AGNOSTICISM: 317 



and that by pushing the two off into a region of ab- 

 solute darkness, of which the human mind can know 

 nothing whatever, they will discuss their differences, 

 shake hands and agree to dwell in peace. 



In deriving this creed, Mr. Spencer claims to have 

 eliminated from Science and Religion everything that , 

 they could not hold in common. It is evident, I 

 think, that his eliminations were too numerous. 

 Those things only ought to have been eliminated that 

 were clearly in conflict. Those that were not in con- 

 flict needed no reconciliation. Science and Religion 

 occupy different fields and embody different facts, and, 

 for the most part, they need no reconciliation. So 

 far as the most of the facts embraced in them are 

 concerned, we might not be able to see either har- 

 mony or discord, and yet both sets of facts might be 

 true. Chemistry and astronomy are two well-defined 

 sciences, and yet the two classes of facts with which 

 they deal are so different, and there is such little 

 relation seemingly between the two, that if we affirm 

 harmony, it might be very difficult to determine in 

 what the harmony consists. 



It is evident that the unifying of all natural phe- 

 nomena must be done by tracing all to a common 

 cause, but when the sciences do this, as I think 

 they have fairly done, must it be by ignoring the 

 special facts that compose each science? So if 

 religion traces herself to the same origin, must she, of 

 necessity, ignore all of the special facts that have 

 been sacred to man through the ages? 



If, for example, the facts of science may be har- 

 monized without referring them to an intelligent, 

 final Cause, is it necessary that religion should sacri- 

 fice her belief that the Ultimate Cause is intelligent? 

 Intelligence in the Creator is not inconsistent with the 

 facts of science, although science might deem it ex- 



