l62 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



essential nature of her teaching; (3) a fundamental difference in 

 premises and logical method between scientific and religious thought. 



I 



The heart of the conflict centers around the claim which every 

 church makes for its doctrinal standards. Every church insists that 

 its essential teachings are ultimate truths. To take a concrete 

 example: All churches of the Catholic order and all or almost all 

 churches which originated in the Reformation era insist, explicitly 

 or impHcitly, upon the inerrancy of the Nicene Creed. Orthodox 

 Christianity holds that every statement in that famous document is 

 absolute and final truth; and that no doctrine which is out of harmony 

 with any statement of the Nicene Creed can possibly be true. It 

 insists that human science and philosophy is ever in a state of flux; 

 that scientific theories are framed and gain acceptance only to be 

 overthrown by the scientists of succeeding generations, but the creed 

 abides and will abide. However strong the evidence for any idea 

 which is opposed to any article of the creed may be, and however 

 imposing the array of authorities may be, that accept such a doctrine, 

 more accurate thinking or the discovery of new evidence will ultimately 

 cause men to reject it and will bring them back to the teaching of the 

 creed. In the meantime wisdom as well as duty demands that we 

 hold fast the faith once (and for all) delivered to the saints. 



"It is magnificent; but it is not war," exclaimed the French com- 

 mander at Balaklava as he watched the charge of the Light Brigade. 

 The confidence with which the church reposes upon the Nicene Creed 

 is magnificent; but, the scientist is apt to urge, it is absurd. Would 

 anyone dream of making such a claim for any other ancient document ? 

 There are Platonists in plenty among us; but what Platonist thinks 

 of asserting that his master was inerrant ? Historians regard Thucydi- 

 des with unbounded admiration; but they do not hesitate to ques- 

 tion his conclusions. No one but a fool would maintain the inerrancy 

 of Galen. Philosophy and science and historical method have made 

 many advances since ancient times, and the goal is not yet. No 

 scientist, whatever his branch, ventures to regard his views as beyond 



