l68 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



where, if anywhere, finality resides and whether by any chance Chris- 

 tian doctrine belongs in the same locaHty. It is worth while for us, 

 even as historians, to make clear to ourselves the essential nature of 

 the Christian faith, to classify it logically and to determine the logical 

 method by which Christian assurance is arrived at. 



It is not in the reUgious sphere alone that man needs convic- 

 tions. Conviction plays a necessary part in the most mundane affairs 

 of life. A half-mile or so from where I sit there is an irrigating ditch. 

 On that irrigating ditch depends in part the fertility of a beautiful 

 valley. The existence of that irrigating ditch is due to a conviction, 

 the conviction, namely, that water can be depended upon to run down 

 hill. Should that conviction be shaken, the ditch would quickly be 

 allowed to fall into ruin. The illustration is typical. Every act of 

 man grows out of a belief. I go home to dinner because I believe that 

 dinner awaits me. The discovery that certainty is irrational would 

 be the most terrible calamity which could happen to the race. It 

 would put a stop to all human activity and mankind would perish in 

 a day. Of course there is Uttle danger. Common-sense protests that 

 there are some things of which we can be absolutely sure. We know, 

 for instance, that water always runs down hill. There are a multitude 

 of facts of which we can be absolutely certain; and science is 

 constantly adding to their number. 



"Science is constantly adding to their number." In that asser- 

 tion — which the scientist unhesitatingly accepts — there stands re- 

 vealed a curious self-contradiction on the part of the scientist. One 

 moment he declares all his conclusions open to doubt. The next he 

 asserts for some conclusion of his a finaHty quite equal to that which 

 the most ardent churchman asserts for his creed. This contradictory 

 attitude of science toward its results challenges understanding; for an 

 examination of the nature of the inerrancy which the scientist claims, 

 and justly claims, for some of his results may throw some light upon 

 the sort of inerrancy which the church may, without absurdity, assert 

 of her creeds. 



The explanation of the fact that the scientist sometimes disclaims 

 and sometimes insists upon the inerrancy of his results is that his 



