ON PRA YER AS A FORM OF PHYSICAL ENERGY 



occasions, invoke a Power which checks 

 and augments the descent of rain, which 

 changes the force and direction of 

 winds, which affects the growth of corn 

 and the health of men and cattle a 

 Power, in short, which, when appealed 

 to under pressing circumstances, pro- 

 duces the precise effects caused by 

 physical energy in the ordinary course 

 of things. To any person who deals 

 sincerely with the subject, and refuses to 

 blur his moral vision by intellectual sub- 

 tleties, this, I think, will appear a true 

 statement of the case. 



It is under this aspect alone that the 

 scientific student, so far as I represent 

 him, has any wish to meddle with prayer. 

 Forced upon his attention as a form of 

 physical energy, or as the equivalent of 

 such energy, he claims the right of sub- 

 jecting it to those methods of examina- 

 tion from which all our present knowledge 

 of the physical universe is derived. And 

 if his researches lead him to a conclusion 

 adverse to its claims if his inquiries 

 rivet him still closer to the philosophy 

 implied in the words, " He maketh His 

 sun to shine on the evil and on the good, 

 and sendeth rain upon the just and upon 

 the unjust" he contends only for the 

 displacement of prayer, not for its 

 extinction. He simply says, physical 

 nature is not its legitimate domain. 



This conclusion, moreover, must be 

 based on pure physical evidence, and not 

 on any inherent unreasonableness in the 

 act of prayer. The theory that the 

 system of nature is under the control of 

 a Being who changes phenomena in 

 compliance with the prayers of men is, 

 in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. 

 It may, of course, be rendered futile by . 

 being associated with conceptions which 

 contradict it ; but such conceptions form 

 no necessary part of the theory. It is a 

 matter of experience that an earthly 

 father, who is at the same time both 

 wise and tender, listens to the requests 

 of his children, and, if they do not ask 

 amiss, takes pleasure in granting their 

 requests. We know also that this com- 

 pliance extends to the alteration, within 



certain limits, of the current of events 

 on earth. With this suggestion offered 

 by experience, it is no departure from 

 scientific method to place behind natural 

 phenomena a Universal Father, who, in 

 answer to the prayers of his children, 

 alters the currents of those phenomena. 

 Thus far theology and science go hand 

 in hand. The conception of an aether, 

 for example, trembling with the waves of 

 light, is suggested by the ordinary phe- 

 nomena of wave-motion in water and in 

 air ; and in like manner the conception 

 of personal volition in nature is suggested 

 by the ordinary action of man upon 

 earth. I, therefore, urge no impossi- 

 bilities, though I am constantly charged 

 with doing so. I do not even urge 

 inconsistency, but, on the contrary, 

 frankly admit that the theologian has as 

 good a right to place his conception at 

 the root of phenomena as I have to 

 place mine. 



But without verification a theoretic 

 conception is a mere figment of the 

 intellect, and I am sorry to find us 

 parting company at this point. The 

 region of theory, both in science and 

 theology, lies behind the world of the 

 senses, but the verification of theory 

 occurs in the sensible world. To check 

 the theory, we have simply to compare 

 the deductions from it with the facts of 

 observation. If the deductions be in 

 accordance with the facts, we accept the 

 theory; if in opposition, the theory is 

 given up. A single experiment is 

 frequently devised by which the. theory 

 must stand or fall. Of this character 

 was the determination of the velocity of 

 light in liquids as a crucial test of the 

 Emission Theory. According to it, light 

 travelled faster in water than in air; 

 according to the Undulatory Theory, it 

 travelled faster in air than in water. 

 An experiment suggested by Arago, and 

 executed by Fizeau and Foucault, was 

 conclusive against Newton's theory. 



But while science cheerfully submits to 

 this ordeal, it seems impossible to devise 

 a mode of verification of their theories 

 which does not rouse resentment in 



