498 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



competence and truthfulness as a wit- 

 ness, just as in cases of science. His only 

 appeal is to reason, our only organ for 

 apprehending truth. We, because of the 

 evidence presented to our reason, believe 

 him competent and truthful — i. e., trust- 

 worthy — and we take the second step 

 (2), as in case of search for scientific 

 truth. We trust him, we have " faith " 

 in him. Then (3) we believe his testi- 

 mony as to facts beyond our cognizance, 

 as to God, as to the inner world and life, 

 as to his own person and work, and 

 his agency in helping us to the true life. 

 Here are the same three steps as in our 

 believing the great facts of science, and 

 they are equally legitimate, and the be- 

 lief is equally legitimate, and with the 

 same use of " faith " in both cases, which 

 use is legitimate if we have applied our 

 reason correctly. 



It may be said that there is this dif- 

 ference in the two cases: We are, it 

 may be, competent with training to per- 

 ceive with our reason the facts to which 

 the scientists witness, whereas in reli- 

 gion we are not competent by any train- 

 ing, in our present state, to see what 

 Jesus Christ testified to; therefore the 

 believing him is not legitimate. 



Space forbids arguing this point, but 

 the writer is confident it can be shown 

 that this does not vitiate the process 

 in the least. The only point now argued 

 is that reason is the only organ of man 

 for the apprehension of truth, and that 

 " faith " acts the same part in scientific 

 and religious belief. 



John R. Thtjkston. 

 Whitinsville, Mass., SepUmber so, IS'.ni. 



[The point which our correspondent 

 discusses is one which falls rather within 

 the province of theology or philosophy 

 than within that of science. In the ar- 

 ticle to which he refers we did not dis- 

 tinctly say that " faith " was " the or- 

 gan of religious apprehension." What 

 we said was that (jrantiiu/ such was the 

 case, tlie question still remained to be 

 settled where the line should be drawn 

 between faith and knowledge. We doubt 

 whether the account which our corre- 

 spondent gives of faith would be widely 

 accepted by those who approach the 

 subject from the theological side, while 

 those who approach it from the scien- 

 tific side would — at least many of them 

 would — be disposed to consider the term 

 one which might better be dispensed 

 with in favor of the less ambiguous 

 word " belief." Belief is the inclination 

 of the mind toward a proposition for 



which absolute or demonstrative proof 

 is wanting, and it is this condition of 

 mind, it seems to us, that our corre- 

 spondent has in view. Faith in the re- 

 ligious sense, unless we are mistaken, is 

 something different. It is an affirma- 

 tion made by the human conscience or 

 consciousness in its own behalf — a cer- 

 tain instinctive recognition of a presence 

 and power in the universe which, though 

 inaccessible to scientific investigation, 

 sustains an intimate, profound, and all- 

 essential relation to man's moral nature. 

 If trust in an individual ever rises to 

 the level of faith in this sense, it is be- 

 cause the influence of the individual 

 harmonizes with and re-enforces the pri- 

 mal instinct. That, at least, is how we 

 view the matter. — Editor.] 



FISKE'S VIEWS COMPARED. 



Edit 07' Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir: Will you permit me to say a 

 few words supplementing your review 

 of Through Nature to God? To those 

 who have perused Mr. Fiske's latest 

 three scientifico - theological bool-dets, 

 and also his Cosmic Philosophy, it can 

 not be new that their author has become 

 entangled in hopeless contradictions of 

 himself. The limited space of a letter 

 does not allow of adducing more than 

 one remarkable passage from Cosmic 

 Philosophy, demonstrating the antithe- 

 sis between the arguments of this work 

 and Mr. Fiske's latest opinions, these 

 new thoughts having been developed, as 

 he tells us, by ." carrying such a subject 

 about in his mind for " twenty-five 

 years. We are told in Through Nature 

 to God (page 12) that "it has usually 

 been found necessary to represent the 

 Creator as finite either in power or in 

 goodness, although the limitation is sel- 

 dom avowed, except by writers who 

 have a leaning toward atheism and take 

 a grim pleasure in pointing out flaws in 

 the constitution of things. Among mod- 

 ern writers " Comte and Mill are con- 

 spicuous for such a " leaning toward 

 atheism." Then we are informed (page 

 20) that the " shock whicli such a clear, 

 bold statement gives to our religious 

 feelings is no greater than the shock 

 with which it strikes counter to our 

 modern scientific pliilosophy." And a 

 little further on Ave find that " the God 

 which Mr. Mill off"ers us, shorn of the 

 attribute of omnipotence, is no God 

 at all." 



