第20章

outofhis“Memorial。“Eveninanessayonthe“CivilPolicyofAmerica，“theturbanedsagefiguresquiteprominently；anditisneedlesstoaddthathereappears，aslargeaslife，whenthesubjectofdiscussionistheattitudeofsciencetowardreligion。 Speakingbrieflywithregardtothismatter，wemayfreelyadmitthattheworkdonebytheArabs，inscientificinquiryaswellasinthemakingofevents，wasveryconsiderable。Itwasawork，too，thevalueofwhichisnotcommonlyappreciatedintheaccountsofEuropeanhistorywrittenforthegeneralreader，andwehavenodispositiontofindfaultwithDr。Draperfordescribingitwithenthusiasm。ThephilosophersofBagdadandCordovadidexcellentserviceinkeepingalivethetraditionsofGreekphysicalinquiryatatimewhenChristianthinkersweretooexclusivelyoccupiedwithtranscendentalspeculationsintheologyandlogic。Insomedepartments，asinchemistryandastronomy，theymadeoriginaldiscoveriesofconsiderablevalue；andifweturnfromabstractknowledgetotheartsoflife，itcannotbedeniedthatthemediaevalMussulmanshadreachedahigherplaneofmaterialcomfortthantheirChristiancontemporaries。Inshort，theworkofallkindsdonebythesepeoplewouldfurnishthejudiciousadvocateoftheclaimsoftheSemiticracewithmaterialsforapleasingandinstructivepicture。Dr。Draper，however，errs，thoughnodoubtunintentionally，bysopresentingthecaseastoleaveuponthereader’smindtheimpressionthatallthisscientificandpracticalachievementwastheworkofIslamism，andthattheMohammedancivilizationwasofahighertypethantheChristian。ItiswithanapparentfeelingofregretthathelooksupontheoustingoftheMoorsfromdominioninSpain；butthisisamistakenview。Asregardsthefirstpoint，itisapatentfactthatscientificinquirywasconductedatthecostofasmuchtheologicalobloquyintheMohammedanasintheChristianworld。ItistruetherewasmoreactualtoleranceofheresyonthepartofMoslemgovernmentsthanwascustomaryinEuropeinthosedays；butthisisasuperficialfact，whichdoesnotindicateanysuperiorityinMoslempopularsentiment。Thecaliphateoremiratewasatrulyabsolutedespotism，suchasthePapacyhasneverbeen，andtheconductofascepticalemirinencouragingscientificinquirygoesbutlittlewaytowardprovinganythinglikeageneralprevalenceoftoleranceoroffree-thinking。Andthisbringsustothesecondpoint，——thatMohammedancivilizationwas，onthewhole，ratheraskin-deepaffair。ItwassuperficialbecauseofthatextremeseverancebetweengovernmentandpeoplewhichhasneverexistedinEuropeannationswithinhistorictimes，butwhichhasalwaysexistedamongtheprincipalracesthathaveprofessedMoslemism。NowhereintheMohammedanworldhasthereeverbeenwhatwecallanationallife，andnowheredowefindinitsrecordsanytraceofsuchanintellectualimpulse，thrillingthrougheveryfibreofthepeopleandbegettingprodigiousachievementsinart，poetry，andphilosophy，aswasawakenedinEuropeinthethirteenthcenturyandagaininthefifteenth。Underthepeculiarformofunlimitedmaterialandspiritualdespotismexemplifiedinthecaliphate，afewmenmaydiscovergasesorcommentonAristotle，butnogeneralmovementtowardpoliticalprogressorphilosophicalinquiryispossible。Suchasocietyisrigidandinorganicatbottom，whateverscantysignsofflexibilityandlifeitmayshowatthesurface。Thereisnobetterillustrationofthis，whenwellconsidered，thanthefactthatMoorishcivilizationremained，politicallyandintellectually，amereexcrescenceinSpain，afterhavingbeenfasteneddownoverhalfthecountryfornearlyeightcenturies。 Butweareindangerofforgettingourmaintheme，asDr。Draperseemstodo，whilewelingerwithhimovertheseinterestingwaysidetopics。