162 
Ms authority ?” It is exactly the same fallacy, and I confess I do not see 
why the dictum of an extremely learned scientific man is to be less received 
than the dictum of a learned scholar. In both cases their knowledge is 
imperfect, they make mistakes, however learned they may be, and so there 
would seem to be about as much worth in the one as in the other. Again, 
there is the fallacy in regard to the particular interpretation which we choose 
to put upon phenomena, and which we regard as, in consequence, a part ot 
the phenomena, when it is really only an inference of ours. Take an instance 
from Dr. Thornton’s paper, about the sun standing still. It may not have 
entered into the minds of those present to question whether Scripture really 
teaches that the sun did stand still, yet it is an extremely doubtful point. 
The original of the word is “be silent.” The sun “was silent” m heaven. 
It is shrewdly supposed by some (and I can find no objection to such an 
interpretation) that it refers, not to light, but to prolonged darkness ; that 
there was a great storm at the time, during which stones fell from heaven, 
and, as an attack in the dark is usually more fatal than an attack by day, 
Joshua prayed that the sun might remain as it was, dark and silent ; that it 
did so remain for the whole day, there was no light, but the battle went on 
in the dark, so that there was no day like that, before or after. I do not 
say that this is the true interpretation, but merely adduce it as an instance 
of the way in which what we have been accustomed to hear as the teaching 
of Scripture may prejudice us, and make us regard what is really a mere 
inference as part of the fundamental facts. Then again, there is the fallacy 
which Dr. Thornton notices, in the imperfect subtraction of known causes, 
and the effects they will produce, and the consequently fallacious reference 01 
the remaining facts to some other antecedent. This is also constantly done 
by the opponents of sceptics. They say, for example, that men of science 
have failed to account for the deluge on scientific principles, that they are 
unable to show natural causes sufficient to occasion it ; whence the conclusion 
has been jumped to-“ Then the deluge was miraculous.” Wait a moment. 
Are you certain that every cause is known which could account for it, or 
that, of every cause with which you are acquainted you know all the effects . 
I think not ; but if not, then the reasoning is plainly fallacious. There are 
a considerable number of cases of this kind, where men jump to the con- 
clusion that a thing is proved to be miraculous simply because not ^proved 
to be so ; in all which cases there is a liability to this kind of fallacy. I 
take a few instances thus (one might go through nearly all the points of 
Dr. Thornton’s paper in this way, and parallel them with other examples) 
not for the purpose of dwelling upon the logical errors o. defenders of 
Scripture, but merely to remove the impression that sceptics are more 
illogical than others. I believe theological scepticism has extremely little 
effect on the process of scientific reasoning. I can imagine a man with 
sceptical opinions, using a half-established conclusion, apparently antagonistic 
to religion, as if it were one fully proved, and this, I apprehend, is the true 
account of most such inconsequential reasoning ; but you can hardly call ..his 
a logical fallacy, for it is not a deep-lying sophistry, but appears plainly on 
