492 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



RELIGION' AND SCIENCE AT VANDER- 

 BILT UNIVERSITY. 



IT is not yet three years since we 

 published an abridgment of the ad- 

 dress delivered by Dr. Deems at the 

 inauguration of Vanderbilt University, 

 in Nashville. The speaker chose " Sci- 

 ence and Religion " as a subject be- 

 fitting the occasion, and from his inti- 

 mate relations with the founder of the 

 institution, and the share he is supposed 

 to have had in determining the arrange- 

 ment, his discourse was regarded as in 

 some sense official and authoritative in 

 foreshadowing the spirit of its admin- 

 istration. Dr. Deems said : " This re- 

 cent cry of a conflict between Religion 

 and Science is fallacious and mischiev- 

 ous to the interests of both science and 

 religion, and would be most mournful 

 if we did not believe that in the very 

 nature of things it is to be ephemeral. 

 Its genesis is to be traced to the weak 

 foolishness of some professors of re- 

 ligion, and the weak wickedness of 

 some professors of science." From 

 which it is to be inferred that Vander- 

 bilt University, at all events, would lend 

 no countenance to this mischievous fal- 

 lacy. 



"We protested at the time against 

 regarding a controversy that has raged 

 for centuries, that goes down to the 

 very roots of human belief, and that is 

 now more widely and intensely dis- 

 cussed than ever before, as " epheme- 

 ral.'" And we likewise protested against 

 that superficial view of the causes of 

 this conflict which ascribes them to the 

 foolishness of religionists or the wick- 

 edness of scientists. We said that the 

 cause of the warfare must be sought in 

 the relations of the two subjects, mean- 

 ing thereby the progressive nature of 

 scientific knowledge and the fixedness 



of religious belief. That which i9 ad- 

 vancing must come in collision with 

 that which is stationary, if the latter 

 stands in the pathway of the former. 

 And there are but two possible ways 

 of avoiding collisions : either the mov- 

 ing body must stop, or the stationary 

 body must get out of the way. Science 

 will not cease to advance with its work, 

 come what may, and let who will be 

 hurt. It cannot pause, it cannot com- 

 promise. Its business is the study of 

 Nature ; its object to find out the ut- 

 most truth. It points to the vast body 

 of modern knowledge which it has es- 

 tablished, and to the conquest of Na- 

 ture which that knowledge has con- 

 ferred, as witnesses to the validity and 

 beneficence of its great tasks, and as a 

 presage of further triumphs in the fu- 

 ture. The command is often and loudly 

 given to Science to halt, but it would 

 be just as sensible to order the Gulf 

 Stream to halt, or to stay the course of 

 Nature itself. The only question, then, 

 is, whether Religion will take its un- 

 yielding theology out of the way, or 

 wait to have it crushed and cast aside. 

 At any rate, nothing is more futile than 

 to resolve the conflict between Religion 

 and Science into a mere question of de- 

 corum, propriety, or temper, between 

 the parties engaged. 



But, though much remains to be 

 done before this warfare terminates, 

 great progress has undoubtedly been 

 made toward a better understanding, 

 and more pacific relations between the 

 parties. The spirit of liberality has al- 

 ready become so strong among the more 

 intelligent portions of the community 

 that demonstrations of bigotry on the 

 part of theological bodies are pretty 

 certain to incur a general condemna- 

 tion. It was therefore not without con- 



