The Freedom of Science Part 17

Thus in the light of history the condemnation of the Copernican theory appears quite differently from the picture presented by the superficial accusation that Rome up to the nineteenth century condemned this theory.

There is no trace of callousness and oppression, but only submission to legitimate authority, in so far and as long as one deemed himself obliged.

It was a science enlightened by Christianity, which, in questions not yet clearly decided, laid down upon the altar of the Giver of all wisdom the tribute of humble submission, for the sake of higher interests.

We shall have to cla.s.s with _St. Augustine_ the uncertainty of human judgments and tribunals among the "troubles of human life," and say with him: "It is also a misery that the judge is subject to the necessity of not knowing many things, but to the wise man it is not a fault" (De Civ.

Dei, IX, 6). May we therefore infer that the teaching authority is an evil? Were that true, we should have to abolish the authority of the state and of parents, because they also make mistakes. We should have to conclude that there had better be no authority at all on earth. Where men live and rule, mistakes will certainly be made. The physician makes mistakes in his important office, yet patients return to him with confidence. Every pedagogue, every professor, has made mistakes, yet they still command respect. The state government is subject to mistakes, yet none but the anarchist will say that it must therefore be abolished. "That the judge is subject to the necessity of not knowing many things, is a misery, but to the wise man not a fault."

Chapter V. The Witnesses of the Incompatibility Of Science And Faith.

The Objection.

We shall not go wrong in presuming that the reader, who has patiently followed our deductions, has had for some time in his mind the question: How about the representatives of scientific research themselves? Do not a large majority of them, perhaps virtually all, stand alien and repellant to Christian faith and its fundamental truths? We do not refer to our modern philosophers, for of them it might be said that their researches yield questionable speculations of individualistic stamp, rather than exact results. But there are the representatives of the more exact sciences, especially of the most exact of all, natural science. They may be considered the legitimate representatives of modern science, since their results are the most accurate, their methods the most strictly scientific; and are they not, every one of them, opposed to Christian faith, especially to its fundamental dogma? Is not _Haeckel_ right when he states in the final summary of his "Weltratsel," in which he so strongly insists on the incompatibility of religion and natural science: "I am supported by the accord of nearly all modern naturalists who have the courage to express their convictions"? Is it not true that _A. von Humboldt_ is considered the prince of German naturalists? and yet in his voluminous "_Kosmos_" he not once mentions the name of G.o.d? Have not, with few exceptions, German naturalists, under _Humboldt's_ influence, turned against Christianity? (_W. Menzel_, Die letzten hundertzwanzig Jahre der Weltgeschichte, VI, 1860, p. 70; cfr. _Pohle_, P. Angelo Secchi, 1904, p.

6). Here indeed the antagonism between true scientific spirit and the faith seems to take shape in tangible reality, and to invalidate every argument to the contrary.

Thus runs the speech that is ever recurring in the literature of the day, in newspapers and magazines no less than in books. And this speech makes an impression on its hearers. Indeed, why should it not? After describing how these heroes of science in recent times marched on triumphantly from victory to victory, how they renewed the face of the earth, and became the pioneers of human progress, how can they fail to make a deep impression if in the same breath they state that these discoverers of truth have, almost to a man, broken with the ancient teachings of the Christian religion?

Without doubt the suggestive effect of such speculation must be very considerable with those who lack sufficient historical knowledge. The case is different with those better acquainted with the history of the natural sciences. They know that it is not true to state that the leading natural scientists, for the most part, or even unanimously, have rejected and denied Christian religion, that it is a _lie_ and a falsification of history.

Let us ill.u.s.trate it briefly. We do not, of course, mean to say, that _if_ it were true that all the leading naturalists were infidels, the inference would necessarily follow that Christianity is untenable, and incompatible with science. Not at all. First of all, natural scientists who oppose Christianity could hardly ever come forward in the capacity of experts in this matter. For by venturing the a.s.sertion that world-matter and world-force are eternal and uncreated, that they develop by force of natural causality, by unending evolution, and not by the power and direction of an intelligent cause, they leave their own province and trespa.s.s on the domain of philosophy. These and similar questions are not solved by natural science research, by experiment, observation, or calculation, but are the subjects of philosophical speculation. Atheism, materialism, the denial of the soul's immortality or of eternal destination, all these are philosophical matters, and a natural science theory of the world is a misconception about as absurd as a Swiss England or a Bavarian Spain.

