which do not directly 

 embrace moral and religious questions. We have too many conspicu- 



