462 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



who has merely an " opinion " is not bound by it one way or another. 

 He may neglect the future life in the interest of the present, or the 

 present in the alleged interest of the future, just as the inclination of 

 the moment may lead him. The great works of the past were not 

 wrought on the strength of an " opinion " in regard to this matter ; 

 nor will opinion lead to any great works in the present day. The 

 work of the world in all ages has called for convictions, and it calls 

 for them still. It is a somewhat singular thing that our author should 

 have used the exjaression, " the total mass of our ojnnions on the ques- 

 tions which lie within the scope of scientific inquiry." The word 

 " knowledge," I respectfully submit, was required in this place. It is 

 our knowledge that can guide us to opinions, or, in other words, that 

 can determine for us questions as to preponderance of evidence. An 

 opinion that is based upon an opinion is too unsubstantial a thing to 

 deserve any attention. The only advantage I can see in the use of the 

 word " opinions " in the place indicated is, that it seems in a manner to 

 help to bridge over the gap between the scientific and the non-scien- 

 tific regions. The bridge, however, will not hold : it may be pretty to 

 look at, but it has no firm anchorage. 



As we have already seen, the Copernican theory destroyed the no- 

 tion that man's abode, the earth, was the center of the universe. The 

 very foundations of theology seemed at the time to have been shaken ; 

 but to-day " the speculative necessity for man's occupying the largest 

 and most central spot in the universe is no longer felt." Upon this it 

 may be observed that what disturbed our forefathers was not the con- 

 flict between the Copernican teaching and any speculative necessity of 

 the period, but the conflict between that teaching and the plain declara- 

 tions of the Scriptures. That was the trouble. Mr. Fiske tells us that 

 the alarm was unnecessary — that the foundations of Christian theology 

 have not really been shaken thereby. Possibly that is the best view 

 to take of it, seeing that the matter can not be mended. 



The reason why atheism is so abhorrent to us, why " we are wont 

 to look upon it with unspeakable horror and loathing," is that " on 

 its practical side it would remove humanity from its peculiar posi- 

 tion in the world, and make it cast in its lot with the grass that withers 

 and the beasts that perish." Can this statement, I ask, be soberly made 

 by a man of science speaking in the name of science ? In what sense 

 does atheism — a form of belief with the truth or falsity of which we 

 need not at present concern ourselves — remove humanity from any 

 peculiar position distinctly, and on scientiflc grounds, shown to belong 

 to it ? The fact is, that if atheism went counter simply to any estab- 

 lished tenet of science, it would excite not " unspeakable loathing and 

 horror," but simiDly feelings of mingled amusement, pity, and con- 

 tempt. There was unspeakable "horror and loathing" at Athens 

 when it was found one morning that the statues of the god Hermes 

 had been mutilated during the preceding night ; but no such feelings 