As it is impossible to review here all scientists of the past centuries, to probe their bent of mind, we shall restrict ourselves in the following to scientists of the first rank, for to them the a.s.sertion above mentioned must chiefly refer. First of all, they were possessed of that spirit of scientific research claimed to be incompatible with the faith; and they, more than others, should have been conscious of this contradiction. It is plain that if they did not know anything of the claimed antagonism between the theories of evolution and of creation, between physical facts and spirituality of soul, between natural law and miracles; if it be shown that many of them were actually orthodox Christians, believing in the supernatural and yet enthusiastic friends of science, fathoming the laws of nature and yet unshaken in their faith, then the fact that inferior minds talk of a contradiction unknown to these great ones can no longer make much of an impression.

Therefore let us look over the long list of great scholars of the last centuries, those great men to whom we owe knowledge and discoveries that are our joy to this very day. Among them we shall find many who, in their life and thought, have plainly confessed themselves faithful Christians; we shall find that others were at least the opponents of atheism and materialism, that they clung to the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and that is a matter of moment when the antagonism between natural science and faith is under discussion.

We shall not go back to the ancient representatives of natural science, men like _Pythagoras_, _Aristotle_, _Archimedes_, _Albert the Great_, _Roger Bacon_, and others of past ages, partly because there is no doubt about the religious views of those men, partly because research at their time was imperfect. We begin at the rise of modern natural science.

The Old Masters.

At the threshold of modern natural science there stands the man who solved the riddle that had puzzled centuries before him, the father of modern astronomy, _Nikolaus Copernicus_. He had studied at the universities of Cracow, Bologna, Ferrara, and Padua, and while he was one of the foremost historians of his time, it was astronomy that had engaged his enthusiastic devotion from his youth. He was a Catholic priest, a Canon of Frauenberg.

"If recent representatives of the Roman Church," so writes the Protestant theologian, _O. Zoeckler_, "praise this Frauenberg Canon as a faithful son of their Church, this fact must be granted by Protestants, despite the frankness with which he opposed the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories taught by the scholastics, and despite his friendship with the Protestant _Rheticus_" (Gottes Zeugen im Reiche der Natur, 1906, p. 82). _George Joachim_, a native of Feldkirch, surnamed _Rheticus_, and a Protestant professor at Wittenberg, came to _Copernicus_ at Frauenberg, and was cordially received. His praise for "his teacher" is unreserved. He speaks in the same admiring terms of _Tiedemann Giese_, in those days Bishop of Kulm.

For nearly forty years _Copernicus_ sat in the modest observatory which he had erected at Frauenberg, studying and collecting the material for his book. Even after all this time this deliberate scholar, despite the urging of his friends, especially Bishop _Tiedemann Giese_ and Cardinal _Schoenberg_, Archbishop of Capua, hesitated for ten years longer before publishing his discoveries. The work was ent.i.tled _De revolutionibus...o...b..um caelestium, libri VI_, and was dedicated to Pope _Paul III._ The author himself could enjoy his achievement but very little. The first copy sent by the printer reached _Copernicus_ on his deathbed, and a few hours later he breathed his last, on May 24, 1543.

In the introduction to his work this devout Christian scientist wrote: "Who would not be urged by the intimate intercourse with the work of His hands to the contemplation of the Most High, and to the admiration for the Omnipotent Architect of the universe, in whom is the highest happiness, and in whom is the perfection of all that is good?"

Without _Copernicus_ there could have been no _Kepler_, without _Kepler_ no _Newton_. These three men, in the words of a recent astronomer, belong inseparably together, they support and supplement one another. It might be fittingly asked, after which of these three the celestial system should be named; and were it possible to ask these three men for their opinion in this matter, they would probably all give the answer that has been ascribed to one or the other of them: Not my system, but G.o.d's Order. Like _Copernicus_, so _Kepler_ and _Newton_ were profoundly religious men.

_Johann Kepler_, born of Protestant parents in Wurttemberg in 1571, was raised a Lutheran. In 1594 he was appointed professor of mathematics at a school in Graz, and after that he dwelt for the most time in Austria, which country became his second home. From Graz he was called to Prague to be mathematician at the imperial court, and from there to Linz to be professor at the college there. His last years were pa.s.sed at Sagan and Ratisbon, where he died in 1630. Even after having left Austria he gratefully remembered the _clementia austriaca_ and the _favor archiducalis_. _Kepler's_ astronomical achievements are known to everybody, especially his laws of the planets. With an untiring spirit of research he combined beautiful traits of character, cheerfulness, kindness, and modesty, but chiefly a profoundly religious mind. However, he was in difficult circ.u.mstances as far as his religious life was concerned. Quite early he came in conflict with the religious authorities of his confession, particularly for the reason that they considered _Kepler's_ Copernican views as against the Bible, a fact which the learned astronomer could not see. There were also other differences. The conflict became more and more aggravated. It cannot be denied that the Lutheran Church-authorities proceeded against _Kepler_ with a lack of consideration never shown by Rome against men like _Galileo_. _Kepler_ was expelled from the Lutheran Church, and despite his efforts to be reinstated the ban was never lifted.

