126 WALTER AUBREY KIDD, M.D., M.E.C.S._, F.Z.S., ON 



misbegotten spectre which has stolen the name of Science — though 

 in reality it is a hybrid mixture of unjustified hypotheses and bad 

 metaphysics. This unholy alliance has produced the irrational 

 conception of a soulless, godless universe ; a cold, dead mechanism, 

 in which inexorable fate is somehow combined with blind chance. 

 Shall we treat this pseudo-science leniently 1 To me it seems that 

 Dr. Temple's treatment of this science falsely so-called, is not 

 trenchant enough. 



While his arguments are in the main good and sound, they seem 

 to me open to criticism in more than one fundamental matter. 

 While pointing out that the uniformity of nature is only hypothesis, 

 he does not demand a precise account of what is meant by the 

 phrase. Nature, as we see and know it, is muUifwm — not uniform. 

 The uniformity is hypothesis : the multiplicity is an immediate 

 and present fact. Surely just because it is hypothesis, science is 

 bound to furnish an intelligible meaning for the phrase. And when 

 the man of science runs the changes on other terms and phrases — 

 such as order, the stability of nature, continuity, or the favourite 

 phrase, the universality of causation — he should be followed, step 

 by step, by a persistent demand for his meaning. It will be found 

 in the end, that he can give no meaning which will agree with all 

 the facts. Either he will fall back upon the intolerable assumption 

 of an irrational mechanism or he will lose himself in utter confusion 

 of thought. Science is not yet omniscience. 



But Dr. Temple was content to accept this postulate of science 

 without any definition ; only contending for two exceptions, God's 

 free will and His power to work miracles, and man's free will. The 

 wisdom of this way of thinking is questionable. The Hihhert 

 Journal for October, 1903, contains an article by Professor Jones 

 which expressly combats this theory, not with any reference to the 

 Archbishop, but in antagonism to Professor William James. 

 Professor Jones says, " I am persuaded that this method of 

 defending morality and religion is a wrong method, and calculated 

 not only to perpetuate the contradiction between the theoretical and 

 practical aspects of our life, but to injure religion in a fatal way. 

 The true defence seems to me to be in a direction which is almost 

 directly opposite. Instead of their nuitual exclusion, I should prefer a 

 theory of their mutual inclusion" This pronounced disagreement 

 between philosophers must make us pause before we decide. 



