|
Let us have done with the mistaken view that life is divisible into
two provinces only one of which is available to science. Let us
understand that science is really a method, not in the least
exclusive to the physical world, but a method of arriving at truth
in any question whatsoever. it is only when we have understood this
that we are entitled to recognize--as, of course, we must--that the
scientific method cannot as yet carry us as far as we wish into the
ultimate questions of religious faith. What I mean, to be specific,
is this: we can know scientifically that the creeds are mostly
false; that there is no evidence for the kind of God the
creed-makers had in mind; that Jesus of Nazareth is not God's only
son, begotten before the foundation of the world; and that if Jesus
was conceived of the Holy Ghost, then so are all men; that he was
born naturally; that he did not rise physically from the dead, or
ascend into a visible heaven; that there is no place where he would
be able to sit at the right hand of God, this being an entirely
anthropomorphic piece of imagery; that he will not come from
"thence" to judge the quick and the dead--the quick and the dead
being judged already, the quick continuously during the entire
period they are alive, the dead by those who knew them and by their
works that outlive them.
I need not complete this examination of the "Apostles' Creed." And
I need no more than barely mention the impossibility of believing
that we are saved by blood atonement, or that we can eat bread and
wine which has been turned by the words of a priest into the body
and blood of Christ. All this is superstition. We can know by the
scientific approach to history how much of the Bible is valuable,
and how religious beliefs really grew up. This is the sort of thing
I mean by saying that science must enter the field of religion, or,
putting it another way, that religion must become scientific. It is
when we pass beyond this, and beyond what can be known--sufficiently
known--psychologically, that we yield ourselves to a valid faith: to
a faith that we have examined, that we have found reasonable, that
we have tried to live with, and to base our lives upon. That and
nothing short of it is the point at which, while remaining rational,
we can open our hearts to realities that lie beyond the detailed
examination of our minds.
This kind of religion--liberal religion--also maintains the open
mind to future discovery. It is not restricted by a creed. When new
knowledge comes, it entertains it sincerely and takes the
consequences of it. It follows advancing truth, and sifts out all
wisdom, both new and old, trying always to know what experience
vindicates. it is only with this kind of religion that science can
get together and remain scientific. It is only this kind of religion
that keeps the door open for the scientific future.
So that I say it is a requirement--a scientific requirement --that
scientists sift out the claims of religion and accept only what
honestly persuades them. And unless they are less brave than they
should be, they will tell plainly what it is. I also say that this
is not a matter to be treated casually. It is essential that this
kind of religion shall mould the character of individuals and shape
the policies of nations. It is indispensable that this kind of
religion raise the level of our common life. Otherwise, nothing that
anything else can do will avail to save us. If scientists support
people in believing--or appear to support them: it comes to the same
thing--that they can retain their old attitudes, and leave
everything to a sort of nursemaid providence for which there is no
evidence, instead of allowing the God-power in their own minds to
guide their thought and the holy spirit of their own souls to
cleanse their consciences, then it is a grave disservice. It is even
worse if it seems to endorse traditional churches that care more for
their own dominion than for human betterment.
That is why I am preaching this sermon. The immediate occasion was a
reprint from a magazine--an article entitled, "Science Joins the
Church." I asked at once, What Science? And What Church? Manifestly,
science as such cannot join either a church or anything else, any
more than art could, or history, or oceanography. Not even
scientists can join the Church; they can only join a church. There
is so much difference between churches that it is vital to know
which church it its that scientists are joining. Science and
religion are comparable; science and the church are not. The fact
is, of course, that the title of the article is seriously
misleading. So is the article itself, even though it contains some
true things.
I challenge the people who produce this kind of article to tell us
what scientists really think of the traditional dogmas and the
creeds. A considerable number of scientists, for instance, are known
to be Unitarian in belief--a surprising number Unitarian in actual
affiliation.1
The point is, however--and we can afford to stick to just this
point--that when scientists turn to religion, unless they forsake
their scientific disciplines, they cannot possibly accept a
traditional creed as binding. They must always be open to whatever
persuades their intellects. They need a free church, and a free
religion. If traditional denominations will provide this freedom, I,
for one shall rejoice. They should provide it. In the present
critical state of the world, they should want to provide it
immediately; so that all the people who can possibly be united may
be united--not to waste their moral energy in trying to believe
incredible things and practice useless petty pieties, but so that
all of which they are morally and spiritually capable may be
mobilized to meet the need of this desperate hour.
I think that scientists do indeed have need of religion; of its
basic faith, its moral responsibility; of its deeper insights, its
wisdom, its inspiration. But let it be a genuine religion! When
science and religion get together, let it be to mingle their
resources on an honest, forthright basis. Let churchmen truly
embrace the scientific method, and let scientists be loyal to
scientific truth when they join a church.
When Sir James Jeans says that from the viewpoint of science, "the
universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great
machine," let it be known that this is religion--but by no means an
endorsement of the Apostle's Creed. When Steinmetz is reported as
saying that the scientists must turn over their laboratories "to the
study of God, and prayer, and the spiritual forces," let it be said
that Steinmetz was a Unitarian and a long way from approving the
dogma of Papal Infallibility. When Sir Arthur Eddington tells us
that "the idea of a Universal Mind...is a fairly plausible inference
from the present state of scientific theory," let it be clear that
this is not in the least the same thing as corroborating the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity. When Professor Arthur Compton tells us
that "there is something of a non-physical nature which controls the
action of the atom," let it be plain that he has not declared his
adherence to the Westminster Confession. And when Albert Einstein
says he believes in God, "the God of Spinoza," let somebody look up
what kind of God Spinoza believed in, and not suppose that it is the
God of Monsignor Fulton Sheen.
It is only when we have abandoned concealment and pretence that
religion begins to be powerful--not powerful in exalting a hierarchy
or in making falsities seem to be true, but powerful in the hearts
of men.
It is high time that religion began to be powerful in the hearts of
men. It is high time that we broke the bondage of the past and
became liberated to the real possibilities of religion. It is high
time that we know that for religion just as much as for science,
truth is supreme. Not truth dwarfed and cramped to be fitted into a
formula that disfigures it; but truth set free--truth in the open
light of earth and sky: truth as experience proves it. Let the
churchmen and the scientists both repent--the churchmen because of
their pride, trying to shut up God in a box that only they can open;
the scientists because of their aloofness, trying to exclude the
truth of the heart from the search for knowledge. Let science and
religion meet and mingle. Let there be only one truth, and let it be
in the fullness of the soul's need that we seek it: but truthfully!
Then indeed shall it be as Tennyson pleaded: that
"...knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell;
That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before,
But vaster."
1. *See The Converted Catholic Magazine, February, 1947, article by
Daniel M. Welch, estimating that scientists are 81.4 percent
Unitarian in proportion to percentage in population. That most of
them, whether Unitarian or not, reject conventional beliefs would be
difficult to gainsay.
|