Like _Kepler_, so was his predecessor at the Catholic court of Prague, the Danish astronomer _Tycho Brahe_ (died 1601), a devout Protestant, but the trials of _Kepler_ were spared him. His erroneous idea that the Copernican system conflicted with Holy Writ kept him from subscribing to it: it led him to devise a system midway between _Copernicus_ and _Ptolemy_. His religious sentiment is evidenced by a pa.s.sage from a letter of his, written at his father's death, "Although there are many consolations for me, of a religious nature based on Holy Writ, and of a philosophical kind drawn from the contemplation of the fate of all men and of the inconstancy of everything under the moon, it is a special comfort for me that my father departed so sweetly and piously from this valley of misery to the heavenly eternal home, where, according to _St. Paul_, we shall find a lasting abode."

But let us return to _Kepler_. There is evidence that at various times in his life he wavered between his Lutheran confession and the Catholic faith, but that is as far as he went. He was of the opinion that the fundamental truths of both were in accord, and he would not presume to judge of the differences; he had taken a view-point of his own, from which he could not be made to recede. On the other hand, he was shocked when his fellow-Lutherans in Styria were on two occasions severely dealt with, although he personally had been treated with especial consideration.

Otherwise his opinions on Catholic matters and the "wisdom" of the Catholic Church were eminently fair; he censured his co-religionists for their invidious attacks on Rome, and for their hesitancy in adopting the Gregorian reform of the calendar. He had friendly relation with many a Catholic scientist, was in correspondence with many Jesuits, was even frequently their guest, receiving stimulus, commendation, and scientific communications from them.

To _Kepler_ the study of astronomy became largely a prayer; the finest of his scientific works he was wont to conclude with the doxology of the Psalmist, "Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him ye Heavens; praise ye Him, O Sun, and Moon, ye Stars and light, and praise Him in your language. Thou, too, praise Him, O soul of mine, thy Lord, thy Creator, as long as it is granted to thee" (_Harmonices Mundi_, v. 9). His name and work is commemorated in the Keplerbund in Germany, which aims at the promotion of scientific knowledge in the sense of _Kepler_, in opposition to the misuse of natural science for purposes of materialism and atheism.

The work, begun so happily by _Copernicus_ and _Kepler_, was completed by the great Englishman, _Newton_ (died 1727). It was he who in his immortal work, _Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica_, laid bare the law of the universe, which compels the heavenly bodies to revolve about one another. Therewith the laws of _Kepler_, and consequently the Copernican hypothesis, became established. When, in 1727, this scientist, at the age of eighty-five, died, his mortal remains were entombed in Westminster Abbey, the Pantheon of the British nation. Lofty science and the reverent worship of his Creator were combined in the n.o.ble mind of this great Briton. In an appendix to his master-work, referred to above, he cited his proofs for the existence of G.o.d, and stated that "the entire order, as to s.p.a.ce and time of all things existing, must have necessarily proceeded from the conception and will of an existing Being," that "the admirable arrangement of sun, planets, and comets could only emanate from the decree and the design of an All-wise and Omnipotent Being," that "we admire Him for His perfections, we adore and worship Him as the ruler of the world, we, the servants of the great Sovereign of the Universe." According to _Voltaire_, it was stated by _Newton's_ disciple, _Clarke_, that his master invariably p.r.o.nounced the name of G.o.d with reverent att.i.tude and expression.

Inseparably connected with the history of the Copernican system there is the name, which recalls harsh accusations and painful memories, the name of _Galileo_. That he had nothing in common with the aims of those who have broken with faith and Christianity, nor with that hostility against his Church for which his name is so often misused, has been made evident by what we have said on another page (see page 189). Not only during his early life was his religious turn of mind evidenced, but also later on and up to the end of his life he continued to observe faithfully the duties of his religion.

One of the greatest physicists of recent times was _Christian Huygens_, who died in 1695 at his native city, The Hague. To him we owe the epoch-making discovery of the undulation of light, while _Newton_ had held light to be a matter of emission. But while _Huygens_ advanced over _Newton_ in this respect, he paid tribute to human limitation by remaining prejudiced against _Newton's_ theory of gravitation, which he rejected.

_Huygens_ was a believing Christian.

In his philosophic dissertation "Kosmotheoros," a posthumous work, he says in regard to the possibility of the celestial bodies being inhabited: "How could the investigator look up to G.o.d, the Creator of all these great worlds, otherwise but in the spirit of deepest reverence? Here it will be possible for us to find manifold proofs to demonstrate His providence and wonderful wisdom; likewise will our contemplation contend against those who are spreading false opinions, such as attributing the origin of the earth to the accidental union of atoms, or of the earth being without a beginning and without a creator."

