SO Tr. ichings or Thomas Huxley 



latter Huxley says: "The antagonism between 

 science and religion appears to me to be purely 

 factitious, fabricated on the one hand by short- 

 sighted religious people, and on the other by 

 equally short-sighted scientific people." And in 

 Science and Hebrew Tradition he ventures the 

 opinion that, "The antagonism of science is not 

 to religion but to the heathen survivals and the 

 bad philosophy under which religion herself 

 is often well-nigh crushed." To the w T riter 

 there seems to be no reason why the two are 

 not interdependent, since^ religion has a true 

 basis or foundation for its existence, and 

 should need no support from science; 

 and surely the position of science is so 

 secure that she need have no feeling of jealousy 

 or of disgust toward religious dogma or simple 

 Christian faith. Wherefore then this con- 

 troversy? Religion is not a thing capable of 

 demonstration. It resides in the emotions and 

 has for its fundamentals a firm trust in the 

 ethical teachings of some system of philosophy, 

 and a supreme belief in the concepts deduced 

 from emotional religious experiences. If the 

 Bible be true it should be true in its entirety, 

 and hence does not need the support of scien- 

 tific facts or deductions; and if it be partly 

 untrue it is not antagonized but stands openly 

 convicted of falsity. What religion seems to 

 need in these days is to be shorn of its creeds 

 and doctrines and dogmas, and to get back upon 



