48 



NA TURE 



[July 14, 1923 



regard to miracles he suggests that they may be " in 

 accord with some higher law of which the human 

 mind can at present, at least, form no conception." 

 But he is led from this legitimate belief to ascribe to 

 Christ " knowledge which infinitely transcends our 

 human powers." Such a view, though common, is 

 heretical, because it impairs the perfect humanity of 

 Christ. The orthodox formula, " very God and very 

 Man," is both more subtle and more reasonable than 

 is popularly realised. 



Just as the technical theologian might demur to 

 some of Prof. Lane's teaching, so the physicist might 

 ask him to enunciate " the law of gravitation," which 

 " holds universally in nature." But few who try to 

 cover the ground over which the author moves 

 could escape all its pitfalls. Taken as a whole, his 

 work is an admirable defence of the position that 

 there is no inherent antagonism between Christian 

 theism and the biological doctrine of evolution. In 

 England, save by Roman Catholics or extreme Pro- 

 testants, the position is now generally accepted by 

 Christians. Moreover, an increasing number of men 

 of science recognise that evolution affords no secure 

 basis for a materialist philosophy. As an interpreta- 

 tion of the facts presented by Nature and human 

 nature, such systems as Haeckel's materialistic monism 

 are inadequate. Philosophers, using all such facts, 

 normally work towards theism or pantheism. English 

 divines have not been slow to point out that the con- 

 clusions of modern science harmonise with the Christian 

 outlook on human life and with the Christian interpreta- 

 tion of the universe. But in America there is still a 

 widespread behef that evolution is destructive of the 

 Christian faith. 



Prof. Lane gives some amazing illustrations of the 

 extent and effects of this mistaken fear. Mr. W. J. 

 Bryan has led a campaign against evolution, the echoes 

 of which are still reverberating from press and pulpit 

 in the Middle Western States. Great religious con- 

 gresses have declared evolution a " heresy." " The 

 state of Kentucky came near enacting a law forbidding 

 the teaching of this scientific doctrine in any school 

 supported by public funds." A generation ago it 

 seemed as if the Western World had finally escaped 

 from the temper which led the Inquisition to hand over 

 Giordano Bruno to be burnt. But the spectacle is 

 now before us of a great democracy aflame with 

 religious prejudice. Naturally, religion is being gravely 

 harmed. Extreme Protestant and Roman Catholic 

 seminaries get their supply of enthusiastic recruits, 

 for fanaticism breeds a certain type of faith and 

 devotion. But young men whose minds are open to 

 the thought of the time are distracted or repelled by 

 the conflict around them. Some believe their religious 

 NO. 2802, VOL. 112] 



teachers ; accept the view that evolution make- 

 atheists — and become atheists. Others naturally j 

 resolve to find elsewhere than in the Christian ministry \ 

 an outlet for their aspirations. 



Doubtless many causes contribute to the religiou> 

 obscurantism prevalent in America. But it is saft 

 to say that one of the most effective is the bold, and 

 sometimes extravagant, philosophico-religious specula- 

 tion common in American universities. Partly owing 

 to its mixed population and partly because of its Jj 

 geographical position between Europe and Asia, 

 America produces learned men less sensitive than our 

 own to the value of the Christian tradition. They try 

 to survey with impartial superiority the varied mani- 

 festations of the religious spirit in Europe and Asia. 

 They are aware of the intellectual poverty of much 

 popular Christian thought. They view with cold and 

 contemptuous detachment the strange and novel cults 

 of which their own country is singularly prolific. They 

 are attracted by the philosophical subtlety of Hindu 

 speculation, and probably have no first-hand experience 

 of the moral corruptions which pantheism shelters. 

 The general effect of their teaching is rightly felt by 

 ordinary men and women to be destructive of all 

 religious certainty. 



(2) Prof. Hopkins's " Origin and Evolution of Re- 

 ligion " is the sort of book to excite reactionary preju- 

 dice, for the half-educated reader will merely perceive 

 that its values are wrong. To us it appears a mixture 

 of wide learning and confused thought. The author 

 gives an illuminating account of primitive religion as 

 disclosed by modern anthropological research. As 

 professor of Sanskrit at Yale, he naturally writes with 

 authority of the development of Ar^^an religious ideas 

 in India. He describes at length the evolution of 

 Buddhism. He sketches the conflict, among the 

 Greeks and Hebrews, between primitive religious 

 beliefs and finer types of philosophico-spiritual under- 

 standing. " In Greece, a moral philosophy gradually 

 developed apart from the gods. The Hebrews alone 

 united ethics, religion, and an anti-polytheistic philo- 

 sophy." He gives an account of the evolution of 

 Christian theology which we find unsatisfactory'. In 

 his pages the complex movement which united Nec- 

 Platonism to the Gospels is inadequately presented. 

 Probably misrepresentation is inevitable in an author 

 who can write that " it makes no religious difference 

 whether God is regarded as essentially quite apart 

 from or immanent in nature." 



Prof. Hopkins, setting aside the Christian belief in 

 absolute values, gives us utilitarian ethics. " The 

 ethical law in respect of taking life is not Thou shalt 

 not kill but Thou shalt kill, when killing aids the 

 group. That is the reason why it was right to kill " 



