176 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



volume of oxygen are brought together under a certain pressure and at 

 a certain temperature, they will unite to form a definite amount of 

 water. The doctrines of practical science, in other words, are state- 

 ments as to the interdependence of individual phenomena. Religion, 

 on the other hand, is concerned with the universe as a whole, its 

 attitude toward man and man's destiny in it. 



Now man's destiny and the attitude of the universe toward him 

 are beyond the reach of strict scientific investigation. The only rigid 

 method of proof that science knows is the inductive method. The 

 working hypotheses of science are susceptible of inductive proof. They 

 concern the order in which phenomena occur and that order can be 

 observed and reobserved until an inductive proof of it can be built up. 

 That these working hypotheses "work," that they furnish infallible 

 means of prediction, is absolute proof that they correspond to some- 

 thing real. The doctrines of religion, however, are clearly beyond the 

 reach of inductive proof. The inductions necessary are too vast and 

 too compUcated. 



For instance: "We know," says St. Paul, "that all things 

 work together for good to them that love God." But St. Paul's 

 knowledge did not rest upon an inductive basis. When, for example, 

 he spent a night and a day in the deep, he could hardly have been con- 

 scious that it was effecting his good. Even after he was rescued, the 

 most mature reflection could not discern all the bearings of his experi- 

 ence upon his welfare. We cannot list the divine deahngs as a scien- 

 tist lists his phenomena, determine the full bearing of each upon human 

 welfare, and so arrive at an assured generalization as to the bearing 

 of all. In the case of certain Christian doctrines, the very materials 

 for an inductive proof are beyond our reach. We have no experience 

 of the fate of men beyond the grave. Lastly, Christian doctrine does 

 not lend itself to inductive proof for the very reason that it deals not 

 with individual phenomena and their interrelations but with the 

 world as a whole. Its subject-matter is not the subject-matter of 

 inductive science but of philosophy. 



Philosophy however is equally incapable of furnishing a demon- 

 stration of religious doctrine. Philosophy is incapable of demon- 



