CORRESP OXDENCE. 



627 



CORHESPONDElSrCE 



"THE CONFLICT OF THE AGES." 

 To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



DEAR SIR : I have read this morning, 

 with great pleasure, the article by 

 President White, in the February number 

 of your magazine ; and am free to express 

 gratification at seeing the extracts from 

 my Vanderbilt University Address placed 

 in such " goodlie companic." 



But you must permit me to express my 

 surprise at the tone and some of the state- 

 ments which you make with regard to the 

 two articles, and to the important subject 

 which they discuss. You say that you print 

 my argument because it is "on the other 

 side of the question," and you would "not 

 be accused of partiality or injustice- to op- 

 posite views." This is utterly unaccount- 

 able to me. President White and myself 

 are in perfect accord in our articles so far 

 as " the conflict " is concerned, so much so 

 that, if we had had a conference previous to 

 the preparation of our two addresses, we 

 could scarcely have selected modes of treat- 

 ment different from those we adopted. We 

 should possibly have changed the order of 

 the printing, and let his follow mine. Mine 

 is a statement of doctrine, and his the proof. 

 He has written almost nothing in his article 

 which I might not have written if I had bad. 

 his ability. He brings a masterly analysis 

 and great wealth of learning to prove what 

 I have asserted, and nothing in his article 

 seems to stand against any thing in mine. 

 We hold the same thesis, and sometimes 

 express our ideas ipsissimis verbis. We 

 both agree, if I have not utterly misappre- 

 hended President White, that religious men 

 malve mistakes, and scientific men make 

 mistakes, but there is no conflict between 

 true religion and true science, the warfare 

 of science being with something other than 

 religion. The first words of mine which 

 you quote are these : " The 7-cce)ii cry of the 

 'Conflict of Religion and Science' \s falla- 

 cious, and mischievotcs to the interests of 

 both science and religion " (p. 434). Presi- 

 dent White, in the first sentence of his the- 



sis says, " In all modern history, interference 

 with science in the supposed interest of re- 

 ligion . . . has resulted in the direst evils 

 both to religion and to science, and invari- 

 ably" (p. 385). There we agree, and each 

 undertakes to show the same thing in his 

 own way. President White, in the second 

 sentence of his thesis, says, "All untram- 

 meled scientific investigation, no matter 

 how dangerous to religion some of its stages 

 may have seemed, for the time, to be, has in- 

 variably resulted in the highest good of 

 religion and of science." In divers places 

 in my article the same is set forth and main- 

 tained. On page 444 1 say, " If, for instance, 

 a conflict should come between geology and 

 theology, and geology should be beaten, it 

 will be so much the better for religion ; and, 

 if geology should beat theology, still so much 

 the better for religion,'''' etc. In the next 

 sentence, "geologists, psychologists, and, 

 theologists, r)iust all itltimatei,y promote 

 the cause of religion, because they mnst con- 

 firm one another's truths and explode one 

 another's errors," etc. And, next sentence, 

 "He (the religious man) knows and feels 

 that it would be as irreligious in him to re- 

 ject any truth found in Nature as it would 

 be for another to reject any truth found in 

 the Bible." 



Now, on thi.s showing, my dear sir, I 

 think that in a review of the two articles you 

 should be ready to admit that Dr. White 

 and I are 7wt on " opposite " sides. We are 

 advocates for the same client, speaking 

 from different briefs but promoting the same 

 cause. 



But I am sorry to find that, while I 

 thoroughly agree with Dr. White, you do not. 

 You consider the conflict to be " natural," 

 " inevitable," " wholesome." Dr. White 

 teaches that " the idea that there is a ne- 

 cessary antagonism between science and 

 religion " is " the most unfortunate of all 

 ideas" (p. 403). You oppose Dr. White 

 more than you do me, for my moderate 

 statement is, that it is "fallacious" and 

 "mischievous." 