Religious fervour is still more p.r.o.nounced in _Huygens'_ contemporary, _Robert Boyle_ (died 1692), a son of Ireland. While he had made considerable achievements in physics, his chief fame lies in chemistry: he inaugurated the period in which chemistry became gradually an independent science. Although working in a different field of research, he is similar to _Newton_ in many respects: like _Newton_ and _Huygens_, his love of scientific studies induced him to remain unmarried, like _Newton_ he found his last resting place in Westminster Abbey, but chiefly he is like _Newton_ because of his pious, religious mind. He was much occupied with theological studies, and in them the demonstration from nature of the existence of G.o.d, and the author's reverence for the Scriptures are most conspicuous: "In relation to the Bible," he writes, "all the books of men, even the most learned, are like the planets that receive their light and brightness from the sun." On his deathbed he made a foundation for apologetic lectures: the Boyle-lectures are held to this very day.

We shall have to pa.s.s by others. We might point to the English philosopher and statesman, _Francis Bacon_ of Verulam (died 1626), who won his place in the history of natural science by his urging of the empiric method; we might point to _W. Harvey_ (died 1658), the discoverer of the blood-circulation, a man of earnest and simple piety; we might mention the pious _Albrecht von Haller_ (died 1777), _J. Bernouilli_ (died 1728) the co-inventor of integral calculus, the man of whom his great disciple _Euler_ relates that this _Bernouilli_, co-inventor of the most difficult of all calculations, this great mathematician, expressed regret in his old age that he had devoted so many years to science, and only few hours to religion, and that on his deathbed he admonished those around him to adhere to the Word of G.o.d because that alone is the word of life.

We shall name but one more, a son of northern Sweden, the famous botanist, _Karl Linne_ (died 1778). He, too, found G.o.d in the living nature which he studied so diligently.

In commenting on his _Systema naturae_ he writes: "Man, know thyself; in theological aspect, that thou art created with an immortal soul, after the image of G.o.d; in moral aspect, that thou alone art blessed with a rational soul for the praise of thy sublime Creator. I ask, why did G.o.d put man equipped thus in sense and spirit on this earth, where he perceives this wonderfully ordered nature? For what, but to praise and admire the invisible Master-builder for His magnificent work."

These are the great masters and reformers of recent natural science, the men who opened up the paths which natural science of the present day is still pursuing; most of these savants were of a Christian mind, many of them even pious. There were but few indifferent or irreligious, such as _E. Halley_ (died 1742), who computed the cycle of the comet since named after him, and _G. de Buffon_ (died 1788): but they are a small minority.

The period of highest achievement in modern natural science bears the stamp of religion; indeed, to a great extent it bears the halo of devotion and fervour. An incompatibility of research and faith, a solidarity of science and anti-Christian tendency, was never known to the mind of these great masters.

"Any one who has grasped even the elements of natural science, the unity of natural forces and their rigid conformity to laws, becomes a monist if he has the faculty for clear reasoning, and as to the others, there is no help for them anyway" (_L. Plate_, Ultramontane Weltanschauung und moderne Lebenskunde, 1907, 11). This sort of argument is shouted at us in manifold variations. How does that statement look in the light of history? Men like _Copernicus_, _Kepler_, _Newton_, _Linne_, _Boyle_, thus knew nothing of the elements of natural science, nothing of the conformity to laws of natural forces: because they were neither monists nor atheists, but worshippers of the Creator of heaven and earth! A more painful contrast cannot be imagined than to see these great masters and pioneers rated as lesser minds, ignorant of real natural science, by those who trail far behind them and who are seeking their footsteps. The religious conviction of the natural scientists of a past age is sufficient proof that, not the research in natural science, but other causes lead minds to infidelity.

Modern Times.

We turn to the nineteenth century. Does the picture perhaps change essentially in the century that has shown its children so much progress, that has disclosed so many secrets of nature, but has also taught irreligion to thousands of men? Does it become true now that natural science and Christian fundamental truths are opposed to each other in hostile att.i.tude? Claims to this effect are not lacking. In fact, the number of those who refuse a.s.sent to the Christian religion is increasing.

But even at this time we do not find such to be the majority of eminent scientists, and our inquiry is about eminent scientists, those who make the science of a period, not those who can hardly expect to have their names known by posterity. A considerable number, indeed the majority, of the master minds of natural science, even in the nineteenth century, reject materialism and atheism, and not infrequently they are pious Christians; another proof that just upon the deeper and more serious minds religion exercises a stronger power of attraction.

Let us commence with the astronomers.