Fakers of Science 55 
irrational superstitions that have attached themselves to religious 
thought. Not only have certain scientists attacked these ideas very 
bitterly but many others have felt a rebellion in spirit, mostly sup- 
pressed for reasons of expediency. It has indeed been unfortunate for 
the cause of religion that its exponents have always been slow to ac- 
cept scientific principles. Giving ground inch by inch, but always fight- 
ing, organized religion has kept itself always in the position of the 
reactionary instead of in that of the enthusiastic supporter of all 
search for truth by every available method. Many of the foremost 
religious thinkers of recent times have seen and regretted this anoma- 
lous position and there has, of late years, been noticed a tremendous 
effort on the part of religious writers and speakers to reconcile the 
conflicting elements and to remove from the church the stigma of 
always posing as the obstructionist in matters of scientific advance- 
ment. 
In casting about for means to this end they have made another 
unfortunate mistake. “Let us be magnanimous,” we can imagine them 
saying, “and admit that organized religion has been reactionary in the 
past, dogmatic and intolerant to progressive scientific ideas, and cling- 
ing to ancient and medizval superstitions. But let it be so no more.” 
So we have it now that there is no longer opposition to true science. 
The chasm is closed, the discord is harmonized. The result? Why, 
science proves the truth of religion! People may now be religious in 
spite of their doubts, because science and the truths of science cor- 
roborate the theories of religion. The church has adopted the “scien- 
tific method” of reasoning and the problem is solved. 
This course of procedure is a mistake, for the simple reason that 
never, as long as this world shall endure, can science ever corroborate 
a single dogma of religion, any more than it can corroborate a single 
dogma of any other kind. This is because religious dogma, like any 
other dogma, is essentially a non-demonstrable theory. It can be 
neither proved nor disproved and so science can have nothing what- 
eyer to do with it. Science is concerned only with hypotheses that are 
susceptible of test and when it becomes apparent that any theory lies 
outside that conceivable possibility, that theory immediately becomes 
impossible of consideration from any scientific standpoint and it must 
remain a matter for acceptance or rejection, according to the personal 
inclination or emotions of the individual. 
But here is where our faker takes up the matter. If science will 
not concern herself with our dogma let us have a science of our own! 
So it has become fashionable for speakers and writers, eminent and 
otherwise, to adopt the words and phrases of science and to weave 
them into discussions of religious theory, creating or attempting to 
create the idea that because the religious exponent himself is scien- 
tific, science is therefore of religion. Scientific terms are bandied about 
with perfect familiarity and handed out with an effrontery that awes 
the non-scientific hearer and compels his respect, even if it amazes or 
amuses the scientist himself. This is particularly true in college towns, 
where great numbers of young men and women are engaged in the 
study of pure and applied science. Thanks to the reactionary religious 
