:68 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



is the obvious inference? Why, that 

 religion has hitherto proved an inse- 

 cure foundation for morals. Be there 

 or be there not an indestructible core 

 of truth in all religions, morality, ac- 

 cording to Professor Smith, has been 

 planted upon their perishable parts, 

 their mutable elements, and has lost 

 its hold upon men as these have passed 

 away, A foundation that crumbles 

 and permits its superstructure to fall 

 is a bad foundation ; and the i*eal ques- 

 tion forced upon us by Professor Smith's 

 historical lessons is, Shall we continue 

 to build the edifice of morals upon this 

 unstable basis, or shall we seek a better 

 and more enduring basis? Are the 

 rules of conduct to be derived from 

 what men know concerning this world, 

 or what they conjecture concerning 

 another? Or will it be maintained 

 that morals can have no other possible 

 foundation than that which history and 

 experience have proved to be incapable 

 of supporting it ? 



Professor Smith assumes that his- 

 tory will repeat itself. He draws a 

 vivid picture of the extent and depth 

 of the prevailing unbelief, and insists 

 that it must be followed by the same 

 perilous decline of morals as in former 

 times. 



But he here overlooks the altered 

 condition of the question. He seems 

 to have forgotten that the circum- 

 stances in this age are profoundly differ- 

 ent from what they were in the former 

 great periods of religious decadence. 

 In those times, when a set of supersti- 

 tions was worn out and discarded, the 

 state of knowledge was not such as to 

 prevent their reentrance in new forms. 

 But it is not so in this scientific age, 

 when the doubt of traditions is due to an 

 increasing knowledge of nature. The 

 profound and widespread questioning 

 that characterizes our time is charged 

 upon science, which is a new factor in 

 human affairs of modern growth, and 

 in so far as it is connected with sci- 

 ence it springs from allegiance to truth. 



The skepticism engendered by science 

 is not a blind passion for sweeping 

 things away, but everything is exam- 

 ined, that it may be proved what will 

 stand. The active mind of the period 

 is vigorously engaged in getting opin- 

 ions off of their illusive traditional 

 foundations, that they may rest upon 

 their intrinsic merits and go for what 

 they are honestly worth. Doubt does 

 not lead to negation, but to construc- 

 tion. The search for principles, and 

 trust in them when established, are 

 becoming, through the influence of 

 science, intellectual characteristics of 

 the time. Morality has its principles ; 

 and right and wrong are grounded in 

 the nature of things. Goldwin Smith 

 goes for the sandy foundation of my- 

 thology and theology, which may lead 

 to further moral collapses; while sci- 

 ence is unweariedly laboring to avoid 

 them by planting morality upon a basis 

 that will be permanent. 



It is significant that Professor Smith 

 never refers to any element of truth 

 in his religious foundation of morals. 

 These foundations, however, consist of 

 fear of fabulous gods, superstitious le- 

 gends, and perishable dogmas, and he 

 declares that now for the fourth time 

 on a great scale they have rotted away. 

 Morality has, therefore, not rested on 

 any divine, immutable basis, but upon 

 crude and transitory belief, mere human 

 devices. But is it not a vicious system 

 which plants morals upon a basis that 

 can be carried away by the necessary 

 progress of knowledge? And what 

 more effectual way could be devised 

 to subvert morality than to make it 

 depend upon that which is not valued 

 for its truth, and is liable to be discred- 

 ited at every step of advancing intelli- 

 gence ? In short, what immorality can 

 work such profound and far-reaching 

 evil as to place the motives and rules 

 of human conduct upon a false, facti- 

 tious, and transitory basis ? 



From this point of view there is a 

 fallacy in representing morality as based 