Wemayperhapsbeexcused，however，ifwehavenotyetmadeanyveryexplicitallusiontothe“ConflictbetweenReligionandScience，“becausethisworkseemstobeinthemainarepetitionenpetitofthe“IntellectualDevelopmentofEurope，“andwhatwehavesaidwillapplyaswelltooneastotheother。Inthelittlebook，asinthebigone，wehearagreatdealabouttheArabs，andsomethingaboutColumbusandGalileo，whomademenacceptsundrytruthsintheteethofclericalopposition；and，asbefore，wefloatgentlydownthecurrentofhistorywithoutbeingoverwell-informedastotheprecisedidacticpurposeofourvoyage。Here，indeed，evenourheadingsandrunning-titlesdonotmateriallyhelpus，forthoughwearesupposedtobewitnessing，ormayhapassistingin，aperennialconflictbetween“science“and“religion，“wearenowhereenlightenedastowhatthecauseorcharacterofthisconflictis，norareweenabledtogetagoodlookateitherofthepartiestothestrife。Withregardtoit“religion“especiallyareweleftinthedark。Whatthisdreadfulthingistowardswhich“science“isalwaysplayingthepartofHeraklestowardstheLernaeanHydra，wearelefttogatherfromthecourseofthenarrative。Yet，inabookwithanyvalidclaimtoclearsightedness，onewouldthinksuchapointasthisoughttoreceiveveryexplicitpreliminarytreatment。 Thecourseofthenarrative，however，leavesusinlittledoubtastowhatDr。Drapermeansbyaconflictbetweenscienceandreligion。WhenheenlargesonthetritestoryofGalileo，andalludestothemoremodernquarrelbetweentheChurchandthegeologists，anddoesthisinthebeliefthatheistherebyillustratinganantagonismbetweenreligionandscience，itisobviousthatheidentifiesthecauseoftheanti-geologistsandthepersecutorsofGalileowiththecauseofreligion。Theword“religion“istohimasymbolwhichstandsforunenlightenedbigotryornarrow-mindedunwillingnesstolookfactsintheface。 Suchaconceptionofreligioniscommonenough，andunhappilyagreatdealhasbeendonetostrengthenitbytheverypersonstowhomtheinterestsofreligionarepresumedtobeaprofessionalcare。Itisneverthelessaverysuperficialconception，andnobookwhichisvitiatedbyitcanhavemuchphilosophicvalue。Itissimplythecrudeimpressionwhich，inmindsunaccustomedtoanalysis，isleftbythefactthattheologiansandotherpersonsinterestedinreligionareusuallyalarmedatnewscientifictruths，andresistthemwithemotionssohighlywroughtthattheyarenotonlyincapableofestimatingevidence，butoftenalsohavetheirmoralsenseimpaired，andfightwithfoulmeanswhenfaironesfail。Ifwereflectcarefullyonthisclassofphenomena，weshallseethatsomethingbesidesmereprideofopinionisinvolvedinthestruggle。Atthebottomofchangingtheologicalbeliefsthereliessomethingwhichmenperenniallyvalue，andforthesakeofwhichtheyclingtothebeliefsaslongaspossible。Thatwhichtheyvalueisnotitselfamatterofbelief，butitisamatterofconduct；itisthesearchingaftergoodness，——afterahigherlifethanthemeresatisfactionofindividualdesires。Allanimalsseekforfulnessoflife；butincivilizedmanthiscravinghasacquiredamoralsignificance，andhasbecomeaspiritualaspiration；andthisemotionaltendency，moreorlessstronginthehumanrace，wecallreligiousfeelingorreligion。Viewedinthislight，religionisnotonlysomethingthatmankindisneverlikelytogetridof，butitisincomparablythemostnobleaswellasthemostusefulattributeofhumanity。 Now，thisemotionalpromptingtowardcompletenessofliferequires，ofcourse，thatconductshouldbeguided，asfaraspossible，inaccordancewithatruetheoryoftherelationsofmantotheworldinwhichhelives。Hence，atanygivenerathereligiousfeelingwillalwaysbefoundenlistedinbehalfofsometheoryoftheuniverse。Atanytime，whatevermaybetheirshortcomingsinpractice，religiousmenwillaimatdoingrightaccordingtotheirconceptionsoftheorderoftheworld。