RELIGION AND SCIENCE 239 



of their past history; he can study it physiologically, 

 so to speak, to see what part it plays in the body 

 politic, and how that part may alter with circum- 

 stances; or he may seek to investigate its essence, to 

 discover not only how it appears and what it does, 

 but what it is. 



Further, he must have some general principles to 

 lean on in his search, principles both positive and 

 negative. He must be content to leave certain pos- 

 sibilities out of account because as yet he cannot see 

 how they can be connected with his organized scheme 

 of things; in other words, he has to be content to 

 build slowly and imperfectly in order that he may be 

 sure of building soundly. This is the principle which 

 we may call positive agnosticism. 



This very fact has been in the past one of the great 

 obstacles in the way of successful treatment of re- 

 ligion by science. One of the attributes of man is 

 his desire for a complete explanation, or at least a 

 complete view, of his universe, and this has been at 

 the bottom of much doctrine and many creeds. But 

 before Kepler and Newton, no truly scientific account 

 could be given of celestial phenomena; before Dar- 

 win, none of Natural History; before the recent re- 

 vival in psychology, none of the mind and its work- 

 ings. In the second half of the nineteenth century, 

 for instance, science could give an adequate account 

 of most inorganic phenomena, and, in broad outline, 

 of evolutionary geology and biology; but mind was 

 still refractory. Accordingly, the philosophy of sci- 



