144 HAS SCIENCE DISCOVERED GOD? 



prefer to accept Theism, or, if you like, I am biassed 

 in favour of the hypothesis. I recognize the moral 

 and emotional advantages of theistic belief, so abun- 

 dantly set forth by thousands of eloquent exponents. 

 But, as a man of science, I hold it to be my business 

 to put aside this preference, this bias, to discount it 

 as completely as possible and to endeavour to exercise 

 strictly impartial judgment and reasoning in seeking 

 to reach a tentative conclusion. In other words I hold 

 that I have to treat the existence of God as a question 

 of fact, and that, like all other questions of fact, it 

 must be treated by me as a problem of science rather 

 than a problem of philosophy. Here, since the prov- 

 inces of science and of philosophy and the demarcation 

 of them are so variously conceived, it is proper that I 

 should say how I conceive those provinces and that 

 demarcation. 



I hold that the true and sole province of philosophy 

 is the realm of values, that philosophy is properly 

 concerned with the consideration of values, with valua- 

 tion, with problems of right and wrong, of better and 

 worse, in every field of activity, in logic, in aesthetic, 

 in morals, in politics, in economics, in jurisprudence, 

 and in religion. All questions of fact, all attempts to 

 describe the actual nature of the universe or of any 

 part of it, to state the relations between its parts, to 

 state the influences exerted by one part on another, 

 to explain the course of events, all this is the work of 

 science. 



Hitherto the tasks of science and of philosophy, as 

 thus defined, have been confused in a manner that 

 seems to me highly detrimental to both. Men of 

 science have presumed to pronounce upon values, to 