Ifmen’sconceptionsoftheorderofnatureremainedconstant，noapparentconflictbetweentheirreligiousfeelingsandtheirknowledgeneedeverarise。Butwiththefirstadvanceinourknowledgeofnaturethecaseisaltered。Newandstrangetheoriesarenaturallyregardedwithfearanddislikebypersonswhohavealwaysbeenaccustomedtofindthesanctionandjustificationoftheiremotionalpromptingtowardrighteousnessinoldfamiliartheorieswhichthenewonesareseekingtosupplant。Suchpersonsopposethenewdoctrinebecausetheirengrainedmentalhabitscompelthemtobelievethatitsestablishmentwillinsomewaylowermen’sstandardoflife，andmakethemlesscarefuloftheirspiritualwelfare。Thisisthecase，atallevents，whentheologiansopposescientificconclusionsonreligiousgrounds，andnotsimplyfrommentaldulnessorrigidity。And，insofarasitisreligiousfeelingwhichthuspromptsresistancetoscientificinnovation，itmaybesaid，withsomeappearanceoftruth，thatthereisaconflictbetweenreligionandscience。 Buttheremustalwaysbetwopartiestoaquarrel，andourstatementhastobemodifiedassoonasweconsiderwhatthescientificinnovatorimpugns。Itisnottheemotionalpromptingtowardrighteousness，itisnottheyearningtoliveimGuten，Ganzen，Wahren，thatheseekstoweaken；quitelikelyhehasallthisasmuchatheartasthetheologianwhovituperateshim。Norisittruethathisdiscoveries，inspiteofhim，tendtodestroythisall-importantmentalattitude。Itwouldberidiculoustosaythatthefateofreligiousfeelingisreallyinvolvedinthefateofgrotesquecosmogoniesandtheosophiesframedintheinfancyofmen’sknowledgeofnature；forhistoryshowsusquitethecontrary。Religiousfeelinghassurvivedtheheliocentrictheoryandthediscoveriesofgeologists；anditwillbenonetheworsefortheestablishmentofDarwinism。Itisthemeresttruismtosaythatreligionstrikesitsrootsdeeperdownintohumannaturethanspeculativeopinion，andisaccordinglyindependentofanyparticularsetofbeliefs。Since，then，thescientificinnovatordoesnot，eithervoluntarilyorinvoluntarily，attackreligion，itfollowsthattherecanbenosuch“conflict“asthatofwhichDr。Draperhasundertakentowritethehistory。Therealcontestisbetweenonephaseofscienceandanother；betweenthemore-crudeknowledgeofyesterdayandtheless-crudeknowledgeofto-day。Thecontest，indeed，aspresentedinhistory，issimplythemeasureofthedifficultywhichmenfindinexchangingoldviewsfornewones。Allalong，thepracticalquestionhasbeen，whetherweshouldpassivelyacquiesceinthecrudegeneralizationsofourancestorsorventureactivelytorevisethem。Butasforthereligioussentiment，theperennialstruggleinwhichithasbeenengagedhasnotbeenwithscientificinquiry，butwiththeselfishpropensitieswhosetendencyistomakemenleadthelivesofbrutes。 Thetimeisathandwhentheinterestsofreligioncannolongerbesupposedtobesubservedbyobstinateadherencetocrudespeculationsbequeathedtousfrompre-scientificantiquity。Onegoodresultofthedoctrineofevolution，whichisnowgainingswayinalldepartmentsofthought，isthelessonthatallouropinionsmustbeheldsubjecttocontinualrevision，andthatwithnoneofthemcanourreligiousinterestsberegardedasirretrievablyimplicated。Toanyonewhohasoncelearnedthislesson，abooklikeDr。Draper’scanbeneitherinterestingnoruseful。Hewhohasnotlearneditcanderivelittlebenefitfromaworkwhichinitsverytitlekeepsopenanoldandbanefulsourceoferrorandconfusion。 NathantheWise:ADramaticPoem，byGottholdEphraimLessing。TranslatedbyEllenFrothingham。Precededbyabriefaccountofthepoetandhisworks，andfollowedbyanessayonthepoembyKunoFischer。Secondedition。NewYork:Leypoldt& LeChristianismeModerne。etudesurLessing。ParErnestFontanes。