412 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Now, Avhat is the aijswer to all 

 this? The first answer we feel dis- 

 posed to make is that the illustrious 

 critic does not seem to have taken up 

 as definite a standpoint as could be 

 wished. He says at one moment that 

 science can not rise to the point of 

 view necessary for supplying- moral 

 guidance to the people — that religion 

 alone can do it. A moment after he 

 says that ninety-nine hundredths of 

 all the suffering in the world would 

 disappear if men of science " were 

 to teach men more about religious, 

 moral, and social truths." How are 

 they to do it if science is powerless 

 to deal with these things ? Waiving 

 this point, what may be said is this, 

 that science reaffirms all the impor- 

 tant moral truths that the experience 

 of the ages has imparted to mankind, 

 and places them on something better 

 than an empirical basis. Mr. Spen- 

 cer's two volumes on the Principles 

 of Morality are full of valuable ob- 

 servations and illustrations bearing 

 on the conduct of life ; and other 

 writers have dealt with the same gen- 

 eral subject with various degrees of 

 force and impressiveness. There is 

 this distinction, however, to be drawn 

 between moral truths and other 

 truths, say the truths of purely phys- 

 ical science: the latter only require 

 to be intellectually apprehended, the 

 former require to be lived. We heard 

 long ago of the servant who knew his 

 master's will and did it not. Was 

 any one but himself to blame for his 

 disobedience ? We are not told so ; 

 and Count Tolstoi has a great respect 

 for the writings in which this type is 

 given to lis. Unhappily, the type is 

 eternal ; which of us can say with as- 

 surance that we have never fallen 

 into like transgression ? 



This simjile consideration, it seems 

 to us, serves to show the folly of blam- 

 ing men of science because the world 

 is not better than it is, or for pursu- 

 ing, while society is still so imperfect. 



their researches into distant regions 

 of space and time, into the infinitely 

 great or the infinitely small. Let the 

 accusers of science say what moral 

 truth of importance to mankind sci- 

 ence has weakened. Let them say 

 to what moral truth it has not at least 

 added some strength. The Founder 

 of Christianity did not rail at sci- 

 ence. He did not say that it was be- 

 cause the Scribes and Pharisees did 

 not teach sound and penetrating 

 moral doctrines that the world was 

 as bad as it was. As reflected in the 

 fourth Gospel, what he taught was 

 that there was a light which was 

 ready to lighten every man that came 

 into the world, but that " men loved 

 darkness rather than light because 

 their deeds were evil." To day there 

 are thousands of agencies in opera- 

 tion for instructing men in their 

 duties and teaching them the signifi- 

 cance of life, and there is reason to 

 hope that they are not all working in 

 vain. Only we must bear in mind 

 that all moral teaching is a summons 

 to moral effort, a summons to rise 

 above our everyday selves, a sum- 

 mons to more or less of self-renunci- 

 ation. Why should men of science 

 be blamed because they are not infi- 

 nitely more successful than ministers 

 of the gospel in enlightening dark 

 minds and strengthening weak wills ? 

 If it is the function of religion, as 

 Count Tolstoi says, to take the total 

 view of life and seize its true signifi- 

 cance, why does it not fulfill that 

 duty ? It really is most singular that 

 no sooner has the eminent critic got 

 to the point of seeing where the re- 

 sponsibility lies for the proper in- 

 struction of mankind, than he turns 

 savagely round on tlie men of sci- 

 ence, and tells thera that if they 

 would deal out i-eligious, moral, and 

 social truths to mankind, the miseries 

 and hardships of our present social 

 state would all but disappear. 



Mankind, let us trust, is slowly 



